Thread: The Execution Of The Bali Nine... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029150
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
....or possibly eight; at least that appears to be what has happened. I can't honestly remember a time when there has been so much negative press coverage of a country that imposes the death penalty (namely Indonesia). Personally, I object to the death penalty, so that's my cards on the table in this debate.
The Bali Nine consist of nine people who were caught trafficking drugs into Indonesia. One of them was an Australian, Andrew Chan, who subsequently became a Christian a prison. The group were caught in possession of eight kilo's of heroin with a current value of around €180,000, however even if you look at the travel records of Andrew Chan - one of the nine - you can see that he travelled to Indonesia a total of 23 times within a two year period and the suspicion has always been that he and the group had been trafficking drugs for quite some time. Indonesia has a paranoia about southern Philippines where drug use is a major problem and gang violence is at epidemic levels. The government suspects that Indonesia is being used by Australian drug traffickers as a gateway into the Philippines. Relations between Indonesia and Australia do not permit co-operation on tackling this issue as relations between the countries have broken down; most notably due to an uncovered spy plot uncovered by Indonesia where Australia attempted to tap government phones at the highest levels, the interference and subsequent empty promises regarding the independence of East Timor which led to an enormous refugee crisis and the claim of Australia over an oil field off the Indonesian coast of Timor which they claim belongs to them because while it is in Indonesian waters, they suggest it is still theirs due to it being on their teutonic plate.....all to name but of few of the silly shenanigans.
So that is some of the background. Now if I can play devil's advocate for a little. Andrew Chan and his crew knew the risk associated with drug trafficking in Indonesia - namely the death penalty - and they still did it. The Australian government has claimed that Andrew Chan is a pawn in a much larger game, but Chan himself has not given up any other accomplices or 'bosses' in his seven or eight years in prison. Thailand has the same system. The USA enacts the death penalty; yet there doesn't seem to be the same response. For instance; only hours after the executions took place Australia removed its embassy presence from Indonesia suggesting that the brutality of the death penalty has meant that diplomatic relations can no longer continue (not that they were any great shakes to begin with), but presumably Australia still has an embassy and continuing diplomatic relations with the USA and Thailand? Is there a weird double standard here, or am I missing something?
[ 29. April 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
There is a whiff of double standards, except that in the US I think capital punishment is usually reserved for murder cases, so there is a sort of lex talionis argument in play.
I was struck by the news that quote:
Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso was spared after her government appealed to Indonesia, saying a woman she had accused of planting drugs on her had handed herself in
which sounded like quite an altruistic gesture on the part of the latter and put me in mind of Romans 5:7, even if the woman in question presumably does not risk the death penalty in her home country.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I'm not sure there's a double standard on the part of the Australian government here unless it can be shown that they kept their ambassadors in the US and Thailand after those countries executed an Australian citizen.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... For instance; only hours after the executions took place Australia removed its embassy presence from Indonesia suggesting that the brutality of the death penalty has meant that diplomatic relations can no longer continue (not that they were any great shakes to begin with), but presumably Australia still has an embassy and continuing diplomatic relations with the USA and Thailand? Is there a weird double standard here, or am I missing something?
I know next to nothing about this story but it's not a double standard. What makes it look as though that might be the case is that however popular parts of it may be for holidays, Indonesia is a grubby, corrupt and unattractive state. Nobody would really disagree with that verdict. However, there are two other differences.
1. The US retains the death penalty for murder. That is the crime for which Australia, like most other countries which have abolished execution, used to execute people. So the US is behind the times on a continuum Australia has followed. It's difficult to argue that something one used to do oneself is so outrageous that one won't talk to people who still do it.
Indonesia, though, has introduced the death penalty for a new crime. It's entitled to regard as bad. It doesn't have to kill people for it. Other states don't.
That's the big difference and the significant one.
2. The other one is that Indonesia is executing Australians. All states are entitled to stick up for their own, even their dodgy own.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
If there is any serious suggestion that the convictions were unsafe, it would be right to make a fuss. But I haven't heard that there has been. Otherwise- well, if you commit the crime, and if you're properly convicted, you take the sentence, wherever you're from. Don't expect Mummy in Canberra to get you out of it just because you come from a first world country.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Matt Black:
quote:
I'm not sure there's a double standard on the part of the Australian government here unless it can be shown that they kept their ambassadors in the US and Thailand after those countries executed an Australian citizen.
