They've been shot dead

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were shot dead at 3.30am this morning (AEST).

Neither I, nor anyone else, condones their actions in 2006. Nor can their actions be regarded as minor.

However, very little if anything will be gained by their lives being ended in such a barbaric way.

For all their faults and criminal actions, they still had a positive contribution to make, even if it was only to help other prisoners be rehabilitated. After all, that's what prison is for.

Perhaps Joe Hockey will get an unexpected $½Bill bonus.

It will be interesting to see how our PM handles this diplomacy. Not well I fear.

I do not condone capital punishment. I agree with FenceFurniture; it does not give a positive outcome for anyone.

However, the Bali Nine were well aware of what the possible consequences of their actions could be and they still went ahead and attempted to smuggle 8kg of drugs that could have ruined many lives in Australia. The reason Chan and Sukumaran were the two who were sentenced to death was that they were the organizers and had coerced the other seven into participating by threatening to harm their families if they did not cooperate.

The death penalty has done nothing to change that but they knew what the risks were when they did the deed. I also have concerns about what will happen if Tony Abbot and Julie Bishop do anything more threatening to the Indonesians other than jumping up and down and swearing at them.

Cheers

Doug

Well there is a surprise, they have been shot dead.

Have to agree with Doug on this, you play with fire you get burnt.

They knew the consequences right from the get go.

My question is who was paying for all these extra court cases to try and get them from this sentence , these lawyers do not work for free.

They also took to the grave the names of the people who they were working for, these are the ones who should have been standing alongside them, but they sit in their ivory towers in Sydney laughing.

We heard lots on tele until about 6 weeks ago then it all stopped.
I wonder why that happened?

Even if Indonesia wanted to reduce their sentence they wouldn't do it.
They will have done it to spite Australia, "They will not tell us what to do in our own country".
We are pulling out the ambassador, Indonesia don't care, "They will come back and we will be the winner".

In general and in my opinion you can't trust Indonesia as far as you can poop yourself when you have the trots.

Peter

Who cares, cause I like many many others don't give a rats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _fly_

We heard lots on tele until about 6 weeks ago then it all stopped.
I wonder why that happened?

...

Peter

---

Something to do with ordinary people getting sick of the whole shebang, methinks

I had been toying with starting a thread on this subject myself, but while I procrastinated, FF has gone and done it.

It is a very emotive and controversial issue and that's probably the only real truth. So what are the pros and cons for the execution?

Pro

This is the law in Indonesia.
The drug runners knew this.
Why do we think we have the right to interfere in Indonesia's policies (compare to America's interference in other countries: A right royal f**k up)?
Their drug dealing has the potential to perpetuate huge amounts of misery and social turmoil.
They conscripted moles possibly under duress.
The lesser minions in their operation also suffered as a consequence.
They were indeed the ring leaders.

Cons

The death penalty for running narcotics is rare in civilised countries (about a handful).
The two men showed considerable remorse and had apparently reformed.
They would not have been apprehended if it were not for a tip off from the AFP (Good reason for requesting clemency by Australia).
It is not like they were going to get off Scott free. Twenty years in an Indonesian prison is not like being incarcerated in Club Med.
Some allegations of corruption during the original trial and now under investigation.
What purpose does the death penalty really serve in this instance?

My take on this is that Indonesia is telling Australia, and indeed the rest of the world, to butt out of their affairs: Not to meddle and manipulate. From reports I have read the Indonesian president Widodo is currently unpopular and this refusal to grant clemency is to bolster his rating amongst both his own party and the populace.

If this is true, it means that Chan and Sukumaran are in reality the victims of a political agenda.

Now the big question is how this will impact on relations between Indonesia and Australia. It is naive to imagine there will be no impact and yet the prspect of an impact because of two drug runners (criminals if you like) is bizarre. I am not suggesting there will be a war, at least not in terms of fisticuffs, but economic? Maybe.

I watched Julie Bishop last night on 7.30. The body language was interesting. She was agitated, particularly for her.

There may be more at stake here than we first imagine. Perhaps this is the catalyst to unleash underlying tensions.

Possibly the only things that is certain is that this act by the Indonesian government and especially the Indonesian President is unrevokable.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod1949

Who cares, cause I like many many others don't give a rats.

