The Bali 9 and...

[Peter B]

...execution as a form of punishment.

I deliberately didn't put the word "execution" in the topic line so as not to immediately inflame passions on each side of the argument about that topic.

Anyway, Lunar Orbit permitting, I'd like to discuss the issue of execution as a punishment in the context of two Australians who are facing execution in Indonesia for their parts in organising an attempt to smuggle heroin from Indonesia to Australia.

The background is that these two men, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, along with seven other Australians, were arrested in Indonesia back in 2005 as they attempted to board a flight to Australia (as there were nine people arrested, and as they were attempting to fly out of Bali, they became known as the Bali 9). Chan and Sukumaran, as the ringleaders, were sentenced to death. Their last appeals have failed, and they are likely to be executed some time in the next month or so, along with several other foreigners also convicted of capital crimes.

Both sides of politics here in Australia have united in calls for clemency, with the Prime Minister Tony Abbott talking in unsubtle terms while the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has been (appropriately) far more diplomatic. There have been petitions with thousands of signatures sent to the President of Indonesia, large gatherings of people (it's a bit confrontational to call them protests) also calling for the death sentences to not be carried out.

Personally I'm opposed to the death penalty, whether it's for murder in the USA or for drug smuggling in Indonesia. But I can also understand that when you travel to another country you live by their laws and punishments, and plenty of Indonesians have made it clear they don't appreciate being lectured by Australians about internal issues.

But it's also come to light that the Indonesian government is doing everything it can to save its own citizens facing the death penalty in other countries (particularly places like Saudi Arabia where many Indonesians work in menial jobs with few rights).

But then an article pointed out that what the ringleaders were trying to do was traffick 8 kilos of heroin (about 20 pounds for the non-metric), worth millions of dollars and likely to cause any amount of misery and death to addicts.

But then commenters on the article pointed out that no one forced the addicts to take the heroin - that was a personal decision the traffickers can't be held responsible for.

But then in many cases drug addicts come from social situations that increase their susceptibility to drug addiction (dysfunctional family, few or no suitable role models, poverty, little social stability) so the issue of choice isn't particularly strong here - not like, say, some ordinary person wandering around the car dealerships trying to choose which car to buy.

Another issue that's arisen is that the Australian Federal Police were aware that the nine members of the group were heading to Indonesia to smuggle drugs, and advised their Indonesian counterparts. As Australia is officially opposed to the death penalty, the AFP is required to not assist foreign law enforcement agencies in issues where a crime attracts the death penalty. As Chan and Sukumaran were sentenced to death the AFP has come in for criticism for its actions which appear to go against government policy. It's been suggested instead that they could instead have said nothing to the Indonesian authorities and arrested the Bali 9 on their return to Australia.

However the AFP's response was along the lines of needing to maintain a strong professional relationship with the Indonesian police, and failing to inform them of the smugglers' activities would have undermined that relationship, which has provided other benefits to Australia.

I think what I'm trying to get a sense of is whether the execution of Chan and Sukumaran is appropriate, and to what extent should the Australian government go to save their lives?

I get the impression from putting my thoughts in writing that this is one of those classic "wicked problems" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem) where any attempt at solving one aspect of the problem can exacerbate other aspects of the problem.

I was wondering if those of you from other parts of the world might have a more dispassionate view of the issue?

[Echnaton]

I to am opposed to the death penalty, for various reasons that we need not get into.  But I also see that point that if you go to another country with the intention of doing something illegal in that country and yours, then you are subject to the penalty where the crime is committed.   The Australian government should certainly work for a commutation of the death penalty.  As should the Indonesian government for its citizens facing barbaric laws in Saudi Arabia. 

It is interesting that the Australian police tipped off the Indonesian police in violation of domestic policy.  It opens the effort to an interpretation of being self serving and designed for internal purposes to offset criticism.  At least that is an interpretation the Indonesian government could reasonably use to defend its actions.   


But it is reasonable to assume there will be no lasting diplomatic repercussions to Indonesian for executing the leaders of a drug running ring whose guilt is not in question.

[Echnaton]

However the AFP's response was along the lines of needing to maintain a strong professional relationship with the Indonesian police, and failing to inform them of the smugglers' activities would have undermined that relationship, which has provided other benefits to Australia.

