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.