I was going to comment on the execution of the Bali bombers, and the attitudes of Australian politicians towards that execution, but I think this Age editorial covers the situation nicely:
Mr Rudd’s comments may have suggested that he was repudiating the Labor Party’s long-standing opposition to capital punishment, but it seems that now the bombers have been executed the Government feels it may be safe to act on principle again. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a television interview yesterday that although he had nothing but contempt for the bombers, Australia did not support the death penalty. Indeed, Australia will co-sponsor a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.
So the double standard goes on. And to reassure Australians that it is a bipartisan double standard, Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Helen Coonan trotted out this familiar line: “From the Opposition’s perspective, we don’t support the death penalty. What we do respect is that other countries have different systems.”
It must be hoped that the General Assembly will pass the moratorium resolution, but if it does it will not be because Australia has earned any respect for a principled stance. The Bali bombers were criminals, not martyrs, and the abandonment of principle by Australia’s governments is one of their pernicious legacies.
Indeed – we can’t keep having a bob each way. Either we are for capital punishment generally or we are against it. I suppose that both the major parties were a little concerned about the political repercussions should the Indonesian Government take the opportunity to reprieve the Bali bombers on the back of Australian rumblings about capital punishment.
Word.
“… the political repercussions should the Indonesian Government take the opportunity to reprieve the Bali bombers on the back of Australian rumblings about capital punishment.”
Yeah, Guy, that would have been likely. Not.
There was no way Australia could possibly stop Indonesia executing Indonesian citizens who had murdered a whole bunch of other Indonesians (in addition to the Australians and other foreign tourists).
Any public criticism of Indonesia by Australian politicians would have just harmed our diplomatic relations, and would not have gone down well in the court of public opinion at home. A lose-lose outcome all round.
No wonder then the government limits its efforts to the UN moratorium: it is the only thing they could or should do.
Anyone got any better answers? Or did you just want Rudd or Stephen Smith to publicly spout some moralising hot air about executing the Bali bombers, with no chance of actually affecting their fates?
And if so, do you want Rudd or Smith to be on the podium hectoring every country that applies the death penalty, every time they do it? That’s a lot of hectoring.
Paulus,
We could have said it much better – and without using weasel words. Something like “We do not support the death penalty anywhere or under any circumstances and, in this specific case, we do not believe it will do anything to reduce the likelihood of future attacks of this nature. It would, from the Australian Government’s perspective, be better that they are (rot?) in jail for the rest of their natural lives.”
To me, this would have made our position clear.
Precisely, Andrew.
But, AR, does the Australian government normally issue a statement every time some legal punishment is applied, anywhere in the world, that it disagrees with?
When the State of Texas offs some serial killer, do Rudd or Smith get in front of the microphone to declare, “We do not support the death penalty anywhere or under any circumstances …”?
I think the world can take as read the ALP (and Liberal) position on the death penalty by noting that we do not have it in this country, and there are no moves to impose it.
No more need be said.
Paulus: there is a bit difference here. Nearly half of the victims of the crime were Australian, and much of the technical expertise used in the investigation was provided by the AFP.
It’s a considerably different situation to a Texan serial killer’s execution.
Paulus,
This one, unlike a murder in Texas, concerns us directly.
No more need be said.
To me the correct response would have been no response. If put on the spot I would have repeated that “we are opposed to the death penalty, but don’t intend to comment on specific cases unless Australians are facing the death penalty”. It practice it isn’t possible or appropriate for our Government to comment on each of the thousands of people executed around the world each year. And I don’t think it makes any sense to have prioritised the Bali bombers for comment just because Australians were amongst the victims. On the other hand, I did get annoyed with Howard and to some extent Rudd sounding like a cheer squad for the BB to be executed. But I suspect that might not be the first time that a politician has prioritised not offending voters over taking a principled position.
The difference is that the media won’t be asking the PM’s opinion when a serial killer in Texas is executed. The government has to have a response in this instance.
If we want to have any hope of Australians not being executed for drug trafficking in countries such as Singapore, then the government has to be absolutely consistent in its approach. To the Singapore government, drug traffickers are just as bad as bombers. They can quite rightly say, you’re inconsistent, what gives you the right to criticise us?
This will keep coming up again. Currently, there’s the ABC journo Stephen Lloyd is currently facing drugs charges in Singapore He’s not facing a capital offence, but he’s potentially facing a very long stay in a Singaporean gaol. A little bit more ice, it would have been a capital offence.
