The Dearly Departed

It's easy to get romantic about our life experiences, to look at things through from a sort of rose coloured nostalgic perspective. Throughout our lives we no doubt have a wealth of memorable moments, but there are of course many that we won't have a chance to experience. What is life if not a string of moments, one after another. Living life is about having experiences, the good along with the bad.

I visited three men on Death Row yesterday at Angola prison but that's not where my story begins.

When I arrived home late from work on Thursday night I found all of my neighbours gathered in the courtyard having dinner. They told me that they planned to watch "Dead Man Walking" that night, a movie that is arguably the most renowned cinematic representation of "southern hospitality". So many times I've walked in to Blockbuster with every intention of renting the movie, only to be distracted by "Blades of Glory" as a new release, or some other Hollywood flick which promises a much more upbeat evening. What are the chances that the day before my journey out to Angola a group of people I live with will decide to watch that very movie, a total coincidence. I had to get up at 6am Friday morning but I decided to make a date with destiny and just watch it.

For obvious reasons I can't write about the names or the details of the conversations that I had with those three men, but I will write about the effect that it had on me. Angola sits on the border of Mississippi and Louisiana and is one of the biggest state prisons in America. It's not what you'd expect if you just arrived there out of the blue. It's a giant chunk of land with farms and animals on one side, and on the other concrete buildings, high fences and row upon row of razor wire. It takes nearly 1o minutes to drive from one end of the prison to the row, which sits right at the end of the facility.

The rooms in which you sit are a little bigger than a telephone booth. Thick plate glass separates you from them and a phone exists as your link of communication. When you first enter the room you're alone for awhile as the guards retrieve the man from his quarters. The glass is so dense you can see your reflection in it as you wait. Your own image sits, staring back at you, perfectly in line with the empty chair on the other side. At this moment I was hit with the most overwhelming feeling of isolation. How easily I could be sitting in that chair on the other side. How incomprehensible it is that an inch of glass can distinguish the living from those condemned to die. The feeling of helplessness is difficult to deal with when it's just sympathetic, and so it is impossible to imagine how it must feel when it is the cold reality you wake up to every morning.

This is a life experience I hope to never have to live through, but it is certainly one that I can't help but wish I could understand. A strange respect and deference grows from this sort of inability to comprehend. They must be incredibly brave to keep pushing forward every day when others are working hard to kill them. It's so easy to admire someone for what they have endured in their life. The stress and anxiety that is created when you live everyday with the thought that there are people who hate you and want to kill you is something we appreciate in our ANZACS, both dead and living. We revere them for sacrificing their peace and safety for turmoil and violence. We vow every year, lest we forget, that their sacrifices were not in vain nor will they ever go unappreciated. Our Diggers are respected for what they accomplished, but more importantly, they are considered heroes for what they endured.

There is a fine line between respecting peoples sacrifices, and glorifying warfare. The same goes for these men on the row, after all they are men who endure the threat and fear of death every moment of their lives. Are they heroes too? It's easy to get romantic, to get carried away with the injustice of it all and to treat them like heroes. They aren't heroes, nor are they martyrs. It's unhelpful to take the bleeding heart approach and treat them like helpless victims, and god forbid pity them. I hate that word, pity.

It's easy to justify why I would fight for the life of someone on Death Row, but it's hard to stop yourself from putting them up on a pedestal. It's hard to fight for the rights of people who did not respect the rights of others. It's hard to believe that the person sitting across from you murdered someone. It's even harder to believe that someone intends to murder them in the future. I didn't look up the crimes committed by the men I visited because I didn't feel like it should matter. I wanted to treat them with the respect and dignity I'd give anyone else. Their punishment lies in the arresting of their liberties, not in being treated like something less than human. At the same time I have to always remember how important it is that these people be held responsible for their actions. It's difficult to give your heart and mind to a cause which demands that you curb your compassion at the same time.

In "Dead Man Walking", Helen Prejean, a nun living in New Orleans, battles against the values and expectations of those around her. Matthew Poncelet is a man convicted of double murder and sentenced to death, but still professing his innocence. The movie depicted the struggle of her urge to save the mans life with the fact that he was entirely unrepentant. It's hard not to feel a great deal of sympathy for a man who says with great conviction that he is innocent. The movie tricks you into believing fully in Poncelet's innocence by showing the moment of the crime in a flashback, with another man committing the murder. But the message in the film isn't that the Death Penalty is horrible because it could possibly execute an innocent person, that doesn't go nearly far enough. Moments before his execution he admits to the murder and it's as if the director has pulled the supports out from under you. The movie is no longer about innocence or guilt, but life or death. The viewer is forced to watch the execution of a guilty man, but a man nevertheless. The scene of his execution is cut intermittently with the true version of events during the crime, which confirm that he did indeed commit the murder. The message seems, at least to me, to be that no man deserves to die, but that such compassion or sympathy should never forget or forgive the crimes that they committed.

