To Err Is Human...

To a person who has lived a privileged and sheltered life it is difficult to understand the feeling of sheer desperation and helplessness. We've all made stupid mistakes in our lives but some circumstances breed greater consequences for those mistakes. To put your life on the line to traffic drugs is no doubt foolish, to put a price on your life is certainly greedy and shortsighted. But in life we live and learn, we all make our own mistakes and usually we are given the opportunity to pick ourselves up and move on. People who traffic drugs through countries that uphold mandatory death sentences are no doubt foolish, often young and hot blooded. But what pushes them to make such a huge mistake? Are they less sensible than the rest of us?

I think the answer is quite simple, of course they aren't, they are simply more desperate. It is difficult for someone with a privileged lifestyle to understand how anyone could abandon all reason and put their life at such risk, but I think that many people are incapable of understanding what it feels like to be falling deeper and deeper into despair. I, for one, have absolutely no idea. The worst consequences I have ever suffered for my actions are short-term punishments from parents for ridiculous little things, or perhaps that $360 fine and 3 demerit points for running a red light by 3.6 seconds (oops). I refuse to believe that no matter how desperate I could possibly become I would never put myself in so much risk. Like I said, the context of my life means the mistakes I make result in minor consequences.

The Bali 9, Van Nguyen, many of these kids are and were around my age when they made the biggest mistakes of their lives. Yet there are people who feel that some mistakes do not deserve a reprieve, that some acts of foolishness carry a higher price than a human life.

I guess this is a good opportunity to tell you about one of my first serious involvements which was December 2006 working with the Reach Out Campaign as volunteer. Nguyen Tuong Van was convicted of drug trafficking by the Singaporean High Court and sentenced to death. The sentence was carried out 6:07 am 2 December 2005. Australian barristers Lex Lasry and Julian McMahon worked tirelessly in support of Van throughout much of his appeal process. Australian's rallied behind Van and showed their support through the Reach Out Campaign by tracing their hands on a piece of paper, similar to a gesture Van himself made to his mother, Kim. The campaign, started by two of Van's close friends, Kelly Ng and Bronii Lew, created a focus point for an incredible amount of support for Van to flow into. Tens of thousands of traced hands reached out to Van at a time when not even his mother was allowed close enough to hold him. The hands were then displayed on the lawns at the State Library in Melbourne which created even more local support and drew international interest.

In December 2006, the campaign was restarted in commemoration of the 1 year anniversary of Van's execution and to remind people that Australia is a nation that stands firmly opposed to capital punishment. Here are some photos and videos from the event.












The day ended up being an incredible experience and we achieved a lot in a short amount of time. Perhaps this year they will even be displayed again.

Thanks for reading.

Quote of the day:

"...this man has completely rehabilitated, this man has completely reformed, now they're goin' to kill him."

- Julian McMahon

In The News - 30 May

Being an Australian myself, I am more closely involved with cases of Australian's sentenced to death overseas. Hopefully I will find the time to make a post on my involvement thus far in this area, but for now you will have to be content with some recent newsworthy developments.

____________________________________

More foreigners sentenced to death for drug trafficking in Indonesia.

You might already be aware the 6 Australians are facing execution in Indonesia. These 6 come from the renowned "Bali 9". Renae Lawrence, Michael Czugaj and Martin Stephens have all been given lengthy sentences in Jakarta for their role in trafficking heroin out of Indonesia and into Australia. The 6 that are sentenced to death, Myuran Sukumaran, Andrew Chan, Si Yi Chen, Scott Rush, Tan Nguyen and Matthew Norman are all fighting for their lives in any way possible (I'll refer to them as the Bali 6). I'll go into more detail about this case another time, but for now, that's a very brief summary for those who don't know about it. They are all Australian citizens.

Now it seems that many more countries will be dragged into this fight for the Australian's lives.

Seven sentenced to death in Indonesia

AN Indonesian court has sentenced two Europeans and five Chinese nationals to death for running a large ecstasy factory outside the capital Jakarta.

The Supreme Court today ordered the sentences against a French and a Dutch national who were found guilty late last year of producing dangerous substances, court spokesman Djoko Sarwoko said.

Dutchman Nicolaas Garnick Josephus Gerardus, 61, and French national Serge Areski Atlaoui, 43, have not yet been informed of their sentence, he said.

Five Chinese nationals were also given the death penalty after they were convicted in a separate trial last year of helping organise production of drugs at the same factory, said Sarwoko.

"The Supreme Court decided at 3pm (18:00 AEST) today that ... seven ecstasy experts should all receive the death penalty," he said.

"The seven experts are one Frenchman, one Dutch and five Chinese men."

"We decided to deliver the death penalty because it is related to international organised crime which is very dangerous," he added.

Two owners of the factory are already on death row after their conviction last year, officials have said.

