The death penalty
I am opposed to the death penalty, primarily because the judicial system makes mistakes. Australia’s best example of a judicial mistake is Lindy Chamberlain, who was convicted of murdering her nine week old child on circumstantial ‘expert’ evidence that was inconsistent with eyewitness accounts, the absence of blood on her own clothing, and the later discovery of the baby’s jacket.
In the United States the application of DNA technology to old cases has revealed a string of false convictions. For example, the Innocence Program has exonerated 163 wrongly convicted people through post-conviction DNA testing.
My contention is simple, if the judicial system cannot be relied upon to get it right 100 per cent of the time, if mistakes occur as they do, the state should not apply the ultimate (and irreversible) death penalty. The risk of applying the death penalty to the innocent is simply too high. It is better not to apply it at all.
In respect of Singapore and Indonesia I have added concerns. In my view, the application of the death penalty for medium level drug trafficking is disproportionate to the crime. Drugs are a scourge on society, and I can understand the desire of those governments to take a tough stance in their penalty regimes. But the death penalty is too tough.
A second concern is not just that the death penalty exists, but that in Singapore its application is mandatory. Singapore has a mandatory death sentence for the possession of 30 grams of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine, 500 grams cannabis, 200 grams of cannabis resin, and 250 grams of methamphetamine. At least in Indonesia the application of the death penalty for drug offences is discretionary.
These are not abstract issues. Ten Australians — Tuong Van Nguyen and at least some if not all of the Bali-9 — are likely to be executed for drugs offences; Nguyen as early as next Friday.
But nor are they issues that can be assessed on the merits of the death penalty alone. While I oppose the death penalty, I accept it is ultimately a matter for Singapore and Indonesia to determine for themselves — just as Australia has decided to abolish the death penalty. I understand that Singapore has achieved a relatively low use of illicit drugs through tough sanctions; and that this outcome has a high level of support in Singapore. While the outcomes in Indonesia are less clear, in part this reflects Indonesia’s lower levels of economic development.
And I accept that Australians in those countries must abide by the laws of those countries. There is little doubt that Nguyen and the Bali-9 were trafficking. There is no reason that Singapore or Indonesia should waive penalties for Australian convicts that would otherwise apply to Singaporean or Indonesian convicts. The law should apply in the same way to all regardless of their nationality. We would not accept the reverse situation in Australia, such that foreign nationals get a lighter sentence at their government’s intervention than Australian citizens receive. If Australia’s opposition to the death penalty is seen as tied to the cases of particular Australians, it will be seen as special pleading.
Finally, I have sympathy for the families of those to be executed. Doubtless they are and will experience substantial anguish. I cannot image how I would feel if it were my children in that position.