The experience of meeting those men on Death Row was incredibly challenging and confronting and something I would struggle to forget. They spoke about their experiences with the sort careful consideration that we so rarely afford ourselves in our modern, hectic lives. I'll finish this post off with the words of one of the guys I spoke with. It's not the last time I'll speak to them, and it's certainly not the last time I'll walk away from that prison feeling absolutely humbled.

Quote of the day:

"We're not monsters. We're just people, people who have made really stupid choices but people nevertheless. No-one can take that away from us."

Reprieve and New Orleans

For those of you who don't know, I've just left Australia to undertake an internship with the LCAC through Reprieve. I've mentioned Reprieve in this blog but never in a huge amount of detail. They have essentially placed me here to work as a volunteer for three months. I'll be working in the Trials division which deals with the cases from conviction. The LCAC generally work with indigent clients who are unable to afford adequate representation and the cases are always those that attract the death penalty, ie. capital cases.

The work hasn't started filtering in yet. I've been absolutely knocked dead by the 14 hour time difference, so it's likely I'll be out of commission until next week. I'm not going to fill this blog with my random musings about life in "The Big Easy", but no doubt my experiences with the American legal system and the people on death row will draw from it.

My role will involve working with the investigators by interviewing witnesses and, of course, filing concisely to make the work easier for the lawyers. I'll also being assisting the lawyers with trial preparations etc. The last and most important role we play is a purely humanitarian one. The Center frequently sends us out to visit the prisoners on death row to just talk to them and keep them company. It's no surprise that on death row they aren't treated with the respect and dignity that everyone deserves, and it's hoped that our visits help restore a sense of humanity to the criminal justice system.

It's not going to be easy and it certainly won't be fun, but breaking the law doesn't make them any less of a human and it just as easily could have been me on the other side of that glass.

Quote of the day:

I never saw a man who looked
With such a wistful eye
Upon that little tent of blue
Which prisoners call the sky,
And at every drifting cloud that went
With sails of silver by.

-Oscar Wilde

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.

"I can't help that, I can't help that"

So it's all over the news in Australia at the moment, the death penalty. The Attorney General in Jakarta has softened on the issue and has agreed to enforce whatever verdict the Constitutional Court of Indonesia hand down. This could mean, at best, that the the Indonesian Constitutional right to life, Undang-Undang Dasar cl. 28 (i), will be upheld and applied to not only citizens but foreign nationals and that it will apply retrospectively. I have been saying for months to keep your eye out for this decision, and the lawyers are telling me that it should come any minute now, but no one can really say exactly when it will come.

This entire issue comes at a painful time for many Australians with the anniversary of the bombings. Perhaps with the assurances of the Attorney General in Jakarta that the Bali bombers will not be executed soon will mean that some respite on the issue can be given to those in mourning. When both political parties are fighting tooth and nail for this next election it perhaps isn't helpful that the issue is being thrown around carelessly, both by Howard and Rudd. I think it was a real fear amongst like-minded abolitionists that the Bali bombers would be executed on the 12 October as a symbolic act of retribution.

However, don't let me tell you that this isn't something that needs to be discussed urgently. If the Indonesian government is showing signs of slowing then we should re-double our efforts.

___________________________________________________________________________

Beyond the political issues that are at hand, I found something incredibly touching and honest in a statement to The Age from, Dave Byron, the father of one of the victims of the Bali bombings, Chloe Byron. To have lost his 15 year old daughter must have been no doubt traumatising and it is tragic to see that he still suffers so greatly from the scars of his loss. He is calling for the death of the Bali bombers to "protect" his daughter and he is also asking for political rhetoric on the issue to stop.

This really struck me though...

"Realistically, for me, it is just vengeance and vengeance isn't good, but I can't help that, I can't help that."

The victims of capital punishment don't stop at the death of the condemned. The family and friends of the condemned suffer for the rest of their lives from images of the execution and the loss of their loved one. It must be unbearably traumatic to watch a State slowly and systematically put a loved one to death. The prison wardens are put in a situation where they witness death every week. And finally, the other side of the spectrum, the families of the victims who are left to indulge their urge for revenge in the blood of the condemned.

There is book I read a year ago called "Don't Kill In Our Names" which examines personal stories of loss at the hands of a criminal which ultimately ending in forgiveness, sometimes after their execution and sometimes before. The book depicts some incredibly difficult and moving journeys towards ultimately quelling the urge for revenge. One quote from the book is particularly applicable,

"To say that vengeance and closure can exist together is a contradiction... the other side of vengeance is anger and as long as we hold onto our anger, our grieving isn't over."

Dave Byron wants to protect the memory of his daughter by exacting revenge on the three murderers who took her away from him. Perhaps we should also try protecting him from something he "can't help".

Quote of the day:

"Revenge is a confession of pain."

-Latin proverb

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.

Values At Any Price

That title doesn't really make sense, but who really cares?

I'm now officially travelling to America for 3 months to do an Internship. I'll be doing a placement as a volunteer with the Louisiana Capital Assistance Center in New Orleans, leaving on 27 November '07. I always thought New Orleans was the capital of Louisiana but I was surprised to find out that it's a city called Baton Rouge. The capital is more industrial and less populated than the Home of Jazz though! I think the center I am working in is on the border of the French Quarter which was saved from Hurricane Katrina because it rests on an elevated part of the land.

