The question of the hour is whether or not to let a pair of self-declared reformed convicted drug smugglers off death row. Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are special cases, and they should not be executed. There exists a whole host of political, ethical, religious and practical considerations to commute the Bali Nine duo’s execution to life imprisonment, as follows.
Viewing the issue through a political lens is to generalise to the point of falsehood. For instance, Julie Bishop has raised the spectre of a prisoner swap to get the Bali duo off death row1 and Tony Abbott is on the record as feeling ‘revolted’ by their imminent executions.2 Most people would not consider them raving leftists.
Ethical arguments that drug smugglers who breach well-posted laws should get their just dessert overlooks the arbitrariness and base political hypocrisy of optional execution under Indonesian law. First, the other seven members of the Bali Nine got life in prison. Second, at the Indonesian presidential election late last year, Indonesian President Joko Widodo ordered that no effort be spared and “that the state be involved in every legal case” to secure the release of more than 200 Indonesians facing legal execution around the world, according to Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister, Retno Marsudi.3 Many of those are drug offenders like Chan and Sukamaran.4 A day later, the President told an audience of Islamic leaders that there would be no mercy for Chan, Sukamaran and around 50 other drug offenders on death row from around the world.5 Third, the Bali duo’s former lawyer, Mr Muhammad Rifan, two weeks ago alleged there was ‘interference’ in the case when the two Australians were being sentenced.6 The pair’s new legal team claim the judges in the original trial offered to hand down jail for life instead of the death sentence, in exchange for cash.7 Fourth, if any sacrificial lamb should be made of smugglers, it should involve those convicted after the President issued his new policy of blanket refusal of clemency for foreigners. Moreover, a fresh Indonesian moratorium on the death penalty, following on the heels of the last five-year moratorium that ended a few months ago, has been flagged at the United Nations – just as Chan and Sukumaran look headed for the firing squad.8
Any deeper philosophical consideration of the matter, whether on religious or humanitarian grounds, leads to the conclusion the Bali pair should not be executed. Readers who follow an Abrahamistic religion, such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, believe in a creator with the power to grant the right of redemption to any one of his creations. This guiding principle of the creator sets a principle for the rest of his creation to follow. While some readers may not admit humanity has the power to make this decision, neither on this principle does humanity have the authority to take away one of its creations, thereby usurping the creator’s ability to decide whether or not to spare these men. Further, what punishment might such a creator have in store for those who wrongfully extinguish its creation? For humanitarians, the right to life is a sine qua non of being human. Using either line of philosophical reasoning, life imprisonment is a perfectly reasonable alternative to execution.
Pragmatic considerations lead to the same conclusion that the Bali Nine duo should be saved from execution. First, Prof. Tim Lindsay, of the University of Melbourne, says that based on extensive criminological research there is no evidence the death penalty deters any crime, including drug smuggling.9 This suggests the drug problem is a systemic one, whereby two smugglers are executed only to be replaced by another two whose price for taking the risk is higher in accordance with the economic laws of supply and demand. By treating the problem as a health problem, rather than a legal problem, the money incentive might be taken out of the system and education flow encouraged. Even the practical point that the two might yet be dealing in death were they not caught, does not argue for execution, but life in prison, which protects the public interest in community safety equally well. In addition, what of the potential practical implications for Indonesia in terms of a consumer boycott in, or reduced foreign aid from affected countries, and the counterproductive effect on Indonesia’s efforts to have its own nationals saved from execution?
Life imprisonment is a perfectly reasonable alternative to execution. His Excellency, President Widodo should reconsider a presidential pardon.
