|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Execution Of The Bali Nine...
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Would we be saying "Well, she knew the risks. I have no sympathy; that's how they do things in Bastardland"? Or would we be saying "Fuck me! That's barbaric! Can't the government do something? What do we have ambassadors for?"
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Support/opposition to the death penalty is not absolute but rather falls on a spectrum. On one hand is the idea that the state should never use the death penalty under any circumstances and doing so is evil. On the other hand, you have places that execute people for things that aren't even legal in other places.
While most nations no longer administer the death penalty and most of those that still do only do it in cases of murder, Indonesia is not alone in executing people convicted of major drug offenses. Furthermore, ones opposition to the death penalty may be more pragmatic than anything else. For instance, I may not have a problem with the death penalty in theory but oppose it because I believe the risks of executing an innocent person outweigh any benefits from capital punishment.
The governments of Indonesia and Australia also have to consider what is in their own national interest. Indonesia obviously believes, rightly or wrongly, that executing foreigners for drug smuggling is in its long term best interest. Obviously, Australia is going to object to their citizens being executed for something that isn't even a capital offense in most places that still have the death penalty. Australian citizens would expect nothing less. The question is how much Australia should object. Thus, the average Australian can expect the Australian government to object up to a point before throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, it's their own fault because they knew there were bastards in Bastardland."
I'm an American. If these were American citizens, I would expect the US government to object and use diplomatic pressure to get them released. Being the US, we also have the ability to continue diplomacy by other means. Would the average American support a special forces attempt to rescue them? If they were being executed for parking tickets, I imagine so. Executed for drug smuggling? Probably not. Same goes with bombing Indonesia in retaliation.
In other words, how a government that rejects capital punishment deals with the execution of their citizens in a foreign land depends on a whole host of factors. One, what does the foreign government claim they were doing? Two, did they actually do it? Three, what is the diplomatic relationship between the two nations? Four, what is the relative power of the two nations? So, taking those things into consideration, the Australian response seems appropriate.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Catching up on the news, I now see 8 of the 9 are dead, and the ninth's execution has been merely delayed so she can testify in a court proceeding on another matter.
But a Guardian article raises an issue that surprises me unless I'm totally misunderstanding.
quote:
Mary Jane Veloso’s death sentence is “postponed, not canceled”. The Philippines national was initially scheduled to be executed this morning along with eight others... President Joko Widodo decided to respond to the Philippines government’s official request that Indonesia postpone the execution, in order to give Velozo a chance to testify in human trafficking cases."
“Even if she was discovered to be a victim of human trafficking, the fact is that she was caught bringing heroin into Indonesia. [Being a victim] will not erase Mary Jane’s criminal responsibility,” he said.
If this is saying that "if she was forced to smuggle she is still as fully liable as if she made her own free choice to smuggle" I find that startling. OTOH if it's saying being a crime victim in the past does not justify taking up a life of crime, then I agree.
The same article seems to say Indonesia is saying for them to eliminate capitol punishment unilaterally would create an imbalance because Indonesians are at risk in other countries. I understand the sense of putting oneself at risk in unilateral disarming, but this extension of the idea puzzles me.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
That argument can be made, but it isn't the view being made by several posters up thread in relation to Australia. It was asserted by several that unless Australia stood up against the death penalty everywhere and being applied to anyone then Australia was applying a double standard, that it was a laughing stock and.
So what? Your point doesn't follow as a consequence.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Belle wrote:
quote:
If this is saying that "if she was forced to smuggle she is still as fully liable as if she made her own free choice to smuggle" I find that startling. OTOH if it's saying being a crime victim in the past does not justify taking up a life of crime, then I agree.
Her wikipedia page doesn't say anything about her being trafficked separately from her smuggling drugs, so maybe, yeah, Widodo thinks she can be both a dupe of smugglers and a smuggler herself.
Unless he thinks that she WAS trafficked in some way(maybe by being promised a fake job), but also knew that the drugs were in her suitcase. Presumably, though, she would claim that she had no idea there were drugs there.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
That only works if you don't think drug smuggling really "counts" as a crime. Heroin ruins an awful lot of lives, and I can see why someone would want to give it a heavy penalty.
Not personally in favour of the death penalty (for any crime), but someone saying "we consider this crime as the life-ruining equivalent to murdering someone, and we're going to give them an equivalent sentence" seems reasonable to me.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think one of the most upsetting reports of the executions is that one of the men had learning difficulties or some kind of mental problem - I read this yesterday and I can't remember where I got it - and it hadn't got through to him that he was going to die.