---

There plenty who do care, such as their innocent families who have been given a very torrid time. If it was your son you may have a different opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _fly_

We heard lots on tele until about 6 weeks ago then it all stopped.
I wonder why that happened?

Even if Indonesia wanted to reduce their sentence they wouldn't do it.
They will have done it to spite Australia, "They will not tell us what to do in our own country".
We are pulling out the ambassador, Indonesia don't care, "They will come back and we will be the winner".

In general and in my opinion you can't trust Indonesia as far as you can poop yourself when you have the trots.

Peter

---

Don't blame Indonesia for this, 9 Australians went to their country and knowingly broke their laws.

They were caught, with the help of Australian law enforcement.

The Indonesian law they knowingly broke carries the death penalty, which 2 of them subsequently got handed out.

Indonesia has consistently said they would carry out this sentence, despite heaps of people outside their country jumping up and down demanding they change their mind. This included our Prime Minister and our Foreign Minister, both should have known better.

Now that they have been executed we are going to play a childish tit for tat game, which will achieve nothing.

As a country we have expended political capital and heaps of real dollars to defend 2 drug pushers who were only interested in making a quick buck at the expense of ruining countless Australian lives.

As per usual our do gooder brigade focuses on the perpretators, totally ignoring the victims.

Not that long ago Australia bayed for the blood of the Bali bomber Amrozi, not too many objectors to the death penalty around then.

Good on Indonesia for sticking to their guns.

It is funny people care when these people get caught. Let’s see how much they care about teaching young people the danger of drugs.

Attachment 345868

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

It is funny people care when these people get caught. Let’s see how much they care about teaching young people the danger of drugs.

---

What's funny is how Indonesia tries to save it's own citizens from the same fate in other countries. If that's not a double standard then I'm an expert woodworker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

What's funny is how Indonesia tries to save it's own citizens from the same fate in other countries. If that's not a double standard then I'm an expert woodworker.

---

I agree with you. There should be no double standard.

I feel for the families of the two but I am glad it went ahead. It enforces the law there that if you are guilty you will be executed.

It is a shame it was dragged out for so long with the continuous useless appeals and politics, but I guess if it was my son I'd do what ever I could to stop it, but by the same token if my son a drug addict had died I would do every thing I could to ensure they were executed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were shot dead at 3.30am this morning (AEST).

Neither I, nor anyone else, condones their actions in 2006. Nor can their actions be regarded as minor.

However, very little if anything will be gained by their lives being ended in such a barbaric way.

For all their faults and criminal actions, they still had a positive contribution to make, even if it was only to help other prisoners be rehabilitated. After all, that's what prison is for.

Perhaps Joe Hockey will get an unexpected $½Bill bonus.

It will be interesting to see how our PM handles this diplomacy. Not well I fear.

---

When I discuss the issue of capital punishment with friends I point out how strange it is that the very people we can't trust to spend our tax money wisely have somehow earned our trust in the making of life and death decisions. If the government can't keep the roads in good repair how can they possibly be relied upon to decide who lives and who dies?

There will of course be many viewpoints on this topic.

One that I think is worth exploring is as follows:
There is talk that if a $130,000 bribe had been paid then they would have received a life sentence or 20 years. If that had happened and they were just gaoled (and we wouldn't necessarily have known about the bribe), would those who are glad/don't care/couldn't give a rat's that they are dead have demanded that the gaol sentence be overturned and that they be shot?

Or would the criminals just have faded into distant memory with no further recriminations required?

I think the latter would be the case.

I guess the point I'm making is that if they had just been gaoled for life (and I mean life) it would have been widely or universally accepted as appropriate justice and they would have been forgotten about, but because it's been brought to the fore in the light of their lives being ended it's stirred up polarisation that would not have otherwise been present.

As far as it being a deterrent - well obviously not, just as the prospect of 20-30-40 years in hell gaols apparently isn't a deterrent. If they were effective deterrents then these and other heinous crimes wouldn't happen.

The proof of that will be the next time someone (particularly an Australian, where the coverage has been wall to wall) is convicted of drug trafficking in Indonesia. If this particularly high profile case (within Australia, at least) doesn't make people aware and deter them then nothing will.

And if that's the case then it will be a senseless waste of two (apparently) rehabilitated lives who had much to contribute to their gaol society.

Surely it's all about rehabilitating people in gaol, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There plenty who do care, such as their innocent families who have been given a very torrid time. If it was your son you may have a different opinion?