I applied for the Internship early this year and went through a huge application process of forms and interviews etc. My final interview was with Richard Bourke and if you remember he was the member from Reprieve who held the lecture on the death penalty at Melbourne University which first got me to really engage with the issue. Richard is quite famous amongst the interns for being able to systematically break you down during the interview process and challenge every reason you have for opposing the death penalty. I haven't met anyone who said their interview with him was a cake walk. Well, he did exactly that to me and I actually came away from the experience quite humbled.

The point he was trying to emphasise to me during the whole interview was that the only thing that separates me from anyone else who supports the death penalty are my values. I'm not answering to some higher moral calling that other people are to simple or too barbaric to understand. Now, that's not to say that I can't believe that the death penalty makes its constituents more brutal and unfeeling, but its an understanding that it does not necessarily make them bad people. And this is something that I realised I had never really considered. By acknowledging that the only difference between myself and a supporter of the death penalty are our values, not some inherent goodness or badness within us as human beings. If I had been born in Houston Texas to a typical family then it is more than likely that I would have been an avid supporter of the death penalty because that is the status quo I have been brought up in.

That sort of understanding and humility when dealing with your own values on any subject is actually something that is incredibly important. You can't win an argument with someone if you treat their standpoint as barbaric and inhuman, and you certainly won't convert them to your opinion. But if you can come to understand that it is something as simple as your values that separates you and that you might just have easily carried their values then you can approach the issue with the sort of humility that you need in a conflict of opinion.

Not only that, but it is also central to the issue of capital punishment and revenge. The systematic demonisation of people on death row is not uncommon at all. By dehumanising the condemned we are able to very simply classify them as unfit to live. Much like Camus' Outsider, if someone flaunts society's most basic standards and mores then they become a "heart that is so empty it threatens to engulf society." And this is where the basic concept of understanding comes into play. Sentencing someone to death shows an inability or unwillingness to understand what drives the person to do what they do, which would in turn require you to acknowledge them as a human. To acknowledge that, however, requires humility because it is in an uncomfortable thought to so closely associate yourself with someone that does not carry your same standards or values. Humility is the ability to admit that you have no right to say whether that persons actions have forfeited their right to life, or that you are any more of a human being than they.

A good example of this can be found in one of the greatest atrocities in human history, the Jewish genocide. Hitler and Himmler were not the men in the field murdering millions of Jews, they simply imparted their views and values on the men and women who would listen. And they did listen, because Hitler was an incredibly captivating and zealous speaker who could rouse crowds of thousands into a frenzy of passion. One of my school teachers was at a Nuremburg Rally and he was so overcome by the mass of people screaming "Zeig Heil" that he couldn't help but do the same through a stream of tears. So the question is, are the police and soldiers who instituted Hitler's Final Solution to the Jewish Question normal human beings? Consider this passage from Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitlers Willing Executioners" that describes the massacre of Jozefow where the victims were taken from the city to the outlying woods and executed one by one to prevent a panic amongst the masses who waited in the town center.

“The walk into the woods afforded each perpetrator an opportunity for reflection. Walking side by side with his victim, he was able to imbue the human form beside him with the projections of his mind. Some of the Germans, of course, had children walking beside them… Did he see a little frail girl, and ask himself why he was about to kill this little, delicate human being… After the walk… the Germans had to raise his gun to the back of the head, now face down on the ground, that had bobbed along beside him, pull the trigger, and watch… the little girl, twitch and then move no more.”

To understand what could drive human beings to such lengths is a question that is both difficult to tackle and impossible to comprehend fully. Some people would suggest that the soldiers were systematically brutalised to a point that they were inhuman, but I would counter that brutalisation is an incredibly human response to an excess of violence. Much like our ears are able to adapt to frequent loud noises, or our nose is able to stop receiving certain scents, so to is the brain able to adapt to brutality. What could possibly be more human that such a response? If I was a normal German 22 year old in 1942 I have very little doubt that I could have been in a similar position. Most people would like to think they would never be capable of mass murder and given our upbringing and values it is likely we would be incapable. But change the context in which we live and you change our values and thus we are capable of completely different actions.

If you can understand that you are not dissimilar to those that carry different values to yourself then you are far more able to comprehend what drove them to do whatever they did and the beliefs that they held at the time. A quite famous historian, Browning, once said that "Explaining is not excusing; understanding is not forgiving". By acknowledging the human elements of any action or belief, rather than labelling it as inhuman, we are able to explain and understand the why and the how, and so we are better able to deal with it in the future. Perhaps if we had acknowledged that normal human beings are capable of genocide the International community would have been quicker to acknowledge it in Rwanda.

So, my hope is that by understanding that what separates me from a supporter of the death penalty in Louisiana is actually very little, I can perhaps present an alternative set of values and put them into practice in a way that will benefit my cause.


Quote of the day:

"We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force."

-Ernesto "Che" Guevara

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.

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

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