The priest who visited him regularly tried continually to prepare him but the man apparently kept hearing voices that were telling him he would live until he was 72 (or something like that).
It was only when the guards put the chains on him to lead him to the firing squad that he turned to the priest and asked, "Father, are they going to execute me?"
It brings tears to my eyes just to write this...
[Duplicate post deleted - Eliab, Purg host]
[ 05. May 2015, 10:17: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Catching up on the news, I now see 8 of the 9 are dead, and the ninth's execution has been merely delayed so she can testify in a court proceeding on another matter.
But a Guardian article raises an issue that surprises me unless I'm totally misunderstanding.
quote:
Mary Jane Veloso’s death sentence is “postponed, not canceled”. The Philippines national was initially scheduled to be executed this morning along with eight others... President Joko Widodo decided to respond to the Philippines government’s official request that Indonesia postpone the execution, in order to give Velozo a chance to testify in human trafficking cases."
“Even if she was discovered to be a victim of human trafficking, the fact is that she was caught bringing heroin into Indonesia. [Being a victim] will not erase Mary Jane’s criminal responsibility,” he said.
If this is saying that "if she was forced to smuggle she is still as fully liable as if she made her own free choice to smuggle" I find that startling. OTOH if it's saying being a crime victim in the past does not justify taking up a life of crime, then I agree.
The same article seems to say Indonesia is saying for them to eliminate capitol punishment unilaterally would create an imbalance because Indonesians are at risk in other countries. I understand the sense of putting oneself at risk in unilateral disarming, but this extension of the idea puzzles me.
So there's no defence of duress? That seems wholly inequitable to me.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Timeline of Mary Jane's experience.
Not encouraging; don't get arrested - anywhere, really. The delays, seeming obstructions (an important affidavit missing by the time the envelope gets to the family), misinformations, failures to provide information on hand - these happen in probably every legal system. Alas. Must be especially hard to deal with emotionally in a foreign to you country.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
One of the things that really irritates me about this story is comments like this, that implicitly demand that the sovereign country of Indonesia must rank the seriousness of crimes in exactly the way the commenter has decided to rank them.
I don't support the death penalty, by the way. But I do grasp the fairly fundamental point that I don't write the laws of Indonesia.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Catching up on the news, I now see 8 of the 9 are dead, and the ninth's execution has been merely delayed so she can testify in a court proceeding on another matter.
Also, can we please get rid of a wild bit of misinformation that has been circulating through this thread from the opening post?
It was never the case that the "Bali Nine" were set to be executed. The "Bali Nine" refers to 9 Australians who were arrested for smuggling. Of those 9, 2 have now been executed.
The other people executed or under threat of execution are separate cases, from other countries, and have nothing to do with Australia. 7 members of the Bali Nine are still alive and are not under threat of execution.
[ 06. May 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
More people died from the drugs they smuggled than were killed by Bundy. More lives were ruined. I do not support the death penalty, but they were not killed for unpaid tickets.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It is also worth making the point, in the context of the actual 'Bali Nine', that the 2 who were executed were the ringleaders who, amongst other things, pressured and threatened other members of the group who tried to back out.
In all seriousness, you can add to their crimes the fact that they have caused others to spend their life in an Indonesian jail. At least one member of the group was shown a photo of their family and told that family members would be killed if they didn't go through with being a drug mule.
Yes, they appear to have been rehabilitated - and this is one reason I don't support the death penalty, because of the prospect of rehabilitation. But you don't get sentenced on the basis of what you become later on in jail, you get sentenced on the basis of what you've done beforehand. And these two were - by their own later admissions - horribly nasty people.
There is absolutely no doubt about their guilt, either, so let's put that particular worrisome aspect of the death penalty to one side when discussing the particular case. It was an ironclad case from day one, and has since been 100% confessed to.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
This question of rehabilitation- it does depend on what the death penalty is supposed to achieve. If it is based on a belief that some people are just so stone evil that they should not be allowed to live, rehabilitation is a relevant argument against it. If the death penalty is proposed as a deterrent, or a statement example or warning to others, or as 'just deserts'- an appropriate and deserved retribution for very serious crime- then the possibility or fact of rehabilitation is neither here nor there. Indeed, might it not be argued that that it is worse to hang an unrepentant offender than a repentant one, since an unrepentant offender risks damnation as well as death.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
One of the things that really irritates me about this story is comments like this, that implicitly demand that the sovereign country of Indonesia must rank the seriousness of crimes in exactly the way the commenter has decided to rank them.
