Just Punishment was screened at the HRAFF earlier this month. It's now being screened around Australia and will hopefully be aired around Asia over the coming years.
It's an amazingly moving story about the reformation of Van Nguyen on death row in Singapore. It was filmed over 2 years, following the lives of those close to him, and his own life through a diary he kept while incarcerated.
See the trailer here.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Politics of Life and Death
It always seems like the death penalty is an issue that politicians use for their own political advantage. The politics of life and death can twist the real questions surrounding capital punishment into an aberration.
The best example at the moment is the question of the "constituionality" of the death penalty. The "three drug cocktail" debate that is before the U.S. Supreme Court is utterly surreal. First of all, an anesthetic is administered into the body, followed by pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The former paralyzing all the muscles in the body and the latter causing cardiac arrest. The real issue that is before the Supreme Court is the possiblity of the anesthetic being administered incorrectly, followed by the condemned man suffering an excruciating death, trapped within his own body that is incapable of expressing the agony they are experiencing. Imagine waking up during open heart surgery, but unable to move or communicate that you are able feel your body being torn open. The possiblity of the anesthetic being incorrectly administered is all too real, especially when the hypocratic oath forbids real physicians from being present. I know very little about anesthetics, but I do know that being an anesthetist is almost as specialised and complex as being a surgeon, and the intricacies of putting a person "under" is somewhat of an art form.
The purpose behind a drug that paralyzes the muscles is to make the death easier for the community to swallow. A politician won't be able to sell to the public a form of execution that leaves the victim convulsing wildly on the table. Essentially, it's for our good that they are being stopped from expressing any signs of pain or agony. Justice Stevens recognised this,
It may seem that arguing about the constitutionality of lethal injection is conceding the legitimacy of the death penalty. I believe that arguing about humane murder is an exercise in futility, yet it does serve a valuable purpose. With every day that passes without an execution, the condemned are given a reprieve, the system loses momentum and opposition to the death penalty must inevitably grow from this. Take away the constant stream of executions and more and more people will lose the taste for it.
The death penalty is, of course, going to be a strong issue during the U.S. election this year, and I was disappointed to hear that all the Democratic candidates are pro-death. It almost seems like a political necessity to avoid appearing soft on crime.
Back home we have a similar problem with the Rudd government stating that “The Australian Government will intervene to oppose the death penalty only in the case of Australian citizens.” The words "intervene" suggests different emphasis than the Howard government which stated quite clearly that "I find it impossible … to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women." The difference in approach is in the nationality, rather than the nature of the crime. What I'm trying to say is, it's rational to say that Australia will not use forceful negotiation to save the lives of non-Australians on death row in other countries. It makes sense to me that a nation has no place to "intervene" in the autonomy of another nations democratic processes unless it threatens the lives of that former countries nationals. Voting at the United Nations for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty tells me that the Rudd government is pushing for a world free of state executions.
Even though Australia won't intervene in the executions of the Bali Bombers, it shouldn't support them through silent approval. There is a thin line between refusing to "intervene" and condoning something. An official government policy that states that Australia does not support executions has just been made to the U.N., so why can't we say the same thing to Indonesia? It's not "intervention" to simply state our stance on a matter.
And then that contradictory, racist and political head rears itself. Mr. Rudd will never intervene to save the lives of a terrorist. What about an Australian terrorist? Is this why David Hicks spent 6 years in an illegal prison without trial, because he was a terrorist? What if David Hicks was facing a firing squad in America after being found guilty of terrorist acts? I call this view contradictory because to say we will never condone the executions of Australians, but never save the lives of terrorists creates a huge logical gap. I call it racist because it suggests that terrorists only come from elsewhere, and that it's not possible that they could originate from "white" Australia. Right now Kevin Rudd's approach on the death penalty is purely political. He's playing the game, pandering to what we want to hear, but he's talking himself in circles.
