Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by an
Indonesian firing squad at 3.25am AEST after having
served approx. ten years in prison. According to
many sources, they were reformed young men who touched
the lives of many people and despite the pleas of our
Prime Minister and our Foreign Affairs Minister and
the work of lawyers - the executions went ahead.

Will this brutal act be a deterrent to drug-smugglers?
What, if anything, did the Indonesian government achieve
with this act?

Your thoughts please?

Mark Knight sums it up well in this poignant cartoon today...

http://twitter.com/Knightcartoons/status/593287355810713603

Foxy whilst I'm inclined to accept the view that they have reformed I can also see that there is a case for some scepticism. I don't relish their deaths but am frustrated that so much focus and resources were devoted to trying to save those two lives while other areas lack attention. The resource pool available to the government is not unlimited and I'm of the view that far more deserving people have died who could possibly have been helped with what's been expended in the focus on two men who deliberately ignored a known death penalty and placed the lives of others at risk.

Not sure how legitimate the estimates are nor how many of the lives could have been saved by funding going to supply subsidised treatments by
http://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/02-15/02-15-CDA-Submission.pdf?1425068173 claims that this year around 45,780 people will die from cancer in Australia and goes on to address issues in access and affordability of new drugs.

How many homeless will die this winter because of limited accommodation? Pick a cause where innocent people die because we just don't have the public resources to meet every need and the focus on those two does not look so worthy.

Not sure what Indonesia has achieved other than ensuring those two never re-offend. The Indonesian government has probably scored some political points internally. I remain undecided on the deterrent value of punishment.

It's messy but I don't get why so much attention for two criminals who reportedly were quite brutal thugs before their capture while so many far more deserving get little or nothing.

R0bert

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for the poignant cartoon.

I feel sorry for the families of the two
young men. I've always believed that decisions
about capital punishment are not really about
deterrence. They're about retribution. Or in
this case politics seems to be involved. I doubt
whether this act will deter drug smuggling in
this country. Corruption appears to be rife within
its very core.

Dear RObert,

I understand what you are saying. Of course our
governments need to look carefully at where our
finances are going. I watched "Q and A" on Monday
evening and a Vietnam veteran stood up and complained
about the shortfalls in his pension and the lack of
support being provided for our veterans in general.
Tragic.

However, I have to admit
that if these two guys had been my relatives, I would have
wanted
our government to do everything in its power to
help.

Besides in this particular case - didn't the government
simply do their job - to come to the defence of
its ctizens - and isn't that what governments are
supposed to do?

Quote "they were reformed young men" OR were they smart enough to know that that would be the best way for leniency.

The msm coverage is sickening, they show pictures of them when they were about 10 years old, wanting to have gullible people think they were young innocent, They were criminals who gambled on a big payout if they succeeded.

Next time you or a friends house etc is robbed it is statistically more than likely it was by a druggy.

As for your question it won't stop all drug mules but I bet it will make some think twice and stop them.

What I have found absolutely VILE is the double standards in terms of human rights on this topic.

A number of newspaper websites have covered this topic, with a lot of people making comments along the lines with the two people (Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran) killed, saying the deserved to be executed as they were breaking the laws of Indonesia and a lot of people referring to the impacts of drug use, in terms of victims.

What none of these people put down though were cigarette companies. These companies which sell their "toxic" products worldwide and make a lot of money from that, are rarely charged with anything, their products are legal (just about everywhere) and governments bring in taxation from these products, despite the fact many health systems worldwide face difficulties, particularly constant increasing costs.

So with these (two) people now dead, by one country having VILE human rights laws - will the pro-choice cigarette advocates - change their opinions?

I mean these large tobacco corporations have CEO's, high wages, large homes, designer label clothing, cars and expensive office spaces, with their toxic products killing large numbers of people worldwide.

Why aren't people involved in the tobacco industry facing the death penalty? I'm mean they sell and manufacture a product that kills others.

"According to many sources, they were reformed young men who touched
the lives of many people"

According to the 'fact-checking' taxpayer-funded national broadcaster's expert on Indonesia (a reporter) early this am, these 'boys' were only doing 'boy' things and they are heroes, typical Aussies and jolly good blokes, made even better (Saints almost), by the Indonesian prison system, which might not be so good in the food and accommodation departments, but is truly excellent for individual support, heaps of culture -unlike those mean Oz gaols and offers a good Kumbaya atmosphere.

So it would make very good sense to:

- close those Aussie prisons criticised in the same report as harsh and lacking the social (and cultural?) interests and contract out, ship Oz crims to Indonesian gaols; and

- close all churches. -Given that the 'fact-checking' ABC has given the Indonesian prison system its Gold Stamp of Approval for its success in converting convicts.

Whatever you do, never mention this,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2869230/Bali-Nine-ringleader-Andrew-Chan-mastermind-international-drug-deal-went-horribly-wrong-threatened-17-year-old-mule-Hong-Kong-jail-mouth-shut.html

Or that the amount of heroin they were trafficking could lead to half a million* and more kids becoming addicts.

*A guess that could be far too conservative. Perhaps some of the knowledgeable on drugs could convert those kilograms of heroin into needles and hazard a guess on the consequences, direct and indirect.

I agree with Australia's domestic policy on capital punishment. Also that trafficking that quantity of drugs is a very serious offence. The offenders chose their crime/s and where to commit the offences and they encouraged or forced others to take part.

Foxy,

You asked "What does capital punishment actually achieve?"

Zero repeat offenders.

In this instance it rids the world Oz in particular of a couple of horrible thugs, who had no thought of those they harmed, until a good act may have just got them out of the crap they had got themselves into.

It means they won't have an army of bleeding hearts crying for years, until we finally get them released back to Oz, where they would be out on the street in no time.

If applied more often, when it should have been, quite a few women would not have been raped & killed by serial rapists. Those rapists, who should have been put down are always released by some fool physiologist reports to bleeding heart parole boards.

The only way to stop this bleeding heart rot, getting the now reformed, [HA], rapists & other vicious criminals released to rape & kill again is to top them permenantly.

I don't give a damn if it deters anyone else, it sure as hell stops the one executed from offending again. There are quite a few women who deserved to be alive who aren't because of the bleeding heart mentality. I don't know how they can live with themselves.

Capital punishment, as I stated earlier is not
about deterrence but retribution.

In the case of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
their execution will not either deter drug trafficking or
stop drug abuse in Indonesia.

Keeping those two alive in prison may
have helped many of the prison population because
apparently those two men were achieving success in
giving classes and lessons to others in prison in their
fight against drugs. It is ironic therefore that they were killed
on the pretext in a "war against drugs." A decision made by a
very unpopular President whose motives were obviously
political.

The Sydney Morning Herald describes the tentacles of
crime-syndicates spreading beyond major cities to
rural areas in Indonesia and telling us that 45% of
South East Asia's narcotics market is in Indonesia.
Those involved with these syndicates are Indonesia's
police force and it is alleged, the military.

Indonesia's judiciary is also riddled with
graft - a seemingly impenetrable barrier to convictions
for drug barons.

Bribes taken by police is endemic. Notorious night-spots
where drug use is rife we're told - are also owned by prominent
military and police figures. We're further told that
rampant drug use in the prison population also needs
to be addressed. Many
drug dealers continue to organise their networks on the
outside.

There are many questions that need to be asked - however,
as our leaders have stated - now is not the time to do it
out of respect for the families of the deceased.

Foxy "Keeping those two alive in prison may have helped many of the prison population because apparently those two men were achieving success in giving classes and lessons to others in prison in their fight against drugs."

Maybe I am being a bit cynical Foxy, but if these 2 guys had had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment, they would have no 'incentive' to continue being the apparent holy paragons of virtue they turned into.

I do not support the death penalty at all, especially by firing squad, but I don't think these guys had 'turned their lives around" out of remorse for their wrong doing, but rather in a frantic effort to escape the firing squad.
Mind you, I would have done the same thing...

This is what makes Australians really mad is the injustice done to Australians killed in Bali.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bali-terrorist-muhammad-cholili-freed-on-parole-as-18year-jail-sentence-halved/story-fni0cx12-1227017261729

Those that are angry at the Indonesians for using the death penalty should ask themselves if they ever have condemned Indonesia for the genocide that is going on in West Papua.
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/west-papua-forgotten-war-unwanted-people

They need to ask themselves if they are angry at Australia for, first, agreeing to the takeover of West Papua and secondly for continuing to support Indonesia's presence in a country to which it has no right.

They need to ask themselves if they support the continuing training of Indonesian troops by the Australian Army.

They need to ask themselves why? if they continue to buy Indonesian products at the supermarket etc.

If I see 'Made in' or 'Product of' Indonesia on anything I won't buy it; even if it's second hand work clothes or well washed denim jeans from the local Op-Shop from which to cut patches for my muzzle-loading rifles.

If it has come from Indonesia I won't use it.

I think onthebeach, hasbeen and Is Mise have it right. That means I agree with them.

The two have been labelled rehabilitated. If a criminal is rehabilitated that means to me that he can be outside of prison without committing crime. That does not mean a prisoner behaves well in prison.

Foxy: they were reformed young men who touched the lives of many people.

"They touched the lives of many" Yes they did.

I wonder just how many of those lives are not with us today. I wonder just how many are still being touched with mental illness & addiction by the drugs they imported over many years. I wonder just how many families are without their loved ones physical or their mental presence.

As Rodriguez said, "I wonder. I wonder. I wonder. How about you?"

I sorry Foxy, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I have no sympathy what-so-ever. As far as I am concerned the other seven should have been lined with them. What does concern me is that the process took so long. The sentence should have been carried out within months.

At long last the world is now without a couple of parasites!

Pity the sentence was not carried out the same day as it was imposed.

Thank You for all your comments.

My point in starting this discussion was to try
and focus on the usefulness and morality of
the death sentence - and of course I did realise
that in the case of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumuran
it was going to be controversial.

A principal argument for the death-penalty in this
case seems to be - is that
it will deter the crime. However,
in Indonesia where the evidence points the
reverse to be true. That is, despite all the
executions to date - drug trafficking and drug abuse
continues and grows due to the corruption and involvement
of Indonesia's police force, military, judiciary,
and the fact that 45% of SE Asia's narcotics market is in
Indonesia.

Therefore the question of
whether the retribution of capital punishment
is justified in this case appears to be -
a moral judgement for each individual to make.
It appears that some feel that those
who deal in drugs should pay
the supreme penalty and forfeit their own lives,
while others seem to feel that human life is sacred and
society is demeaned when the state kills its
citizens, however grave their offense.

In any event, I can see that quite a few posters on this
Forum do favour the death penalty.

Capital punishment, in this particular instance, should send a clear message to potential Australian drug mules that the death sentence in Indonesia is a real possibility.

Every Australian now knows Indonesia is serious about applying the death penalty to convicted drug smugglers. There is no excuse for anyone in the future to expect less.

Is the death penalty a deterrent? Back in the 70's Iran announced plans to shoot drug smugglers at the border; the trafficking stopped very soon after a handful of foreigners were shot.

We need to teach our youth about personal consequences, a concept that seems to have gone out the window.

Foxy,

"....society is demeaned when the state kills its
citizens,...."

In this case the state wasn't killing its own citizens.

Very sad to see the guys killed especially after such a long time. It seems that the lawyers love stringing things out in INdonesia just like Australia. Pretending that the death penalty is not a deterrent however is dishonest and impossible to prove. Personally I think the INdonesian system is far more humane (to victims) than our pathecically weak judges who give slaps over the wrist for murder, rape and other gross crimes. Pity not as much outcry for the murder of unborn babies.

Fox, "..while others seem to feel that human life is sacred"

You set up a false dilemma or false dichotomy.

In fact it is easily argued that those who would preserve the hundreds of thousands of lives that could have been seriously harmed or lost through the drugs they trafficked are far more concerned about the sanctity of life than you are.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that the first indication of remorse as any Australian court would have it would be the convicts giving up their co-conspirators. This pair never did that. It is damned nonsense that they would not have known more as recruiters, enforcers and king pins themselves in the trafficking.

Why hasn't the 'fact-checking' ABC set its reporter sleuths onto the Asian gang behind the trafficking? How the federal government and immigration officials manage to allow the gang criminals in to set that up? File it with the other ethnic gangs, going well back too, to the importation of the Italian Mafia that Labor's minister of the Whitlam government and father of multiculturalism, Al Grassby was so damned friendly with (and his Labor mates have always feigned ignorance of).

Now the feared Russian mafia are well established on the Gold Coast and probably other centres.

However the media pack is mopping up and moving on to the next alleged trafficker, involving 30kg of methamphetamine (ice). At a stout 30milligrams a dose that would a million Aussie youth lives forever changed through introduction to a cruel, one way trip to dying in their own body fluids.

The commentariat will follow and doubtless soon we will be reading posts about corrupt China, Abbott's fault etc. The wasler celeb flanneled fools on their couches will be demanding that Abbott do a personal rescue mission in China. The resident expert on multiculturalism, courts and diplomacy on The Conversation will be hitching a ride on the wagon and the media circus goes on.

Meanwhile OMG bikies are the security staff at night venues and concerts and taking care of some very profitable business at the same time. How do parents feel?

Re: "Mark Knight sums it up well in this poignant cartoon today...

http://twitter.com/Knightcartoons/status/593287355810713603

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran aren't sweet innocent butterflies; moths perhaps but not butterflies in my opinion.

onthebeach,
I think you will find that the Russian Mafia have complete control of most security business in Australia. They just employ Tongans, Maoris and Pacific Islanders because hey can get them into the country via NZ very easily.
As far as the executions are concerned it seems to me that most people never listened to Cesar when he said "When in Rome do as the Romans do"
We may not believe in the death penalty as a nation (personally I do} but the Indonesian government does and they have laws that say we can and will execute you.
That is the whole point. These bloke were in their country, they new the rules and they chose to take the risk and ignore them. The got their hearts blasted out for their trouble.
It does not matter what they were or what they became the fact is that they broke their law and the paid for it.
I am getting the video tomorrow and will post it. I am surprised they released to bodies because the show the head shot being administered by an officer because it takes ten to fifteen minutes to bleed out.
We could use the death penalty here for pedephiles and tax dogers.

Dear CH,

Even the Indonesian President has pointed out
that the number of drug users had reached 4.5 million
with 1.2 million of them beyond the point of
rehabiliation because of the extreme natures of their
cases.

In other words, the death penalty for drug traffickers
has done zilch to stem the spread of drugs into
Indonesian communities.

Dear Is Mise,

According to Wikipedia - it is believed that there
are around 130 people, Indonesians and foreign nationals
(as of 2013) sentenced to die in Indonesia.
Ten new death sentences are handed down annually.

Many of the persons awaiting execution have been waiting
for ten years or more.

Ironically, Indonesia is well noted as a strong advocate
against the death penalty for its citizens abroad.

Foxy,

Your logic is flawed, I might say (with equally flawed logic) that without the death penalty there could be 9 million addicts in Indonesia.

Foxy, the death penalty is not and has never been about either retribution or deterrence.

It does not deter and a moment's thought will show that it never could be a deterrent, since the crimes for which it is reserved are usually either crimes of passion or economically motivated. In the former case, the perpetrator is either unable to think clearly enough about the consequences or regards any price as worth paying. In the latter, those who benefit most from the economic transaction are rarely the ones who are held to account for the commission of the offence, while those who are held to account are rarely in a position to refuse to carry out the crime once it gets to that point.

Any prima facie claim for it as a normative retributive measure is unsound at best. The first and most obvious reason is that in a legal context, appropriate retribution is very arbitrary. It is defined by lawmakers and changes over time. In the present case, the previous Indonesian President declined to authorise use of the death penalty, while the current one chose to do so. Perhaps less obvious is that calculating an objectively fair penalty for any particular crime is by no means a trivial task. Judges spend years learning about the principles of sentencing.

As a sentence, it is fraught with problems for all those associated with it. The families of those who are subject to it suffer extreme anguish and are arguably subjected to punishment as innocent victims. Those who carry it out are often severely traumatised. There is a reason that only 3 of the rifles of the Indonesian execution squads carry live rounds.

It has been shown to offer no genuine catharsis for victims and their families in most cases. In fact, some such people are among the most active advocates against the US death penalty.

So what's left?

Simple: it is a display for the mob. And as the mob here has demonstrated very well, mobs haven't changed much for centuries.

Dear Craig,

Thank You for your well reasoned contribution.
I cannot argue with its logic.
And it surely presents an excellent case against
capital punishment.

chrisgaff1000,

Good informative post and thank you for the update of the Russian Mafia.

I don't believe that many here have any idea at all of the fearful (that word used again and advisedly I believe) Russian Mafia. However the fact that other gangs and mafias give them a wide berth should provoke some thought.

Where a shot to the heart is concerned, bleeding out is not relevant. A modern fast-stepping projectile has huge damage and shock effect, stopping the heart in seconds (there would be no effective pulse, any remaining heart muscle would be in ineffective spasms), or much more likely, instantaneously. Loss of consciousness is immediate and permanent. To take a parallel, that meets the high standard of humane slaughter. A firing squad has more than one bullet.

The pistol shot to the head is highly unlikely to be administration of the coup de grace ie ending of suffering (because the person is unconscious), but to satisfy medical death for a doctor.