It would have been principled for Australian politicians, of all stripes, to object to this judicial monstrosity, but it would not have been politically expedient. But what else can we expect from politicians?
Jenny,
Australians being amongst the victims makes all the difference in the world. It would have taken a brave politician to object to the death penalty for their murderers, but bravery is what I expect.
Unfortunately, all we have is what we’ve got.
Robert’s point is also important – the AFP assisted in finding them. We clearly have at least a moral responsibility here to put a case.
Apart from anything else their execution has done nothing to improve security for our people overseas. It may actually have made it worse. Under those circumstances I believe we should have been more than merely weak-kneed in our opposition to their execution.
Corporal not capital. A daily whipping would be much more effective.
I disagree. The government handled this about as well as could be expected, considering how probably a majority of the electorate (and certainly a majority in marginal seats) would have been happy to have seen the BB tortured, let alone executed.
And let’s not forget the small matter of the Australians on death row in Indonesia, whose sorry asses the government is trying to save behind the scenes, as I write. The Indo government is going to cop a lot of grief internally for executing the BB, and criticising them, even only mildly, would have been horribly counterproductive.
The Indo government is going to cop a lot of grief internally for executing the BB, and criticising them, even only mildly, would have been horribly counterproductive
Good point Spiros
“If we want to have any hope of Australians not being executed for drug trafficking in countries such as Singapore,..”
On the contrary, we should adopt the drug penalties from those countries. The sooner the better.
And deplete the ranks of our shared client base Steve? Why would you want to do that?
No, it’s actually the other way around Spiros. The fact that the government suppprted the execution of these guys makes it harder for the to argue for clemency for the Australians on death row in Indonsesia. It’s called double standards, as I noted above.
Devil Drink: Execution of druggos would deplete the ranks of my troublemakers, without any impact upon the client base.
Removal of ice (or whatever) fuelled nutters from the streets may even lure out a larger client base.
Ah, but Steve, your well-behaved customers are only so well-behaved because they’re organised enough to toke at home.
Shooting occasional growers and dealers would cause an artificial price hike in grass and party pills; and a consequent reduction in discretionary income for drinking. I think neither of us want that.
Anyway, your tone is very like that of the late fanatics themselves, who hated alcohol and dancing as much as you despise trafficking. Why do you hate freedom?
“To me the correct response would have been no response.”
Totally agree. The Indonesian government has refrained from comment. So should we.
Spiros,
Do you seriously think that, had they both made similar statements, anyone would have changed their vote? For that matter do you believe that, even if Howard had been volunteering to be part of the firing squad and Rudd out there ready to shield the bombers with his own body (to take two extreme positions) that Howard would not have lost the last election?
As for the “grief” the Indonesian government may get – I seriously doubt it. The vast majority of Indonesians (Muslim, Hindu, Christians or other) see these guys for what they were – murderous thugs pursuing a political campaign that has little, if anything, to do with Islam.
Too right SATP. It’s f’n outrageous these scum profiteering from drugs.
Except for alcohol. That’s not really a drug. And pubs aren’t drug profiteering scum.
Cultures that think so are wowsers and just plain wrong.
Cheers.
PS Is there a word for that in Arabic?
.
Fine, the double standards are irrelevant to the case. If the lives of the Bali drug traffickers get spared, it will be because a deal gets done between the Aust govt and the Indo govt behind the scenes.
Will the Indo govt do the deal? Maybe, maybe not, but helping them out on the BB executions in public is one way to help get the Bali 9 deal done in private.
I can think of a few reasons to oppose the death penalty:
1. It is always wrong to take human life.
2. Death should not be part of our judicial system, given its absolute nature and the possibility of error.
3. Criminal justice should be only about rehabilitation and protection of others, not punitive “justice” or dissuasion of similar acts.
4. It is unnecessary, given our current state of technology and wealth.
If you believe in any kind of just war, 1 seems terribly inconsistent. And in this case, 2 is out, since these guys unrepentantly confessed to killing innocent people.
3 seems very culturally and historically contingent — I don’t even think many Australians would believe it wholeheartedly. It seems to be a bourgeois position that, if our generation had experienced a significant war or epidemic disease, would probably be held less absolutely. Also, it seems quite relativistic.
4 still holds, but it is the weakest reason of the lot.