So why does politics always breed the wrong focus on the issues behind capital punishment? The rhetoric that is used by politicians when they talk about the death of other human beings simply creates static around the issue. So many people have no idea that executions in America are on hold. So many people in Louisiana have no idea that the rape of a child attracts the death penalty. Why are so many Americans disinformed or disinterested in the process? It almost seems like state killing is a political toy born of ignorance and fear. I know that I can't change the fact that politics is mercurical and pragmatic by nature, but if I had my way I'd make those politicians a little bit more aware of just what their gambling with.
Quote of the day:
The best example at the moment is the question of the "constituionality" of the death penalty. The "three drug cocktail" debate that is before the U.S. Supreme Court is utterly surreal. First of all, an anesthetic is administered into the body, followed by pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The former paralyzing all the muscles in the body and the latter causing cardiac arrest. The real issue that is before the Supreme Court is the possiblity of the anesthetic being administered incorrectly, followed by the condemned man suffering an excruciating death, trapped within his own body that is incapable of expressing the agony they are experiencing. Imagine waking up during open heart surgery, but unable to move or communicate that you are able feel your body being torn open. The possiblity of the anesthetic being incorrectly administered is all too real, especially when the hypocratic oath forbids real physicians from being present. I know very little about anesthetics, but I do know that being an anesthetist is almost as specialised and complex as being a surgeon, and the intricacies of putting a person "under" is somewhat of an art form.
The purpose behind a drug that paralyzes the muscles is to make the death easier for the community to swallow. A politician won't be able to sell to the public a form of execution that leaves the victim convulsing wildly on the table. Essentially, it's for our good that they are being stopped from expressing any signs of pain or agony. Justice Stevens recognised this,
“I’m terribly troubled by the fact that the second drug is what seems to cause all the risk of excruciating pain and seems to be almost totally unnecessary.”
It may seem that arguing about the constitutionality of lethal injection is conceding the legitimacy of the death penalty. I believe that arguing about humane murder is an exercise in futility, yet it does serve a valuable purpose. With every day that passes without an execution, the condemned are given a reprieve, the system loses momentum and opposition to the death penalty must inevitably grow from this. Take away the constant stream of executions and more and more people will lose the taste for it.
The death penalty is, of course, going to be a strong issue during the U.S. election this year, and I was disappointed to hear that all the Democratic candidates are pro-death. It almost seems like a political necessity to avoid appearing soft on crime.
Back home we have a similar problem with the Rudd government stating that “The Australian Government will intervene to oppose the death penalty only in the case of Australian citizens.” The words "intervene" suggests different emphasis than the Howard government which stated quite clearly that "I find it impossible … to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women." The difference in approach is in the nationality, rather than the nature of the crime. What I'm trying to say is, it's rational to say that Australia will not use forceful negotiation to save the lives of non-Australians on death row in other countries. It makes sense to me that a nation has no place to "intervene" in the autonomy of another nations democratic processes unless it threatens the lives of that former countries nationals. Voting at the United Nations for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty tells me that the Rudd government is pushing for a world free of state executions.
Even though Australia won't intervene in the executions of the Bali Bombers, it shouldn't support them through silent approval. There is a thin line between refusing to "intervene" and condoning something. An official government policy that states that Australia does not support executions has just been made to the U.N., so why can't we say the same thing to Indonesia? It's not "intervention" to simply state our stance on a matter.
And then that contradictory, racist and political head rears itself. Mr. Rudd will never intervene to save the lives of a terrorist. What about an Australian terrorist? Is this why David Hicks spent 6 years in an illegal prison without trial, because he was a terrorist? What if David Hicks was facing a firing squad in America after being found guilty of terrorist acts? I call this view contradictory because to say we will never condone the executions of Australians, but never save the lives of terrorists creates a huge logical gap. I call it racist because it suggests that terrorists only come from elsewhere, and that it's not possible that they could originate from "white" Australia. Right now Kevin Rudd's approach on the death penalty is purely political. He's playing the game, pandering to what we want to hear, but he's talking himself in circles.