There is the rare record of a soldier hit by several 5.56NATO equivalent and remaining conscious, but that would only be where none went anywhere near a vital organ and missed bone as well, which would have created shrapnel and more devastation. Imagine a 7.62NATO.

It is inconceivable that a properly drilled firing squad would miss the fist-sized heart area at short range. It presents a large target indeed. Ribs hit are added shrapnel. For insurance, where the shooters are seated with the rifle on a bench rest, missing a 20c coin at 25 metres is hard to do. Such incompetence would have seen the man tossed out of the military in early training.

Is Mise was an armourer. I believe he is a competent shot too. He might comment. Particularly regarding the reported Indonesian firing squad range of between five and ten metres.

Craig Minns, "Foxy, the death penalty is not and has never been about either retribution or deterrence"

What is?

Re-offending would be less common one would think.

This is all spin to take the attention away from the free choice of the criminals in planning and committing their offences, the seriousness of the offences and the resultant harm, magnified by crime consequent to the addiction of thousands.

The media pack is moving on to the next media circus, which relates to someone alleged to have trafficked 30kg of methamphetamine. Corruption in China? At a solid hit of 30milligrams that translates into a possible one million new youthful addicts and one hell of a crime wave.

Any wonder the police and medical services are overloaded. Illicit drugs are costing the taxpayer millions and are associated with DV and other violence including guns.

According to the Daily Mail they were shot a 00.33 and died at 01.02 it took about half an hour for them to die. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3058877/Bali-Nine-duo-Myuran-Sukumaran-Andrew-Chan-executed-firing-squad.html

& another report says they were shot at 3.32 AM. Who cares they're dead. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

“In the world ruled by tigers with ulcers, rutted by strictured bulls, scavenged by blind jackals”
Steinbeck.

Joko Widodo might be the ulcerated tiger but we seem to be gathering the rutting strictured bulls here.

This is what what the majority of Western Nations think of the death penalty;

“The European Union holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty; its abolition is a key objective for the Union’s human rights policy. Abolition is, of course, also a pre-condition for entry into the Union.”
http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/index_en.htm

They are not 'bleeding hearts' but rather nations who see the savagery implicit in state sanctioned murder, who recognise that this is an affront to western values such as respect for human rights, democracy and justice. I might even say they are countries that also reflect in their stance a New Testament sensibility of redemption, forgiveness and mercy rather than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth attitude that pervades so many other countries and societies.

It is called civilised behaviour.

I am proud to be part of a country whose governments have rightfully abandoned the death penalty.

When Keating declared he saw our future as 'Eurasian' my objection was not one of race but more a concern about values. There are some very 'Asian' sensibilities being propagated on this thread, having lived in Asia for many years I know them when I see them.

But probably the starkest is this comment from chrisgraff9000;

“I am getting the video tomorrow and will post it.”

Death porn is such a feature of some Asian cultures and one that I never came to terms with.

It is my hope for Australia that we manage to hold on the our progressive liberal Western values and the responses by the wider Australian public about the murders in Indonesia serve to strengthen that hope. They also make it easier to ignore the bleating of our resident OLO 'strictured bulls' whose impotent rantings seem so determined to align us with Asia that 'treasonous' seems not to be an entirely inappropriate label.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but the media coverage of this execution has been totally shameful and demonstrates beyond any doubt they've not got a skerrick of shame, or an apology for the gutter reporting that I've heard ? Furthermore, their speculation of how the execution's achieved, is more like they're engaging in some form of journalistic 'ballistic masturbation' !

Concerning the merits or morality of these two criminals being executed, I've always harboured an objection against capital punishment per se. Except that which has been in acted contemporaneous with the crime. An ISIS terrorist(s) caught 'in the act' of committing a crime against innocents (humanity).

That said, as far as these two are concerned, particularly SUKUMARAN he was a really vicious thug, using his intimidation and reputation to frighten the hell out all those unfortunate enough to cross his path. The fact he's deceased, concerns me little. While CHAN, was reputed as the brains and ringleader, I wouldn't know ? They played the game, and lost. The only real and tangible benefit for the Australian and the Indonesian community, was the demise of these two seasoned criminals.

I personally don't believe the Death Penalty is ever a deterrent. And in most cases I don't think it's meant to be. FOXY says it's more like society's retribution or punishment ? I think she's quite correct.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Welcome back.

I have missed your posts.

A question that needs to be asked is the involvement
of the AFP in this entire matter.

Why did the AFP provide
information to the Indonesian authorities and got these people
arrested in the first place?
After all these people were smuggling drugs out of Indonesia
into Australia. The AFP knew of the existence of the
death penalty in Indonesia - and what would happen
if Indonesians got hold of these Australians.
Why didn't the AFP wait until these people
reached Australia - and then either follow them and catch
those responsible for this drug network or get them to
give them the names of those involved. Apparently the head
of this drug trafficking network is alive and well and
living a life of luxury on the Gold Coast.

By reporting them to the Indonesians the AFP virtually sealed
their fate. We need to ask - why?

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that the
AFP does intend to offer an explanation of their
actions at a later time (out of respect for the
families of the deceased). Hopefully this will
provide us with the answers and clarification.

Dear Foxy,

By sealing their fate the AFP knew they would not have to deal with them in the future. It is quite common for those either committing crimes, pursuing those who commit crimes or defending those who commit crimes to seek another jurisdiction where the results are more apt to be to their liking. That is what the AFP did.

FOXY...

I don't know why the AFP is being pilloried by some on the Forum ? I understand some people blame them for the original plight the so called 'Bali nine' find themselves in ? I understand, Federal authorities; like AFP, Customs, DEFAT, ASIO, ASIS, PSCC, and SACPAV and couple of others, have by some law enforcement charter or convention, have an intelligence sharing agreement with other similar groups, around the world. To blame the AFP for the two executed individuals particular dilemma, is unfair.

On another issue concerning the Death Penalty. I sincerely believe there are a 'few' people on this planet who should be killed, not as a punishment, for the safety of humanity. One such individual I've already described to you and DAVID F some time ago ? So very dangerous, there's probably no appropriate place in which he should be housed ? Still many/most would never agree with me ? Somehow FOXY I think you might be more on my side than I'd ever dare to believe, with this particular fellow ?

OTB,

Can't find out much about Indonesian firing squads, there is plenty of information but most of it contradictory.

The rifle that they probably used is a variant of the FN, SLR in Australia, and made on machinery that we gave them from the SAF, at Lithgow; although they may have bought more since.

Their rifles are in 5.56 mm Nato and the round has an average velocity of 3,050 feet/second in common military loadings and 1,323 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.
If the range is 10 metres or less then the above figures would be virtually the impact figures.
Death would be instantaneous, particularly with multiple hits to the heart/lung area.

There is a lot of nonsense about some members of the firing squad having blanks but the soldiers would know if they fired a blank or not and so would the observers, so I think that it is highly unlikely that any blanks are used.

I sincerely hope I'm not reading too much into some threads ? FOXY 'appears' to think the AFP 'owe' the public an explanation for why they took an operational decision to appraise the Indonesian authorities of the activities of the Bali nine ? I offer my profound apologies if I've misunderstood you FOXY ?

In any event if we're to have an effective and proactive policing facility, surely they don't need to run their operational data or 'product' intel. past the public, each and every time, they wish to mount an operation, and allow it to 'progress' ? That's the exclusive domain of Magistrates, in most instances ?

The success or otherwise of modern operational policing often turns on intel, on intel alone ? 'Info' to support a 'search warrant', or a warrant for 'telecommunication intercept' all depends on verifiable intelligence ? This information 'must' satisfy a Magistrate. Even then, he can/may insert limitations on that warrant.

Of course there was no need for judicial oversight on the activities of the Bali Nine. The protocol for allowing both the dissemination of 'product' and permitting that operation to proceed forward, was always predicated on operational imperatives ?

Thank you Foxy,

Regarding the AFP, I think there is room for both yours and o sung wu's positions on their behavior. Co-ordination between agencies of different nations is vital for combating international crime such as drug smuggling.

But this is where I have drawn the line;

Quote;

“WHEN Lee Rush learned in April 2005 that his son Scott was off to Bali, he felt sick.”

“Scott had no money, no passport - as far as his father knew - and a history of drug use. Rush phoned an old lawyer friend, Robert Myers, who voiced his worst fears: that Scott might be travelling as a paid courier to carry drugs.”

“The two men agreed the 19-year-old had to be stopped. Myers rang a contact in the Australian Federal Police and asked him to have Scott intercepted before he left the country, on suspicion of illegal activity. By his account, he was assured this would happen.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/how-the-afp-trapped-the-bali-nine/story-e6frg6z6-1225910600831

I would have thought it was the duty of any police force in this country to 'serve and protect' Australians. Lee Rush rightly thought his intervention as a parent would have resulted in his son being protected from the Indonesian judicial system. Their duty was to him and by extension his son. They patently failed both Lee and Scott and should be rightly taken to task.

O sung wu may of course see things differently but I think Australians have an expectation that agencies are proactive in their enforcement duties but very few would agree that people are sacrificed to meet those ends, I think there is little doubt Scott Rush and to a degree his family were such a sacrifice.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thank You. You've explained my expectations regarding
our Federal Police much
better than I could have done.
It will be interesting to hear what explanations
will be given by the Federal Police. Julie Bishop
has stated that the Federal Police will explain
at a later date - out of respect to the families
of the deceased. I am not blaming the AFP for their
actions - I am simply trying to understand their
actions.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your concerns - and I understand them.
I'm just trying to get my head around this entire
matter - because I don't fully understand why our
law authorities behaved the way they did - because I
would have thought that their job was to protect
Australian citizens. I am not blaming them for what they
did - simply wanting to know why they did it.

Dear Foxy,

I doubt that protecting Australian citizens, unless it is protecting them from crime, is in the charter of the AFP. There is no more reason for them to protect an Australian citizen who is a criminal than to protect a citizen of another country who is a criminal.

Australia has a right to expect those within Australia's borders whatever citizenship they may hold to respect Australian law. Indonesia has a right to expect those within Indonesia's borders whatever citizenship they may hold to respect Indonesian law.

I am against capital punishment and do not think Sumarakan and Chan should have been executed. However, it was not the job of the AFP to protect them from that.

The ham-handed approach of Tony Abbott (think of what we've done for Indonesia.) almost assured their execution. When a person or a country does good it should not be to expect a quid pro quo. The campaign to arouse sympathy for them kept referring to them as 'boys'. They were not boys. They were criminals who knew what they were doing. I believe that even criminals who know what they were doing should not be executed. It is state-sanctioned murder. However, an honest appraisal of Sumarakan and Chan would have been less emotive but possibly more effective. The reason there should be no execution was not because they were innocent teenagers but because, however flawed they may be, they were still human beings.

Hi there FOXY & STEELEREDUX...

Of course I'm only speculating as to why the AFP chose to act or omit to act if you like, in the way they did ? I believe they are signatories to this 'Intelligence exchange' model that exists between various law enforcement agencies world wide ? I do know positively, that the AFP is the Interpol representative here in Australia.

I can't accurately recall, but didn't Mr Mick KELTY, the former AFP Commissioner travel to Bali to plea for leniency for Scott RUSH, when he too was originally sentenced to death ? Suggesting to the Indonesian Court of Appeal, that RUSH's age, his obvious naivety, and his insignificant place within the original pecking order of the 'Nine', I can't really say ? Whether Mr KELTY had a touch of conscience over the specific knowledge he possessed of the lad, supplied to him by Mr RUSH Snr., I couldn't say ?

Again I must stress that I have this total opposition to Capital Punishment, not for any particular moral or Religious argument, rather for a more heuristic or empirical reason ? As a modern, more scientifically advanced nation, the need to punish an individual by simply putting them to death is an admission that as a society we've failed in our endeavours to deal with our communities most serious misfit's and those few who're seemingly beyond any form of rehabilitation ?

I must admit, that I was the only detective, firstly in any squad in which I served, and latter I/C of my own squad, that did NOT support Capital Punishment ? Naturally, I withdrew tactically, from any discussion approaching the subject of the death penalty ?

I can only imagine the derision and ridicule I copped, in and around the various locker rooms, both at the old CIB and at the various LAC Stations that I served ! Seemingly for being 'out of step' with the other 'hard headed' jacks ! And did I care, couldn't give a 'sh.t' ! We could always retire to the car park after our shift.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for your opinions.

I do understand that these two men had committed a crime
(on foreign soil).
However the problem that I have understanding is
why would our federal police feel a moral responsibility
to report the crime to foreign authorities - knowing
that the men would face the death penality?

This is what I am having a problem understanding.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I am pleased to read that you stuck to your principles
despite what your fellow officers may have thought.

Judging from many of the comments in this discussion
it appears that some feel strongly that the punishment the men
received - death by firing squad fits the crime they
committed. No sympathy.

It does not seem to matter
that no one actually died from using their heroin as it
never was sold or consumed - the men were killed on
principle.

It also does not matter that the men committed
their crime over ten years ago - and have since proved
to be rehabilitated. Please for clemency had no effect.
And the drug trafficking trade will continue in Indonesia -
as it has done to date.
As will the corruption and graft. Drug barons will not
be charged, neither will
members of the police force, military, and judiciary -
all of whom will continue to sleep late at night
on very expensive mattresses. And we will continue to send
them $600 million in aid.

That's the way the game is played apparently.

Dear Foxy,

I think capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder. I think no one is executed justly. However, I do not agree with your arguments.

You wrote: "It does not seem to matter that no one actually died from using their heroin as it never was sold or consumed - the men were killed on principle."

If a person stealthily approaches a house and is apprehended before entry and that person is found to be carrying burglary tools that person has committed an offense and can be found guilty.

You also wrote: "It also does not matter that the men committed their crime over ten years ago - and have since proved to be rehabilitated."

They have not been executed earlier partly because they have employed legal procedures available to them under Indonesian law. They have not been proven to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation of a criminal is shown when the prisoner has been freed and and does not commit crimes. The two men behaved well in prison. That is not rehabilitation.

You also wrote: "And the drug trafficking trade will continue in Indonesia - as it has done to date. As will the corruption and graft. Drug barons will not be charged, neither will members of the police force, military, and judiciary - all of whom will continue to sleep late at night on very expensive mattresses. And we will continue to send them $600 million in aid."

The above is quite true. I believe that Blair, Bush and Howard should be indicted as war criminals for lying us into the Gulf Wars. However, that does not mean the Nazis at Nuremberg were unfairly convicted.

How much of the aid money to Indonesia actually goes to help the Indonesian people is moot. Australia has trained the Indonesian Kopassus division which has committed atrocities. Indonesia should get out of Irian Jaya. There are many injustices, and the injustices will continue. That fact we cannot remedy all injustices does not mean Chan and Sumarakan were unfairly convicted.

As I wrote previously I generally agree with you but not this time.

I totally oppose the death penalty in all situations. I do not oppose punishment for crime as such, its required, and its necessary. I think rehabilitation is more important than retribution, even for murderers and drug dealers etc. Their crimes are abhorrent, no one can deny that, and they have to be punished, but state sanctioned murder and that is what execution is, its not the answer.

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were not at the top of the pile in drug dealing, nowhere near it. These blokes organised the drug shipment for unnamed Mr Big's of the drug world, who are free and very much alive today. In a 10 year period Chan and Sukumaran showed, for whatever reason, they had reformed to some degree over that long period. From a purely pragmatic point of view, they could have been most useful in the reform of other prisoners, but not now.

Paul,

You're using emotive language, murder is by definition the unlawful taking of a human life, when a life is taken by a State under its laws then such an action is not unlawful.

Bye the way, is the taking of a human life justified when it is done in self defence?

Dear David F.,

Thank You for your opinions.

I've just come across an interesting article from
"New Matilda" which gives another perspective to
this issue:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/04/29/blood-their-hands-secret-government-treaties-helped-kill-chan-and-sukumaran

Is Mise, a bit of double dutch there, the state makes the laws, and then the state defines their state sanctioned murder as something else, therefore legitimising the whole thing.

Did you get the names of The Shooters Party, were any named Bob? What is your Shooters and Hooters Party policy on capital punishment, particularly firing squads? I would think they would be a 100% behind it, is there a recommended weapon for the job? What is the weapon of choice? The Greens totally oppose capital punishment as a matter of policy.

Bye the way, is the taking of a human life justified when it is done in self defence? Most likely yes, but that does not mean you should have the right to carry around an AK47 just in case, that most unlikely eventuality should arise. The Dodge City syndrome.

I answered your question, how about answering mine.

Dear Foxy,

The article reveals that Australia has signed treaties with Indonesia which had the potential of subjecting Australians to the death penalty which counters Australia's official opposition to the death penalty.

Australia has a long history of cooperating with Indonesia in doing the dirty. The Indonesian killings of 1965–1966 were an anti-communist purge following a failed coup of the 30 September Movement in Indonesia. The most widely accepted estimates are that more than 500,000 people were killed. The CIA described the massacre as "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s." Australia made no protest.

Gough Whitlam's government was the first to recognise the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. He knew that the Indonesian military had slaughtered in Balibo four Australian journalists who had committed no crime. Australia kept a blind eye to the many East Timorese who have been slaughtered because they objected to the occupation. Australia has recognised Indonesian occupation of West Papua or Irian Jaya and kept a blind eye to the many people who have been slaughtered because they objected to that occupation.

Bob Hawke authorised the sale of Steyr rifles to the Indonesian military against the advice of his own military.