I guess my point is that it is possible to hold general ethical principles — that the death penalty is no longer necessary, that it should be abolished worldwide — and not get too upset about specific instances. These guys killed a few hundred innocent people — it’s hardly obvious that killing them in return is a grievous outrage, ethically or historically, even if it would be better had they been imprisoned for life.
Spiros, I was very much involved in the Van Nguyen case. One of the problems his lawyers had was the stance of the Australian government toward the Bali bombers. The Singaporean government saw it as a double standard. I’m not saying that Van would have been granted clemency, but I know this perceived double standard didn’t help. His lawyers are open and explicit about that.
Andrew, in a country of 200 million people, even if the “vast majority” agree with the government, that still leaves room for several million to cause trouble.
Leon, taking a human life should be a last resort – framing it as “always wrong” imlies absolutism where none may pertain. A “just war” is a situation where no other means can prevent a much greater horror, whereas the death penalty is never the only means of achieving its objectives. You might argue that it is the best means, but this is subject to interpretation not absolute moral statements.
Jenny is right. We oppose the death penalty, but should only comment (and advocate) when the punishment is afforded to citizens of this country.
Leon is also right, but after the first reason, the others are really icing on the cake. The error argument is the strongest, as displayed on numerous occasions in the USA. His third reason would be a tough sell, and this is one area where the majority of people should not be heard, so to speak. (Nice to see all those making the “majority think we need to do something about global warming” are not using the majority opinion in their arguments with regards to this topic.)
Australia must advocate in all possible forums for the abolition of capital punishment. But don’t expect us to get very far.
Fine @ 10:
I’m sure you’re right, but I do get annoyed about that viewpoint. And it’s not just the Singapore Govt arguing moral equality of bombers and smugglers – newspaper comments and letters regularly argue the same position. Two big differences:
- The consequences may be similar but the intentions are very different. The bombers want to kill people. Drug smugglers want to make some easy money.
- Drug smugglers can’t kill you without your active participation. They just contribute to giving you the opportunity to harm yourself. By contrast, terrorists give you no choice.
Fine, the difference with the Van Nguyen case is that we had no leverage with the Singapore government. They could tell us to get stuffed, and did.
The Indos are different. With them, we have some leverage.
If the UN passes a moratorium on the death penalty I sincerely wonder if they will only succeed simply in displaying their lack of authority. Will China, will Iran, with the US stop executing people? Methinks not.
.
Rudd couldn’t make a huge fuss over the Bali bombers. It would be political suicide. If he makes a big fuss over Rush et al he’ll be regarded by the Indonesians as someone seeking Australian exceptionalism. What can he do?
.
I don’t support the death penalty but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere running around informing those States that do impose it that Australians shouldn’t be subject to the same penalties as locals when they commit capital offenses.
A “just war” is a situation where no other means can prevent a much greater horror, whereas the death penalty is never the only means of achieving its objectives.
.
I’m against the death penalty but studies show that it works as a deterrent if it’s applied swiftly. Jail doesn’t work as well.
Yes Adrien, which is why I said:
“You might argue that it is the best means, but this is subject to interpretation not absolute moral statements.”
During Howard’s time, it often felt like we were “outsourcing” Capital Punishment to Asia – most notably for the Bali 9. I couldn’t help but think that it was all very deliberately done to appeal to his Hansonite base who are normally the loudest voice in favour of “revenge justice”.
So, whilst Rudd’s response has been better, it still smacked of tacit complicity of the punishment. So I have to concur with the earlier sentiment – a statement expressing that they’d be better off rotting in jail would’ve been better.
It was also interesting reading the comments of the someone from the UK Bali Victims group on the BBC who, I felt, made another compelling argument:
Why make them mutually exclusive?
Putting aside the morality issue for one sec. Would General Petraeus have ordered the death penalty for the BB’s? I don’t know the answer myself.
“Why make them mutually exclusive?”
Because dead people feel no pain, and besides, corpses become decomposed and stinky.
FDB – Yeah. I’m not invoking an absolute moral statement. I’m just poitning out an inconvenient fact – to those inclined to oppose the death penalty. The idea that it doesn’t work is untrue. It works. And well. Better than other methods.
.
That all said I still oppose it.
I might be flogging a dead terrorist Spiros, but I was suggesting corporal until capital.
I’d trade dead smirking terrorists for some passing martyrdom fairy myth any day of the week. Certainly they’ve been deterred now. Or interred. Same difference.
???