But that would suggest that diplomatic relations are all fine and dandy until one of your own faces the firing squad, gallows, electric chair whatever - then it suddenly becomes backward, brutal and corrupt. That seems to me to be a very weird double standard.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But see point #2 in Enoch's post.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If there is any serious suggestion that the convictions were unsafe, it would be right to make a fuss. But I haven't heard that there has been.
AIUI there have been for the French one, who has a last-minute appeal in progress.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
There's sticking up, as in offering consular assistance before conviction and to help people settle their affairs once convicted; and there's standing up as in recalling your ambassador because you seem to think that people should somehow be exempt just because they come from a high GDP country.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Euty:
quote:
AIUI there have been for the French one, who has a last-minute appeal in progress.
It's being reported here that this is in connection with her being required to testify against someone else who is also up on a drugs charge with whom she had a clear connection. It is therefore not an appeal; with the caveat that the reporting here is accurate.
Posted by Matt:
quote:
But see point #2 in Enoch's post.
I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that Australia has a right to stand up for citizens no matter how bad (which I agree with) and therefore the issue of execution is a non issue until it is one of your own?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
It is hardly news that Indonesia has the death penalty for drug smuggling, nor is it news that they execute people. Prior to the arrest of the so-called Bali Nine Australians have been executed for drugs offences in Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia.
Whether or not we approve of the death penalty is irrelevant: the fact that smuggling of amounts of 1kg and over prompts an automatic death penalty has been known about for at least the last 20 years so people convicted cannot plead ignorance.
If Australia chooses to suspend diplomatic relations fair and good but surely it would be better if they (a) undertook education of their citizens about obeying the laws of the country they are in at any given time, and (b) explained that if their citizens commit capital crimes abroad there is nothing they can do to rescue them.
I find the existence of a death penalty abhorrent and the imposition of it indefensible but international law allows countries to make and impose their own penal code, which is what the Indonesians have done.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Various governments offered proper levels of consular assistance to all of those arrested in Indonesia. Despite newspaper headlines, there is no real doubt that the accused received a fair trial and that there subsequent appeals were also dealt with fairly*. For the Aust government to recall the ambassador is ridiculous beyond words and shows what a weak prime minister we have.
A few brief comments. There has been much attack on the Aust Federal police in not stopping the travel by those arrested in Indonesia and tried. Of course, there was not a scrap of evidence that any of the nine had committed any offence here and there was no legal basis to prevent their leaving the country. As others have noted, we do not make protest at the continued use of the death penalty in other countries, including the US. Finally, I don't recall much government protest against the execution of those found guilty of the Bali bombings.
Finally, as to L'Organist's comments: the possibility of conviction and the imposition of the death penalty is clearly drawn to the attention of every passport holder. It is reinforced by airport. And Australia has not broken off relationships, but simply withdrawn the ambassador.
*Much of the comment is basically along the lines that you could not expect any non-Western court to deliver a fair verdict or to operate under a fair system of law, to be wide open to corruption and injustice.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Matt:
quote:
But see point #2 in Enoch's post.
I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you saying that Australia has a right to stand up for citizens no matter how bad (which I agree with) and therefore the issue of execution is a non issue until it is one of your own?
Not a non-issue at all but more of an issue if they are?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Matt:
quote:
Not a non-issue at all but more of an issue if they are?