Paul Keating came back from Indonesia proudly waving a treaty he signed with the Indonesian butcher Suharto.

At Canungra Australia has trained the Indonesian Kopassus Division which has been guilty of many atrocities.

Howard extended the dirty deals that various Labor governments had made with Indonesia.

Several hundred thousand people have been murdered in Indonesia in protest of Indonesian occupation.

Now Australia gets its knickers in a twist because a couple of drug smugglers have been executed. Why has it kept silent until now about the great atrocities Indonesia has committed?

Australia has swallowed a camel and strained at a gnat.

Paul1405, "These blokes organised the drug shipment for unnamed Mr Big's of the drug world, who are free and very much alive today"

You are determined not to mention that it is an Asian gang, imported scoundrels.

You also don't mention that the two convicted and now duly executed drug traffickers NEVER gave up their co-conspirators, the 'Mr Bigs' as you would have them.

They maintained their silence. Criminals do that, it is their usual form. However, had the two co-operated with police as any remorseful persons would have done, they would have impressed the Court and government.

There were the determined architects of their own fate to the last. Criminals are stupid, arrogant and irresponsible like that. The lawyers did well though. Has anyone totted up the $$ that were poured into these convicts and traced the sources? The 'fact-checking' ABC wouldn't be doing that.

Dear David F.,

Thank you for the added information.

This entire issue is very distressing.

Is it very distressing that in ten years of legal challenges and casting aspersions at authorities on both sides of the Timor Sea they never gave up their co-conspirators?

Australia owes a debt of thanks to all who were involved in preventing that near million doses of 'smack' landing in Australia to corrupt, harm and kill.

Standing in the Line of Duty
by Mike Birkes

You try to do what you know is right,
Protect and serve; fight the good fight.
Duty calls when you get the call.
For what you do, we thank you all.
We thank you all for the risks you take,
Becoming targets daily, for our sake.
We thank you all for watching as we sleep,
For waking every day, your watch to keep.

Standing proud in the line of duty,
Courage calls the brave to arms.
You wear the badge that marks your heart.
Standing in the line of fire for the call of duty.

You have our thanks, though silent we may be.
It takes some time for the secure to see.
Your presence makes us feel safe to walk the street,
Without fearing the people that we may meet.
For that we are forever in your debt;
You, our protectors, though we may never have met.
We thank you all for what you do,
And know that we have pride and respect for you.
We thank you all for watching as we sleep,
For waking every day, your watch to keep.

Standing proud in the line of duty,
Courage calls the brave to arms.
You wear the badge that marks your heart.
Standing in the line of fire for the call of duty.

January 30, 1998
(Written in the memory of Officer Colleen Waibel, Portland Police Department, killed in the line of duty, 1-27-1998)
http://criminaljustice911.tripod.com/poem2.html

Dear otb,

Perhaps the criminals didn't identify their co-conspirators because they could expect to be killed in prison if they did. Perhaps they didn't after they knew they were going to be executed because they could expect retribution to hit their families.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

What a truly emotive poem you've kindly cited herein ! I'm very grateful indeed that you've seen fit to include it in this particular Topic. Whereas often it's the crooks who seem to be lauded as hero's not police, for they're generally derided for their actions rather than for the positive contribution they each provide the community as a whole.

By providing that excerpt, you've honoured every single person who's ever chosen to wear the blue uniform. I thank you most profoundly for doing so. To think we even have a need to remind some people who precisely are the criminals in the scheme of things, is a very worrisome situation ?

Moreover to link the name of this brave soul, Constable Colleen WAIBEL (dec), in the same wretched circumstances as these two executed criminals, is indeed a very tragic illustration of our own impartiality and fair-mindedness I believe ?

Thank you again ONTHEBEACH, you've honoured every law-enforcement officer in this country !

ConservativeHippie,

The butterfly life cycle depiction was a metaphor.

The fundamental message of the cartoon was the period of metamorphosis (in this case, the pupa representing the period of incarceration) wherein rehabilitation is the outcome - and, finally, redemption.

I realise that this kind of thing flies a bit beyond the usual mentality of this forum...but there it was.

Poirot, I wonder if Jill Meagher & her family would agree with you that the more vicious criminals can indeed be rehabilitated.

Personally I have seen little evidence that they can be more than trained to delude the psychologist & parole boards into believing they have been.

Once eliminated they are no threat to anyone, & we can employ less of these naïve psychologist. Now that is a win win.

Hi there POIROT...

Thank you for your explanation of that specific cartoon, indeed it was rendered very well I thought. Concerning any sense of rehabilitation of CHAN and SUKUMARAN, ostensibly for all appearances they seemed to be far better human beings now, than the day they were apprehended. Whether or not they were technically restored back from whence they originally came, I don't know ?

Prima facia they certainly appeared to be ? CHAN an ordained Minister, while SUKUMARAN, a talented artist ? I honestly don't really know ? I knew quite a bit about Mr Myuran SUKUMARAN, and he was a real waste of space. A thug, standover man, and a potential 'heavy' within the group in which he'd run. A great intimidator with the drug crew, for extracting inordinate amounts of 'product' from his kind using 'force' by proxy, to meet his objectives..........? Now, well we'll never know shall we ? As I've said ad nauseam, I'm against the Death Penalty.

Dear Hassie and O Sung Wu,

Not sure if this will help - but here goes anyway:

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/04/28/myuran-sukumaran-s-final-painting.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/andrew-chan-in-his-own-words-death-drugs-and-rugby-league/story-fni0cx12-1227325728323

o sung wu,

I suppose ultimately it depends on whether one believes in atonement - and transformation.

On "reformation, courage and dignity" - from the Australian Catholic University...
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-catholic-university-reveals-scholarships-to-honour-executed-bali-9-duo-20150501-1mxmdp.html?stb=twt&skin=dumb-phone

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for the link.

I firmly believe in atonement and transformation.
At least for most people (not so sure about psychopaths
like Charles Manson and Ivan Milat).

This is a significant move by the Catholic University.

War kills many who have committed no crime. They were killed because they lived in a country that another country was a war with.

Australia has rightfully protested the death by execution of two of its citizens. I believe it is wrong to kill people even if they have been found guilty of crimes.

However, Australia gets part of its income from the sale of arms. These sales require an export license. The export licenses are classed commercial-in-confidence so the trade in death is not public knowledge. Australia provides material for the slaughter of the innocents. Apparently most of the arms sold goes to neighouring repressive governments to keep their own people in check.

What is Australia doing to prevent future wars?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17285 is my article reflecting on Anzac Day. In it are a number of suggestions for making the organised slaughter of war less likely. Think of what you can do or persuade your government to do to make such slaughter less likely.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for your article.

Many years ago I compiled an anthology (as part of
my university studies) on anti-nuclear Australian poetry.
I feared that our world had become so obsessed with
the problems of hatred and aggression that it would
allow peace and love to be regarded as soft and
weak. Yet our survival depends on their dominance.
Otherwise Stephen Vincent Benet's prophecy would
come true:

"Oh where are you coming from soldier,
gaunt soldier
with weapons beyond any reach of my mind
with weapons so deadly the world must grow older
and die in its tracks if it does not turn kind."

David Headon in "Imagining The Real," tells us -

"We need new ways of thinking to cope with the
nuclear age. It is here that writers, (such as yourself),
and others, with their concern for the human condition
and their special skills with language, can enable us
to imagine the horrific reality of nuclear arms and nerve
us to build an alternative future.

Paul,

As I don't have the ear of the S&F Party's MPs I wouldn't have a clue, but I imagine that as they don't have a policy to save all of humanity from itself, unlike the Greens, but only to serve the direct interests of their constituents then there would b no policy on capital punishment.

As to the best weapons for the job, what the Indonesians have seems to work well as the projectiles would take less than 1/3,000th of a second to pass through a human body.
The kinetic energy does massive damage and death is, for all practical purposes, instantaneous.
That's why shooting in a vital spot is a humane way of killing.

Is Mise,

<<serve the direct interests of their constituents>>

In NSW that is less than 4% of the voting public, and Bob Ballsup just fell in at position 19 from 21, needed a swag of preferences from nobody's to get elected. So much for the pro shooting lobby, their non existent policies are of no consequence anyway. so who cares what they make of capital punishment.

Dear Is Mise,

You may find the following link of some interest:

http://theconversation.com/utahs-firing-squad-plan-is-another-twist-in-americas-long-quest-for-a-perfect-execution-method-39293

The article raises issues that
are quite thought provoking.

We're told that shooting people does kill them more
quickly or reliably then electrocuting, gassing, or
poisoning them. However, it is harder to watch or read
about than lethal injection.
We're also told quite graphically about the horrific errors
involved with lethal injection.

One of the thoughts put forward is that guns uncomfortably blur
the line between the righteous violence of the state and the
lawless violence of the criminal. The gun we're told is,
historically speaking - the only instrument of execution that is
also commonly used by criminals. Its use in executions reminds us
of a past in which there was less of a distinction between the
state that carried out the law and those it punished.

The author states that its jarring loudness, its bloodiness
and its mutilating effects on the body, brings execution by
firing squad much closer to expressing the "eye for an eye"
logic. According to the author this will tend to remind
people that executions are indeed acts of extreme,
body-mutilating violence.

Yes POIROT & FOXY...

It would appear both of these fellows seemed to have been consigned to their fate, which would take a great deal of courage I would've thought ? Whether either of them were truly repented and rehabilitated, who'd know ? I've known some real 'heavies' in my time, and they'll surprise you on many levels ?

On one hand they leave you dumbfounded when they overtly display compassion for someone or other, and simultaneously leave you equally stunned on the callous level of their savagery upon another ? The only common denominator is their unabated viciousness with a fellow crim if that particular crim happens to give 'em up or cross them in some way ?

I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised at anything they may do, given they're society's misfits ! As they're generally considered, not as well adjusted to our accepted social mores and standards, as most of society's inhabitants ?

Back to Messrs CHAN and SUKUMARAN, I can only hope, both have made their peace, to their Gods, or some other higher value they may've both held dear ?

Something from left field, and totally unexpected. The Australian Catholic University is to offer scholarships in honour of executed drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
As one who is totally opposed to the death penalty I am at a loss to explain this one. I sympathies with the cause opposed to their execution, but I'm not about to put them up on as pedestal as some kind of martyrs to that cause, I still recognise they committed a very serious criminal act.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/bali-nine-scholarships-honour-of-chan-and-sukumaran-odd-abbott/6439222

Paul,

"In NSW that is less than 4% of the voting public, and Bob Ballsup just fell in at position 19 from 21, needed a swag of preferences from nobody's to get elected. So much for the pro shooting lobby, their non existent policies are of no consequence anyway. so who cares what they make of capital punishment."

None the less they do serve their constituents and unlike the Greens do not attempt to hinder the law-abiding activities of other people, also, unlike the Greens, they do not lie in Parliament and hide behind Parliamentary Privilege.

If you can show me one lie that they have told in Parliament I'll give you four Green MPs lies; of course I'll be spared the effort.

"....so who cares what they make of capital punishment."

So why ask?

As a Catholic I fully realize that any Catholic University can make dimwitted decisions.

A push for canonization will come later.

Dear Is Mise,

Just a case of a loose canon running a muck.

I would like to Thank all of the contributors
to this discussion.

The bodies of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
have now arrived in Sydney,

May their families find some closure now.

May the two men rest in peace.

See you on another discussion.

I see Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have new Sponsors.

Target. ;-)

Dear Jayb,

I guess it is easier if you tend to look at
certain human beings as "targets" to be destroyed
one by one, not as living entities capable of
being transformed and rehabilitated.

Foxy,

I wouldn't bother..

He of base intellect has deposited a few words on the page - (no doubt celebrating like a schoolboy would his roolly clever wit)

It's the sort of thing that one steps around on the pavement when out walking.

Foxy: not as living entities capable of being transformed and rehabilitated.

Ever noticed how people "get" God when the chips are down? Ever notice how Politicians & the Heads of big Banks, etc, suddenly "get" life threatening illnesses when they get caught? Then they can't go to jail. Strange that.

If these two had dobbed in their "Masters" I might have believed they were capable of being rehabilitated. But they didn't. All the crying & posturing is all a scam & big, big money for the Lawyers.

& poirot, my terrorist loving friend. Ditto x 2. My urine is sacred & I wouldn't waste it. ;-)

jayb,

"& poirot, my terrorist loving friend. Ditto x 2..."

Lol!

"...My urine is sacred & I wouldn't waste it."

I can't say I'm surprised...(although I wasn't referring to urine:)

I don't know about other people on this Forum who've, by necessity confronted death, either in a military, law enforcement or an emergency services worker capacity, but personally I've seen enough of it ? Despite my resolute and vocal intransigency towards criminals, nevertheless I take no joy whatsoever in seeing these two drug couriers executed, whatever the reason ?

And to keep them on this nebulous type of 'death row' (some rat infested little island somewhere) for a matter of six or ten weeks, where everyday they expect to be told they have seventy two hours before they're shot ? Amounts to torture in my opinion, and the Indonesian authorities need a good kick up the backside, and learn some humanity ! Even the 'needle happy' US Texan authorities set a date and stick to it !

Most of my life I've had to confront death's ugly countenance in more ways than one, either killing another human being and much worse 'trespassing' upon his recently deceased mangled body, by searching it and going through his meagre personal possessions, looking at tiny B&W personal photos, that had been carefully wrapped in plastic to prevent the excessive humidity and monsoon rains from destroying it ? How bloody ghoulish and grotesque ! But we used the 'Nuremburg' argument ? Our senior officers ordered us to search for 'intelligence' on any enemy KIA, through ambush or contact ?

Both CHRISGAFF9000 & JAYB would understand exactly what was done, as would IS MISE I suspect !

Or attending countless fatal's while a copper ? And then delivering news of the worst kind to the NOK, that no feeling person should ever have to deliver, all the while trying gently to inform them that a close family member is now deceased ?

And geez you get heartily sick of it all, I can tell you. I suppose most of my many detractor's say I'm becoming soft in my old age ? No, I think I've finally sought admission to the human race, that's all ?

o sung su

you write a lot of sense about the delay in the executions. THe problem is lawyers that profit greatly by stringing things out. How many appeals were these poor guys allowed. The UN sticking their unwanted bib in every situation (except to defend Israel) is also a joke. Personally after 10 years I don't think these guys should of been executed. Lets hope though that a few more Aussies might think twice before dealing in the death trade.I have known a number that have suicided as a result of the drug trade. Strangley enough in WA the Eagles football club have made a hero over one of their players that overdosed and have an annual footy match in his remembrance. Very sick and a 'great'example to the kids.

Dear Poirot,

The words won't really matter so much in a week -
a month- or a year.

Dear Jayb,

Did you know that -
When people are desperately thirsty they do
drink their own urine, sacred or not.
Also urine does have medicinal properties.
When stung by jelly-fish, urine numbs the
sting. Any Medical encyclopedia can provide
more info on the healing properties of urine.
So, you're not that far off base in your
belief that your urine is sacred.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I appreciate your sharing your experiences with us.
You always present us with another perspective.
Thank you.

o sung wu, from your post I can feel the pain you suffered in those confronting situations, and the heartache of having to inform the next of kin, no easy way out. The hardest thing I ever done in life was to sit with my own father in hospital, and tell him he only had weeks to live due to his cancer, we were very close, very much alike, but different, all hope had gone. The old man, survived only three weeks more. No you are not soft my friend, you are a human being, with the feeling of a human being.

Jay, you are getting desperate, quoting from the Jesuits of all people, hardly likely to present unbiased facts, now are they.
Going back to the 1970's, things have moved on from there. I am surprise your not quoting from 'Mein Kampf' on the subject. But I got to say most of your posts are interesting, and you do offer something different.

Poor old Beach is again in a total spin, confusing his Marxist/Feminists with his Feminists/Marxist, forever the believer in some great commie plot to bring down the world as we know it. Conspiracies abound in this blokes mind.

Runner, no one has a problem with your version of marriage and families, its the other way around. To you based on your religious belief, not only does everyone else have to accept your moral standards on marriage and families, they have to embrace them as well, or burn in hell.

Hippie, there is not much to say, unless Jay admits to wearing a pink tie or something. He will have to give you the answer to satisfy your curiosity.

Is Mise, you remind me of 'Horace Rumpole' and "she who must be obeyed." A couple of my all time favorites, both you on the forum, and Rumpole on TV.

Foxy and Susie, All I can say is thanks, after reading the rubbish, (see above) I come to your posts, and they restore my faith in this forum, that at least two people post things of value, for the rest of us to read. Thanks again.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your very kind words.

Discussions are not easy - and it is often
difficult to not only come up with hard facts and
evidence to prove one's claim but also try to
provide the reasoning behind the claim.
There are many posters that I admire on this
Forum. Many who have taught me a great deal, and
from whom I continue to learn.

The most difficult thing that I find to do - is not
to take any bait. There are quite a few posters
who manage to say what truly
needs saying, and they manage to stay calm and contained.
That's something I sometimes find hard to do. But I
shall continue to keep trying and following their
excellent example.

Again - Thanks for your kind words.

Paul,

If you can show me one lie that the S&F MPs have told in Parliament I'll give you four Green MP's lies; so take up the challenge.

Foxy: Did you know that - When people are desperately thirsty they do
drink their own urine, sacred or not.