“Certainly they’ve been deterred now”
That’s true of 3 of them in particular. Whether it’s true of terrorists generically remains to be seen. When you’re dealing with suicide bombers, fear of death is probably not a big factor in their decision-making.
Adrien, can you point me in the direction of some evidence that shows it works?
Fine – Yeah. But not right this minute. It’s in a notebook that’s elsewhere. I should add that the evidence is US specific.
.
Spiros – That’s true of 3 of them in particular. Whether it’s true of terrorists generically remains to be seen. When you’re dealing with suicide bombers, fear of death is probably not a big factor in their decision-making.
.
Very good point. Jihadists are willing to die. This will probably be the opposite of a deterrent. The Bali bombers will probably have their avengers. That and it’s widely believed that Obama will be tested by AQ sometime shortly (joy). I wonder if his Indonesian connection will factor.
During Howard’s time, it often felt like we were “outsourcing” Capital Punishment to Asia – most notably for the Bali 9. I couldn’t help but think that it was all very deliberately done to appeal to his Hansonite base who are normally the loudest voice in favour of “revenge justice”
.
I’m not sure this is entirely spurious. There’s a certain amount of anecdotal evidence that the Feds conspired to have the Bali 9 captured in Indonesia rather than here because it would invoke the death penalty. I’m not sure it was done necessarily to appeal to the Hansonites but it may have been done to add a shock to the psyche of Australians who don’t realize that some societies have justice systems that are much more unforgiving. One of the things apparent about Scott Rush is that he can’t believe it’s really happening. It simply doesn’t make sense to him that he can’t be let off with more leniency.
.
The Feds might’ve done it simply because they thought it served ‘em right.
Adrien, I was under the impression that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent, even the US.
Your impression may be erronous, Yuwalk.
There’s a debate about it. Like most such debates it is tainted by the astigmatism of entrenched and irreconcilable opposition. The study I read was invoked by people who actually (as far as I saw) had no interest in the death penalty issue. They were thinking about rational responses to incentives.
.
As I said I don’t have it in front of me. However as I recall what it shows is that, where the death penalty is applied swiftly, it works. A lot of the watering down of the death penalty’s effectiveness comes as the result of the long appeal process which can take decades. The argument is that, for example, in the case of murders that happen in the context of turf squabbles in the illicit drug running, the death penalty as it’s currently applied doesn’t act too well as a deterrent because the perpetrators face the possibility of death of the streets anyway.
.
Again I’m against the death penalty. I just think that if you base the argument against it on the premise that it doesn’t work and it ends up actually working what are you going to do then?
Adrien, are you referring to the study which concludes that each execution (in the USA) prevents five murders?
SATP – I don’t know. It’s been months since I’ve read this and it was referred to in an article that had to do with incentives. So I’m shutting up about this until I dig it out.
Is anyone against corporal punishment for convicted terrorists?
A life sentence of daily lashings (controlled so they don’t die prematurely from them) would make a pretty darn good deterrent to me to combat the attraction of of those virgins (or is it raisins???) in paradise.
Id like to add that further legitimacy for the abolition of the death penalty would be gained by allowing the Australian public a vote on the matter.
Id also like to see any re-introduction of the death penalty require the direct vote of both houses of parliament in a closed session. 3/4 majority needed to allow the execution of anyone, followed by another vote 5 years later.
That would pretty well ensure only the worst (1%?) of murders ever got to the noose, plus drive it home to the pollies that their lawmaking has consequences.
Oh shit yer, Nanuestalker@51, everybody here is sadomasochistic just like you.
Good to hear Joe!
Mole (52) – I doubt the majority of posters here would like what the majority of voters think about the Death Penalty.
For the record, Mole is correct: the Australian Electoral Study in 2007 (PDF document, see p31) showed the support for capital punishment in Australia at 44%. There is a consistent trend away from the death penalty.
[Though of course that question was about capital punishment in Australia, and says nothing about respondents' views on capital punishment in other countries]
Liam, there hasn’t been an active campaign for it – 6% isn’t much to swing once a concerted campaign gets up – hardly an overwhelming majority.
Just face it, you’re wrong again Razor.
“there hasn’t been an active campaign for it”
You’re kidding. Every time there is a horrific murder the tabloids and talk back shockfuhrers swing into action to get the death penalty.
Shorter Razor – if the statistics were different, they’d say what I’m saying.