Thanks, I can see where you're coming from. I can't say I agree with it though, but I know that's my own bias against the death penalty leaking in.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I'm not sure I agree with it either; I was just attempting to get inside the minds of the Aussie foreign office on the whole 'double standards' point.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I think what has upset people in Australia is that the two young men were tried and convicted 10 years ago and have been in gaol since during which time it appears that they have made significant efforts to change their lives. Whether they had been rehabilitated is unclear, but the media insists they had. However, with a new Indonesian president came a change of management of people with drug offences as he decided it was a capital crime. To have the about face after 10 years seems bizarre and obviously political. I think all Australians agree that the young men should have been punished severely, but there is strong feeling in Oz against capital punishment. The government in Australia felt it had to make a strong response to what had happened, but at this stage they have only withdrawn the ambassador (maybe only temporarily) and will hold discussions with him. What I have found most disturbing is the media beat up of the whole affair. We have been bombarded with blow by blow accounts for weeks and the media would have us believe that the two young men were heroic in stature and maybe candidates for sainthood. It has been a soap opera beyond peer.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whether or not we approve of the death penalty is irrelevant: the fact that smuggling of amounts of 1kg and over prompts an automatic death penalty has been known about for at least the last 20 years so people convicted cannot plead ignorance.
I'm not sure that's the end of the debate, though.
The question remains as to whether the death penalty is a just one in this instance in terms of proportionality.
Even if ignorance of the law is no defence, the question of whether being caught deserves such an extreme punishment is a knotty one.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
But it's none of Australia's business, or only in a general way if Australia is committed to working to abolish the death penalty generally. Australia can object to the death penalty in general but it can't start getting in a strop just because some of its citzens, of whose guilt there seems to be no real doubt, aren't shown special favours by the country in which they committed their offences.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Euty:
quote:
The question remains as to whether the death penalty is a just one in this instance in terms of proportionality.
No, the death penalty isn't justified except in the sense that it is the conviction meted out in Indonesian law, but that isn't actually the issue. The issue is why this particular group of people specifically in Indonesia merited this response from Australia? The statement regarding the execution and the actions immediately following it were justified with righteous pronouncements about objections to the brutality of the death penalty; but Australia has embassies and diplomatic relations in other countries around the world where the exact same thing is practiced and in some cases in a much stricter sense and application. It does therefore smack a little of trial by media soap opera and making martyrs out of criminals repainted as saints all with the added bonus of getting another dig in at Indonesia. On the other hand Indonesia hasn't exactly the best track record since the '92 meltdown, but I wonder if Australia needs to take a step back from it all and examine its righteous indignation. To my mind there is a very weird double standard to it all: either the death penalty is wrong in all cases and Australia should re-examine all diplomatic relations with those countries that practice it, or they should just admit that they don't actually give a toss about the brutality of the death penalty, unless of course it directly effects an Australian. Personally I think the whole thing is daft; if all countries that objected to the death penalty were to be isolated in such a way the world would become a small place and getting oil might become a significant problem. It is better in my view to keep diplomatic relations open and avoid straining or breaking them. That way there is a much better possibility of engaging sensibly on the issue of the death penalty and possibly even being part of the catalyst for change.
All that said, I think what is really behind it is silly politicking, but I'm not entirely sure why or what on earth they hope to achieve. Or maybe the Australian government are just stupid and knee-jerk.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
This whole thing is in some ways a reflection of the state of relations between Australia and Indonesia, we just don't like or understand each other very much.....if at all.
On the point of double standards and hypocrisy though, it has been pointed out that Indonesia makes pleas for clemency to get its citizens who are subject to capital punishment in other countries, off death row-so that's even a weirder double standard than Australia's. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/indonesia-got-its-own-citizens-off-death-row-but-aussie-bali-nine-duo-still-await-e xecution/story-fni0cx12-1227252877434
It's also worth noting that there seems to be a disproportionate number of foreigners being executed in Indonesia-this new President's reintroduction of execution after a moratorium has a political whiff about it, exacerbated as I said above by the bad relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
2. The other one is that Indonesia is executing Australians. All states are entitled to stick up for their own, even their dodgy own.
Sure. And Country X is entitled to stick up for its own by asking Country Y to pay any Xers working in Y a minimum wage in line with what they'd get back in X(assuming it would be higher).
And Country Y is entitled to tell Country X to go stuff it.
And the rest of the world is entitled to regard Country X as a laughingstock.
As an expat myself, I am full agreement with Albertus. When you are in a foreign country, you answer to their laws. That your home government may find those laws distasteful matters not a bit.
[ 29. April 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Joko Widodo agrees that every country has a right to stand up for its own, even its dodgy own, so it's not exactly outrageous that Australia's making a fuss. Withdrawing diplomatic relations is a bit of political posturing, more I suspect for the Australian audience than the Indonesians-big deal-Australia is not the first nor will it be the last to do such a thing.