The tough penalties came after appeals were lodged against life sentences handed to the two Europeans, and jail terms of 20 years given to the Chinese, following their convictions, Sarwoko said.

Prosecutors said during their trials last year that the plant was among the largest ecstasy factories ever found in southeast Asia, and recommended the judges pass the death sentence.

- Correspondents in Jakarta

This news is potentially huge for Indonesia and for the Bali 6. Firstly, 3 more countries have been brought into the playing field, France, Netherlands and China. This will bring Indonesia's system of mandatory death sentences for drug traffickers into the international spotlight even more, thus increasing the pressure.

The approach for the European nations is quite straight forward. They are both abolitionist and thus would appear hypocritical if they did not attempt to save their citizens from execution. However, it becomes complex for China, the biggest state sanctioned killer in the world, according to Amnesty International, in how they may or may not approach the fate of their citizens. I don't hold much faith that the government will rally to their aid, however, some sympathy may be raised amongst the Chinese people, thus creating some friction around the issue.

Whatever the case, this is a huge development in the battle to save the lives of the Bali 6 and to reform the Indonesian system of mandatory death. I'll keep you updated on any developments.

____________________________________

Australian convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Sudan.

An Australian man who could face the death penalty in Sudan will today appear in court to appeal his conviction for murder.

George Forbes, 46, a construction manager with Kenyan firm Trax International, could be executed after he was last week convicted of killing Ukrainian flight engineer Mykola Serebrenikov, who was found hanging from a towel rack in the Trax compound in the southern city of Rumbek in March.

A High Court judge last week found Mr Forbes and three colleagues guilty of the killing, despite a post-mortem examination finding the death was suicide.

The case was transferred to the country's Court of Appeal after Australia's ambassador to Sudan, Dr Robert Bowker met with local officials including the Chief Justice of South Sudan.

A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman said Australia's Vice Consul had travelled from Cairo to Sudan to support the Australian at his appeal hearing, which was scheduled to take place in Rumbek today.

Australian lawyers for Mr Forbes last night submitted a brief to Dr Bowker which will be used in his defence.

The court of appeal had agreed to accept the Australian lawyers' contribution, the spokesman said.

Melbourne barristers Julian McMahon and Lex Lasry, QC, who represented Melbourne man Nguyen Tuong Van before he was hanged in Singapore in 2005, are working on Mr Forbes' case on a pro-bono basis, along with Alex Danne, a solicitor with Allens Arthur Robinson who has expertise in Sudanese customary law.

Mr Forbes yesterday received medical treatment at a United Nations hospital in Rumbek, after Dr Bowker intervened to secure his release from the town's squalid prison.

He is staying at Trax's Rumbek compound.

Gerald Taylor, a relative of Mr Forbes who is helping to coordinate his defence, said local officials initially demanded a payment of more than A$180,000 for the release of Mr Forbes and his colleagues, but the men were eventually released without payment.

Mr Forbes became dehydrated in Rumbek's overcrowded prison, which exacerbated a malaria-related kidney condition.

He contracted typhoid while in custody in the lead up to his trial.

Parliamentary secretary for Foreign Affairs Greg Hunt welcomed Mr Forbes' release and praised Dr Bowker, who is shuttling between a tent in Rumbek and a mud hut in the southern capital Juba as he makes representations on the Australian's behalf.

"Whilst these developments around both the health of Mr Forbes and the legal case are positive, we remain cautious about the final outcome and will be completely vigilant until the legal process is finished and his rights have been fully preserved and protected," Mr Hunt said.

- The Age

This case seems really interesting in the sense that there appear to be many grounds for the appeal that is now being run in Sudan. I know very little about this case so far, but when I find out how the appeal process develops, and perhaps what grounds they are appealing on, I will update.

Perhaps he will be found innocent...?

Quote of the day:

"Till the infallibility of human judgments shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the death penalty."

- Marquis de Lafayette

"Killing Me Softly..."

No, this isn't a post about the Fugees; It's about an issue which I have seen becoming more and more prevalent in the politics and language used by nations and individuals who support capital punishment.

To put it quite simply, there is a growing discourse in certain States of America, and indeed other countries, concerning the violence of executions. When I say "violence" I am talking about not only the pain and suffering that the condemned goes through, but also the visual (both imagined and witnessed) impact it has on the community. This differentiation is important when examining the reasons for searching for a more "humane" form of execution. Is it an issue of compassion or merely a form of self-delusion?

To give a bit of a modern context, some States in America have currently imposed a temporary moratorium on the death penalty after a man took 2 hours to die and was seen convulsing violently as his body went into cardiac arrest. Other problems have been reported by the media, from attendants being unable to find the vein, to vein's collapsing entirely, and even to another dosage being administered due to a prolonged death. Also, in Indonesia, the Attorney General has stated that he will not execute the 6 of the Bali 9 sentenced to death by firing squad, but rather by lethal injection. No doubt a political compromise aimed at lessening the outrage from the Australian people.