Where did you come from, adrian? Popping up like the Dicky Knee of blog threads again? [makes whip sound]
It’s an open question, Razor, but a bit academic considering both major Parties at least officially oppose the death penalty in Australia. Imagining one were to change its policy and campaign for the reintroduction of capital punishment, the other presumably would would campaign also. 6% is rather a large swing required, if you’re comparing it to a safe seat.
Finally, here’s one for the feed readers: executed today.
Probably a similar place to you I dare say, Liam.
You’ll notice, adrian, the subtle differences between our comments. Mine address the question of the death penalty; yours do not. Mine provide evidence and some substantive point; yours do not.
Sure, Razor is incorrect, but he’s at least not being an arse about it.
“Probably a similar place to you I dare say, Liam.”
Wait, are we talking about babby?
If we were, FDB, I’d recommend a dose of the lash. Daily. With a sauna, a plate of pickled vegetables, and a bottle of vodka chilling in the snow outside, if you please.
Whatever, Liam. Perhaps you’ll likewise attack all the other posters who commit such offences against blogging etiquette.
It’s something I shouldn’t do, adrian, because like capital punishment, it’s popularly frowned upon and probably doesn’t meet efficiency standards. Is that Mel Brooks I can hear, though, with a moral lesson?
Gentlemen, keep the personal abuse out of it, please.
I’m sorry, I just don’t understand what exactly is gutless about any of this.
Like just about everyone on this site, I’m opposed to the death penalty and think our government should do what it can to encourage others to abolish the death penalty also.
But since when does our government have a responsiblity advocate on behalf of citizens of another country? Saying that as a matter of general policy we are opposed to the death penalty and leaving it at that seems a perfectly respectable response. It’s not gutlessness or talkback populism to consider the feelings of victims’ families. Or am I missing something?
Gentlemen, keep the personal abuse out of it, please.
.
I agree with the sentiment but not with this wussy liberal slap on the wrist approach. These people should be taken out and shot!
.
That’ll deter ‘em. They won’t do it again.
What a spineless bunch of spivs. Disgusting.
I can’t see where the PM could have gone with this without hurting some of the bereaved families, and he is (I think) the sort of man who would consider that aspect. Some of the bereaved support the death penalty for the murderers, and others have said it does nothing but add to the Bali bombing death toll. I am glad to see that both points of view got a run in the meeja.
I did wonder, however, if the Australian government’s silence on the subject was a kind of nod-nod-wink-wink arrangement: we don’t interfere with your execution of the Bali bombers, and you don’t execute the Bali drug-mules.
Regarding the AFP: I do wonder whether there were any personnel in common in the Bali Nine and Haneef cases. Or whether it’s just that you have to be a RWDB to join?
Chookie, how many AFP officers do you know?
The Bali Nine were caught with drugs sticky taped to their bodies, Haneef is likely guilty of nothing more than being sympathetic to an ideology.
If you wish to smear the AFP, talking about how they were responsible for arrest of suspects is hardly going to blacken their name, they are POLICE. Where are you, in some sort of militia hideout, greasing your Bushmaster & wearing camos?
I hope rather than leave it up to the politicians, a lot of ordinary Australians wrote to the Indonesian authorities and expressed concern about the death penalty. I wrote to Yudhoyono a fortnight ago …
Dacia you left out “males”. The death penalty is more likely to be applied to males in countries with the death penalty.
AdamRobertT, that is a good idea, I’ll start letter writing to Indonesian pollies this very night!
SATP & site admins,
I think dacia is a spammer – a non-automated one perhaps, but a spammer nonetheless. google the widecircles address and you will see it all over completely non-related blogs.
Adrien @ 71:
Why waste the bullets? All criminals (including traffic offences, jaywalkers and people who pick other peoples’ noses in public) ought to be drowned at birth!
That’ll learn’em.
SATP – The Bali Nine were caught with drugs sticky taped to their bodies
.
Look mate. Just because they happened to’ve had all that heroin stickytaped to their body doesn’t mean they’re guilty. They thought it was baking soda. They didn’t know.
.
Haneef is likely guilty of nothing more than being sympathetic to an ideology.
.
Exactly right except a little to wordy. How ’bout: Haneef is likely guilty of nothing. Much better.
Haneef is likely guilty of nothing, and the AFP would have been guilty of gross neglect of duty if they had not run him in.
Which is beside the point. Cheap and innacurate sour shots at the AFP are not only stupid and unwarranted, they are wrong.
SATP,
Whereas cheap and accurate sour shot are right. Your point?