In The News - 30 October

The decision was handed down by the Constitutional Court today. The mood was tentatively hopeful but that was quickly dashed at the beginning of the hearing. The Court immediately rejected the grounds of appeal for the three Australians, stating that foreigners could not enact provisions of the Indonesian Constitution.

This wasn't a killing blow, however, and there was still hope that the appeal would be carried by the two Indonesian women joined to the appeal.

A few hours later the judges handed down their final decision. It wasn't what I was hoping for and it was nothing short of disappointing and at best it wasn't crushing. It was ruled the right to life made out in the Constitution was not absolute and would bend under considerations of the damage done to their society by drugs. The decision was split 6-3.

That's where there is perhaps the greatest progress to come from the case. 1/3 of the bench in favour of the proposition is certainly more than just a modest amount of support. Also, there was a recommendation by a majority of the judges to create a 10 year probation of good behaviour. Julian McMahon summarised it as:

"Instead of just going out and pursuing the death penalty they are really saying... we hope that in the future the law can be changed and that there can be a 10-year probation period so that if after 10 years you've reformed, then your penalty can be reduced to a 20-year penalty,"

At first I thought this would be a strange outcome and I still don't quite understand the intricacies of it. Will it mean that lawyers will have to do everything in their power to keep their client alive for 10 years? Wouldn't this encourage time wasting and vexatious appeals? I'm not too sure, but it's certainly encouraging and shows that they are very focused on some sort of law reform in the area. And like a friend of mine said earlier, you can't change a country's values over night.

The next step is to follow on with the planned Judicial Review, albeit without the support of the majority of the Constitutional Court. This will be an incredibly challenging stage as it will essentially involve asking the Court to reconsider their previous decision, however thie time it is done with not only three justices' minority support, but also an Indonesia with a less dogmatic Attorney-General and 2 years of political and social change.

There is currently another appeal taking place for some others of the Bali 9 on death row through Judicial Review. The outcome of that case will be crucial in determining the success for Sukumaran, Chan and Rush.

Hopefully after the election, when there is a less pressure to say what everyone wants to hear, the Australian Government will be able to form a consistent approach in support of the Bali 9. On that note, the executions of the Bali Bombers seems to be imminent. If it occurs before the election you can be sure it will be twisted every which way for political purposes and so I really hope that there is as little conditional support for their executions as possible. Ideally there could be some really strong resistance by the Australian Government, even if just to tell them that we do not support their executions. Whatever happens it will have massive consequences for Australians on death row in Indonesia.

In The News - 8 October

Finally there is a strong voice coming from Australian politics that it is totally and unashamedly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. Robert McLelland of the Australian Labor Party has made it clear that under no circumstances, here or abroad, will a Labor Government condone State sanctioned executions. This means both Saddam Hussein and the Bali Bombers.

Watch closely now as John Howard gives a text book definition of double standards. He would have us believe that we, as a Nation, prohibit the death penalty in Australia and from being exacted upon Australians overseas, yet, we are entirely in support of the execution of foreign nationals in their own countries. This sort of approach smacks of, at worst, racism and at the absolute best, hypocrisy.

To think that somehow Indonesian lives are worth less than the lives of Australians overseas seems quite blatantly racist. Perhaps it is driven by ideas of sovereignty, that Indonesia has a right to enforce its laws on its own constituents, but leave ours out of it. For starters, most Indonesians are undoubtedly more appalled by drug traffickers than terrorists. Drug trafficking has been a massive economic and social burden on nearly all the South and East Asian countries. Drugs are a far greater scourge than terrorism and so the disgust is understandable. Watching Howard suggesting with a straight face that the lives of Australians are to be held to a higher standard than the lives of foreigners is completely in conflict with any attempts to try to save the lives of the Bali 6. I understand that as our Prime Minister he is supposed to have our best interests at heart, but if he was truly interested in protecting Australians then why would he so cooly condone the use of capital punishment in a country where 6 Australians face that very fate.

"What other countries do is ultimately a matter for those other countries..."

What messsage does this send to Indonesia? When we suggest that the use of the death penalty is degrading and inhuman yet we support it in some cases. It completely undermines any attempt by other Australians to saves the lives of the Bali 6. John Howard's hate mongering for the Bali bombers is disgusting and is quite frankly racist and hypocritical.

"I find it impossible to argue that those executions should not take place when they have murdered my fellow countrymen and women."

I simply don't understand what line John Howard is drawing to justify the Bali bombers' execution. It could not possibly be the act of murder which he is condeming as worthy of death, for surely in such a case Martin Bryant should be executed for the Port Arthur Massacre (barring his possible psychological problems). So if it isn't the crime, then all I can isolate this to is the race and nationality of the offender. John Howard feels that the life of an Australian is worth more than the life of an Indonesian, quite simply. This sort of approach is entirely consistent with his xenophobic foreign policy in regards to refugees and asylum seekers.

We are a nation either absolutely opposed to the death penalty or we are a nation who support it. If we want to have any chance of helping to encourage the legal systems of our neighbours to consider abolishing capital punishment then it is imperative that we form a united and unconditional opposition to the death penalty. We can't come to the steps of Indonesia asking for them to spare the lives of Australians simply because they are exactly that, Australians.

Prime Minister, should those 6 boys be executed in Indonesia then the blood is on your hands.

I can only pray that a Labor government can hastily undo the damage you have already done to the prospects of saving their lives.

In The News - 7 June

John Forbes has been found not guilty on appeal in Sudan.

This is great news for the poor guy, who described the experience as mind numbingly terrifying. I think that really goes to show just how difficult it really is to live with the prospect of an impending execution. I can't imagine how relieved he must feel.

Anyway, I was speaking from ignorance more than hope when I said "He might even be innocent" but there you have it. To be honest, a few days after I made that post I was reading a newspaper article that was outlining his charges, and it seemed pretty outrageous at best.

In some other news, 3 of the Bali 6 have been forbidden from making a statement before the Supreme Court hands down their decision.

Keep your eyes on the headlines over the next month in regards to the Bali 6. There should be a decision handed down by the Supreme Court very soon regarding the appeals for the above 3. On the other side, the Constitutional Court will make a decision on the appeal of the other 3 within a month I'm sure. Geez, I'm actually getting butterflies.

Till next time.

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"