This is one of the real problems with drug prohibitions.  The police can and do use the "need" to enforce drug laws as cover for themselves in violating the law.  In this case, maintaining a relationship with the Indonesian police is just one of any number of excuses that could be used.  It is an "argument" that could be used to excuse for any number of the AFP's own violations.  It is little different than the teleological arguments we get from hoax believers.

[gillianren]

I am definitely opposed to the death penalty for a lot of reasons, though I'll also agree that this doesn't connect to one of them--the sheer number of people who are found to be not guilty through evidence discovered later.  However, another thing that irritates me is that protests are so often "don't execute this person in particular" without usually saying "or, you know, maybe not anyone else, either."

[Luke Pemberton]

I am vehemently opposed to the use of the death penalty too, for many reasons. I remember this case making the news and immediately how the AFP's actions became a major component of the story.

Like Echnaton, I also see that point that 'if you go to another country with the intention of doing something illegal in that country and yours, then you are subject to the penalty where the crime is committed.' I think the penalties for trafficking drugs in that part of the world are well known, fundamentally they took the risk and they knew the consequences. I know that sounds simplistic and unsympathetic, and as much as I deplore the use of capital punishment are these individuals a special case? Easy for me to write from a keyboard, I know.

[Echnaton]

I know that sounds simplistic and unsympathetic,

I am decidedly unsympathetic to any special pleading on their behalf.  If I am reading you correctly, then we are also in agreement that opposition to the death penalty, in general, and its application to this case requires no sympathy for the individual "victim" of the State.  So like gillianren says, an opposition to this particular case based on a general principle is sufficient.

Although I would expect the government, acting as an advocate, to make whatever case it can.  Principled, special pleading, pounding the law, pounding the table, shaking a fist or whatever.  You never know which argument will work.

[Luke Pemberton]

I am decidedly unsympathetic to any special pleading on their behalf.  If I am reading you correctly, then we are also in agreement that opposition to the death penalty, in general, and its application to this case requires no sympathy for the individual "victim" of the State.  So like gillianren says, an opposition to this particular case based on a general principle is sufficient.

My opposition to this case is that it carries a capital sentence, and in that sense I oppose any such cases, regardless of whether they are unusual forms of execution, barbaric or humane forms of execution (if there are any), I oppose punishment by death. I don't condemn the Iranian authorities anymore than the US authorities for carrying out the death penalty. I would like to think to myself that I take a humanist stance and my views are not distorted my perception of culture and another state's 'judicial integrity.' It is a matter if principle for me.

However, Indonesia are an autonomous state, and by that they see their justice system as fair and balanced. Whether we agree with their penal code, that is their system and these two individuals have been sentenced by this code.

Although I would expect the government, acting as an advocate, to make whatever case it can.  Principled, special pleading, pounding the law, pounding the table, shaking a fist or whatever.  You never know which argument will work.

They are Australian citizens, and as such, it is only expected that Australian representatives seek clemency on their behalf. Seeking clemency is nothing new in capital cases. However, if the Indonesian authorities stand their ground, then a sate they are exercising their right to carry out what they see as the same justice that they would meet out to anyone convicted of that crime. If they start making special cases they will set an interesting legal precedent.

[ka9q]

I'll also chime in with my opposition to the death penalty for any number of both moral and pragmatic reasons. I'm especially opposed in Prohibition cases, even though the people involved were dealers taking advantage of vulnerable addicts. Addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal act.

And there are actually very good treatments for opioid addiction, ranging from methadone or buprenorphine (Subutex/Suboxone) maintenance to blocking with naltrexone to simple counseling and lifestyle changes. Or even providing clean needles and pharmacologically pure heroin to addicts who aren't yet ready to quit while reminding them of the services available.

It would be far easier to bring these treatments to the people who need them if the criminal "justice" system would just get the hell out of the way. And it would remove the incentive for drug dealers to profit from the misery of others.

[Luke Pemberton]

It would be far easier to bring these treatments to the people who need them if the criminal "justice" system would just get the hell out of the way. And it would remove the incentive for drug dealers to profit from the misery of others.