So why does politics always breed the wrong focus on the issues behind capital punishment? The rhetoric that is used by politicians when they talk about the death of other human beings simply creates static around the issue. So many people have no idea that executions in America are on hold. So many people in Louisiana have no idea that the rape of a child attracts the death penalty. Why are so many Americans disinformed or disinterested in the process? It almost seems like state killing is a political toy born of ignorance and fear. I know that I can't change the fact that politics is mercurical and pragmatic by nature, but if I had my way I'd make those politicians a little bit more aware of just what their gambling with.
Quote of the day:
"How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"
-Bob Dylan
Thursday, January 3, 2008
It's Always Darkest Before Dawn
The sayings usually go, an eye for an eye or a life for a life and from one perspective it seems entirely fair and just, but from another it seems hypocritical and shallow. The situation in America with regards to the death penalty is like a tale of two cities, it's the best of times and it's the worst of times, no matter what point of view you hold.
On the one hand, as I wrote about in my last entry, there seems to be a growing distaste for capital punishment as a form of justice with New Jersey being the first American state to abolish it in 27 years. It goes further with the United States Supreme Court currently considering the constitutionality of lethal injection. In the unlikely event that it will be found too cruel a form of execution, I can only wonder at what possible alternative they could dream up. Whatever the case, the nation is taking note of the Court's pending decision.
The same is also occurring, however, on the opposite side of the coin. Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976 no one has been executed for a crime that was anything less than a homicide. In Coker v Georgia it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the rape of an adult woman could not attract the death sentence because it was not proportionate to the crime. The case failed to address any other offences which were not grievous enough to attract the death penalty, but it would be necessary in the future to show that it is a worse crime than rape.
In 1995 Louisiana enacted a statute under which it was a capital offence to rape a child under the age of 12. This decision effectively found that the rape of a young child could destroy the life of a child and therefore was equally as morally corrupt as murder. The practice of comparing suffering is always dangerous ground, especially something as volatile as rape. The vulnerability of the child is the key issue, and in other states these laws include the rape of elderly persons. A handful of American states have variations, such as the execution of repeat offenders, however the basic premise remains the same, the execution of people who have not committed a crime of homicide.
Two men now sit on death row in Louisiana, Patrick Kennedy being the first to be convicted of the rape of an 8 year old girl, and the second convicted only a month ago.
Personally, I find it difficult to see murder as more deserving of the death penalty than rape, and it seems unhelpful to discuss degrees of what qualifies more for a death sentence when I believe that nothing fulfills such a standard. However, there can be no doubt that an extension of death penalty beyond normal social standards is worrying. Much like the cases of Atkins and Roper, where the executions of mentally disabled and juveniles was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case of Patrick Kennedy raises similar questions.
Indeed, Patrick Kennedy has been granted Cert to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If precedent prevails, the question will be approached in the same manner which it was in Atkins and Roper, where the court looked at the national consensus, jury considerations and international trends. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of the country does not feel that child rape warrants execution, and internationally the same standard would seem to prevail. The decision will have far reaching effects whatever way it goes. It could spell the end of executions for non-homicide crimes with the court deciding to set a standard rather than just restricting themselves to the facts of the case at hand. There are still far more hurdles to overcome however.
Child sex offenders are easy targets, they often suffer from psycho-sexual disorders and without the right support are likely to reoffend. I was reading the Times-Picayune the other day and turned to the announcements section. Under the Legal Notices there were the photos of about 8 men, all sex offenders, all forced by law to announce their prior convictions when moving address. That is one way to ensure that a sex offender is unable to reoffend, however it certainly doesn't offer them any sort of social support, infact it likely serves to vilify them and make them victim to hate crimes within their neighbourhood. I'm not saying that communities shouldn't be made aware of when sex offenders move into their area, but it should be done in a way that will discourage any sort of vilification.
The movie Little Children focuses ever so slightly on a man who is harassed by his neighbours for revealing himself to some children. Without spoiling the film, the result of his constant vilification and total lack of social support has serious consequences for both him and his family.
The step towards the execution of child rapists almost seems to draw from the Stalin-esque concept of "No man, no problem." This approach is based on the likelihood of the person reoffending, and so, by simply removing them from existence there is no fear of another child being harmed. This cold and callous approach is indicative of the extent of respect and support that such people receive from a system which fails to rehabilitate them. Either a community can attempt to help these people or they can kill them off.
