Comments:British national Akmal Shaikh executed in China

What about reaction of Britons of Pakistan origin and Muslims living in UK and Government of Pakistan?

this is not being human china should be ashamed of themselves for killing inorcent people like Akmal Sheik and other victims wheres the humanity? may ur soul rest in peace and wish u jannat brother ameen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.16 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What innocent people? The man smuggled 4 kg of heroin into the country, for God's sake! It's well-known that drug smuggling is punished by death in China, and in general, it's worth knowing the laws of country you're entering. 207.216.111.19 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The man was mentally ill. I have the advantage of being able to quickly discuss things with a lawyer, and he agreed that the man was innocent. His story - that he didn't know what was in the case and it was given to him by men who promised he would become a pop star - is in keeping with his state of mind. Drug smuggling is a crime which requires intent; if he did not intend to bring anything ilegal into the country then he did not commit an offence. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no conclusive proof that the man was mentally ill. What the family of the accused says about him in order to secure leniency cannot be equated with expert medical opinions (of which there is none in this case). As for the need to prove mens rea/intent, it should be obvious that if the person caught with the drugs can escape conviction simply by saying "I didn't know the drugs were there", it would be impossible to enforce trafficking prohibitions. WhalersOnTheMoon (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An expert opinion is largely a formality in this case. You also create a strawman fallacy there: I did not say the person need simply say that. A person would need to back it up, but the fact remains that it is an offense that requires intent and not one of negligence, which is what the OP was suggesting: You had the drugs, therefore etc. No expert would say on the record since they would need to see/test/whatever to prove it, but if you ask around privately there is little doubt about it. Remember the court refused to let a doctor near him or any attempt of an insanity defense, which kind of prevents a proper discussion in open court. They told the man to prove himself that he was in no fit state to be tried; by definition, he was in no fit state to do so. Whilst writing this I dug a little; it seems some law experts at least have openly put themselves on record. "Jerome A. Cohen, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law and a specialist in Chinese law, wrote last week in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post that the Chinese courts had ignored their own laws in the case." So speaks The New York Times. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, in an ideal world, we would be able to tell whether a person intended to smuggle drugs or if he/she was duped/coerced into it, but we don't possess that capability, and to stop the movement of illicit substances across borders, authorities do take a "if we catch you with the stuff then you're punished" approach for practical reasons. Imagine what it would mean if all drug traffickers were given this "get out of jail/execution free card" simply by saying that they didn't know the drugs were there or how it got there. As for the professor's opinion, it really is no more authoritative than that of someone you find on the street, because he clearly makes the same jump to conclusion as many others have, namely that this man had a mental illness and was therefore eligible for the diminished capacity defense, which is not proven to be the case here. The Chinese Court refused mental examination because under the Chinese law, the Court has the discretion to refuse this in the absence of clear evidence supporting mental illness, which is exactly the case here. The man was never diagnosed with any mental illness, nor did his family have a history of it. Imagine this from the Court's point of view, that there's no record of this man's mental illness until he suddenly needed it to escape criminal liability, and the only "evidence" is that the man had ambitions of becoming a pop star: is it so unreasonable that the Judges would be sceptical of his claims? WhalersOnTheMoon (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop saying that I asserted he only needed to make the claim and walk free. I never have and you claiming so is starting to really fuck me off. I did say that if a man could be demonstrated to have real reason to be in that position then he could not be convicted without more evidence than simple possession. There is enough evidence for an assessment; his speech was widely held to be rambling - so much so that judges laughed in his face - and medical records provided by the British embassy were unable to conclude anything - there was never any need to do so until his arrest - but did provide enough information that in the context of a trial an assesment was reasonable. Fair trials should look at pretty much anything that can even vaguely be claimed to support or inform either side, even if after doing so the evidence is then rejected as irrelevent or plain old bullshit. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How exactly was the man "demonstrated to have real reason to be in that position," other than by his claim and those of his family? You never explicitly say that drug traffickers should be allowed to make a claim and walk free, yet that is precisely the implication of your argument, that as long as the drug trafficker says "I don't know where the drug came from" then intent cannot be established, and a simple claim is enough to disprove a vital element of the crime, effectively rendering the law unenforceable. And as for the claims of mental illness, you should realise that that's precisely what they are - claims. Rambling =/= mental illness; claims made by family members and political organisations opposed to the death penalty =/= evidence; inconclusive medical records = inconclusive medical records; most people seek mental health treatment and diagnosis prior to being sentenced to death. None of this does anything to rebut the presumption of sanity, something which is exercised in Western judiciaries. See M'Naghten Rules. WhalersOnTheMoon (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You continuously repeat this one aspect of my argument without at all considering the context it came from, or that it is only one half of a whole position and does not substantiate my point of view on its own. You also conviniently leave out the 'could' from my more general comment to make it appear weaker than it is. "that is precisely the implication of your argument, that as long as the drug trafficker says "I don't know where the drug came from" then intent cannot be established, and a simple claim is enough to disprove a vital element of the crime, effectively rendering the law unenforceable." Um, I never said anything about a simple standalone claim. You added that yourself. That is my opening - it is not a crime of negligence - followed by why we might actually believe him where a 'normal' person would be almost pityable in thinking such an argument stood a chance. I also never said he has been "demonstrated to have real reason to be in that position," - how could anyone possibly demonstrate anything when the court refused to allow an expert to take a look and give evidence?


 * "most people seek mental health treatment and diagnosis prior to being sentenced to death." Um, he did. Claims with a lot of anecdotal evidence, inconclusive records and ramblings = evidence. We aren't trying to prove, for the purposes of counteracting your point that there was no reason for an assessment, that he was in fact ill; all I need do to rebut that is point to these three strong pieces of circumstancial evidence and state that those are enough for an assessment. You seem to be thinking I view these as a full and complete courtworthy defence, whereas their purpose in court would be to demonstrate that subject to medical opinion one may exist.


 * I anticipate a cry of 'why did he or his family never seek help before?' Well, to pre-empt that: He was British. Mental health care in the UK is appalling, and enough to put anybody off ever seeking help again regardless of wether they had escaped the clutches of the NHS; and even then I doubt the other nations he visited have the resources to try and tackle such problems effectively either, with the possible exception of Poland. Besides; he was happy(ish) and safe, so why mess him around? You don't expect someone to ask him to carry a suitcase full of heroin for him. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, to come back to an earlier point: " As for the professor's opinion, it really is no more authoritative than that of someone you find on the street, because he clearly makes the same jump to conclusion as many others have..." I thought you wanted expert opinions? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * China deserves no sympathy here; they killed a man. The death penalty is a barbaric hold-over from less-civilised times. In any western democracy the man would have been examined by a medical professional. Perhaps not one of the accused's choosing but, this is just proof that China sacrifices due process to be tough on crime. That is not a position worthy of any defence. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

China will pay.

 * This atrocity is a disgusting and outrageous Act of War, it is an offense against human dignity and an assault on the entire British people. The United Kingdom should seriously consider taking military action against China if something like this happens again. At the very least military targets in Beijing should be bombed. Letting such an egregious crime go unpunished sends a message that the British people are weak. We need to show the PRC - and the world - that this barbaric and disrespectful provocation will not stand. The Chinese regime shall pay the price for their crimes against humanity.
 * When did the Daily Mail start sending their readers to Wikinews? "Let's bomb the capital city of one of the world's superpowers." You bloody cretin, the British military would struggle to deliver a box of firecrackers to Beijing. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)