---

Brett, I think a lot of people, myself included, would take more of notice of your defence of convicted drug pushers if they could see you express the same sympathy for their intended victims and their families.

As I have said before, there is far too much emphasis in this country on protecting the "rights" of the perpetrators of crime and squillions of dollars expended on "rehabilitation" and crims being released on early parole so they can offend again and not nearly enough sympathy and support for the victims and their families.

I could turn your argument around and say you would have a totally different opinion if it was your son that had his life ruined, or cut short, by these drug pushers.

We have far too many "bleeding hearts" in this country that sympathise with people committing crimes but don't spend any time thinking about their victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod1949

Who cares, cause I like many many others don't give a rats.

---

This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my children when he was about fifteen (he is now thirty two). It wouldn't really matter what I said to him, his stock reply was "I don't care."

I said, "Yes you do."

he said, "No I don't." and so it went on for a while until I explained to him. At the time I drove a very dilapidated twin cab Toyota Dyna truck. I have to say it was not at all cool. I pointed out that if he didn't care, why did he ask me to park two hundred meters down the road when I picked him and his siblings up from school. He looked at me and smiled.

I am afraid in varying degrees, we all care. If you didn't, you wouldn't have replied. I suspect, and I am quite prepared to be shot down on this, that you, along with others, are wearied by the publicity and the politics.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Brett, I think a lot of people, myself included, would take more of notice of your defence of convicted drug pushers if they could see you express the same sympathy for their intended victims and their families.

---

Who is defending them?
I think they should be left to rot in gaol, because state sanctioned killing makes the State no better than the perpetrators, particularly in murder cases.

The only reason I've brought it up now is because it is so topical atm, and involves Australians, therefore it's pretty close to home. I have the same view of the death penalty wherever it is applied.

I mean really, it's all over for those two now. No more pain, no suffering - that's just restricted to their families and friends. The poor mother's etc will suffer for the rest of their lives, just as the families of murder victims suffer. At least if they were in gaol their punishment would be ongoing. It can't be much fun in an Indonesian gaol.

It is fair enough to say that they knew the odds and were prepared to take the risk of being executed, however the Indonesians havnen't applied their own laws evenly. I believe that they have the best legal system money can buy.
All capital punishment achieves is to encourage the crooks to leave no witnesses alive.

TT

This is a bit of a red=herring but still related: How did you (me) feel about the death penalty for the Bali bombers?
Is the death penalty good sometimes but not others?
etc.
TM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TermiMonster

This is a bit of a red=herring but still related: How did you (me) feel about the death penalty for the Bali bombers?
Is the death penalty good sometimes but not others?
etc.
TM

---

Well, now that they are dead we'll never get any more info out of them. Keep them alive, in a lousy gaol with appropriate lack of privileges. They may one day get a pang of conscious and reveal more accomplices. Perhaps under a truth drug or similar. In the case of Chan and Sukumaran, perhaps they'd even reveal who the big boys in Australia are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well, now that they are dead we'll never get any more info out of them. Keep them alive, in a lousy gaol with appropriate lack of privileges. They may one day get a pang of conscious and reveal more accomplices. Perhaps under a truth drug or similar. In the case of Chan and Sukumaran, perhaps they'd even reveal who the big boys in Australia are.

---

Well they've had ten years to do that, and it seems they didn't...................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bedford

Well they've had ten years to do that, and it seems they didn't...................

---

That doesn't mean they may not have in the future.

Who knows what the inducement of staying alive might bring? I know they were deeply concerned for their families safety if they coughed up that sort of info.

Do those who agree with their deaths think that the death penalty should be re-introduced here?

I wasn't aware of this until just today. (Internet news on Yahoo)

I have seen a lot of the damage to society that is done by drug pushers and smugglers. I worked in an area where there were a high percentage of drug users. It was not a place where one would work over and into the evening.

I knew of the death penalty for drug running in Indonesia. I'm sorry to say that I have little sympathy for those executed. I have personally seen several relatives/neighbors/acquaintances trapped in the downward spiral of addiction, including two overdose deaths. Would a death penalty have prevented the overdose deaths? I don't think that there is an answer to the question.