I don't support the death penalty, by the way. But I do grasp the fairly fundamental point that I don't write the laws of Indonesia.
Well, I don't write the laws of Indonesia either. But either executing drug traffickers is morally wrong or it isn't. Either way The world and his wife, including yours truly, are entitled to their opinion on the subject. Your concerns for the Sovereign Independence of the Indonesian State might be in order if I was Lord Fucking Palmerston and proposing to send a gunboat around to bomb a little awareness of the necessity for Penal Reform into the locals, but as I'm not, it's not. The entire concept of human rights in particular and morality in general is that there are higher authorities than the sovereignty of the nation state. Presumably you have no problem with Saudi Arabia beheading people who believe the wrong things because Saudi Arabia is a sovereign and independent state? Oh, you do? Well, if I can criticise Saudi Arabia I can criticise Indonesia. Being a grown up, I am actually hip to the fact that national governments rarely change their policies just because I've been a bit snippy about them on an internet bulletin board, but it doesn't follow from that that I'm not allowed to disagree with them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
One of the things that really irritates me about this story is comments like this, that implicitly demand that the sovereign country of Indonesia must rank the seriousness of crimes in exactly the way the commenter has decided to rank them.
I don't support the death penalty, by the way. But I do grasp the fairly fundamental point that I don't write the laws of Indonesia.
Well, I don't write the laws of Indonesia either. But either executing drug traffickers is morally wrong or it isn't.
I believe executing ANYONE is wrong in principle. What I take issue is with the line of argument that says "executing drug traffickers is wrong but I'd be happier with executing Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic, because my personal moral code judges them to be worse drug traffickers".
Because it's not an argument based on saying that the death penalty is wrong. It's not an argument against the death penalty at all. It's just saying to Indonesia "dammit, you're executing the wrong people!"
[ 06. May 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
One of the things that really irritates me about this story is comments like this, that implicitly demand that the sovereign country of Indonesia must rank the seriousness of crimes in exactly the way the commenter has decided to rank them.
I don't support the death penalty, by the way. But I do grasp the fairly fundamental point that I don't write the laws of Indonesia.
Well, I don't write the laws of Indonesia either. But either executing drug traffickers is morally wrong or it isn't.
I believe executing ANYONE is wrong in principle. What I take issue is with the line of argument that says "executing drug traffickers is wrong but I'd be happier with executing Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic, because my personal moral code judges them to be worse drug traffickers".
Because it's not an argument based on saying that the death penalty is wrong. It's not an argument against the death penalty at all. It's just saying to Indonesia "dammit, you're executing the wrong people!"
Not really, I said that there was a 'kinda-sorta' case for it in the case of murderers and a stronger case for it in the case of War Criminals. As it happens I don't accept either case but I think that the state of Florida (IIRC) and the state of Israel had a better case than the state of Indonesia. (And, as it happens that the state of Indonesia has a better case than many of the instances in Saudi Arabia.) In any event, even if I held that the death penalty was entirely licit in some circumstances I could, without inconsistency or incoherence, argue that it was illicit in others. If the Islamic Sharia Party looked like winning the next General Election and Lord Tebbit and Sir Ivan Lawrence came out of retirement to oppose them, I would not refuse to make common cause on the grounds that they thought that the ISP were executing the wrong people. For that matter when the Blessed Sidney Silverman (PBUH) introduced the bill that effectively abolished capital punishment in the UK he did leave it as an option in cases of Treason, piracy and arson in a naval dockyard. Presumably the equally Blessed Roy Jenkins (PBUH) should have nipped the bill in the bud on the grounds that Silverman just thought we were killing the wrong people.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'm with Orfeo - you're either against the death penalty as a matter of principle in all cases (in ours, including those tried at Nuremberg and the other post-WW II trials. If you're against the death penalty, I don't see how you can say there's a "kinda-sorta case" for some crimes. If you support it for some particularly horrendous cases - eg combined rape/murder) you must allow for other countries saying that drug trafficking on the scale the leaders of the Bali 9 were engaged in is equally deserving of it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
I also think that if you support the death penalty for serious crimes involving violence and / or drugs, you should also support the imposition of the death penalty for serious crimes involving corruption at high levels.
The Indonesian ambassador to New Zealand wrote an opinion piece in the Dominion Post, putting forward the case for the Indonesian government. You can read my comment in the peanut gallery!
For the record, I do not support the death penalty for any reason.