Yes I did & not only for thirst reasons. Ghandi for drank a glass of his own urine every morning. Also, some Greyhound owners give their dogs a drink of their urine to counteract Arthritis in their joints. So it's gotta be good fa somtin'.

That's why I wouldn't pour it on the likes of our incumbent terrorist supporters.

I wonder if poirot has figured out if the World is Round or Flat yet? Never did answer that question, ay.

English common law recognises the importance of urine. It specifies that one should be tried by a jury of one's peers.

Dear Jayb,

I am impressed by your examples of drinking urine.
I assume that for you - yellow ice-cubes should
seem like a perfect fit for lemonade. Perhaps you
keep your pee in the fridge and apple juice in the
toilet.

As for Poirot not answering your question about whether
the earth is flat or round. Perhaps she didn't want
to embarrass you. It appears that you're presuming that
the boundary of the universe - is a kind of
surrounding wall - that's thinking
like ancestors - who thought there's an abyss at the
edge of flat earth.

Dear David F.,

Brilliant - as always!

Hi there RUNNER...

Your comments apropos our esteemed Lawyers in the community is correct. The legal profession whatever position they hold; Solicitors, Barristers, CPS or the judiciary itself ? All are known as 'Officers of the Court'. That is to say, they have a sacred responsibility and a duty, to ensure the highest standards of the law are preserved and maintained ?

The truth is clear, as the theory and the practice, are diametrically different, as you and I well know RUNNER. And it's a very sad state of affairs in this alleged advanced nation of ours.

Believe me. I have no truck with these types of crooks at all ! However, the torturous events, the delays, the misinformation, and their cruel treatment, was almost primeval. The (overtly) obvious corruption, went right up through the entire Indonesian judiciary, as well as the government itself, and a disgrace to the entire Indonesian political system.

Consequently their actions could only be described as inhuman. Yet they have the temerity to seek mercy for their own countrymen, who're under a sentence of death in other countries. Not to forget the menacing spectre of the all powerful Indonesian military, who plays a very influential part of this whole sorry mess. And remember, Indonesians DO NOT like Australians, at all. We're perceived as being weak, and very arrogant, and cannot mind our own business in the region.

Hi again PAUL1405...

Your insight and sensitivity is truly amazing ? Your claims of being a man of peace and compassion, doesn't obscure the distinct reality, that underneath you have a remarkable ability to see through the 'monotonous' and the 'mundane' ? And the extraordinary capacity to tease out, all those extraneous and unimportant details. For the express purpose of examining the 'real issues' that tend to bewilder and confound those of us, who're less rigorous and analytical with our thoughts and emotions.

For that insight Paul, I must thank you very much indeed !

Foxy: As for Poirot not answering your question about whether the earth is flat or round. Perhaps she didn't want to embarrass you.

Sorry, I don't do embarrass. Poirot, in keeping with her Terrorist friends, "should" say that the Earth is Flat, otherwise she would be an Apostate & you know what that would mean for her. Ay.

It appears that you're presuming that the boundary of the universe - is a kind of surrounding wall - that's thinking like ancestors - who thought there's an abyss at the edge of flat earth.

No, I believe that the Universe has no boundaries. A bit like the relationship between Atoms, Molecules, etc, only on a grander scale, maybe.

Remember the old story of the old Jewish lady, who, when asked what held the World up. She said it was on the back of a turtle, & what held the turtle up, Elephants! & what held the Elephant up. She said, "It's Elephants..., all the way down." ;-)

Foxy: I am impressed by your examples of drinking urine.

Thank you. I'm retired & have always been very curious about everything.

Foxy: I assume that for you - yellow ice-cubes should seem like a perfect fit for lemonade.

Hey, I never thought of that, Hmmm... but I don't drink soft drinks. Maybe two cans of Coke a year & very little alcohol. A carton of Harn Light lasts me a whole year & a six pack of Red about the same.

Foxy: Perhaps you keep your pee in the fridge.

I hear that's where the Greyhound trainers keep it.

Actually I should tell my wife about that cure. She has bad Arthritis. She has had her hands reconstructed & on Monday is having her foot done. She'll be in bed, at my mercy, for the next three months, the Surgeon tells me. She's got me a Medi-alert. I'll be run off my feet for a while.

Foxy: and apple juice in the toilet.

Well..., after I've run it passed my Kidneys, anyway. ;-)

Luv ya.

Dear Jayb,

I appreciate your bringing a chuckle or two into
this discussion.

Now, back to the topic ...

back on topic
What does Capital Punishment actually achieve.
Gets rid of scumbags out of the world for good
Those 2 will never smuggle drugs again. success
Probably be a few more thousands in our Jails atm maybe we could buy the Indonesians a few cases of bullets and and send a few plane loads of our problems to them. Rather then pretending this isnt happening

Dear Aussieboy,

Actually capital punishment in Indonesia does not
stop the drug trafficking trade. Attorney-General
H.M. Prasetyo has stated that the number of drug
users has risen to 4.5 million with 1.2 million of
them beyond the point of rehabilitation because of
the extreme natures of their cases.

In other words, the death penalty for drug traffickers
in Indonesia has done zilch to stem the spread of
drugs into Indonesian communities. Ironically, Indonesia
is well noted as a strong advocate against the
death penalty for its citizens abroad.

Attorney-General Prasetyo describes the tentacles of
crime-syndicates spreading beyond major cities to
rural areas - saying 45% of SE Asia's narcotics market is
in Indonesia and those involved with these syndicates are
Indonesia's police force and the military. Bribe-taking
by police is endemic. Notorious night-spots where drug
use is rife are also owned by prominent figures of the
military and police. Drugs are easily available in their
prisons (as we learned from the Corby experience) and the
judiciary is also riddled with graft - which is an
impenetrable barrier to convictions for drug barons.

Foxy,

"In other words, the death penalty for drug traffickers
in Indonesia has done zilch to stem the spread of
drugs into Indonesian communities."

How do you know?

As I said earlier the drug problem in Indonesia could have been much worse without the death penalty.

I wonder will the Australian Government now stop aid to Indonesia and thus shew them that we (as a nation) abhor their conduct and incidentally stop subsidizing their arms build up.

Foxy: Bribe-taking by police is endemic. Notorious night-spots where drug
use is rife are also owned by prominent figures of the military and police. Drugs are easily available in their prisons (as we learned from the Corby experience) and the judiciary is also riddled with graft - which is an impenetrable barrier to convictions for drug barons.

Foxy this is Common Knowledge, Everybody knows this except our Government, or they do, they just pretend it's not happening. As they say, "Always was & always will be." Just where to you think our Aid money goes? Graft & bribery are not considered crimes in SE Asia. It's their way of doing Business. Unfortunately Australians can't get their heads around that because, for the most part, we are closeted.

Regardless of weather Drug dealing is rife in SE Asia is no reason not to keep pursuing the matter. Indonesia has the death penalty, Everybody who goes there is informed of that fact. There are signs up everywhere. Do the Crime, do the time, Death Penalty 'n all.

Dear Is Mise and Jayb,

How do I know? The information was provided by Indonesia's
own attorney-general H.M. Prasetyo.

It is believed that
around 130 people, predominantly - foreign
nationals (as of 2013) are sentenced to die in
Indonesia. Ten new death sentences are handed down
annually and many of the persons awaiting execution have
been waiting for ten years or more.

Yet as stated earlier
ironically Indonesia is well noted as a strong advocate
against the death penalty for its citizens abroad.

Therefore the point being made is - why instead of the
death penalty - doesn't Indonesia go after their own
corrupt officials, police, military, and drug barons, if they
are serious in preventing drug trafficking - especially when
they are so selective to whom they apply the death penalty -
and especially when it does not stop the trade in Indonesian
communities - which
continues to escalate in that region. Capital punishment
is not a deterrent. And you don't need the wisdom of
Solomon to see that. The facts speak for themselves.

BTW: Julie Bishop left no stone unturned in trying to save
the two men:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/australia-offers-to-pay-jail-costs-for-bali-nine-pair-if-their-lives-are-sparred

It would seem that had they offered the judiciary hundreds of
thousand of dollars, the impenetrable barrier to the convictions
may have been lifted (as it is for the drug barons). There is
documented evidence provided for this by an earlier legal adviser
of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

I wonder what if anything our government will do with
this evidence? Also the AFP will be presenting their report
on this matter at a press conference early next week.

Hopefully - we'll get more facts. Another question that
needs to be asked - why did it take over ten years for our
government to pursue this matter, why did they not pursue
the matter when there was a more flexible President in
Indonesia a decade ago?

cont'd ...

Sorry I made a typo in the link. It should be:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/australia-offers-to-pay-jail-costs-for-bali-nine-pair-if-their-lives-are-spared

No one asked to have these men released from prison.
Simply not to be put to death - over ten years after their crime.

There is little doubt these two had appeared to be reformed and rehabilitated, however, there is also no doubt that the threat of being executed was a very strong motivator.

So, in the event this situation presents itself again, and the guilty ones show the signs of having been rehabilitated, why not release them on the grounds of indefinite parole with the condition being that if for the rest of their life they are convicted of any illegal drug offense, they be returned to Indonesia for immediate execution, no if's, no buts, no trial, either by the courts or the media.

At least then should someone claim to, or show similar signs of rehabilitation they would have a chance to prove it.

All we have done in this case is throw million of BORROWED dollars at these two, money that I'm sure could have been better spent because after all, they risk their own lives in a country where they knew the consequences should they be caught.

They other point I would make is to say to anyone out there who uses illegal drugs, you have blood on your hands because without your demands for illegal drugs, there would have been no trade for these two.

Hi BUTCH...

Your thought are valid, though have had currency for decades and decades. A person is released from gaol on parole, before the expiration of his head sentence, and should he breach the conditions of that parole he's returned to gaol to finish that sentence. Furthermore he's required to serve the additional time for the crime that originally caused him to breach his parole in the first instance.

Regrettably, the theory and the practice are generally not one of the same thing. Your suggestion of serving a type of 'life parole', would by necessity, need to be served in country ? Otherwise I'd hardly see a politically weak Australia, return either of them to Indonesia for execution, could you ? Nevertheless your concept is meritorious.

Talking about "blood on their hands,"
and illegal drugs - why not broaden this discussion
a bit further and let us take a look at those
making billions selling us - alcohol, nicotine,
valium, and anti-depressants? Why does Australian law
protect them and legalise their harful products?

I wonder how many people overdose or die from these
"legal" drugs?

Alcoholism, lung cancers, overdoses
from anti-depressants - are all damaging.

Why are only
illegal drug dealers considered to be morally responsible
for all resulting ill-effects on user/society
and therefore can face jail (or if on foreign soil -
the death penalty) while these other guys get away with
the ill effects of what they're selling to users and
society?

Just a few thoughts.

Foxy,

Revenue.

Foxy: Talking about "blood on their hands," and illegal drugs - why not broaden this discussion a bit further and let us take a look at those making billions selling us - alcohol, nicotine, valium, and anti-depressants? Why does Australian law protect them and legalise their harmful products?

The difference like being hit with a stick or a .50 cal. The stick can do a fair bit of damage, but the .50 is lethal.

I guess alcohol has been around for about 6000 years & Tobacco since the 1500 after Sir Walter Raleigh introduced it to English Society. A bit hard to get rid of, yes, but it is happening. Valium & anti-depressants are restricted to prescription & as so are the responsibility of the Doctor prescribing them. Like over the counter pain tablets some people will always abuse & use them for recreational purposes. They are a God send when taken properly.

I do favour looking into the medical use for Marijuana, if it's done properly & prescribed by a medical professional. After all Morphine, Cocaine & Heroin are prescribed by the medical profession in all sorts of derivatives.

Foxy,

"How do I know? The information was provided by Indonesia's
own attorney-general H.M. Prasetyo. "

How would he know?

It is simply un-knowable, one person or 100,000 may have been deterred,
I know that I'd be deterred, for only a fool would take the risk.
Would you not be deterred by the death penalty?

Dear Is Mise,

The stats given by Indonesia's attorney-general
speak for themselves. Drug trafficking has not
been deterred in the slightest (as the stats show)
due to capital punishment. The trade continues to
flourish despite capital punishment. That's how we know.

Foxy: Drug trafficking has not been deterred in the slightest (as the stats show) due to capital punishment.

So are you suggesting that they do what Australian Judges do. "Oh please be nice. I'm sure you have learnt you're lesson. Try not to be naughty. Next time, I'll give you a right ol' ticking off. Off you go & don't get caught again. You're costing me a fortune when you do."

Dear Jayb,

I was merely questioning those who support the
execution of small-time dealers like the Bali 9 -
why not go after those truly crippling our
society with "legal" drugs?

Just taking alcohol as an example - we're told that
alcohol kills 15 Australians and hospitalises another
430 every day.

According to the 2014 VicHealth and Foundation for Alcohol
Research and Education's Alcohol's Burden of Disease in
Australia Report - "the number of alcohol-attributed
hospitalisations and deaths has increased by 62% since the
study was last undertaken a decade ago."

Alcohol is killing more Australians than terrorism and
domestic violence and road fatalities and heroin
overdoses combined.

It's legality makes it no less lethal. It's the worst drug.
It's just that the majority of people in our society
happen to like it. Also the Australian booze industry is
worth $10 billion a year. Our laws encourage them to flourish.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/media-releases/alcohol-kills-15-australians-a-day

Foxy,

The statistics shew the past and current levels of drug trafficking, they cannot shew any deterrent effects, either positive or negative, because such deterrence is an unquantifiable item.
No one can possibly know how many people were disuaded from becoming drug dealers because of the death penalty.
When was a study done and how many people took part?
How many of those interviewed admitted that they intended to break the law?
How many of those interviewed admitted that they were drug smugglers and that possible death did not influence them?

Well, firstly no studies have been done and, secondly, no one would be fool enough to take part.

The fact that some official in Indonesia says that the death penalty is no deterrent, is and can only be, his opinion about something that he cannot possibly know.

I'll ask again, would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?

Dear Jayb,

No - I am not suggesting that drug traffickers
be released - what I am saying is that capital
punishment is not a deterrent for the drug trafficking
trade in Indonesia.

Dear Is Mise,

There is no credible scientific evidence that
the death penalty deters criminal behaviour.
There are many sites on the web that confirm
this fact - you can Google them.

The ABC Fact-Check is one such site and they
tell us that there is not enough
evidence to conclude that the death penalty deters.

This makes sense as greed for easy money perverts
some people's mental
processes - and they are prepared to take the risks.
That's human nature.

We're told that smoking causes lung cancer - yet
people continue to smoke. We're told about the
effects of alcohol - yet people continue to drink.
We're told not to go into shark-infested waters -
yet people still do. And, so it goes.

People assume that they will be ok - that bad things
will not happen to them.

Capital punishment
has done zilch to stem the spread of drugs into
Indonesian communities - drug statistics have not
dropped, and the trade continues as the Indonesian
attorney-general has confirmed.

Foxy, I think you wil, find that the execution of these two convicted criminals will have a detrimental effect on drug trafficking as they were still executed despite showing sings of being rehabilitated, which essentially sends out a message that says, 'no amount of remorse shown will repeal your sentence' and I see this as a clear message to future would be druggies.

As for alcohol, the majority of users, including myself, can satisfy their urge with less than $30 each time whereas drugs the likes of heroine cost thousands and have huge negative impacts on society.

Furthermore, there is no Mr Bigs in the alcohol world as it is a totally transparent industry, except for the odd home brewer, and it also generates much needed millions to the public purse. The fact that the 2% or so of users can't control themselves should not be reason for the remaining 98% to suffer the consequences, as we often do. I'm a responsible drinker, so too are my wife and adult kids.

But the underlying fact in the case if these two convicted ciminals that they KNOWINGLY traded in drugs in a country that put them to death if caught.

Essentially, they rolled the dice and then cried wolf?

The millions wasted on these two could have been far better spent.

Foxy: I was merely questioning those who support the execution of small-time dealers like the Bali 9.

These were not "small-time drug dealers" These two were in the big time with tentacles that were spread from China to Europe & Australia. Now I see the Media is making out Sukamaran was a hero for staying behind with the other 8. The "They are bringing Our Boys home" Headline is an absolute disgrace & to the memory of Servicemen who have died in Wars for Australia.

The Tobacco & Alcohol argument is a diversion. As Is Mise says, "the 98% who don't abuse should not be punished for the 2% who do." Those that do should have to pay for their folly. That means they must pay the full Expense for all Medical, Police & Emergency Services. It's their choice to abuse let them also pay.

Foxy,

Don't get it do you?
The number of people deterred by the death penalty cannot be calculated; I could say that 372 people in Australia were deterred from smuggling drugs in Indonesia by the fear of being caught and sentenced to death and that figure and claim would be totally wrong or right, there is simply no way of knowing.

I'll ask again, would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?

Is Mise,

There are a ton of ways to measure the deterrent effect that the death penalty has had or not. A precise number of those deterred is not necessary.

Talk of "the number of people deterred by the death penalty" is a useless red herring.

Gentlemen,

The execution of these two men will not give
a deterrent effect to drug trafficking or stop the
others from becoming victims of drug abuse.
Attorney-general Prasetyo speaking from Indonesia's
experience describes the tentacles of crime-syndicates
spreading beyond major cities to rural ones saying
45% of SE Asia's narcotics market is in Indonesia
and those involved with these syndicates are Indonesia's
police force and the military. Rampant drug use in the
prison population also needs to be addressed.
Many drug dealers continue to organise their networks
on the outside.