From the Daily Telegraph
"Indonesian President Joko Widodo is not relenting despite pressure from around the world to spare the Bali Nine duo the death sentence. Indonesian President Indonesian President Joko Widodo defended his stance in an interview broadcast yesterday on Al Jazeera television.
“As a head of state of course I’m going to try to save my citizens from execution,” he said.
“That’s my obligation as a president, as a head of state ... To protect my citizens who are facing the death penalty but on the other hand we have to respect other countries that apply capital punishment.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
If these men were tried 10 years ago, and had been led to believe their death sentence was not going to be carried out, then the action of the Indonesian state is inexcusable. If that is the case, those responsible have blood on their hands. The Australian government and everyone else have every reason to complain, as have even people who don't in principle disagree with the death penalty.
If your country has treated a penalty as in abeyance, and then brings it back again, there can be no justification whatever for implementing this change retrospectively. If that is the case, then end of story.
Also, in my book, keeping people in prison for 10 years and then executing them counts as a cruel and unusual punishment. To me, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of executing people, there can be no debate and no room for discussion about that.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I am rather entertained by the Widodo's logic that a president should protect its citizens from execution while he approves of Indonesia's executions of its own citizens.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If all drugs were merely controlled within a health context we wouldn't have this problem. Thus, the solution ultimately is discontinue all laws about all drugs and render them all legal without exception.
Those misusing drugs need to access medical and addictions treatment. Such removes any incentive to traffic and the associated crimes.
I would like to know the addictions status of those judicially killed if this is available, both before arrest and after lock-up. I suspect we will find most or all to have have medical diagnoses of addiction.
(I'm on cellular data, so searching the 'net is impractical today for me)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I am rather entertained by the Widodo's logic that a president should protect its citizens from execution while he approves of Indonesia's executions of its own citizens.
I once read an interview with the guy who defended Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. The lawyer was asked about his views on the death penalty, and replied with something like "I'm a big supporter of it, just not for my own clients!"
I can understand his logic, and could even extend it to thinking of the president of a country as an advocate representing the interests of his people against foreign governments, even as he seeks to maximize jurisdiction over foreigners living in his own country.
Though, personally, if I were the leader of a country, I'd have a hard time arguing with a straight face that another country should exempt my wayward expats from the full severity of the law. I don't think I could even draft a generic communique pleading such a case. I'd probably have to farm the job out to some temp student and just rubber stamp what he writes.
And, I'll also observe that whenever a Canadian traveler lands himself in a foreign jail, on-line comment boards are full of remarks like "Stupid freaking suburban idiot backpacker, now he expects us to bail him out and fly him home! Probably a Liberal voter. Hope he becomes someone's beeyatch in the prison showers!!"
So, there could be a fair amount of support from hoi poloi for a Canadian prime minister annoucning that he won't do anything to help Canandians in overseas prisons.
[ 29. April 2015, 17:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I remember the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. I was in an elevator with two women who were opponents of the death penalty. (I think they were wearing buttons saying so.) One of them asked what I thought, and I said I didn't really approve of the death penalty, but that McVeigh made the worst possible poster child for abolishing it.
As I recall, McVeigh stated that he preferred to die rather than spend life in prison. As I regard life in prison as a serious punishment, I think the choice of dying ought to be available to the prisoner. On the other hand, I can see plenty of opportunities for this to be abused.
People are expressing outrage at the death penalty for anything other than murder. It wasn't very long ago that people were executed for a wide variety of crimes such as the theft of a loaf of bread. In some ways, the world has improved.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
On the point of double standards and hypocrisy though, it has been pointed out that Indonesia makes pleas for clemency to get its citizens who are subject to capital punishment in other countries
Well, whether that is a double standard depends on what they were convicted with and whether those crimes were capital crimes in Indonesia.