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Whether you support the death penalty at all or not, these people deliberately committed a crime, and a crime recognised as a crime in almost (?) all civilised countries and certainly in their home country, for which they knew that the penalty was death. It was not anybody's business to rescue them from the predictable consequences of their actions.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, I still think it is totally beyond the pale for any government to sentence them to death, hold them for 10 years because it has stopped executing people, and then after holding them in prison for 10 years, change its mind and execute them.
I don't see how one can argue with that. That is a 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
If one is going to regard the death penalty as acceptable at all, it should be carried out quickly, within say three months. If the state can't or won't do that, the penalty should lapse.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Do not agree at all. You can't do that if you allow for appeal processes. If you don't allow for appeal processes, everyone will start complaining about how you're carrying out death sentences too quickly without a chance for review.
People are being released from US jails after spending far longer than 10 years on Death Row, after their convictions are overturned.
Plus, frankly, I can't see what the basis of your argument is. Are you arguing it's worse to be expecting your death if you're expecting it for longer? Plenty of people spend years battling cancer and they generally seem to be grateful if they end up surviving longer than expected.
If you're arguing that Indonesia somehow had a policy of not carrying out executions, then I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation of the situation. Executions have come and gone plenty of times over several decades, with hiatuses of a couple of years. The last break lasted about 4 years. That hardly counts as some kind of "we had a legitimate expectation when we were convicted that we wouldn't be executed" argument.
[ 07. May 2015, 11:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: In fact I'd say your phrase "hold them for 10 years because it has stopped executing people" is just flat out wrong.
Quite a few people were executed in the first few years after the conviction of the Bali Nine. Among them were the Bali bombers, whose execution in 2008 didn't exactly create a lot of protest in Australia.
[ 07. May 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Judicial murder for drug smuggling or drug trafficking is barbaric. There's kinda-sorta a case for it for murder and a stronger case for war criminals of the Adolf Eichmann variety. But we aren't talking Ted Bundy or Slobodan Milosevic here. We're talking about people importing heroin.
That only works if you don't think drug smuggling really "counts" as a crime. Heroin ruins an awful lot of lives, and I can see why someone would want to give it a heavy penalty.
I don't think Callan's argument assumes that drug-smuggling doesn't count as a crime. Or even as a serious crime.
What it assumes is that killing a fellow human being in cold blood is almost always a horrible, inhumane, barbaric and repulsive thing to do, and that a conviction for drug-smuggling is not a sufficient reason for making a exception to that general rule. Which is a fair assumption to make, seeing as it is right.
It would also be fully consistent with support for the execution of murderers - killing someone who is a killer can be argued for on different and better grounds than killing someone who imports drugs. And it's quite possible to say, of executions for murder, that one disapproves, but considers the question one that reasonable and civilised people can disagree about, and civilised countries make different laws about, while considering executions for lesser offences to be be utterly unacceptable.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Eliab, it would be equally possible to construct the complete opposite argument that drug smuggling is worse because it causes more overall suffering than an individual murder, and indeed might well cause more deaths.
In any case, Indonesia already has the death penalty for murder, and has used it. Constructing arguments along the lines of "boo hiss you're executing drug smugglers, why aren't you executing murderers?" will simply get the response that they'll be happy to accomodate you by sentencing murderers to death.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I realise this doesn't make Indonesia any better, but yesterday's (6th May) execution takes the Saudi total for 2015 to 79, only 8 short of the number for the whole of 2014.
Yesterday's victim was a Saudi national convicted of drugs trafficking (amphetamines).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Eliab, it would be equally possible to construct the complete opposite argument that drug smuggling is worse because it causes more overall suffering than an individual murder, and indeed might well cause more deaths.
Sure. It's also possible (and it's been done) to construct an argument that heresy is worse because it causes the loss of immortal souls. We can have all sorts of real disagreements about which crimes are more harmful or blameworthy than others.
I don't think that directly engages with the argument that I take Callan to me making (and that I agree with, if he is). Which is that deliberately killing someone is not merely an example of harsh punishment such that we could argue about what crimes are sufficiently serious to deserve it, but is an inherently horrible and inhumane thing to do. A society or an individual that doesn't see that has something badly wrong with them. Cold-blooded killing is not merely extreme, but vile.
That general point being made (which I think is fundamental to the argument), the question is whether a particular crime warrants the making of an exception. In the case of murder - and really nothing else - it could be said that the killer has themselves violated the rule against killing, and therefore put themselves outside its protection. I don't agree with that argument, but it is qualitatively different to an argument that murder is "the worst" crime. That murder is the worst crime may not be exactly true - other crimes can indirectly cause more deaths (and suffering) or, be more blameworthy (murderers do sometimes have comprehensible reasons) - however murder does uniquely offend the "no deliberate killing" rule, and so there's an argument for executing murderers that doesn't apply to anyone else, however serious their crimes.