You can chose to believe whatever you want.
I have no control over that. Nor any inclination to
continue to argue with you. I see no further point
in doing that.

Dear Is Mise,

As for your question to me,
whether capital punishment would deter me if
I was a drug trafficker?
No. if I was a drug trafficker - it would not.
Because drug traffickers like gamblers, like
addicts, are prepared to take the gamble.
To them - it's worth the risk - as the continuation
of the drug trade in Indonesia clearly shows.

See you all on another discussion.

With respect Folks, the death penalty in this case is NOT MEANT as a DETERRENT ! It's meant as a PUNISHMENT. Apparently there's an abundance of empirical evidence suggesting capital punishment doesn't deter most crooks committing crimes that may attract the death penalty, so why bother ?

The reason is clear, it's to PUNISH the offender, as FOXY alluded to earlier. It's retribution by the community and/or the victims of that crime. Therefore, the question is, Is the death penalty a suitable or appropriate punishment for some very serious offences ?

In my opinion only, no I don't see a case for capital punishment - ever ! Other than as I've previously stated, executing a terrorist (ISAL, ISAT) contemporaneously with having been caught in the act !

next myth we will be told is that corporal punishment was not a deterrent for lawlessness. The evidence stares people in the face but they want to believe their flawed little dogmas. Total disrespect for authority, rape, murder, break ins, bashing of oldies etc etc. Oh thats right one use to be able to leave cars unlocked and houses unlocked and women by and large could walk the streets safely. It does not fit the lefty narrative that teaching kids respect through corporal punishment might just have had a little influence. And don't mention Singapore.

Dear Is Mise,

You said of Foxy “Don't get it do you?”

You then asked “would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?”

Well let's see if you get it.

I'm not sure of the price of heroin at the time of the Bali 9 arrests but but a kilo of cocaine that could be purchased for $30,000 in the US was fetching $190,000 in Australia.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/cocaine-drug-lords-hit-australia/story-e6freuy9-1225809970028

While the likes of Foxy would of course be deterred by the death penalty for an illegal action, in this sense it is an inane question as Foxy, we would hope, would never contemplate smuggling cocaine.

However if you owed a dealer $10,000 for drugs and physical threats were being made and you were offered a chance not only to clear the debt but make an extra $10,000 dollars would you?

Knowing that less than 5% of the drugs entering this country are detected would you roll the dice for a 20 to 1 chance to dramatically improve your circumstances against a very slim possibility of doing serious time in an American or Australian prison? You would probably consider it.

Instead of cocaine from the US let's say it is heroin through Bali.

What does putting the death penalty into the mix look like? You might indeed have second thoughts at $10,000.

However this time you owe the dealer $30,000 and threats are not only being made toward you but also your family and instead of $10,000 you are promised $30,000. the same odds of detection apply. You want out of the hole you have dug for yourself and you want to protect your family and yourself from harm. Anybody in that situation would consider it.

My argument is that in reality, within the context of the drug trade, the death penalty serves only to raise the reward of smuggling. There will always be people desperate enough to risk getting caught if that price is right and the harder it is to get drugs into a country the higher the price. These are the people you want to murder?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote;

“Is the death penalty a deterrent? Back in the 70's Iran announced plans to shoot drug smugglers at the border; the trafficking stopped very soon after a handful of foreigners were shot.”

Don't know where you plucked that one from but here is today's reality.

“Anti-narcotics and medical officials say more than 2.2 million of Iran's 80 million citizens already are addicted to illegal drugs, including 1.3 million on registered treatment programs. They say the numbers keep rising annually, even though use of the death penalty against convicted smugglers has increased, too, and now accounts for more than nine of every 10 executions.”

That's right 9 out of ever 10 executions being for drug smuggling alone. How has it protected its population? Well it hasn't. 2.2 million addicts is insane.

http://news.yahoo.com/drug-abuse-iran-rising-despite-executions-police-raids-152534464.html

STEELEREDUX...

On this particular issue I'd agree with you. State initiated punitive measures, rarely have any consequences of foreboding on the thinking of crooks. It's the question of 'illicit value', that ultimately figures as an integral component of the overall equation ?

Of course I'm basing my premise on the judicial climate that's currently prevailing here in Oz ? Whether the death penalty if it was still contained within our statutes, would make much difference, I'd suggest probably not ?

No doubt it might deter a few ? However providing the rewards are sufficiently attractive, many would still give it their best shot ? Interestingly, most intractable crooks are inveterate gamblers !

Banning a substance that many people want does not work. A post earlier mentioned that the addictive substances such as tobacco cause great damage and are sold legally.

IMHO they would cause more damage and lead to more crime if they were banned. The US in 1919 banned alcohol. It led to crime, corruption and an increase in alcoholism. In 1933 the Volstead amendment which banned alcohol was repealed. There is less alcoholism and corruption than there was during prohibition. The sensible thing to do is to legalise drugs. Then, like alcoholic beverages and tobacco, it would be under control, be a source of revenue and be less damaging.

Criminal recidivism is highest among criminals where drugs featured in their crimes. 60% re-offending shortly after release has been reported. That is a heck of a lot of criminals and an enormous array of criminal skills and know-how being added to in gaol - recycled and available to the gangs, established and fledgling.

That does not include the number who deal while in gaol and their criminal activities extending beyond the gaol.

Indonesia and some other countries must be putting some of the most serious traffickers out of their disgusting activities, permanently. Add to that the deterrent effect on their recruited mules, couriers and professional advisers, many of whom would be much more likely to turn State evidence to save themselves time, after the drug bosses and their enforcers have been removed from the equation.

According to police reports, criminals exist in a relatively small community and known to one another. The loss of the two Bali convicts would be noticed and would be disruptive to drug trafficking to Australia. While others may take their place, they have a learning curve and do not have the knowledge personal to criminals like the two Bali convicts and are more easily detected.

What would be interesting to know is what sentence others here would have instead, under what conditions and what minimum parole? Also, what to do about recidivism?

Dear runner,

Before I leave this discussion - I have to ask
are you pro capital punishment? Because from your
last post it would appear you are. That would be
somewhat of a surprise considering your consistent
stance of anti-abortion.

I would have assumed therefore - that
you would be totally against the taking of human lives.

I find it somewhat puzzling that a self-proclaimed
Christian such as yourself would even consider capital
punishment for anyone.

In contrast to Christianity, the
other monotheistic religions believe in "an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth." However Christ taught that
the vendetta and the desire for revenge are totally
inappropriate responses for his followers.

Christians are supposed to believe in forgiveness, even
of an enemy.

Some people may find that a monstrous
proposition. But one shedding fathomless light.
How are mortal men and women supposed to fulfill it? we
may well ask. However,I believe that is the real core of Christ's
moral teaching. Everything else being secondary.

What are you teaching your children?

Foxy,

"As for your question to me,
whether capital punishment would deter me if
I was a drug trafficker?"

That was not the last question, which was : "Would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?"
A simple 'Yes' or 'No, will suffice.

The proposition could be put that if the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime then no lesser penalty would be a deterrent.

Dear Is Mise,

I have already answered the question concerning the
death penalty. No. the death penalty does not
deter.

You can ask the same question as many different ways
as you like. The answer will be the same.
I can't make it any clearer for you.

Your argument for the death penalty is that it will
deter "illegal action." If that was the case there
would hardly be any "illegal action" in countries
that have capital punishment. The reverse is true.

Obviously most offenders do not expect to get caught or
punished. This is borne out by the number of cases that
do not lead to arrests, and the many arrests that do not
lead to convictions.

The death penalty often fails to deter because as presently
applied, no punishment is less swift or less certain.

A death sentence is never carried out immediately; to minimise
the chance of an innocent person being executed, courts
permit an elaborate review process that sometimes lasts a
decade or more. And far from being a certain punishment for
serious crime, the death sentence in many cases is often not
given or applied. Very few locals are either arrested or
executed in Indonesia - and certainly not the drug barons.
Only a small percentage of convicted
people who receive the death penalty in Indonesia
(mainly foreign
nationals) will, ever be executed.

All in all, risking the death penalty is a gamble, as stated
earlier, and most criminals presume the odds favour them.

Of course, in theory, it would be possible for example,
to make death
a swift and certain punishment for heinous crimes - but that
could involve the specter of approx. fifty executions in
the US, every day of the year, something without parallel or
precedent in a civilised society.

Dear Foxy,

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in two ways was an advance on what had gone before.

1. When a member of one family committed an offense on a member of another family it would start a tit-for-tat feud which would continue for generations. A specified recompense, and the matter was considered settled. The previous cycles of retaliation no longer went on.

2. The recompense was generally a specified fine and not a literal eye for eye.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye:

Judaism

Isaac Kalimi explains that the “lex talionis was humanized by the Rabbis who interpreted "an eye for an eye" to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation. As in the case of the Babylonian 'lex talionis', ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replaces the peshat (literal meaning) of the written Torah. Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to "adapt to changing social and intellectual ideas."

Talmud

The Talmud interprets the verses referring to "an eye for an eye" and similar expressions as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases and argues against the interpretations by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind, using the argument that such an interpretation would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner.

The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" — which underlies many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, "An eye for an eye, etc." suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently.

Hi there DAVID F...

I always enjoy your contributions DAVID F, though I don't always agree with what you write, nor do you mine, I'd expect ? Nevertheless your propositions, thoughts and opinions are always well considered, and reflective. Similarly, your assessment of the impact that the 'Prohibition period' had on the entire US, back in the twenties. Far from reducing the deleterious effects of booze, they caused a massive increase in organised crime, mob rule, murder and general mayhem ? Worse still, it manifestly increased, even accelerated (apparently) police corruption, specifically in the City of Chicago and environs.

I suppose on the positive side, (if it could be described as 'positive') it did lead to the introduction of the then fledging, Federal Bureau of Investigation, through the intercession of Mr Eliot NESS and his various taxation and financial investigator's. As a consequence, it did seem to increase the standing and ranking of a hitherto relatively unknown federal investigator by the name of John Edger HOOVER, subsequently to become the first and later, long term Director of the FBI. I'd not wish to see any government in this country, try to further regulate access to alcohol. What a mess that would create ?

Foxy,

I'll ask again, would the death penalty deter you from an illegal action?

It's a very simple question.

Would the threat of life imprisonment deter you?

Another simple question

If as Fox believes punishments do not deter, that would make a mockery of all laws. Because there are always penalties for non-compliance, even if that is not to get the benefit.

Of course penalties are a deterrent. Those politicians who say otherwise had better review the Bills they have passed to remove all penalties and as some extreme leftists would have in the case of criminal offending (especially by ethnic criminals!), blame society and themselves instead.

Lunar stuff. However the extreme leftists and the Greens are looking out for their demographic, I suppose.

Is there any poster on OLO who is not deterred by penalties, including the death penalty?

otb,

Of course - Thank you for reminding everyone that its
the "extreme leftists" and
your favourite Greens, who want prisons
to be replaced by a sort of friendly, sunny, rehab centers,
tax-supported, in which burglars, rapists, murderers, are
counciled and encouraged to think of themselves as
potentially productive members of society. And of course
the ones committing these crimes are the "ethnic crims."

The "extreme leftists" do not after all appreciate the
complexities and contradictions inherent in our society's
attempts to successfully address criminal activity.

It's only "decent-hard-working" folk like yourself that
really know what's going on and totally get it.

I have no doubt some people do consider the death penalty before doing those crimes, but obviously not enough do because many are still committing the crimes!

Everyone has heard of the Westerners who have been executed in countries like Indonesia and Thailand, but yet the crimes are still being committed and still more people are on death row or being executed.

There are plenty of warnings in all airports about the laws of the country you are entering, so there should be no surprises.

Isn't that enough reason to say the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, or is that fact too hard to comprehend Is Mise?

Fox, "And of course the ones committing these crimes are the 'ethnic crims'"

LOL, you would put your Strawman spin on it. It is always obvious when you are on the defensive.

You are constantly side-stepping the issue. Here again,
"If as Fox believes punishments do not deter, that would make a mockery of all laws. Because there are always penalties for non-compliance, even if that is not to get the benefit."

Foxy

'Before I leave this discussion - I have to ask
are you pro capital punishment? '

In certain situations I believe it is appropriate. I think the progressives stance of opposing the death penalty but condoning baby murder is much more at odds than my belief.

You write

'Christians are supposed to believe in forgiveness, even
of an enemy. '

Mercy is better than judgement. Thats true. Jesus is speaking to believers on the individual basis. He did not condemn the Romans for hanging the thieves on the cross next to Him.

I do believe a nation has the right to put laws in place that will make a place safe for all to live. Basically in this nation we have rapist doing very short terms in prison, I personally know a man who only did 3 years for killing his wife, repeat paedophiles serving short terms for ruining many lives. . On top of that we kill millions of unborn babies often for convenience sake. We have no right to critize another countries laws.

Personally I believe the men put to death in Indonesia went straight to be with the Lord. It appeared by all accounts that they genuinely repented of their crimes and sins. In my opinion they are far better off than all those who have not repented and come to Christ. I know this is offensive to many.

Suse,

"I have no doubt some people do consider the death penalty before doing those crimes, but obviously not enough do because many are still committing the crimes!....Isn't that enough reason to say the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, or is that fact too hard to comprehend Is Mise?"

I'm glad that you agree with me that the death penalty is a deterrent, even if you do consider it to be not much of a deterrent.

Foxy,

Waiting!!

"What does capital punishment actually achieve?

That's simple!..:)....Less F..k-wits on the planet.

Runner...So your saying God is cool with drug dealers?...Some how I don't think so:)

Tally

'Runner...So your saying God is cool with drug dealers?...Some how I don't think so:)'

No Tally I am saying that God is cool with people who are forgiven because they have put their faith in Christ and turned from their sin.

Sorry Runner, I didn't read it right...thank you for the correction.

Tally

I've avoided getting too involved in this discussion because there's nothing I could say that I haven't said before. But what I will say (again) is that it's not so much that the death penalty isn’t a deterrent at all; more that it appears to be no more of a deterrent than LWOP. In many cases, however, offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions at all, or seriously miscalculate the risks when they do; so to that extent, it is accurate to simply say that the death penalty doesn’t deter.

For reasons that I've mentioned several times before on OLO, the deterrence effect that severity of punishment has on crime is statistically insignificant, only certainty and swiftness seem to have an effect.

If anyone's interested in deterrence theory and what the data actually says, then I would recommend reading some peer-reviewed literature on it because this is getting painful to watch.

AJ Philips

Yes I know the feel on saying points over and over again...So what we can conclude to the findings, that God, law, doesn't work and I find that....Humans work in conventional means of just locking them up to the point of where we are as humans, we can all go back to animals. Even the word "human" tells a lot about ourselves even if we don't see it.

Each country has its laws....I don't always agree with them, but we come from a long line of people that have tried many ways from turning the ape into something less primitive, and I myself are at a loss to help in anyway.

I can only be a good person, cause I want to be, and being that person I am, I can only share it with others.

Tally

Again Thank You for your various contributions to
my discussion.

I have nothing more to say. I've said it all.
And I don't care to go on repeating the facts.
Except to leave you with
this final link from the Jakarta Post which tells us
the realities concerning the death penalty
and drug trafficking in Indonesia:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/10/death-penalty-does-not-deter-drug-traffickers.html

Dear o sung wu,

J. Edgar Hoover was a very mixed bag. He had little regard for civil liberties, had an unreasonable hold on power supposedly having a lot of dirt on various public officials which he held over their heads, and a complicated connection with organised crime. He was a publicity hound who could be vindictive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover tells about him.

In a democratic society policemen and military men should have respect for civil authority and should not be controlling figures in their own right.

I have the impression that you are a decent person who has been conscientious in your profession.

Fox,

Included in the facts you say you don't want to keep repeating you might include some facts about the possible 900,000 victims and families of the 'smack' those convicted drug traffickers were planning to release in Australia.

You might also have a talk with the anguished parents, police and authorities dealing with young people who have become addicts overnight because of drug gangs.

There was a relatively recent report in a newspaper that revealed the fact too that drug traffickers are deal with very leniently by Australian courts and more so in some States. They are recycled quickly through the 'higher education' (sic) of gaol, to re-offend soon after with the benefit of their additional skills and contacts.

While theoretically and generalising about all crimes it may well be that increased penalties may not be more effective in deterring some criminals and the ideal is swift detection, there are political parties and lobbyists who refuse to build up police forces and give them the technology, skills and inter-jurisdictional cooperation they require to do their job effectively. Police are also emphatic that courts are too lenient and maximum sentences are rarely almost never served. Well publicised rape+murders prove that point, but the media could say the same with bells on regarding drug gangs.

As well, the federal government(s) should be held accountable for not adequately treating the risks of importing toxic political systems and cultural traditions of violence and crime, particularly criminal gangs, through soft immigration policies and lapses in policy and screening.

While some here have attempted to excuse drug traffickers by claiming that drugs are available in Indonesia and elsewhere, those drugs are catering to a market. Drug traffickers are making millions out of developing the Australian market, resulting in a problem that is now well out of control.

What about the victims and their families? Forgotten.

otb,

Once again as usual you've put your own
interpretation of what is being said.
I suggest that you go back and read my
posts. I am not excusing drug traffickers
by any stretch of the imagination or
condoning their behaviour, neither am I against
punihsment of crimes. We are discussing
why the death penalty is not a deterrent -
especially in Indonesia. The Jakarta Post
explains it quite well - if you are interested.

