Anger After British Man Executed In China

[Mr Angry]

Rizzy, you have again decided to ignore the fact that his mental condition was never allowed to be determined / examined prior to his sentencing and that is the key here.

Nobody is saying that drug smugglers should be given an easy ride - in the event that they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt they do deserve what they get - though I am an opponent of the death penalty. Everyone deserves a fair trial - it is a basic human right which was, by all accounts bar that of the Chinese judiciary, denied to this man.

Let's just wait and see if your, and others, stoic defence of the application of the laws of other countries (with a disregard for their own due processes I must add) is as forthcoming the next time a serviceman, servicewoman or hostage is beheaded or shot under the terms of another countries "laws" and broadcast on the internet to send out a "message" to those they define as law breakers visiting their countries.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let's just wait and see if your, and others, stoic defence of the application of the laws of other countries (with a disregard for their own due processes I must add) is as forthcoming the next time a serviceman, servicewoman or hostage is beheaded or shot under the terms of another countries "laws" and broadcast on the internet to send out a "message" to those they define as law breakers visiting their countries.

Serviceman or women V Convicted drug dealer?? How can you stoop so low as to judge them both in the same light???

He wasn't suffering from any mental illness everyone knows this, he was trying to play the illness card which in my eyes doesn't wash.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Serviceman or women V Convicted drug dealer?? How can you stoop so low as to judge them both in the same light???

He wasn't suffering from any mental illness everyone knows this, he was trying to play the illness card which in my eyes doesn't wash.

This is the point Nidge, you just don't get it. It's not "me" judging them in the same light it's the "laws" of other countries when dealing with those they see as criminals - laws which you and others are advocating their right to carry out without recourse to due process and the rule of international law.

Live by the sword, die by the sword indeed.

As for the mental illness evaluation issue the fact is China, despite having an obligation to provide same (which may have actually disproved claims of mental illness- but we'll never know) refused to do so.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Serviceman or women V Convicted drug dealer?? How can you stoop so low as to judge them both in the same light???

He wasn't suffering from any mental illness everyone knows this, he was trying to play the illness card which in my eyes doesn't wash.

Really? I don't know either way. Did you perform an examination of this man?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let's just wait and see if your, and others, stoic defence of the application of the laws of other countries (with a disregard for their own due processes I must add) is as forthcoming the next time a serviceman, servicewoman or hostage is beheaded or shot under the terms of another countries "laws" and broadcast on the internet to send out a "message" to those they define as law breakers visiting their countries.

The is no comparison as the people you refer to are not the governments killing servicemen but extremists outside of that countries law so not a valid argument.

China went their own way and because they executed him it may stop a few other people from trying to use drug mules.

If he had been deemed to be ill the would be a lot more arguing going on in the news and that says it all for me, they know that the claim for mental illness was unsound so they are keeping quiet.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Moldova

The is no comparison as the people you refer to are not the governments killing servicemen but extremists outside of that countries law so not a valid argument.

Moldova, you are obviously oblivious to the fact that countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and others have territories ruled by provincial warlords who are not under the control of central Governments and have their own territorial laws.

You are oversimplifying things. They may be extremists in your opinion but in their eyes, and in accordance with their laws, they are entirely law abiding and the arbiters of regional law. As Nidge, Sirius, Rizzyking and others have pointed out it's their laws, their country, they know what's best for their country and shouldn't be argued with so let them get on with it.

Are you starting to grasp the importance of a fair trial in the eyes of international law yet?

Originally Posted by Moldova

China went their own way and because they executed him it may stop a few other people from trying to use drug mules.

No, it will not "stop a few other people from trying to use drug mules" in fact quite the opposite - it will encourage drug cartels to use mules rather than risk their own lives.

Originally Posted by Moldova

If he had been deemed to be ill the would be a lot more arguing going on in the news and that says it all for me, they know that the claim for mental illness was unsound so they are keeping quiet.

If you bothererd to look you would see that this is, quite obviously, not the case.

[Peter_]

As previously said he was executed for carrying 4 kilos of drugs into a sovereign country who actually have rules capable of dealing with **** like this and that is reason enough for his execution.

Those drugs could have killed many more people, so the loss of his life outweighs that for me and if other countries actually treated drug runners like this then I for one would be quite happy for them to do so, it is a filthy trade and they deserve whatever happens to them.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Moldova

As previously said he was executed for carrying 4 kilos of drugs into a sovereign country who actually have rules capable of dealing with **** like this and that is reason enough for his execution.

Those drugs could have killed many more people, so the loss of his life outweighs that for me and if other countries actually treated drug runners like this then I for one would be quite happy for them to do so, it is a filthy trade and they deserve whatever happens to them.

The use of emotive and highly charged language such as "****" in this particular case is not helpful and does a disservice to those suffering a mental illness.

This individual had displayed symptoms of mental imbalance for several years, despite this fact he was denied a mental evaluation, which was his right, and was summarily executed.