Saying "no capital punishment except for murder" is a rational position (albeit not one that I hold). The justification is not that the murderer deserves the greater punishment because his offence is the worse, it's that deliberately killing someone is horribly wrong, and only if they have themselves crossed that line by killing can it be contemplated as a punishment.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is that deliberately killing someone is not merely an example of harsh punishment such that we could argue about what crimes are sufficiently serious to deserve it, but is an inherently horrible and inhumane thing to do. A society or an individual that doesn't see that has something badly wrong with them.
Um...
*raises hand*
I don't see that killing someone is, inherently, a "horrible and inhumane thing" to do. Do I get to join the club of people with something badly wrong with them?
Don't get me wrong - I'm anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-murder, and anti-almost any and every scenario in which people deliberately cause the death of other people. But I don't see how deliberately causing someone's death is a uniquely horrible and inhumane act in a way that getting people addicted to heroin isn't.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
That only works if you don't think drug smuggling really "counts" as a crime. Heroin ruins an awful lot of lives, and I can see why someone would want to give it a heavy penalty.
Again, the answer to drugs is full decriminalization, every where, without exception. All completely legal. Controlled as to distribution and heavily regulated, and any contraventions are dealt with as health issue, and health issues only. We don't criminalize mental health, nor should we this.
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I also think that if you support the death penalty for serious crimes involving violence and / or drugs, you should also support the imposition of the death penalty for serious crimes involving corruption at high levels.
For the record, I do not support the death penalty for any reason.
Yes. I'd like to see the same death penalty debate regarding, say, Saddam Hussein and George Bush. Or Richard Nixon if you recall the history.
[ 07. May 2015, 22:52: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
deliberately killing someone ... is an inherently horrible and inhumane thing to do.
I don't see that killing someone is, inherently, a "horrible and inhumane thing" to do...
Don't get me wrong - I'm anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-murder, and anti-almost any and every scenario in which people deliberately cause the death of other people. But I don't see how deliberately causing someone's death is a uniquely horrible and inhumane act in a way that getting people addicted to heroin isn't.
I favor assisted suicide for someone who persists in wanting it because of suffering terrible pain that makes life unbearable and cannot end. I have a friend who an accident severely disabled and left with no working body parts and only a few words of speech who begged the family to pull the plug, after several years they finally agreed and let him gently go.
I accept that some believe human life must be maintained no matter how much it hurts. If to them I'm a horrible person - [shrug].
[code]
[ 09. May 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
As an Aussie, I'd like to talk a bit about our hypocrisy over the execution of the death penalty in Indonesia.
I was reminded by a Journalist based in Indonesia on the ABC that Australians said virtually nothing when people convicted of the Bali Bombings were executed. I can't remember anything much being said at all concerning the death penalty at that time. I can remember the outrage when Abu Bakar Bashir had his conviction quashed. What I remember most from that time was interviews with relatives of the victims of that terrorist attack on how they felt about the executions.
This reaction contrasts markedly with the collective grief expressed at the execution of these two convicted horse traders.
I don't like the death penalty, for Indonesian terrorists or for Australian drug runners. I like even less Australia's extra-territorial prison camps, where people are being held in limbo until they decide to settle elsewhere.
I want Australians to direct their anger at our own outrageous conduct, instead of wailing about a judicial penalty we ourselves carried out in the 1960's. We are no angels.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
As an Aussie, I'd like to talk a bit about our hypocrisy over the execution of the death penalty in Indonesia.
It seems to be common in humans (and politics seems to inflate some of the self-centered aspects of being human) to see things in terms of self-interest.
It's wrong for the state to kill my son for the murder he did, he's a good kid at heart; it's right for the state to kill the man who murdered one of my relatives, he is evil and must be punished eye for an eye.
It's not hypocrisy, it is internally consistent thought pattern - what matters is me, my welfare, my best interests.
Not everyone thinks in abstract global terms. It's very common for people to think a specific law should apply to others but not themselves.
Politically Australian politicians see their job as pursuing the best interests of Australia, its businesses and citizens (or citizens who know how to get good publicity). Best interests means our guys should be protected no matter what they did, those who diss our guys should be punished.
Perfectly normal politics. Rather common human belief.