Criminologists have pointed out that the best
deterrence is not necessarily the most severe
punishment; rather the best deterrence is one
that is swift and certain. If punishment follows soon
after the crime, and if there is little doubt
that it will follow, the crime rate according
to criminologists - will be low, but if
people think they may escape punishment
indefinitely, than the sanctions will have a
much less deterrent effect.

Anyway - read the link I gave from the Jakarta
Post - it explains the situation in Indonesia
rather well.

yep the dogma is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Absolute nonsense although no doubt countless studies to back up the dogma. It defies commonsense and logic but then again the 'experts'say so. By all means oppose the death penalty but don't perpetuate the lie that its not a deterrent.

In other words. runner, you're just going to believe what you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts that.

What a surprise.

Dear runner,

Remember what Christ said when on the cross? -
"Father forgive them for they know not
what they do..." He did not say -
"Kill them for their crimes!"

Oh Foxy you should try a little harder not to take things out of context

'"Father forgive them for they know not what they do..." He did not say - "Kill them for their crimes!"

Of course Jesus asked forgiveness for His killers. He was innocent. To equate murderers, rapist and drug dealers with Christ is nothing short of blasphemy. The analogy you draw is deceitful and wrong.

AJ

no what it means is people like yourself turn a blind eye to what is very obvious. You go to extraordinary lengths to convince people that white is black and red is green. At least you are consistent with your pig headed blindness.

runner,

What is “obvious” and “common sense” to you is only obvious and common sense because it is based on incomplete and/or incorrect information. It was also once "obvious" that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

So my point still stands. You're just going to believe what you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts that.

in my late teens I along with all my other foolish mates would get a skin full of grog and drive home. Then came random breath testing and the automatic disqualifying of ones drivers licence if caught. Some of my mates still decided to run the gauntlet. A number of others heeded the warnings knowing the consequences were not worth the risk. If people would give up drink driving with the threat of 3 months suspension how much would they give up dealing drugs with the threat of the death penalty. Not everyone would come to their senses but at least some would.

Dear runner,

Prejudice is a great time saver.
You can form opinions without having to
get the facts.
(E.B. White).

cont'd ...

BTW: You missed the point of the real core of
Christ's moral teaching. Christ taught that
the vendetta and the desire for revenge are
totally inappropriate responses for his followers.
Your arguments are most inappropriate.

yes Foxy and you can distort the facts to hide the truth. You of all should know that.

Thanks for that, runner. That’s a good demonstration of what I meant by basing what is “obvious” or “common sense” on incomplete or incorrect information.

You’ve also ignored the distinction that I pointed out earlier of ‘no more of a deterrent than LWOP’ and ‘not a deterrent at all’.

You appear to be applying rational choice theory quite biasedly, I've noticed. Obviously you favour it. So can you explain to me how you were able to determine that it is equally relevant to both drink driving and drug trafficking? How did you determine that the life-course trajectories, turning points and transitions that place an individual at a greater risk of committing each of those crimes were irrelevant to your application of rational choice theory?

Or are you just speaking rubbish again?

I love how conservatives on OLO think this stuff is so simple. According to them, a good clip around the earhole and harsher sentencing could replace the need for criminological studies entirely. Why, I've seen two conservatives on OLO claim that poverty can't be a contributing factor to [street] crime because there's not much crime in rural areas.

You couldn't make this stuff up!

'I love how conservatives on OLO think this stuff is so simple'

actually AJ it is the regressives who twist things that are so simple that they can't add one and one. I strongly suspect it is your flawed narratives that produce such illogical results. It is actually the stuff you make up in your head that leads you to ridiculous conclusions.

'According to them, a good clip around the earhole and harsher sentencing could replace the need for criminological studies entirely.

actually AJ there was far less crime with kids when they did get a clip around the ears instead of the endless excuses the 'criminological studies'come up with for disgusting behaviour. You don't really have the intellectual dishonesty to believe that 'criminological studies' are going to give an accurate picture. Give us a break. Give me the man on the street anyday.

You really don’t have anything, do you runner?

<<actually AJ it is the regressives who twist things that are so simple that they can't add one and one. I strongly suspect it is your flawed narratives that produce such illogical results. It is actually the stuff you make up in your head that leads you to ridiculous conclusions.>>

Where is your evidence for this? Let me guess, it’s your “common sense”.

<<actually AJ there was far less crime with kids when they did get a clip around the ears instead of the endless excuses the 'criminological studies'come up with for disgusting behaviour.>>

No, there was more crime, we just didn't hear about it as much, and crime was more narrowly defined back in the 'good ol' days'. But you knew I was going to say that and came up with this little conspiracy theory in anticipation of it...

<<You don't really have the intellectual dishonesty to believe that 'criminological studies' are going to give an accurate picture.>>

Where is your evidence for the alleged deceit? It’s your “common sense” again, isn’t it?

How is it, too, that out of millions of academics, somehow no-one blows the whistle? I bet it’s the Illuminati!

<<Give me the man on the street anyday.>>

Yeah because his limited observations are really going to be more reliable than over 100 years of research and data.

Looks like my initial point - about you simply believing whatever you want - still stands.

Oh AJ its just my imagination that I used to leave my home and car unlocked and never got broken into. Its just my imagination that teachers in all my time at school never got bashed. Its just my imagination that suicide happens among the youth in my community weekly when it rarely occured before. Your conclusions are pathetic.

'How is it, too, that out of millions of academics, somehow no-one blows the whistle? I bet it’s the Illuminati!

just ask any scientist who has tried a little honesty when exposing the gw fraud. Oh thats right academics are exempt from deceit and corruption. Keep wanting to believe AJ even though what you see says otherwise. And you claim to believe in science!

G'day there DAVID F...

Yes indeed HOOVER certainly was a mixed bag as you quite correctly stated. I've read a bit about him and his activities, and it's very true he liked to gather dirt on anyone he thought he could control, and use it as 'unofficial' leverage in order to get his way. By the way, many thanks for that extract on HOOVER.

I must confess, he's not 'Robinson Caruso' in his quest to vocationally blackmail, those either within his organisation, or outside his direct span of control. Still, I don't believe this is the place or venue to ventilate these allegations ?

That old maxim still rules supreme:- police 'know' something; but they can't 'prove' it, to the satisfaction of a court of law ?

Please DAVID F., I'm not whinging, OK ? But, before I die, there's a VIP here in NSW who deserves to be in prison for a long time ? He's either too smart, too well protected or whatever, but he's a real bastard with a capital 'B' ! The 'old maxim' still remains ?

I've always believed if you can't nail a bloke with the enormous powers and wherewithal that are 'officially' conferred and endowed on police legitimately, then get out of the job !

A lot has been said herein on 'deterrence' ? All the crooks that I've had direct involvement (as 'case officer'), I can't recall a single one of 'em, after being arrested, ever speak or lament on the real prospect of now confronting a substantial 'lagging' for their crime ?

The only comments they generally make, is some vain hope of firstly getting bail, "...will you oppose it boss..." ? in order they may well 'fail to answer', and later, a 'soft' trial judge/justice ?

Few of them ever concern themselves with the prospect of facing inordinately long periods of imprisonment. It's just an occupational hazard, nothing more !

Still that said, I've never had to deal with a crook, who's had the spectre of a death sentence hovering about his head either ?

So now you’re engaging in hysterics, runner?

<<Oh AJ its just my imagination that I used to leave my home and car unlocked and never got broken into.>>

No, you had the illusion of being able to do such things more safely because there wasn’t a 24-hour news cycle reminding you of how scary the world was and crimes weren't reported as often in the 'good ol' days'. Furthermore, news outlets hadn’t yet caught on to the fact that audiences are won by focussing on street crime - violent crimes in particular. We all love to shake our heads in disgust at what the world is apparently coming to. Every generation has. It’s a perverse little fascination of humans.

<<Its just my imagination that teachers in all my time at school never got bashed.>>

Assault is the one form of crime that actually has been on the rise over the last few decades.

<<Its just my imagination that suicide happens among the youth in my community weekly when it rarely occured before.>>

This is irrelevant. Suicide is no longer a crime in Australia and never should have been. Either way, suicide and criminal activity are two very different kinds of responses to similar social factors, so including it to support your overarching assumption is pointless.

<<just ask any scientist who has tried a little honesty when exposing the gw fraud.

Who is an example here and what was their evidence of fraud?

Dear o sung wu,

I have the idea that police power is very limited in one respect. If you can catch a criminal in the process of committing an illegal act there's no question that you can bring him or her in.

I don't doubt that the VIP in NSW you mentioned is a real nogoodnik, but unless someone in authority orders you to get the evidence to establish that, you are powerless to do anything. You cannot subpoena bank statements on your own or do anything else to get the goods unless you are authorised to do so.

I think the Gulf War was one we were lied into and the Bushes, Blair and Howard all lied us into a destructive and expensive war. Bush 2 lied about Hussein's connection with Al Qaeda, Hussein's purchase of yellowcake and

hadn't finished...

and his possession of WMD. Blair lied about WMD going off in 45 minutes after an attack. Howard lied about the presence of the presence of SAS in Iraq two months before the attack. Getting one's country into an aggressive war was one of the charges against the Nazis at Nuremberg. They could be charged because they were the losers.

I doubt that the VIP in NSW did anything as bad as the Bushes, Blair and Howard did, but they can't be brought to justice.

Hi (again) DAVID F...

Unfortunately, this particular individual wields enormous power and influence, and could have me squashed in a heartbeat. Some years ago, they came a bit closer to nailing him, however the witness concerned, a decent, honest man apparently in hindsight reasoned perhaps he was mistaken, and he had erred in his original recollection of the events that made up his original evidence ?

I would think this fellow is now probably retired, and wouldn't dare to put his head above the 'parapet' again, for all the tea in china ? The crime is not one of dishonesty, or corruption whilst in office, but one of immense moral turpitude, but because of who this fellow is, he's virtually untouchable ! He poses no 'physical' threat to anyone, but he has the ability to extirpate a persons good fame and character, in the blink of an eye.

I understand exactly what you've alluded to David, with Messrs BUSH'S I & II, BLAIR and HOWARD, and I certainly wouldn't suggest this fellow's crime(s) approaches anywhere near the same dimensions of that particular group ? Nevertheless, the victims were certainly as helpless, innocent and vulnerable as any other group you'd care to cite ? And he's seemingly got clean away with it. It's left many of us and the victims, chewing feathers I can tell you ?

Foxy,

I read the link to the Jakarta Post with interest and it provides not a shred of evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
There can be no possible way that the number of people deterred can be gauged, but both Suse and I are in agreement that it is a deterrent and I freely admit that it deters me, as do most other penalties at law.

Penalties are deterrents, you haven't told us yet if the death penalty would deter you.

On the link that you gave there is a piece about what Indonesians think of Australia and Australians, particularly our politicians.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/05/05/australia-lacks-cultural-competence-understand-ri.html

AJP: offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions at all, or seriously miscalculate the risks when they do; so to that extent, it is accurate to simply say that the death penalty doesn’t deter.

True. But the Death Penalty does get rid of Societies rubbish permanently. It also saves the tremendous expense of looking after them for the rest of their lives.

AJP: only certainty and swiftness seem to have an effect.

Yes, I believe the Bali Nine should have been tried in a week & executed in the following week. It would have solved this drawn out circus instigated by the Media.

AJP: It was also once "obvious" that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

There are a few people on OLO that still believe that. ;-)

AJP: If anyone's interested in deterrence theory and what the data actually says, then I would recommend reading some peer-reviewed literature.

The trouble is with some peer-reviewed literature is that it's some persons personal view backed up by like minded peoples view. It has the semblance of believability but so does someone's opposite view backed up like minded peoples opposite view. It really doesn't mean much. Their opinions are as good as mine if I have a group of like minded individuals who agree with me.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm starting to wonder if you can really be this dense.

Perhaps we should take this slowly and see if anything clicks.

In the first couple of years of kitesurfing we lost quite a few riders, 24 in one year from memory. I got myself pretty badly trashed a couple of times, once pissing blood for a very long, rather torrid evening. My reward? Mastering a sport that was in its infancy and gave loads of pleasure along with the occasional terror.

Most of us know that if we stick a couple of knives into a toaster to free a piece jammed bread while the toaster is still we face a real chance of serious harm. But there are a few who, even knowing the likely consequences, do exactly that. The potential reward? A slice of toast.

Hearing the back stories of the others of the Bali 9 is a case in point. There was really little trouble in getting the crew together for this job.

Scott Rush (19) was applying for the Airforce but he decided to go for a night on the town with a mate Michael Czugaj (19) who he use to play footy with in high school. While out they met a bloke named Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen (21) who talked them into the scheme.

Norman (19), Lawrence and Stevens all worked in the same catering firm as Chan. All were employed with regular work but even knowing the risk put their hands up to do a run to Bali. Few could be called seasoned criminals carefully weighing the risks but rather impetuous Aussie teenagers deciding to take a punt.

Their reward? Quite a bit of money.

Cont...

Cont...

I've done some pretty stupid things that may well have ended in my demise for zero monetary reward, and I'm ashamed to say there were times I put others at risk because of my actions. At the time though it was all about the thrill and little regard for the consequences.

But there is a whole lot of difference between somebody dying because of their own stupidity and having another human being deliberately loading a bullet into a firearm, taking aim and shooting someone else through the heart. Virtually all the Western nations of the world bar the US have decided that the sanctity of life far outweighs any nebulous gains of capital punishment. They see its abolition as a mark of civilised behaviour.

I would say if you flashed the promise of six months wages for a quick trip to Bali under many a young Australian's nose, even if you warned them there was a fair amount of risk involved, you would have little trouble finding another nine jumping at the chance. I'm just as sure there are any number of them doing that run right now.

Deterrence my arse.

Should they be murdered for it? Not in my book.

Dear Is Mise,

If you actually read the link I gave to the
article in the Jakarta Post and still think
that the death penalty in Indonesia is a
deterrent to drug traffickers there - then
you're obviously not interested in the facts
as presented by the Jakarta Post which makes it
quite clear that - according to the 2013 Annual
Report of Indonesia's National Narcotics Agency
(BNN) there were 260 drug traffickers arrested in
2013 and increase from 157 people in 2011 and
202 in 2012. These numbers show that while
the death penalty is continuously imposed and
executions are carried out, the crime of drug trafficking
shows no sign of abating.

It seems obvious that the death penalty does not deter
drug traffickers. The Jakarta Post also states that
in the past few years there have been cases where drug
traffickers were able to operate from inside the
prison. This indicates that they are not afraid of the
penalty because they can bribe prison officials
and other law enforcers. Hence the argument that the
death penalty carries a deterrence effect is implausible.

But there's more. Go back and have another re-read of the
Jakarta Post. This time with an open-mind. Perhaps then
you will understand the point that is being made regarding
the death penalty in Indonesia for drug traffickers.

Although I suspect, that you will not modify your judgements.
In any case - I am tired of arguing. I have no wish to
quarrel. I've done a tremendous amount of research on
the subject of capital punishment. Decisions about capital
punishment, are not really about deterrence. They are about
retribution - or in Indonesia's case currently - they're
political.

Let us leave it at that.
There's nothing more that I care to add.

Jayb,

<<But the Death Penalty does get rid of Societies rubbish permanently.>>

Not very reliably or fairly given the arbitrariness of its application in countries where it’s practiced.

<<It also saves the tremendous expense of looking after them for the rest of their lives.>>

It certainly doesn’t in the US, and I’m pretty sure an Australian model would look quite similar. Death row inmates can spend up to 25 years on death row and add to that the fact that cases seeking the death penalty cost at least double in court. The death penalty usually costs more that LWOP in the US and never less.

<<Yes, I believe the Bali Nine should have been tried in a week & executed in the following week.>>

Those on death row are there for a long time to ensure guilt and to wait for any possible future advancements or understandings that may find or make us aware of mistakes (e.g. DNA technology, the realisation that eye witness testimony is extremely flawed). Even a corrupt cesspit like Indonesia can appreciate this.

Many people in the US every year are taken off death row after it was found that they were innocent or not legally deserving of the death penalty.

<<The trouble is with some peer-reviewed literature is that it's some persons personal view backed up by like minded peoples view.>>

No, peer-reviewed literature requires evidence. A peer-reviewed paper can’t just be someone’s personal opinion. It needs to be backed up with a lot of evidence. The scientific method and the peer review process guard against what you seem to think happens too. On top of all that is the fact that academics get a kick out of picking out flaws in each other’s work and earning a name for themselves in the process.

The idea that millions of academics around the world are all so selfless and determined to maintain a particular view that they’ll sacrifice their chance at prestige in the name of some greater cause is beyond over the top and the stuff of conspiracies.

Folks,

Even if crime in general goes up there is no way that it can be shewn that punishment did not act as a deterrent, for the number of people deterred cannot be calculated.

Fear of punishment acts as a deterrent otherwise there is no point in having punishment.

Therefore the death penalty acts as a deterrent, if anyone can't see this then.....

It is one thing to muse about criminals and the assumed motivation and deterrents (always an assumption, they are liars anyhow), but how can it be estimated how many people do not get involved in crime because of the penalties? Where drug importing that could harms hundreds of thousands of people is concerned, one would-be criminal dissuaded is not a bad result! Although most offenders would have a past of oppositional (to authority) and anti-social behaviour if not crime.