As I stated earlier I have no sympathy for drug dealers but in an instance such as this there are very real concerns as to the legitimacy of the trial process and outcome.

Had the Chinese met their obligation and afforded the accused a mental evaluation which had determined him to have been of sound mind then we would not be having this debate. The fact is they didn't and any rational person really ought to be wondering why.

That said, your concern for the wellbeing of the Chinese population is deeply touching.

[webcrawler2050]

Without throwing a spanner in the works, which should they? Why should they offer an form of evalution. The "british" system falls for this trick far too much and I am sick of it.

Even, if he was "ill" with Bi-Polar, you still know right from wrong. It doesn't matter. So in simple, he did wrong, he got punished. Serves him right. The Chinese, made an example of him, prooving they will not tolerate drugs being imported into their country.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Physical evidence yes - they presented Mr Shaikh. The submission of medical records and or doctors notes at that juncture was a moot point as the court had already refused to comply with their own law insofar as they had refused requests by the UK consulate lawyers to have him medically examined with a view to his pleading insanity on the grounds of mental instability. Why else do you think his lawyers might have wanted him examined?

You seem intent on peddling the false premise that the mental illness question was factored in "Only when he was tried & convicted" when quite clearly - according to Reprieve, his appointed lawyers and independant observers such as Watts - that was not the case.

So, apart from verbal requests, no one actually presented any physical evidence that the accused was mentally ill. Either his defence was totally incompetent, or it was just a verbal ploy to halt the proceedings. I suspect it was a ploy, which the Chinese saw through.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

Without throwing a spanner in the works, which should they? Why should they offer an form of evalution. The "british" system falls for this trick far too much and I am sick of it.

Because executing people who may be mentally ill is on as par with eugenics and humanely reprehensible, that's why.

Nobody in recent British history has been on trial for their life and required an evaluation in order to live - Britain (rather the judicial system as opposed to the general populus as evidenced by some in this thread) has long abandoned support for such barbaric and inhumane practices.

Bi-polar is a recognised illness - there is no need to put the word ill in quotations.

---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------

Originally Posted by SMG

I suspect it was a ploy, which the Chinese saw through.

Then you obviously haven't read any of the substantive documentary evidence (predating his arrest I might add) which is available from the reprieve site.

[webcrawler2050]

Because executing people who may be mentally ill is on as par with eugenics and humanely reprehensible, that's why.

Nobody in recent British history has been on trial for their life and required an evaluation in order to live - Britain (rather the judicial system as opposed to the general populus as evidenced by some in this thread) has long abandoned support for such barbaric and inhumane practices.

Bi-polar is a recognised illness - there is no need to put the word ill in quotations

Sorry but I strongly disagree. The person & his lawyers, used that as a desperation plea, it was clearly obvious. If he had / has Bi-Polar, then he would of had medication on his person / luggage. He would of also, said something sooner. It's aload of tosh. It's clear.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

Sorry but I strongly disagree.

It's a brave man in this day and age that would advocate eugenics or act as an apologist / advocate for the murder of someone who may have been mentally unstable - each to his / her own.

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

The person & his lawyers, used that as a desperation plea, it was clearly obvious.

Yes, pleading for a clients life is pretty serious situation. And the Chinese refused a mental evaluation on what basis if they thought there was no risk of him being found mentally unstable? You seem to be more confident about his mental state than they were prepared to venture - strange that, eh?

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

If he had / has Bi-Polar, then he would of had medication on his person / luggage.

Hypothetically yes, if he were indeed travelling with his own luggage, but that's a different matter.

Originally Posted by webcrawler2050

He would of also, said something sooner. It's aload of tosh. It's clear.

Go and read the quantifiable evidence including behaviours and evidence of mental instability predating his arrest, along with subsequent statements by the PM, Foreign Office officials, defence lawyers and independent psychiatrists - together with the statements as published on the reprieve site and feel free to come back and show me where it was clearly "a load of tosh".

[webcrawler2050]

Personally I don't care about his state of mind.

He committed the crime. He got punished. End of.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Then you obviously haven't read any of the substantive documentary evidence (predating his arrest I might add) which is available from the reprieve site.

I have read the links you provided m8, also the other links & reports I have found. Nowhere does it state that any medical evidence was presented by either the defendant, or his counsel. It does say that verbal requests were made, & that the Chinese dismissed them. As most probably other Judges would without any physical evidence.

I said, it appears that the verbal plea of insanity did not phase the judges, perhaps if the defence produce anything more than requests, ie, his doctors notes, hospital notes etc, the outcome may have been different, but nothing was produced.

On the facts presented, he was found guilty, & punished by Chinese law.

The law may not be of your liking m8, but it is their law. Had this man actually been mentally ill, then the blame must fall on his defence counsel for failing to provide adequate evidence to secure a different outcome.