I have advocated legalising drugs for a long time now. When one thinks of the health problems that alcohol and tobacco causes in proportion to class A drugs, and then examines the social and criminal problems dealing creates it seems to be a no brainer. I am sure by misery to others, you would include the victims of drug related crime. Cutting off the dealers source of income ought to see a reduction in drug related crime. I am sure that this has been studied extensively, and it is indeed found to be a better approach that the current 'war on drugs' loop we are in.

How to implement the transition would require consideration. At least in the case of heroin, I share your view: treatment would be a parallel part of the process. Allow heroin users to register with a licensed body and do so without incrimination, prescribe them clean heroin with the reminder of rehabilitation services.

While I do not use drugs myself, I think that legalised cafes for marijuana usage would be a step forward. Again, implementation would require thought, as I don't think we could simply follow the Dutch model in the UK as there are some cultural differences between the UK and the European cafe culture.

[ka9q]

As I understand it, heroin is legal in the UK both as a medical analgesic (as an alternative to morphine) and for addiction maintenance. Here in the US it's in DEA schedule I, meaning it's banned for all purposes, including medical. Exceptions for schedule I are made only rarely for research purposes.

Cannabis is also in Schedule I, which means it's still illegal throughout the US under federal law. However, Obama has chosen to ignore it in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and other areas that have repealed their own state-level prohibitions. This could, of course, change at any time.

The ironic thing about heroin is that some other opioids are arguably even more addictive and potentially dangerous, e.g., fentanyl and its relatives. They are extremely potent and quick-acting, but they were invented well after heroin and quickly became widely used in medicine, especially in anesthesiology. Unlike heroin, a semi-synthetic that's easy to make from natural opium, the fentanyls are pure synthetics you can't easily make in an illegal lab. So they're schedule II instead of I: legal for use in medicine, but tightly controlled.

 

[Luke Pemberton]

As I understand it, heroin is legal in the UK both as a medical analgesic (as an alternative to morphine) and for addiction maintenance. Here in the US it's in DEA schedule I, meaning it's banned for all purposes, including medical. Exceptions for schedule I are made only rarely for research purposes.

It's considered Class A here, so outside medicine it is illegal. Dealing heroin is punishable with life imprisonment. Possession, 15 years in prison. As you probably know, we have Class B and Class C. Buy yes, heroin is legally used within medicine. I think the issue I see is that before making it widely legal the message needs to be given that a change in law applies to existing users. Not that I envisage a situation where the entire populous turns up at a clinic for a prescription of heroin, but there needs to be a managed phase that is pragmatic to meet the desired end state.

[smartcooky]

You have to be nine-kinds of stupid to try to smuggle drugs through Indonesia, when it is common knowledge that Indonesia executes drug smugglers.

[onebigmonkey]

Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty, every flight you get on in that part of the world (and I have been on several, both international and internal) advertises in no uncertain terms that the penalty for drug smuggling is death. This is in addition to the many high profile past cases where this has been the outcome for those convicted.

It always amazes me that people who try it are surprised by the sentence they are given.

[Peter B]

My opposition to this case is that it carries a capital sentence, and in that sense I oppose any such cases, regardless of whether they are unusual forms of execution, barbaric or humane forms of execution (if there are any), I oppose punishment by death. I don't condemn the Iranian authorities anymore than the US authorities for carrying out the death penalty. I would like to think to myself that I take a humanist stance and my views are not distorted my perception of culture and another state's 'judicial integrity.' It is a matter if principle for me.

I'd like to think my attitude is similar.

For example, I think it was wrong for Indonesia to execute the Bali Bombers (Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Muklas) back in 2008. I suspect I'd be in the company of a lot fewer people for saying that. By contrast I seem to remember the Australian Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd, voicing very little sympathy for the idea of clemency for the bombers.

[ka9q]

Notwithstanding my opposition to the death penalty, every flight you get on in that part of the world (and I have been on several, both international and internal) advertises in no uncertain terms that the penalty for drug smuggling is death.

Yes, I've seen that on landing cards for Singapore.

What worries me is not drug dealing, it's carrying prescribed pharmaceuticals. Would they be recognized as legitimate? I wouldn't bet on it.