While it is theorised from convicted criminals that what they they dislike most is being collared, the recidivism in gaol and later demonstrates that a sizeable majority, over 60%, regard crime as their day job and a normal part of their life. They will not be deterred by any means.

The self-concern, selfishness and egocentrism of the criminal and lack of concern/empathy for his/her victims and the effect of the crime on society are probably his/her most obvious characteristics. Of those who commit serious crimes many may be psychopaths and narcissists. However criminals are criminals and it is they who choose their crimes, victims and place to offend.

Where foreign consumers and their traffickers offer huge financial incentives and pressure to produce and deal, Second and Third World countries face extreme, more like impossible, difficulty in controlling drugs and the HIV* that is associated with it and is also wreaking havoc in their societies.

The big money is coming from First World countries like Australia. In First World countries the big money that supports the drug gangs and keeps them in business comes from well paid bureaucrats and professionals (eg., the legal profession - cocaine and recreational tabs).

*HIV is reportedly on a growth path in Indonesia, often leaping to heterosexual women, which is a social and health catastrophe.

contd.

It is not by coincidence that Australia is awash with drugs and the public and police have been objecting to slaps on the wrist for drug for dealers and traffickers of commercial quantities of drugs within Australia. That is not just first offenders with $1,000 of marijuana, where the judge is hoping for rehabilitation outside of prison.

It is not sufficient to embarrass Second and Third World countries for their attempts to control criminality and the health and social problems that come from foreign demand and $windfalls from foreign traffickers. That is social 'progressives' in First World countries having their cake and eating it too. Solutions must also be offered, with the best being the most obvious, First World countries please get your own backyards in shape!

Dear onthebeach,

Your recent posts regarding drugs make sense. Australia, the US and other countries should do more to put their house in order in regard to drugs. Prohibition in the US was a massive failure. As bad as tobacco and alcohol beverages are it was worse when the government tried to make booze illegal. I think the same thing applies to drugs. Legalise them to get some measure of control. One thing it would do immediately is to lower the price and the crimes to get the money to pay the price.

Is Mise,

As I said to you earlier, knowing the exact number is not necessary and expecting it is a useless red herring.

<<Even if crime in general goes up there is no way that it can be shewn that punishment did not act as a deterrent....>>

Not so. Deterrent effects can be measured by watching the trends of crimes targeted by policy changes for long after the policy change occurs, while controlling for factors that may also influence the trend such as economic downturn or availability of drugs. The need for a precise number is just something you’ve made up.

Questionnaires by researchers can also help to gauge a deterrent effect although the sample size would need to be in the thousands for any accuracy. And yes, researchers gather incriminating data from their subjects all the time. They can do this by conducting interviews anonymously or in confidence.

Having so many jurisdictions in the one country so close to each other, the US is also a good test case. From the US, we can see no reliable evidence of a deterrent effect given the fact that even two states side by side, with similar demographics and economic conditions, can have homicide rates that do not indicate that the death penalty has a deterrent effect any greater than LWOP. In fact it’s usually the state with the death penalty that has the higher homicide rate and that suggests a brutalising effect.

<<Fear of punishment acts as a deterrent otherwise there is no point in having punishment>>

What about retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation? Do they not count?

<<Therefore the death penalty acts as a deterrent, if anyone can't see this then...>>

So did you take into account the fact that different types of offences have different levels of rational thought go into them? No, this is just broad generalisation and, to a large extent, a non sequitur.

Continued…

...Continued

Nine out of ten criminologists (and that number is slowly shrinking) don't think that the death penalty is any more of a deterrent than LWOP, and don’t think it’s a deterrent at all in certain cases. Now what do you think is the more likely scenario here? That every criminologist in the world just happened to overlook the fact that we have no way of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty for reasons that you, a layperson, can just come along and point out because it simply occurred to them? Or that perhaps, as I pointed out earlier, there are actually methods of measuring the deterrent effect and that you’re just not aware of them?

Kind of puts the weight and reliability of your claim into perspective, doesn't it?

We keep getting told by those in the know that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Has anyone collected statistics from criminals who have gone straight? Or from people in general who are law abiding?

The other night I was watching the Chinese dating program called 'Íf you are the One'. A nice looking guy was on the show to find a date and in the course of introducing himself, he mentioned he was a butcher and that the company he owns produces the safest pork in China. He added, to produce unsafe meat products is punishable by death. His insinuation was clearly the threat of the death penalty inspired him to do things properly.

"As I said to you earlier, knowing the exact number is not necessary and expecting it is a useless red herring."

I didn't give any precise numbers because there is no way of knowing them or even if they exist.
However I do know that the fear of the death penalty would influence me, to me it is a deterrent,

Just as the fear of getting caught and fined makes me very aware of the financial dangers of speeding and I don't doubt that there are many others that are also deterred.
The speeding conviction rate in NSW, high as it is, is no indication that fines are not a deterrent.

If there is any sure way of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty then I, for one, would like to be directed to a link.

We can not be sure that the death penalty stops repeat offending as there is no way that we can know that those executed would re-offend but we do know the results of lenient parole boards where a criminal, who ought to have been executed for the good of society, has been released and has killed again.

Am I just taking to myself here?

I bet no-one would park illegally if the penalty for it was death. But we live in a society that is more civilised than that and so it should be enough to simply say, “The death penalty doesn’t deter” rather than having to qualify it every time with “...in cases of [insert serious crime here]” and having someone, who doesn’t care to know the facts, come along and equate the deterrence effect that punishments have on relatively minor infringements with something that usually requires desperation, a high state of emotional arousal, and specific life-course pathways and trajectories to even put them in a situation where it’s contemplated.

The less serious an offense is, the more rational thought that goes into it.

Furthermore, there are two ideas being conflated in this thread: (i) no more of a deterrent than LWOP, and; (ii) not a deterrent at all. Which one a criminologist will be talking about at any given point in time can depend on the crime and/or the situation and/or the individual and/or a specific scenario as opposed to ‘in general’.

Is Mise,

<<I didn't give any precise numbers because there is no way of knowing them or even if they exist.>>

No-one claimed that you gave precise numbers. What on earth are you talking about here?

I have already addressed the rest of your post, so there’s no need for me to go through it all again. You're just on 'repeat' now.

Dear AJ Phillips,

I agree circumstances are certainly the defining parameter but to say the death penalty doesn't deter some people from committing some crimes would be a misnomer. Of course it does, there will be people who, given the opportunity to be a mule, will decide it is not worth the risk in part based on the worst case outcome.

The real question is whether it is capable of deterring enough people that drugs will not be smuggled from Bali? The answer? Of course not, as the Bali 9 showed. Given an appropriately high enough reward and a reasonable chance of succeeding there will always be those who will take the punt which is exactly the scenario in this case.

After time in the navy as a clearance diver my father worked as a saturation diver in the oil industry. In one particularly horrific year in the North Sea over 30 divers lost their lives, a figure which represented close to 10% of the diving workforce. Did the risks of the game deter many from becoming a saturation diver? Naturally, but there were always so many young men attracted to the money, and probably the dangers of this incredibly demanding work, who were waiting in the wings for their chance.

And that work always got done.

The measure of deterrence to drug mules of the death penalty can not be found in the numbers refusing to go but in the amount of drugs that reach our shores.

Would my father have been safer smuggling drugs? More than likely.

The conundrum is that scarcity created by intercepting imports drives up prices and therefore the reward offered to mules. We should start recognising that those wealthy enough to be shovelling cocaine up their noses at high end office parties or the middle class, middle aged Australian women who now make up the highest demographic for heroin use are the ones ultimately responsible for luring Australian teenagers to risk death. Indeed surely that is where the bulk of our derision and condemnation should be directed.

David f: Legalise them to get some measure of control. One thing it would do immediately is to lower the price and the crimes to get the money to pay the price.

So you don’t mind a hit or so David. Still what happens at work or driving around all drugged up. Work Place Health & Safety might have something to say about that. I certainly wouldn’t want to be working alongside someone using a welder or Grinder or an Electrician wiring up my home. The only thing would be to increase the penalties for working Drugged up & hurting someone. When it all boils down to it, it works out the same. Dun’it.

AJP: What about retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation? Do they not count?

Didn’t they try that in the States & the High Court “?” squashed the idea. The case I remember was, Some guy burgled a house & stole a blokes car & a lot of other stuff. The Judge said that anytime in the future, giving no notice or warning, the Victim could appear & take whatever he wanted of the Criminals.

CH: His insinuation was clearly the threat of the death penalty inspired him to do things properly.

Ahh... but in China they do it right. Once the Court hands down the Death Sentence the Criminal is taken straight outside to the wall & shot, within minutes. Now that is a deterrent.

IS: we do know the results of lenient parole boards where a criminal, who ought to have been executed for the good of society, has been released and has killed again.

& Raped & Burgled. AJP, would the Parole Board be able to be sued for their decision to release such a person? If not, Why not?

AJP: A peer-reviewed paper can’t just be someone’s personal opinion. It needs to be backed up with a lot of evidence.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Pseudo Academics like the Vocal Greenies, & other PC do-gooders. ;-)

I think the Chinese have the right idea. "I find you Guilty, Bang!"

Dear Jayb,

Sure I mind somebody next to me all juiced up on drugs. That is a very common sort of objection to keep drugs illegal. If you want to legalise the usage of drugs you must be for the usage of drugs. That is plain wrong. Legalising drugs could actually cut down on the usage. Some addicts become pushers. They have an incentive to turn other people onto drugs so they can have a market. If drugs were legal they would not have that incentive. When the US had Prohibition there was a great amount of alcoholism. I am very much against the usage of drugs. I don't smoke, and I haven't had an alcoholic drink this year. I am not a reformed alcoholic I just don't care much for the stuff.

Banning something that people want has simply been shown not to work.

From http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

"Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition."

Legalising drugs IMHO would cause the usage to decline. Legalising alcohol has done so, and I think the same thing would happen with drugs. If drugs were legal addicts could get treatment like alcoholics do without being treated as criminals.

david f, "Legalising drugs IMHO would cause the usage to decline"

What about tobacco?

Legalising drugs IMHO would cause the usage to decline. Legalising alcohol has done so, and I think the same thing would happen with drugs. If drugs were legal addicts could get treatment like alcoholics do without being treated as criminals.

Usually those who want to see hard drugs legalised take it one step further, making the drugs freely available to drive down the associated crime rate.

So David, should ice also be legalised? There is almost no hope for ice addicts and if they could get it free, they would literally kill themselves, and who knows how many others, before they finally drop dead. Have you ever been down the back alleys in Melbourne where the junkies do their thing? There are no socially redeeming qualities in legalising the hard core drugs.

I don't know where you get the idea legalised alcohol has created less use? You do live in Australia, right?

davidf: If drugs were legal addicts could get treatment like alcoholics do without being treated as criminals.

Fine, but they pay for their treatment & Services provided by the Hospitals, Police & Ambulance Services. No rebate from the Medical Insurance Companies & that goes for Alcohol, Tobacco & any sort of "abused" Drug, whether it be illegal or over the counter. I'm fine with that.

My missus is a Drug addict. ;-) After the operation on her foot she was still groggy. the nurse told her to press the big Green button if she wanted help. That she did, but the wrong Green button (Morphine.) After pressing multiple times franticly & the nurse didn't come she called out until someone noticed. She was pretty crook next day. She says she doesn't know how anyone could get hooked on the stuff. We've (the street) all had a good laugh at her expense at 5's ies this afternoon.

Another... "Marilyn." She home today & all's fine, for her. My troubles are just beginning. ;-)

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I do live in Australia. Australia has never prohibited alcohol so the example is the US which had Prohibition and then repealed it.

I would not legalise ice although I would legalise most drugs.

Dear Jayb,

I sympathise with you. It is tough to have a member of your family who is an addict. My mother was an alcoholic, and her arbitrary changes of mood along with outrageous behaviour made it hell for me as a child. In fact I even managed to erase it from my mind.

A few years ago my son told me of an argument my mother and father had when he hid her booze. He had been visiting them. I had managed to clear my mind of those memories, but he brought them back.

As a child I kept hoping my mother and father would get divorced, and I could move away from her. She could be loving and then switch to be mean, unreasonable and cruel.

I wish no child would ever have to live with an alcoholic parent. From my experience it is hell.

Davidf: I sympathise with you. It is tough to have a member of your family who is an addict.

“shakes head in frustration.”

David my wife is not an addict.

Let me explain my little humorous story to you. My wife had an operation to remove arthritis from her foot. 3 hours of scraping & pining metal plates, etc. After Theatre she came back to the room very Groggy (as you do). The Nurse explained to my wife how to call her if she needed something by pressing the Big Green Button (BGB on the TV Remote. I also explained this to her before I left. However during the night she called the Nurse but it was not the TV remote with the BGB she picked up. It was a small Remote for the Morphine that had a Small Green Button on it. (SGB). She pressed the SGB multiple times because the Buzzer didn’t Buzz & the light didn’t go on. As a result she gave herself an accidental overdose of Morphine. She was coming down when I got there next day. She said she doesn’t know how people get hooked on this stuff.

I hope that clears that up for you David.

Anyway she’s home now, 3 days early. Another joke coming David. I said they probably kicked her out, not wanting a Druggie in the place. I also noted that they had placed a large cross in the room. I said they were probably planning to tie her up to it for her next shot. ;-)

Here’s a some questions. How far do you go to protect people from themselves. (Duty of Care & WPH&S considered.) ? Do you legalize Heroin, Cocaine, LSD, MJ, ICE.? They take these Drugs, kill themselves or others. When they become addicted & turn to crime. Who do you Sue?

AJP,

You said <....that it's not so much that the death penalty isn't a deterrent at all; more that it appears to be no more of a deterrent than LWOP.>

Therefore I take it that you mean that the death penalty is a deterrent as is LWOP or that LWOP is not a deterrent either?>

Dear Jayb,

I am sorry I misunderstood. My mother was an addict. Your wife was not.

Drug related crime can be to get money for drugs. With legalisation of drugs and their availability that motive would be gone.

Legalisation of drugs need not be across the board. It depends on the drug. Addiction is bad, but in some cases it can be treated. If drugs are illegal the addict will often be treated as a criminal. An addict will often wind up in prison as the addict will turn to selling drugs or other crimes to support a habit. From the example of Prohibition and alcohol I think it makes more sense to legalise most drugs.

I would prefer that no one drank alcohol, smoked tobacco or used addictive drugs. However, people drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use addictive drugs. Whatever one does there is a problem. I think the problem would not be as bad with legalisation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/06/1382913/-Massachusetts-police-chief-We-re-going-to-offer-addicts-treatment-not-incarceration

Gloucester, Massachusetts police chief offers treatment rather than jail for drug addicts

Dear SteeleRedux,

I’m not sure how I’ve given you the impression that I believe that the death penalty doesn’t deter at all. In fact, one thing I’ve been trying to allude to is that, “The death penalty is not a deterrent”, is usually just shorthand for, “The death penalty probably isn’t any more of a deterrent than LWOP.” Most punishments are going to deter some people at some point. That aside, I agree with everything you’ve said. I have also alluded to some of it in my posts, but trying to explain deterrence theory adequately in less than 10,000 words is pretty hard.

Jayb,

<<Didn’t they try that in the States & the High Court “?” squashed the idea.>>

Try what in the High Court? All I mentioned was that there were other sentencing aims beyond deterrence such as retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation. These sentencing aims have been around for centuries.

<<...would the Parole Board be able to be sued for their decision to release such a person? If not, Why not?>>

LWOP could have also sorted what Is Mise said, and at a lower cost too. But of course a parole board couldn’t be sued in such a case and it would be absurd if they could because psychiatry and psychology are inexact sciences. I touched on all this briefly here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6734#205078

But what about all the people who were deemed to have been too much of a risk to be release and yet would never have re-offended if they were? Do you think the parole board should be sued if it were possible to know this? Do you ever spare a thought for those poeople? Of course not, because we all like to sit back and form hasty and ill-informed opinions based on what we see in the media.

<<I think the Chinese have the right idea. "I find you Guilty, Bang!">>

Clearly you’re not perturbed by the thought of people being executed when they’re innocent or not legally deserving of it. Yourself included, if that’s what you want for Australia.

Is Mise,

That’s close enough. Depending on an infinite combination of factors, the death penalty is not a deterrent for some and is a deterrent for others to varying degrees. What criminologists stress, however, is that to any extent that the death penalty is a deterrent, it is no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

So there's the problems with the death penalty...

- a potential brutalising effect on society;
- injustice in the arbitrariness of its application (even in a civilised country like the US);
- the creep in its application despite it originally being reserved for the most heinous crimes only (e.g. mentally retarded people now being executed in Texas);
- potentially executing innocent people (3% in the US, and that’s just what we know of);
- the additional costs of pursuing the death penalty that make it more expensive than LWOP;
- many more that you, as a conservative, probably wouldn’t see as a bad thing, such as Death Row Phenomenon;

...and what would have been its only redeeming feature (i.e. a greater deterrent effect) isn’t even there.

To add to all this - as if its problems weren’t already bad enough - debates surrounding the death penalty only serve to distract from finding real solutions.

AJP,

"....and what would have been its only redeeming feature (i.e. a greater deterrent effect) isn’t even there."

how do we know?

point me to a few relevant sites.