There's another level of hypocrisy here. Two australians face execution and the Western media are up in arms. Meanwhile people from the third world are routinely executed on the basis of forced confessions in 'our ally' Saudi Arabia, and you don't get anywhere this level of noise - at best it's mentioned in passing.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If these men were tried 10 years ago, and had been led to believe their death sentence was not going to be carried out, then the action of the Indonesian state is inexcusable. If that is the case, those responsible have blood on their hands. The Australian government and everyone else have every reason to complain, as have even people who don't in principle disagree with the death penalty.
I disagree.
If the punishment for drugs trafficking is death, then that's what you should "expect". If the country chooses to NOT execute, that's leniency on their part. Equally, if they decide to reactivate the death penalty, that's their prerogative.
I disagree with the whole idea of the death penalty, but unless we are going to try and ban it in all countries, then each nation should be able to make it's own laws and practices (assuming that they are equitable and just).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I am rather entertained by the Widodo's logic that a president should protect its citizens from execution while he approves of Indonesia's executions of its own citizens.
We dispense careful justice.
You incautiously apply the death penalty.
They kill with harsh and reckless abandon.
I have little sympathy for traffickers in heroin. However, I am not a proponent of the death penalty. For moral reasons, but practical ones as well. One cannot unkill an accidentally executed innocent person. That alone should be reason enough.
As far as double-standards, welcome to the wonderful world of international diplomacy.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I recall the sadness of McVeigh's father on visiting his son - I know he has done this dreadful thing, but he's my son and he's going to die.
This has largely been a media campaign here onto which the government has latched. Tony Abbott is a populist without any policy save keeping himself in power. Someone upthread asked what was the thinking in the foreign affairs department. The answer is nothing, what little thinking is being done is in the Prime Minister's office.
Nothing justifies the death sentence, and carrying it out demeans the government which does it. But it has always been clearly known here that death is the penalty in many countries, not just Indonesia, for drug smuggling. Both these men must have known that, but kept to their course of conduct.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
On the point of double standards and hypocrisy though, it has been pointed out that Indonesia makes pleas for clemency to get its citizens who are subject to capital punishment in other countries
Well, whether that is a double standard depends on what they were convicted with and whether those crimes were capital crimes in Indonesia.
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. quote:
you seem to think that people should somehow be exempt just because they come from a high GDP country.
-the point is Australia isn't Robinson Crusoe on having inconsistent attitudes towards capital punishment particularly when applied to its own citizens.
Crimes for which the Indonesian government has pleaded for its citizens do include drugs offences and murder.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There's another level of hypocrisy here. Two australians face execution and the Western media are up in arms. Meanwhile people from the third world are routinely executed on the basis of forced confessions in 'our ally' Saudi Arabia, and you don't get anywhere this level of noise - at best it's mentioned in passing.
Yes, indeed...
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nothing justifies the death sentence, and carrying it out demeans the government which does it. But it has always been clearly known here that death is the penalty in many countries, not just Indonesia, for drug smuggling. Both these men must have known that, but kept to their course of conduct.
Quite.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If the punishment for drugs trafficking is death, then that's what you should "expect". If the country chooses to NOT execute, that's leniency on their part. Equally, if they decide to reactivate the death penalty, that's their prerogative.
Absolutely. Well said.
As a side issue, the coverage of the whole thing was absolutely disgusting. Every station running live blogs and twitter feeds, minute-by-minute. It's not a national spectacle - it's a personal tragedy for a select group of people whose relatives are about to be killed. Also, the hype, the drama, the manufactured tension - it made me think that the people of the first world really are losing hold of the distinction between reality and action movies, or perhaps computer games. As though if we all sat on the edges of our seats biting our nails for long enough, John McLane would parachute in and stop it all happening! Because the 'bad guy' couldn't possibly prevail, could he? Could he?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I am so glad NZ doesn't have the death penalty. We have had a number of unsafe convictions for murder (one with obvious evidence planted by the Police).
The timing of this execution seems to make it more politically driven than merely dispensing justice.
I am not in favour of the death penalty. It doesn't act as a deterrent. Pickpockets in London worked the crowds who were there witnessing public hangings.
Huia
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Evangeline wrote:
quote:
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.
I was the one who used the phrase "laughingstock", but I wasn't referring to the double standard that others have been debaring(ie. why criticize only Indonesia when lots of other places have the death penalty).
