As mentioned in my original post, the ultimate legal punishment – execution – requires a civilised legal system be accountable, transparent and procedurally fair, rather than political and hypocritical. This requires a reasoned discussion of what is to be gained by their execution.
First, left versus right analogies overgeneralise to the point of falsehood – are Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop, who are attempting to advocate on behalf of Sukumaran and Chan, ‘lefties’? Those who talk about a well-posted Indonesian sentencing list forget there was a five year moratorium on the death penalty in Indonesia until a few months ago, and that it is still an optional death sentence – the other seven of the Bali Nine got life sentences. Further, Indonesian Law expert, Prof. Tim Lindsay, of the University of Melbourne, says there is no evidence the death penalty deters crime of any kind, including drug smuggling.1 Moreover, the Judaeo-Christian heritage believes in the value of redemption and rehabilitation; those who call for execution rarely give credit to this aspect of the case.
However, the real victims of drug smuggling need to come first, and Sukumaran and Chan might yet be dealing in death, had they not been caught and imprisoned. That is why the public interest should be protected by imposing life imprisonment on drug smugglers, as a perfectly reasonable alternative to execution.
Footnotes
- James Law, ‘Bali Nine Executions: Does the Death Penalty Stop Crime?’, 5 February 2015 < http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...alty-stop-crime/story-fnq2o7dd-1227208941061>.
