A thought to consider. The two criminals who are slated to be executed in Indonesia engaged in the drug trade which profits upon a human addiction based on a weakness. James Packer who may get a casino bid in Brisbane is engaged in the gambling trade which profits upon a human addiction based on a weakness. The casinos are accompanied by a rise in bankruptcies, prostitution and other social ills. Yet gambling is legal, and it even provides revenue for the government which allows casinos. Casual gambling between friends hurts no one, but casinos are a social ill. I personally don't consider James Packer any better than the two criminals on death row in Indonesia. I don't wish for the death of any of them. To the best of my knowledge Packer has committed no crime, but I don't think he is any better than Chan & Sukumaran.

I think gambling should be legal but not casinos. I think drugs should also be legal.

Good evening to you HERENOW...

It would appear that you too had suffered badly, at the hands of police and ors. ? I'm sorry to hear that, and how it ultimately became deleterious to your personal health. More particularly, how it had (apparently) precipitated a cardiac episode? I can only hope there have been no lasting ill effects from the whole ordeal, seemingly because of the apparent 'unjustness' of it all ?

You'll not get any argument from me, concerning the ritual of judicial killing. In 2015, I would've thought the developed world would've moved on from such medieval practices, however as we all know, apparently not !

And these two CHAN and SUKUMARAN, look like being the next Aussies who've been relegated to the annals of those, who've forfeited their lives. Why, essentially for blatant stupidity, and the reckless pursuit of 'filthy lucre' ?

Surely this sorry event, will cause many a young person to pause a moment, and think twice before trying to run drugs through the Indonesian gauntlet ! A gauntlet with lethal consequences, and the prospect of facing a firing squad at the end of it ?

Good evening to you DAVID F.

An interesting juxtaposition between illegal drugs and legal gambling ? Seemingly both cause misery in some form or other, and gambling can absolutely fracture a family just as finally as illicit drugs !

I'm not sure that comparing James PACKER with Messrs CHAN & SUKUMARAN is a viable, because it's the State that determines whether something's licit or illicit, therefore any comparison between the two, is moot ! Nevertheless your reasoning is fine ? Thank you DAVID F.

o sung wu wrote: "I'm not sure that comparing James PACKER with Messrs CHAN & SUKUMARAN is a viable, because it's the State that determines whether something's licit or illicit, therefore any comparison between the two, is moot"

Dear o sung wu,

The original question you asked had to do with morality not legality. The state determines what is legal not what is moral. I did not compare the legality of Packer's acts with the legality of Chan's and Sukumaran's acts. I compared the morality.

Geoffrey Fisher, archbishop of Canterbury, said, "In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone." (Excuse the reference to God. I merely cited the quote in its entirety.)

Chan and Sukumaran are convicted criminals. James Packer is not a convicted criminal, but I think he is no more moral than Chan and Sukumaran.

david f’s post highlights two additional points that I don't think were meant to be highlighted:

1) Those with the wealth and power make the rules, and;
2) for this reason (along with the media) we are so much more preoccupied with, and condemning of, street crime when we all suffer so much more, socially and economically, from corporate crimes (and casinos aren’t even committing a crime).

Similarly, I don’t know exactly to what extent drugs are a problem for Indonesia’s society (I think it’s fair to say it’s massive), but given the extent of the corruption within Indonesia’s justice system - the very justice system that is sentencing Chan and Sukumaran to death - it could be argued that Indonesia’s justice system is just as much of a contributor to their societal woes. It certainly weakens the rule of law.

Perhaps Indonesia should start putting the corrupt actors within their justice system in front of a firing squad? I’d be willing to bet that we wouldn’t be hearing the same level of cheers if they did. The extent to which people hyper-focus on street crime seems to equally be to the detriment of any concern for governmental/public service crime.

I don’t know. I wish I could just say, “Oh well, they knew what the risks were,” or, “Indonesia has spoken,” but I can’t. Whether it's the irony of the brutalising effect that capital punishment has on societies, or the blatant inconsistencies in the application of it, something about this whole saga really doesn’t sit right with me.

I think I’ll just sit back and be grateful I live in Australia.

Chan and Sukumaran are not victims. They are greedy, ruthless criminals with contempt for the law and devoid of any concern for the dreadful harm, violence and deaths known to be the direct consequences of trafficking in heroin.

Imagine the hundreds of victim impact statements, lives lost and lives changed forever, that would have been consequential to the trafficking of the 11kgs of heroin they planned for this run. Then why not do it again?

They thumbed their noses at repeated warnings from Indonesia and Australia.

They thought nothing of involving vulnerable, easily-led youths younger and more stupid than themselves, 'cleanskins' without a criminal record or drug offences, knowingly putting them in the box seat for detection and arrest, and the likely severe penalties.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest they were unfairly death with by the Indonesian authorities and courts. The opposite is true.

It is only to be expected that their families, who are also victims of their crimes (which the two offenders would have realised when they made their decision to flout the laws) would be heartbroken. Their lawyers have a duty to pull emotional strings back home.

While I don't support capital punishment I also have to concede that if life behind bars means what it says, all of remaining life in close custody, defending the morality of that could be more problematical than the immediate end they knowingly and deliberately risked and sorely earned. But no, those who question the sentence would likely be demanding a return to Australia if commuted to a life sentence, and then a reduction in the sentence and parole ASAP.

The Indonesians are following a long established principle of justice: that the offender when finally collared and convicted should not suffer losses lesser than the losses a/he inflicted on his/her victims. In Australia we forget justice for the victims and society, and often allow the 'rights' of wicked criminals to come before the rights of the law-abiding public, putting more at risk. Any wonder that victims of crime hesitate and may not always report offences, sometimes serious, committed against them?