Could you clarify? I can't tell what position you're stating.

I don't think it is ethically defensible in any morally serious way to defend putting a person to death as a deterrent.

Human life should be considered precious, and not discarded with just to set an example of strength.

There are many who would say this is clearly right.

Executing drug traffickers for Singapore, causes the amount of drug use to decrease and saves many more lives.

This is my view as well.

My main reservation is that, at least in the US, we've had a problem with executing people who may have been innocent.

Is it possible for any justice system to be free of corruption and infallible in identifying guilt? If not, innocent people will be executed.

I agree. On my view, it's ultimately a quantitative question.

E.g., if we had a system where 1 unjust execution avoided 1 million being killed by drunk drivers, I'd chose the unjust execution. But if those numbers were reversed, I wouldn't.

But if I'm being honest, I can't justify why someone should prefer my ethical framework over some other. So I'm not sure my opinion means much in the end.

Innocent people do get sentenced to imprisonment. There is one incident that I can remember from the recent past. This individual was fortunate to get her conviction overturned by a pro-bono lawyer's efforts.

https://www.home.org.sg/our-updates/2020/9/7/parti-liyani-an...

> at least in the US, we've had a problem with executing people who may have been innocent.

thankfully Singapore doesn’t have this problem /s

Right and wrong are relative to the culture you are raised in or are currently living in, so your statement can't be true.

> Right and wrong are relative to the culture you are raised in or are currently living in,

Study of ethics transcends culture.