For me, the right direction seems obvious, but the right answer more clouded. I don't know the most effective systems or methods of support to offer child sex offenders, but I do know the first step is to treat them like human beings.
Quote of the day:
On the one hand, as I wrote about in my last entry, there seems to be a growing distaste for capital punishment as a form of justice with New Jersey being the first American state to abolish it in 27 years. It goes further with the United States Supreme Court currently considering the constitutionality of lethal injection. In the unlikely event that it will be found too cruel a form of execution, I can only wonder at what possible alternative they could dream up. Whatever the case, the nation is taking note of the Court's pending decision.
The same is also occurring, however, on the opposite side of the coin. Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976 no one has been executed for a crime that was anything less than a homicide. In Coker v Georgia it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the rape of an adult woman could not attract the death sentence because it was not proportionate to the crime. The case failed to address any other offences which were not grievous enough to attract the death penalty, but it would be necessary in the future to show that it is a worse crime than rape.
In 1995 Louisiana enacted a statute under which it was a capital offence to rape a child under the age of 12. This decision effectively found that the rape of a young child could destroy the life of a child and therefore was equally as morally corrupt as murder. The practice of comparing suffering is always dangerous ground, especially something as volatile as rape. The vulnerability of the child is the key issue, and in other states these laws include the rape of elderly persons. A handful of American states have variations, such as the execution of repeat offenders, however the basic premise remains the same, the execution of people who have not committed a crime of homicide.
Two men now sit on death row in Louisiana, Patrick Kennedy being the first to be convicted of the rape of an 8 year old girl, and the second convicted only a month ago.
Personally, I find it difficult to see murder as more deserving of the death penalty than rape, and it seems unhelpful to discuss degrees of what qualifies more for a death sentence when I believe that nothing fulfills such a standard. However, there can be no doubt that an extension of death penalty beyond normal social standards is worrying. Much like the cases of Atkins and Roper, where the executions of mentally disabled and juveniles was found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case of Patrick Kennedy raises similar questions.
Indeed, Patrick Kennedy has been granted Cert to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If precedent prevails, the question will be approached in the same manner which it was in Atkins and Roper, where the court looked at the national consensus, jury considerations and international trends. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of the country does not feel that child rape warrants execution, and internationally the same standard would seem to prevail. The decision will have far reaching effects whatever way it goes. It could spell the end of executions for non-homicide crimes with the court deciding to set a standard rather than just restricting themselves to the facts of the case at hand. There are still far more hurdles to overcome however.
Child sex offenders are easy targets, they often suffer from psycho-sexual disorders and without the right support are likely to reoffend. I was reading the Times-Picayune the other day and turned to the announcements section. Under the Legal Notices there were the photos of about 8 men, all sex offenders, all forced by law to announce their prior convictions when moving address. That is one way to ensure that a sex offender is unable to reoffend, however it certainly doesn't offer them any sort of social support, infact it likely serves to vilify them and make them victim to hate crimes within their neighbourhood. I'm not saying that communities shouldn't be made aware of when sex offenders move into their area, but it should be done in a way that will discourage any sort of vilification.
The movie Little Children focuses ever so slightly on a man who is harassed by his neighbours for revealing himself to some children. Without spoiling the film, the result of his constant vilification and total lack of social support has serious consequences for both him and his family.
The step towards the execution of child rapists almost seems to draw from the Stalin-esque concept of "No man, no problem." This approach is based on the likelihood of the person reoffending, and so, by simply removing them from existence there is no fear of another child being harmed. This cold and callous approach is indicative of the extent of respect and support that such people receive from a system which fails to rehabilitate them. Either a community can attempt to help these people or they can kill them off.
For me, the right direction seems obvious, but the right answer more clouded. I don't know the most effective systems or methods of support to offer child sex offenders, but I do know the first step is to treat them like human beings.
Quote of the day:
“The guilty one is not the who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.”
- Victor Hugo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