I meant that a country would be a laughingstock for trying to get their citizens protected by the homeland's standards when traveling abroad.
[ 29. April 2015, 23:42: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
... however even if you look at the travel records of Andrew Chan - one of the nine - you can see that he travelled to Indonesia a total of 23 times within a two year period and the suspicion has always been that he and the group had been trafficking drugs for quite some time.
This is total news to me. Any articles describing this?
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Evangeline wrote:
quote:
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.
I was the one who used the phrase "laughingstock", but I wasn't referring to the double standard that others have been debaring(ie. why criticize only Indonesia when lots of other places have the death penalty).
I meant that a country would be a laughingstock for trying to get their citizens protected by the homeland's standards when traveling abroad.
Well nobody is actually doing that, Australia has just pleaded for mercy, just as Indonesia does for its citizens and it's my understanding that in Indonesia the President can commute death penalties-so inobody's actually trying to circumvent Indonesian law . It doesn't really matter but Chris Stiles asserted that it's not hypocritical to plead against the death penalty for your citizens despite executing your own & others at home so long as it's for crimes that don't incur the death penalty in your country-that seems to be pretty much what you are declaring makes a country a laughing stock.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This has largely been a media campaign here onto which the government has latched. Tony Abbott is a populist without any policy save keeping himself in power. Someone upthread asked what was the thinking in the foreign affairs department. The answer is nothing, what little thinking is being done is in the Prime Minister's office.
Abbott is just another politician, and a legitimate target for legitimate criticism, but some of it has become so kneejerk and hysterical that I am beginning to wonder what ulterior motives are going to be attributed to him if he does anything for his mum on Mother's Day.
His stance on the recent executions has had tripartisan support.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
As said above, the Indonesian President can grant clemency for death sentences so of course those of death row apply for it. According to this article Indonesia halted executions between 2008 and 2013 giving prisoners false hope that they had been reprieved. The article also talks about a British woman who is facing execution. Surely the UK will try to prevent her execution? (I know the article is from the Daily Mail, but it seems accurate). Indonesia's Widodo vows no pardons
There was a lot of support for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran because they had already spent 10 years in jail, were not asking to be released from jail - just not to be killed and had turned their lives around and were running programs to help others within the jail.
When they were first arrested and later when they were sentenced to death, I did not agree with the death penalty, but thought it was their own fault as we all know that can be the consequence of drug smuggling in Indonesia. It was regrettable, but I didn't think Australia should interfere.
However, having heard from the Australian pastor who knew them and who saw the amazing work they were doing in Indonesia, I changed my mind and believed it would be unjust and unproductive to kill these men who had turned their lives around and were making the jail a better place for fellow prisoners. Here is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Chan's transformation.
Here is a letter from Sukumran which outlines the work he was doing in the jail, along with becoming an artist. Myuran Sukumaran's letter to Indonesian Courts
Another reason some people think the death sentence was unfair was that the parents of one of the Bali 9, Scott Rush, tipped off the Australian Federal Police that they believed their son might be being employed as a drug mule. The AFP gave this information to the Indonesian Police, knowing the drug dealers might face the death penalty if caught in Indonesia. They already knew the organisers were involved in drug dealing between Indonesia and Australia, and could have waited until they got back to Australia and arrested them here. How the AFP trapped the Bali 9 (Scott Rush has had a reprieve from the death sentence since this article was written).
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Here is a good opinion piece from today about the politics involved in the execution. The Age
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
2. The other one is that Indonesia is executing Australians. All states are entitled to stick up for their own, even their dodgy own.
Sure. And Country X is entitled to stick up for its own by asking Country Y to pay any Xers working in Y a minimum wage in line with what they'd get back in X(assuming it would be higher).
And Country Y is entitled to tell Country X to go stuff it.
And the rest of the world is entitled to regard Country X as a laughingstock.
As an expat myself, I am full agreement with Albertus. When you are in a foreign country, you answer to their laws. That your home government may find those laws distasteful matters not a bit.
Another issue, but one of which the opposite side has recently been discussed in New Zealand:
Some have raised the suspicion that Chinese workers, brought to NZ to do maintenance on railway carriages made in China by their company, are working in conditions and for pay very inferior to what is required by local legislation. The conclusion has been that we cannot require them to abide by our regulations as they were hired in China by the Chinese company to work on their products; and that the company was in order to refuse to show us their records.