This moratorium in America creates an incredible opportunity for a real discussion on the humane issues behind capital punishment and for the topic to gain a platform in the forefront of the minds of people around the world. However, I am not so enthusiastic about this development because I feel like it is a massive diversion from the real issue. My contention is that when it comes to the humane issues of capital punishment, this approach is looking in the wrong direction and asking the wrong questions. They are focusing on how the execution impacts on our own sensibilities, rather than the cruelty with which it is imposed on the condemned. These two elements are difficult to distinguish, but I'll try my best to make it clear.

Let me use a bit of an historical example from the French Revolution. The predominant method of execution in France in 1792 was the guillotine. The guillotine was lauded by many revolutionary French philosophers and politicians as "the great equalizer." It was an instrument that made all men equal, both practically and symbolically. This idea that all men are created equal was predominantly pushed into mainstream thought by Rousseau and later enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen). Where this idea of equality becomes important to the context of executions is found in the privileges of the Noblesse Oblige preceding the revolution. When convicted of a capital offence they could choose to be executed by a sword through the heart which was generally seen as a more noble form of death. On the other hand, your common peasant would suffer from all manner of torments, most commonly a simple, often blunt, axe to the back of the neck.

It's clear that the difference between the two forms of execution are separated by the social and cultural mores of the time, more so than the humane nature of the execution. But the guillotine changed this unequal system drastically. All men would be executed by the same instrument. No single man delivered the killing blow, the natural force of gravity brought the blade to its inevitable conclusion. All men were laid down flat upon a platform that sat at eye level. Everything was equal, everything was balanced. Kings, Queens, nobles and peasants all met the same end. It is not hard to see why this invention was praised as a moment of enlightenment and progression for the people of France and their justice system.

The French Revolution changed the Western world forever, and there is no doubt that the guillotine was a huge step towards realising the cruelty that can be involved in capital punishment. But are we being directed away from the real issue when we focus on making executions more humane?

Our reasons, as human beings, for attempting to sanitise executions are quite simple, but extremely misguided and selfish. Quite simply, it is absurd to talk of "humane" executions, when the issue is not one of humanity. It is about keeping our own hands clean by killing as furtively as possible. The less seen and the less heard, the less it impacts on our psyche. In essence, it is purely selfish.

It is not an issue of cruel and unusual punishment as we are so often told. Let me bring you back to the example of the guillotine to make this point clearer. The guillotine would cause death by decapitation. The razor sharp blade would drop at a tremendous speed and deliver a direct and precise blow to the neck, severing arteries and nerves instantly. If the victim does not die instantly from massive blood loss to the brain, they would almost certainly be rendered totally unconscious from the force of the blade. However, imagine if you will, the massive amounts of blood that would burst out of the neck after the decapitation. The horrible crunching sound of the blade slicing through the spinal cord and the incredibly thick and sturdy neck muscles. This gruesome sight is something that would no doubt send most of us running to our mothers sucking on our thumbs. It is easy to be disgusted by such a nightmarish spectacle and it is therefore no wonder that it is no longer a method used in the Western world.

However, if the issue is truly the pain and the suffering of the condemned, how could we possibly look further than a swift decapitation? While there is some medical uncertainty in the area, the majority of medical thought suggests that unconsciousness would be instant and brain death 30 seconds subsequent. There are, however, unethical medical reports of dismembered heads responding to their names for almost 1 minute. Not to mention the famous tale of the execution of the greatest betrayer of the French Revolution. The execution of Charlotte Corday, the lover and murderer of French revolutionary writer Jean-Paul Marat, involved a scandalous moment when the executioner slapped her decapitated head, at which moment her eyes snapped open and her face assumed a look of absolute indignation. However, there are countless medical explanations for such an happening, but the truth was no doubt sensationalised to make the event far more gruesome and the stories more morbidly fascinating. The difference between decapitation and lethal injection is the palpable sensations that they create. You can see, smell and hear the brutal conclusion of the guillotine, yet it is quite the opposite with what the lethal injection tries to achieve. The killing agent is invisible, their suffering is muted and sterile. Totally silent in most cases.

No, it is not an act of compassion or humanity to spare the condemned from a cruel and unusual suffering. No matter what the method of execution, be it crucifying, hanging, gassing, shooting, electrocution or lethal injection, the same inhuman torture is still imposed on the condemned. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the method itself, it is the torment of waiting. The agonising and gut wrenching sense of impending death which can be prolonged over months and even years. The terrifying visions of the execution and the absolute torment of solitude. It is difficult to imagine the psychological impact of being confronted with being executed. The anxiety experienced in waiting for the moment of execution is so powerful that Ann Boleyn's executioner thought it compassionate when he said "Where is my sword?" and then quickly beheaded her without any more notice, all simply to make her think she had more time to live and to spare her the fear for even just a moment.

