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 ?