This is in contrast to the situation of workers on fishing vessels in our waters, who have escaped from virtual slavery when their ships have reached NZ ports, and the ships' captains have been prosecuted.
GG
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I can't see how it could be legal to employ someone on terms below those required by local legislation just because they are hired elsewhere: or rather, I can, but I can also see that it would be very easy to legislate to stop it- if there is the political will to do so.
Of course, these being Chinese employees of a Chinese company, it may well be that the NZ Govermnent is following the lead of just about everyone else and is more interested in sucking up to the Chinese than in taking a principled position.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whether or not we approve of the death penalty is irrelevant: the fact that smuggling of amounts of 1kg and over prompts an automatic death penalty has been known about for at least the last 20 years so people convicted cannot plead ignorance.
I'm not sure that's the end of the debate, though.
The question remains as to whether the death penalty is a just one in this instance in terms of proportionality.
Even if ignorance of the law is no defence, the question of whether being caught deserves such an extreme punishment is a knotty one.
It's not knotty at all. 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. By all means bang them up for some suitable length of time but killing them is plain wrong and anyone who says so is plain right. if they didn't say that in other instances then that is obviously a sadness but it doesn't invalidate their objections in this instance. I'm just not getting the point of this (not you Eutychus), oh, they knew the risks and the Indonesian Government are well within their rights, line, even though I deplore capital punishment. If you deplore capital punishment this was wrong. If you don't deplore capital punishment man the fuck up and say so. But spare us all the impersonation of the love child of The Lord High Executioner and the Reverend J.C. Flannel.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
There was a lot of support for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran because they had already spent 10 years in jail, were not asking to be released from jail - just not to be killed and had turned their lives around and were running programs to help others within the jail...
it would be unjust and unproductive to kill these men who had turned their lives around and were making the jail a better place for fellow prisoners.
The idea that a prisoner turning their life around should change the way the judicial system treats them, is unconvincing to many of my friends. They say "crime requires punishment or there's no justice." I don't know if Indonesians think this way.
What really strikes me about the letter is the comments about how encouraging the guards have been. Stories from USA prisons suggest many guards see their job as depersonalizing people, not encouraging them in any way. I was awed by the comments about the guards.
It's a politically good letter in showing that the prison system will lose valuable programs if these men are executed. Unless the public reaction is like so often in USA that it's wrong for prisoners to have any good thing, "they are in prison, they are supposed to suffer, not have free classes in subject we can't afford for ourselves!"
Interesting situation to watch.
Also interesting in showing that even "evil" drug runners can turn their lives around, if given the right encouragement. How come the jail/prison system isn't designed to try to help that happen?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whether or not we approve of the death penalty is irrelevant: the fact that smuggling of amounts of 1kg and over prompts an automatic death penalty has been known about for at least the last 20 years so people convicted cannot plead ignorance.
I'm not sure that's the end of the debate, though.
The question remains as to whether the death penalty is a just one in this instance in terms of proportionality.
Even if ignorance of the law is no defence, the question of whether being caught deserves such an extreme punishment is a knotty one.
It's not knotty at all. 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. By all means bang them up for some suitable length of time but killing them is plain wrong and anyone who says so is plain right. if they didn't say that in other instances then that is obviously a sadness but it doesn't invalidate their objections in this instance. I'm just not getting the point of this (not you Eutychus), oh, they knew the risks and the Indonesian Government are well within their rights, line, even though I deplore capital punishment. If you deplore capital punishment this was wrong. If you don't deplore capital punishment man the fuck up and say so. But spare us all the impersonation of the love child of The Lord High Executioner and the Reverend J.C. Flannel.
What he said.
I think this argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdam or whatever it's called.
Suppose in Bastardland the penalty for overstaying at a parking meter is hanging drawing and quartering.
Now suppose Mrs Nice from the local church, known for her good works, goes to Bastardland for a holiday. She overstays on a parking meter and is sentenced to hanging drawing and quartering.
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?"