Not saying it's right in the abstract global sense, but it probably feels right to most Aussies, especially the ones most affected - the families of those killed whether in a bombing or state execution. And until human nature changes, politics will continue to focus primarily on the welfare of us.
[ 09. May 2015, 15:29: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The best bit of footage from today's funeral for Myuran Sukumaran was the artist Ben Quilty (who became Sukumaran's friend while S was in prison) declaring that we must oppose death penalty anywhere, for anybody.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Another inconsistency which any discussion of capital punishment throws up is that of attitudes toward majoritarian democracy.
Is "vox populi vox dei"?
Those who are urging the legalisation of same sex marriage (which I oppose morally and theologically, but support politically as a civil liberties issue) on the grounds that a majority of the population are in favour of it, are often the same people who are opposed to a referendum on capital punishment (which I support under certain circumstances eg WWII war criminals) because they fear that a a majority of the population might vote for it.
[ 10. May 2015, 06:48: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Another inconsistency which any discussion of capital punishment throws up is that of attitudes toward majoritarian democracy.
Is "vox populi vox dei"?
Those who are urging the legalisation of same sex marriage (which I oppose morally and theologically, but support politically as a civil liberties issue) on the grounds that a majority of the population are in favour of it, are often the same people who are opposed to a referendum on capital punishment (which I support under certain circumstances eg WWII war criminals) because they fear that a a majority of the population might vote for it.
I gotta say, I haven't heard a lot of people arguing "Well, we need to have same-sex marriage, because that's what the polls say the majority wants", as a full-stop argument. More often, the appeal is to the inherent justice of same-sex marriage, for the people involved.
I think usually when opinion polls are cited, it's as a rebuttal, when populist conservatives have already brought "the will of the people"(or some such formulation) into the debate. For example...
A: What kind of democracy is this, where the courts and the legislatures trample on our values by approving a lifestyle that most people find abhorent?!
B: Actually, if you read the polls, most people are in favour of same-sex marriage.
All that said, I do agree that, on a host of other issues, both sides of the political spectrum have an annoying tendency to wrap themselves in populist rhetoric about "what the people want", when it is convenient for them to do so.
And, of course, when they check the numbers and find that the public disagrees with them on a particular issue, the rhetoric switches to "Our leaders need to stop governing by opinion poll and do what's right!!"
[ 10. May 2015, 11:13: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Another inconsistency which any discussion of capital punishment throws up is that of attitudes toward majoritarian democracy.
Is "vox populi vox dei"?
Those who are urging the legalisation of same sex marriage (which I oppose morally and theologically, but support politically as a civil liberties issue) on the grounds that a majority of the population are in favour of it, are often the same people who are opposed to a referendum on capital punishment (which I support under certain circumstances eg WWII war criminals) because they fear that a a majority of the population might vote for it.
The biggest single reason for opposing a referendum is the same reason for opposing most referendums: that they are utterly meaningless. We only need referendums for amending the constitution. Any other "referendum" is nothing more than a hideously expensive opinion poll.
I'd query why you're equating it with majoritarian democracy. You're well aware that our system of representative democracy doesn't work by referendum.
[ 10. May 2015, 13:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The biggest single reason for opposing a referendum is the same reason for opposing most referendums: that they are utterly meaningless. We only need referendums for amending the constitution. Any other "referendum" is nothing more than a hideously expensive opinion poll.
I'd query why you're equating it with majoritarian democracy. You're well aware that our system of representative democracy doesn't work by referendum.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
By "majoritarian democracy" I meant the LaRouchean mentality which demands a referendum-indicated majority on all issues, which is indeed impracticable, as opposed to the quotidian, mundane wheeling and dealing and compromises of parliamentary (or congressional) democracy.
Stetson expressed what I meant more clearly than I did; our populist tendency to extol the inherent wisdom of the masses when they agree with us, and our elitist tendency to condemn the moral zombyism of hoi polloi when they disagree with us.
[code]
[ 11. May 2015, 04:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
It seems to be common in humans (and politics seems to inflate some of the self-centered aspects of being human) to see things in terms of self-interest.
It's wrong for the state to kill my son for the murder he did, he's a good kid at heart; it's right for the state to kill the man who murdered one of my relatives, he is evil and must be punished eye for an eye.
It's not hypocrisy, it is internally consistent thought pattern - what matters is me, my welfare, my best interests.
No doubt you're right that the golden thread is self interest, but its still hypocrisy because those who purport to reflect and express our collective opinions do so in absolute moral terms, always seeking to be righteous in the eyes of each other.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