Is Mise,

I have already mentioned some methods of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty and indeed, a couple that have actually been used to measure it. I suspect that your request for links is just the goal-post-shifting fallacy. If you really were interested in knowing, then you would do the research yourself, like I did (granted mine was for a criminology degree). Instead, I suspect you are simply requesting links in the hope that there are none so you can save face in what must have been an embarrassing discussion for you.

I’m usually reluctant to do the research for others, particularly when they don’t really care to know, but here’s some articles with studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty (you may need to pay for them if you don’t have free university access or, alternatively, your state library might have them): -

Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty (2009): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1228227?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723
The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: Facts v. Faiths (1976): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3108765?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723
The Deterrent Influence of the Death Penalty (1952): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1029443?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723

And here’s a couple of textbooks that you may be able to find at your state library that explain the data/statistic-gathering methods that are capable of measuring deterrent effects: -

Basics of research methods (Maxfield & Babbie);
Statistics for Criminal Justice and Criminology in Practice and Research (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald).

"I suspect you are simply requesting links in the hope that there are none so you can save face in what must have been an embarrassing discussion for you."

Then you suspect wrongly.

Professor Charles Lund Black among others stated that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive, and you said that it had some positive effect, "....that it's not so much that the death penalty isn't a deterrent at all; more that it appears to be no more of a deterrent than LWOP."

Now if LWOP is a deterrent then so must the death penalty be.

I have asked a number of people if the possibility of the death penalty would deter them from committing a crime, and they all answered 'Yes' and this has been my experience over the many years that I've pursued the subject.

Is Mise,

<<Professor Charles Lund Black among others stated that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive...>>

Yes, and I agree with them (although Charles Black was a lawyer, not a criminologist, so citing him as an authority doesn't help your argument much). You'll notice, in discussions on this topic, that I often (and deliberately) include the words "most likely" and "probably" when mentioning that the death penalty is no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

But "inconclusive" doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'anyone's game'. The evidence is still very heavily weighted in the 'no more of a deterrent than LWOP' side of the argument. It would be unscientific to say that anything much is actually "conclusive" in the social sciences.

Even if the death penalty were more of a deterrent than LWOP, though, I'd like to see someone still justify it given the extensive list of social and justice problems that accompany it.

<<Now if LWOP is a deterrent then so must the death penalty be.>>

How does this contradict anything I've said?

<<I have asked a number of people if the possibility of the death penalty would deter them from committing a crime, and they all answered 'Yes' and this has been my experience over the many years that I've pursued the subject.>>

or this, for that matter?

I will note, though, that this is not very scientific. So if you think you've just debunked decades of criminological research, then think again.

What was your sample size and sampling method? What were the demographics you surveyed? Did they include people serving LWOP in a jurisdiction that doesn't have the death penalty? Were there any variables you controlled for? Because these will all have an effect on the extent to which your findings suggest a deterrent effect.

AJP: Even if the death penalty were more of a deterrent than LWOP, though, I'd like to see someone still justify it given the extensive list of social and justice problems that accompany it.

What list of Social & Justice Problems? Once the offender is dead that's it. The family of the offender just have to put up with the fact.

"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people. Justice is directly proportional to the amount of money you can pay. As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of. The Judiciary know this & are in at the fat end of the table. When the cash runs out there suddenly nothing more that can be done. Strange that.

Previously I asked if the Law fraternity can be sued. Say someone is in jail for 10 years for violent Rape. After 5 years some board declares he is rehabilitated & ready for release back into Society. With-in a week he rapes my daughter. Can I sue the parole boars, The phyco & the Judge who declared him rehabilitated & signed him out? AJP the ball is in your court, seeing you are up with this stuff.

Jayb,

<<What list of Social & Justice Problems?>>

I already gave a quick rundown of a few in a post to Is Mise and alluded to some in the link I provided you. If you have data that discredits any of that, or suggests that they are not problems all, them please provide it. But I'm not going to attempt to expand on all of that in just a few hundred words for someone who is not really interested, would never change their mind anyway, and has demonstrated a penchant for requiring others to repeat themselves continuously in their past discussions.

No offence or anything.

<<"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people.>>

Do you have an example of that?

<<Justice is directly proportional to the amount of money you can pay.>>

Very much so, yes. And the types of systems that you conservatives so often call for would only exacerbate this (e.g. the electing of judges, 'user pays' systems).

<<As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of.>>

Sometimes, but if they’re not valid concerns/appeals, then they’re thrown out. Can you list a 16th century bit of precedent that has been responsible for wasting the court’s time? Can you think of ANY 16th century legal precedent, for that matter? I can, and it prevents people committing fraud.

It just so happens, Jayb, that I’m studying law now. So leading the discussion down this path is probably not going to bail the ignorant conservatives on this thread out by confusing me, or distract from their failure to argue in favour of the death penalty. I don't say this to brag; more just to save us both time. Or perhaps you weren't aware that criminology and law were two different disciplines? Is Mise didn't seem to.

Continued…

...Continued

<<The Judiciary know this & are in at the fat end of the table. When the cash runs out there suddenly nothing more that can be done. Strange that.>>

It’s private defence lawyers that do this, not the judiciary. Judges are paid a set salary to avoid such corruption. And do you know who the biggest victims of this are? It’s members of organised crime. I bet you’re not so sympathetic now.

<<Previously I asked if the Law fraternity can be sued.>>

No, you asked if you asked if the parole board could be sued, but anyway...

<<Say someone is in jail for 10 years for violent Rape. After 5 years some board declares he is rehabilitated & ready for release back into Society. With-in a week he rapes my daughter. Can I sue the parole boars, The phyco & the Judge who declared him rehabilitated & signed him out?>>

No, you can’t. If you could, then we would be living in a society in which no-one was released out of fear of that happening and there'd be no point in parole boards. There’s no justice in that either.

Fortunately mistakes like this are rare; which is one of the reasons they make the news. Can you cite a case like this for me? I mean with the exact details of what the judgement was and what the reasons for release were. Because the chances are, you’re either making this up completely, or you’re thinking of a case in which the details weren’t reported accurately by the media. Again, too, you spare no thought for the poor souls who were deemed to be unfit for release or were executed despite the fact that they never would have committed a crime had they been released.

Finally, need I mention, yet again, the studies that show that when provided with the same facts, members of the general public estimate sentences equal to or lower than what the judges handed down in real life?

AJP,

It's simplistic I know, but if I ask people if they would be deterred by the death penalty and they say "Yes" then I would consider that some people are deterred.
Therefore the death penalty is a deterrent and I repeat there is no way of determining that it is not a deterrent, all the studies are but scientific guesswork.
I know that it would deter me therefore it is a deterrent; would it not deter you?

No system of law is perfect. A person on trial is convicted when the evidence shows that he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there still may be evidence establishing innocence which comes to light later. If the person has been executed in the interval there is no way to make up for it.

One may continue the death penalty and try to limit it to cases where guilt is evident. However, sooner or later, whether or execution is a deterrent, there will be cases of injustice with no remedies available.

Is Mise,

Really, this is just becoming embarrassing to watch.

<<…if I ask people if they would be deterred by the death penalty and they say "Yes" then I would consider that some people are deterred.>>

If you have to ask this, then you haven’t been reading or absorbing what I’ve been saying.

<<Therefore the death penalty is a deterrent…>>

Again, how does this contradict anything I’ve said?

<<…I repeat there is no way of determining that it is not a deterrent, all the studies are but scientific guesswork.>>

Repeating a falsehood won’t make it come true.

What exactly do you mean by “scientific guesswork”? How can guesswork be scientific? Could you provide examples of what you’re referring to?

I don’t think you can. You're just making this up as you go now.

<<I know that it would deter me therefore it is a deterrent; would it not deter you?>>

Yes, but the fact that you have to ask me this, or think that my answer would have any relevance to the discussion at this point, suggests that you haven’t been reading or absorbing what I’ve been saying.

AJP,

The discussion was what capital punishment achieves, what it does achieve is a deterrent effect, no chance of repeat offending, revenge and punishment.

Is Mise,

<<The discussion was what capital punishment achieves...>>

Well, it's strayed a bit from just that now.

Are you actually suggesting, though, that all this time, the distinction between, ‘no deterrence at all’, and, ‘no more of a deterrence than LWOP’ had been completely missed or ignored by you - despite myself and others talking about it - simply because you were focussed on the question this thread started with?

<<…what [capital punishment] does achieve is a deterrent effect...>>

Some of the time, yes. Particularly for those whose lives have lead them to a point where the chances that they'll need to consider the death penalty as a possible consequence of their actions is next to zero (hence the problem with your study's sample). The next question is whether it is more of a deterrent than LWOP. And the answer to that is, "It's extremely unlikely that it is."

Can I assume that you're taking your "guesswork" claim back?

<<...no chance of repeat offending, revenge and punishment.>>

Agreed. The next question is whether it's worth it given the social costs of it. You'll want to have done your home work for that one. That get's messy.

AJP: <<"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people.>>
Do you have an example of that?

Yes I do. When my 2nd wife & I separated we sat down & divided everything we owned between us. What was hers previously & what was mine were put aside & we divided our joint properly equally & listed it all. We went to our solicitor to draw us the divorce papers & were told we had to have separate solicitors. She went down the road to another solicitor. With-in days I received a letter of demand for a number of things. I went to see my wife & she didn’t know anything about it. I rang her solicitor & he said I had to write a letter to my solicitor to send to him & he would reply to my solicitor who would write to me. Now that’s how solicitors make money. We ditched the solicitors & did it all ourselves. I have heard of many, many similar cases. It cost sweet buggar all. We are still friends
My solicitors were three brothers who had three sisters, who were married to the other three solicitors, that three sisters who were married to my three solicitors.

Can you think of ANY 16th century legal precedent, for that matter? I can, and it prevents people committing fraud.

Yes & they should use it on the Law Fraternity often but they won’t because they protect their own unless they get caught Red Handed, even then...

AJP: No, you asked if you asked if the parole board could be sued, but anyway...

Let’s not get pedantic. But that’s a Lawyers Stock & trade isn’t it. Pretending that you don't know what people mean.

Cont

AJP: Fortunately mistakes like this are rare; which is one of the reasons they make the news. Can you cite a case like this for me? I mean with the exact details of what the judgement was and what the reasons for release were. Because the chances are, you’re either making this up completely, or you’re thinking of a case in which the details weren’t reported accurately by the media.

There have been plenty in the Media recently, especially anything to do with Pedo’s. As far as making it up & what the media reports is all we have to go on because we (the Public) are not privy to the rulings as a rule.

<<As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of.>>

Recently, in Brisbane a Lawyer got caught doing something & they called his wife to testify. He called on some Ancient Law to protect himself which has now caused into doubt thousands of Court rulings. Why didn’t he do that for other people he’s represented? As regards Appeals. Look at the recent Druggie case in Bali & the Rape of that little boy in Brisbane. Appeal, appeal, appeal.

Cont

I was charges with 3 Counts of Serious Assault with Grievous Bodily Harm. I was on the witness stand & the Prosecuting Barrister asked me a question. Now if I answered yes I was in deep $hit yet, if I answered No, I was in deep $hit. You see both answers were right & both answers were wrong & I was only able to answer Yes or No. Luckily the Judge sensed this and allowed me to explain this when I took the stand. I made a complete & utter fool out of the Barrister. Oh, I won. Three days in Court & the Jury was out for two & a half minutes. Mind you the Judge in his Three & a half hour summing up sort of helped. Things like, “These three lying Ba$tards” or words to that effect. I didn’t have a Defence Lawyer, well, the one they gave me just kept saying, “Save the Courts time, plead guilty & you’ll just get a Fine.” I paid for winning later, because, the Prosecutor ended up being my Platoon Commander in the Army Reserve & the CO of the Unit was his Boss.

Jayb,

Interesting and it does help a lot to have the judge or side or just doing his job. I too had a similar experience, (although not so serious),as a prosecution witness, of a high powered QC firing questions with the intention of fouling me up and I answered 'Yes' to a question that I'd previously answered 'No' to.
He instantly pounced, but I said that my 'Yes' was to his previous question and that he was getting ahead of me.
I stole a covert glance at the Judge and he appeared to be almost smiling, so I got in first and apologized to the Court for any apparent levity but that I was serious.
The Judge merely said to proceed and the questions became noticeably slower.
Later the QC started using words that were long, ambiguous and not at all common, I glanced at the Judge and he said to the QC, "I don't know if you are confusing the witness but you are confusing the Court, so please use words that we can all understand".

Made my day!

Jayb,

That had nothing to do with the death penalty.

<<Yes I do. When my 2nd wife & I separated we sat down & divided everything we owned between us…>>

More importantly, though, it doesn’t prove that that’s all “justice problems” are.

<<Yes & they should use it on the Law Fraternity often...>>

But it’s 16th century precedent. According to your logic, it therefore cannot, or should not, apply by mere virtue of its age. You used the same logic to pass sociological perspectives off as “quackery”.

<<Let’s not get pedantic. But that’s a Lawyers Stock & trade isn’t it. Pretending that you don't know what people mean.>>

I knew precisely what you meant, I even demonstrated that in the fact that I replied anyway. And there was no pedantry. Such subtle switching of what one is referring to is a deceitful tactic commonly used on OLO. Just take a look at Is Mise’s responses to me.

<<There have been plenty in the Media recently, especially anything to do with Pedo’s.>>

What is a specific example, though? I requested the exact details because usually when I look into a judicial/parole board decision that sounds ludicrous to me at first, I find that it makes sense once you read the ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Even if the end result was unfortunate.

Sometimes society pays a price for a fair justice system, and unfortunately the armchair experts who propose their arbitrary and draconian solutions as an answer don’t realise the type of society we’d have as a result of their asinine suggestions.

Anyway, did you also take into account the different type of paedophiles? The less serious offending paedophiles actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders (21%).

<<… what the media reports is all we have to go on because we (the Public) are not privy to the rulings as a rule.>>

You can sometimes find court transcripts and case briefs that summarise a case and the reasons for the decisions.

Continued…

…Continued

Either way, this isn’t an excuse for forming ignorant opinions, it would just mean that you’d be forced to reserve judgment until you had the full details.

<<Recently, in Brisbane a Lawyer … called on some Ancient Law to protect himself which has now caused into doubt thousands of Court rulings.>>

That sounds familiar. What was the case law and how it wasn’t the precedent relevant anymore. Did the judge throw it out because of its irrelevance to modern times; and if not, what was his reasoning for considering it?

<<As regards Appeals. Look at the recent Druggie case in Bali & the Rape of that little boy in Brisbane. Appeal, appeal, appeal.>>

All appeals are reviewed first and if there’s no case, they’re not heard. Furthermore, if someone continues to file meritless appeals, then the court can block them permanently - them and their lawyer. In Queensland, this can be done by applying the Vexatious Proceedings Act (2005). I’m sorry, but your “Appeal, appeal, appeal” claims have about as much merit as an individual declared a “vexatious litigant” and only demonstrate your ignorance on the subject.

Everyone has an opinion on the legal system and yet no-one knows a damn thing about it. Things are the way they are for bloody good reasons. People always have their idea of how it should be with absolutely no appreciation whatsoever for the consequences of what they propose.

Our legal system (unlike Indonesia’s) has been formed (and is still being continuously refined) by taking an evidence-based approach. The notion that someone or some people just woke up one day and thought, “Hey, let’s make the legal system really dumb for no good reason”, is laughable, but this is what most would prefer to think rather than entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there’s something they’re not aware of.

As for your story regarding your personal experience, all I can say is that it’s a good argument against the Chinese model that you want for Australia. Just imagine if you’d lost.

Too bad. Bang!

Funny thing about using precedents in a Court Case. The Barristers discuss the Precedents & the Members of Jury to be used, with the Judge in his Chambers a few days before the Case is heard. The first day of Preceding's is a farce just to get it on Record. When the Judge calls for Precedents & they stand up & call them out & the Judge says Yes or No. It's all just for show. Same with the Jury, they don't even look up from their notes.

Discussion with a half drunk Barristers Private Secretary who was one of my Diggers in the ARES in the Mess after Dismissals.

What's the Saying, "Justice must be seemed to be done."

I take it AJP that you are going to be an Ambulance Chaser when you Graduate. Just asking.

Jayb,

I have no idea what it is you’re on about in your first two paragraphs, but it looks to me like you’re disgruntled about something because you don’t understand it.

I don’t think you understand precedent fully either. Do you know why it’s used; when it’s used; the different extents to which it can be utilised/applied; when it can be overridden? You sound like you have more of a problem with the adversarial system in general than anything else.

I take it, too, that you don’t know what any of these precedence’s you’ve been referring to are or why they were apparently not useful anymore (other than being old - which isn’t in itself a reason). I can assure you that your issues with precedent are purely ignorance-driven.

I think you’re going to have to expand on what is that you’re trying to say. I don’t know that you’re entirely sure yourself. Your thinking seems a little on the conspiratorial side. It’s as though you think lawyers all put on a show for formality’s sake and then go off to a dark room to smoke cigars and laugh at the rest of us, while watching re-runs of JFK being shot from the grassy knoll with all the climatologists.

You conservatives have invented such a bizarre world for yourselves.

<<What's the Saying, "Justice must be seemed to be done.">>

No it’s, “Justice must be seen to be done.” It can’t just be done.