[ 30. April 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
There was a lot of support for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran because they had already spent 10 years in jail, were not asking to be released from jail - just not to be killed and had turned their lives around and were running programs to help others within the jail...
it would be unjust and unproductive to kill these men who had turned their lives around and were making the jail a better place for fellow prisoners.
The idea that a prisoner turning their life around should change the way the judicial system treats them, is unconvincing to many of my friends. They say "crime requires punishment or there's no justice." I don't know if Indonesians think this way.
What really strikes me about the letter is the comments about how encouraging the guards have been. Stories from USA prisons suggest many guards see their job as depersonalizing people, not encouraging them in any way. I was awed by the comments about the guards.
It's a politically good letter in showing that the prison system will lose valuable programs if these men are executed. Unless the public reaction is like so often in USA that it's wrong for prisoners to have any good thing, "they are in prison, they are supposed to suffer, not have free classes in subject we can't afford for ourselves!"
Interesting situation to watch.
Also interesting in showing that even "evil" drug runners can turn their lives around, if given the right encouragement. How come the jail/prison system isn't designed to try to help that happen?
I think you'll find that in most Western countries, at least, it is. It may not be all that successful, and there are the "They should be made to suffer and nothing else" types everywhere, but rehabilitation is meant to be part of the function of the justice system.
Don't they often call it a "corrective facility" over there? What else does "corrective" mean if not rehabilitation?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think sadly enough over here it often means 'a place to throw away those thugs' and pretend we are doing the best thing for them. Most Americans are not concerned about the state of our prisons because either they should suffer or well it's their fault anyway, convicted felons generally can't vote, and the for profit prison industry basically can vote. Considering those, there's unfortunately no political reason in most of the U.S. for an elected official to do much work helping prisoners. (Though perhaps the overcrowding of prisons makes some localities want to improve their recidivism rate.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Karl wrote:
quote:
Suppose in Bastardland the penalty for overstaying at a parking meter is hanging drawing and quartering.
Now suppose Mrs Nice from the local church, known for her good works, goes to Bastardland for a holiday. She overstays on a parking meter and is sentenced to hanging drawing and quartering.
quote:
Would we be saying "Well, she knew the risks. I have no sympathy; that's how they do things in Bastardland"?
To answer your question, yes. That's what I would say. I'd even get it printed up on a t-shirt.
Though I might also think that Mrs. Nice's home government could put a travel advisory out on Bastardland, letting their citiziens know just how draconian Bastardland was about parking violations. Once that information is made available to the public, the government washes its hands of all obligations to anyone traveling there.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Evangeline wrote:
quote:
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.
I was the one who used the phrase "laughingstock", but I wasn't referring to the double standard that others have been debaring(ie. why criticize only Indonesia when lots of other places have the death penalty).
I meant that a country would be a laughingstock for trying to get their citizens protected by the homeland's standards when traveling abroad.
Well nobody is actually doing that, Australia has just pleaded for mercy, just as Indonesia does for its citizens and it's my understanding that in Indonesia the President can commute death penalties-so inobody's actually trying to circumvent Indonesian law . It doesn't really matter but Chris Stiles asserted that it's not hypocritical to plead against the death penalty for your citizens despite executing your own & others at home so long as it's for crimes that don't incur the death penalty in your country-that seems to be pretty much what you are declaring makes a country a laughing stock.
You raise a valid point, ie. Indonesia does allow clemency. But still, if this is a typical crime for which clemency would be granted, I guess it would make sense of Australia(taking on the role of a grieving parent) to ask the president to spare the lives of the condemned smugglers.
Once Indonesia tells the Aussies to get lost, however, I think Canberra needs to just face the fact that Jakarta doesn't care what they think, and bow out. Not raise a ruckus and recall the ambassador, as if executing the drug-dealers was somehow a violation of Australian something or other.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
In my first paragraph above, the words "But still" should not be there. Properly edited...
quote:
You raise a valid point, ie. Indonesia does allow clemency. And, if this is a typical crime for which clemency would be granted, I guess it would make sense of Australia(taking on the role of a grieving parent) to ask the president to spare the lives of the condemned smugglers.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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).
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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... ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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 ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
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 ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0