The reasons for killing softly and subtly are two fold. We kill gently to make ourselves feel more human, we kill quietly to make them seem less human. By showing them some compassion we are able to sanitise the violence and thus find it far less confronting. By killing them in a silent manner we are able to stop them from "raging against the dying of the light", we are able to stop them from exhibiting one of the most natural and human responses to death, we are able to make them "go gently into that good night". When no blood is shed we are shielded from the sobering realisation that when we bleed, we bleed the same. It is simply an issue of humanising ourselves and dehumanising the condemned.

Why are we so obsessed with sanitising the state sanctioned death of others? Why do we seek to find ways to kill as softly as possible?

The answer is simple: "Whatever helps you sleep at night..."

Quote of the day:

"Yet, once again, the mechanism demolished everything: they killed you discreetly and rather shamefacedly but extremely accurately."

- Meursault, Albert Camus' "The Outsider"

Welcome!

So, where to begin?

I suppose a welcome is in order, for myself and anyone else reading. I've been intending to start a blog for a long time, but I always felt that they were extremely self involved! But then again, who isn't? So, I've decided to start a blog that focuses less on myself and more on an issue I am quite passionate about, capital punishment.

Maybe a little bit of background about myself and how I came to be involved with this issue. I am a 5th year Law student at Melbourne University. The first time I ever really interacted with the efficacy of the death penalty as a form of punishment was in the 2nd year of my degree. During a class on Criminal Law we had a visit from Richard Bourke, one of the senior fellows for Reprieve Australia.

I suppose at this point I should tell you a little something about Reprieve. They are a pro bono organisation that bring lawyers together from all over the world to fight capital punishment in America. They operate by adopting and conducting the appeals of convicted criminals on death row. These men and women may well be guilty of their crimes, but more often than not are incapable of finding proper representation to fight their sentence through the appropriate appellate courts. Reprieve appeals the cases vigilantly with the ultimate goal being, to lessen the sentence of the condemned. Beyond working within the system, Reprieve is involved in many international extra-legal movements to push for the abolition of capital punishment. Enough about Reprieve and back to my story.

We watched a movie which followed the final month of an African-American man on death row. The appeals, the plea for mercy, the desperation and finally the execution. For some, the saddest point of the movie was the posthumous exoneration which came all too late. For me, however, this seemed to merely compound the injustice of the execution in the first place. Simply watching this movie or listening to Richard Bourke speaking on the topic was not what really forced me to engage with the issue. It was the guy in the back row, just behind me, who raised his hand and asked "But what if they are guilty?"

My reaction to his comment was the impetus that forced me from my inertia on the issue. Being confronted by someone who seemed so blind to the real issues behind what makes capital punishment such a devastating form of justice made me take on an equally absolute, albeit the polar opposite, opinion. I suppose it's just like Newton's laws on motion.

I know this seems like quite a weak and reactionary approach. My Dad always told me as a kid, "Act, don't react." At the time I did react, I formed an opinion on the issue solely because I felt the need to even the imbalance created by his blind and absolute support for the death penalty. That was three years ago. I decided a few years after that moment that it was time to act on my opinions to prove to myself that I could be more than an idle reactionary. Since then my opinions have developed significantly, and I hope they will continue to do so.

So, there you have a brief prelude to what brought me to engage with this topic, but by no means what has brought me to create this blog. I'm sure I'll find the time to write about my involvements up until this point.

I guess I should outline my aims and goals for this blog as well. My beliefs on the issue are quite simple, but at the same time it's an incredibly complicated topic. I believe that capital punishment is absolutely wrong. I know it's dangerous to ever talk in absolutes, and in some ways this often detracts from the point you are trying to make, that's why I aim to be as unbiased and as rational in my posts on this blog as possible. But, like everyone else, I have a strong opinion on the issue which I won't go into details on now. I don't want my posts to be long lectures on what I believe, far from it. My aim is for this blog to not only canvass the many issues that surround the death penalty as a form of punishment, but also to develop my own opinions on the issues and to have a place where I can record this development. I want the way I present the issues to be as clear, concise and approachable as possible. I want to encourage and facilitate thought and constructive discussions on the issue, if it should come to that. My posts will be not only about certain issues concerning capital punishment, but also about any international developments and whatever I may be involved in at any given time, past/present/future.

In the future I would like to get this blog onto it's own domain and open some forums to further facilitate an open discussion, but that is a long way off.

There you have it, a mission statement!

Wish me luck.


Quote of the day:

"It's easy to know what you're against, quite another thing to know what you're for."

- The Wind That Shakes The Barley