Questions without answers: The moral and ethical quagmire of the Bali Nine executions
Firstly, I do not deny these men’s guilt and firmly believe they deserved to be punished for the crimes they committed, but don’t agree with the weight of the sentence they received. Additionally, I concede that I don’t know the full magnitude of their criminality and shady past.
I do not consider Chan and Sukumaran victims for anything other than - what is in my opinion - an archaic and unjust justice system, with illogically weighted (and to be honest – ridiculously stupid) sentencing procedures (ie. the Bali bombers being released on parole after serving as little as nine years in jail).
The main question I believe in this matter, and for why I feel it has generated so much public interest and debate, is: “Should a person receive the death penalty for a drugs conviction?” I believe the answer to that is no. The follow-up question to this is: “Should a country who is actively and openly against capital punishment fight until the last possible moment in the hope of preventing this fate for it’s countrymen or women?” I think the answer to this is yes. And it appears so do our leaders and much of the population. I also think that it is reasonable to try and repatriate people in this situation, to be tried and (re)sentenced (taking into account anything already served) under their own legal system.
The question a lot of others are asking is: “Should anyone receive the death penalty, no matter the crime?” I am yet to make up my mind as to my answer to this. However I do believe, for the truly gruesome offenders, death is too easy a way out. And feel life imprisonment, which in most cases would involve other forms of suffering during their time behind bars, is a more appropriate punishment. However what ultimately leaves me undecided on the matter is the ongoing public cost of this incarceration. Why should taxpayers, and in some shape or form; the victims, be paying for what is often a very comfy cell and well-furbished facility.
Another question I feel needs addressing is: “Were Chan and Sukumaran in fact ‘reformed’ men?” I personally think at least to some degree, from what I’ve seen and read, yes they were. And that after their experiences and personal development at Kerobokan, they were indeed improved human beings as a result of their imprisonment. (Although I admit I may have been deceived in this respect by their performances on the various current affairs programs and the like they have appeared on). But I don’t believe that anyone could argue indefinitely one way or the other without knowing the men intimately both before their sentence was handed down and after their 10 years in jail. And thus this may forever remain an unanswered question for most.
This makes the next issue extremely challenging in this case: “Should a reformed criminal be given a chance to re-enter regular society?” I think generally speaking, if they are genuinely reformed and committed to participating in the community as a healthy citizen, and an effective method or measure to assess and prove this is developed (to rule out possible deception as suggested in previous paragraph), then yes they should, and I believe this - rehabilitation - is the ultimate goal of (non-life) jail sentences.
What I believe deserves more attention and a thorough investigation and following this; serious improvements to laws and legislation governing information sharing with countries that impose the death penalty, is the Australian Federal Police’s involvement in the arrests of these people, and the way in which they effectively “sold them out” to the Indonesian authorities, knowing full well the repercussions of this decision and actions.
Showing that this behaviour not just appears unethical to outsiders, but also goes against that of past AFP cases, are these comments from serving and former AFP officers, who have told:
‘…the 2005 operation was a benchmark in “gross incompetence” which allowed the kingpins of the planned importation of heroin to Australia to escape capture. One veteran AFP officer revealed local authorities were routinely not told of suspected drug deals, noting AFP guidelines against putting suspects in danger of the death penalty. He claimed the AFP would typically intervene before suspects left Australia or after they arrived back here.’
Furthermore is this point made in other commentary: ‘Indonesia observers in Australia said allowing the AFP to share information with their foreign counterparts in death penalty cases contradicts Australia’s stance against capital punishment.’ Not only do I believe the Aussies sold out their own, they also reneged on an agreement with the father of Scott Rush, one of Chan and Sukumaran’s mules, who alerted the authorities in the first place, to intercept his son before leaving Australia.
Lastly, regarding the Australian Government’s bold calls and brash moves following the executions: Is this the right and most productive thing to do? Could removing the ambassador, reducing aid and putting in place economic and trade restrictions potentially make the Indonesian president and his government see the error of their ways and initiate positive change and law reform, while not causing an international political shitstorm?
I don’t whole-heartedly agree one way or the other with the decisions our government has made today, but do feel something must be done to change this draconian and absurd justice system, that clearly has both direct and indirect impacts on our own people. Whether or not this is the right way to go bringing about that change I do not know, only time will tell, but hopefully something does.