For years I have been in favor of a similar penalty here in the US for those smuggling drugs, in a quantity for sale, across our borders. Here we have a different issue on our southern border. A commercial truck driver pulling a trailer crosses the border with drugs hidden inside. The claim is that the driver is just that, a truck driver delivering goods. The vast majority of truck drivers do not know the type of goods that they are carrying. This makes a death penalty difficult to impose.

I'm sorry for not showing sympathy for your blokes but I've seen the other and very dark side of addiction. Two lives snuffed out so that someone could make a profit.

Hi,
The only reason I oppose the death penalty is that you can not rely on the legal system to convict the right person. I do not mind if they bump off the guilty but a post humus pardon dose not help the wrongly convicted. The cost of keeping someone in jail for 20 years for killing 6 or 7 people then letting them out to kill another 3 or 4 innocents, does make one wonder.
On the subject of human rights, the more sub human they are the more the do gooders carry on about their human rights.

Attachment 345890

Many speak of the death penalty as not being a deterrent - it has always been my understanding that it was a punishment and that any deterrent from or because of it could be classed as a bonus.

Without being smug, smart or trite, the statement that the death penalty ensures that there are no repeat offenders is 100% true.

I tend to think more about the victims than perpetrators. There possibly is a place for the death penalty where the perpetrators have been caught and apprehended in the act, not convicted on verballed testimony or circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

Hi,
The only reason I oppose the death penalty is that you can not rely on the legal system to convict the right person. I do not mind if they bump off the guilty but a post humus pardon dose not help the wrongly convicted. The cost of keeping someone in jail for 20 years for killing 6 or 7 people then letting them out to kill another 3 or 4 innocents, does make one wonder.

---

Interesting point Hugh. Yes it's very expensive to keep people in gaol. I seem to recall a figure of well over $100k per year for Australian prisoners.

But unless someone pleads guilty then there are enough times where innocent people are found guilty to support what you say. Just last week the FBI fessed up to getting it wrong for the last 40(?) years on hair samples or similar (I didn't read the detail). DNA samples being switched, evidence tampering and so on and so on.

Of course, where the death penalty exists I would think it highly unlikely that someone would plead guilty. So the legal etc costs of proving their guilt would add up to quite a few years gaol cost (in the case where they might plead guilty if it was a gaol term, not death).

There's a fair bit to it all, and it's not just black and white.

Very interesting to look at wikipedia and the countries that have the DP.
On the twin American continents there is only the USA (remember the recent execution where the guy took ages to die in agony because the injection was screwed up or an experiment?)
Apart from about 4 other countries, the rest of the DP users are spread in a thick belt from north east Africa right across the Middle East and Asia in an unbroken path (with a couple of isolated exceptions).


And a quote from it:
As of March 2015, of the 195 independent states that are UN members or have UN observer status:

• 103 (53%) have abolished it for all crimes;
• 6 (3%) have abolished, but retain it for exceptional or special circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime);
• 50 (26%) retain, but have not used it for at least 10 years or are under a moratorium;
• 36 (18%) retain it in both law and practice.

Could I ask that this thread stay on topic, ie the execution of convicted drug smugglers in Indonesia.

A debate on the pros and cons of the death penalty is an entirely different matter, we don't have it here anymore, Indonesia does and that is their sovereign right.

If the thread continues to be steered off topic it will be closed.

I agree with Rob in post #14 - how can one trust the state to take a persons life when they are fundamentally incapable of anything else?

Would you trust the state with your money? Letting it decide whether you can have children? Or give it the right to euthanase you on your death bed?

I wouldn't give the state the right to give me a HAIRCUT let alone the opportunity of shooting me.

On criminality....

Criminals such as these, the worst 0.1% are the worst of the worst and should be thrown permanently in a hole until they die at 110. They were no angels. They weren't rehabilitated. They were scum. Pure scum. They belong firmly to 0.1% that make our society bad. They NEEDED removal. We are better with them gone.

The fact they didn't give up the names is proof enough of their continued contempt and criminality. Rehabilitation begins with repentance. The endless legal battles and inevitable bullets could have been stopped with a single name.

Perhaps time would have loosened their tongues. Bigger fish are caught. Those options are now closed.

Makes me also wonder who these big fish are.... senior Indonesian politicians I'd wager. The corruption of Indonesia is 100% complete. What a hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

A debate on the pros and cons of the death penalty is an entirely different matter

---

As the original poster, I disagree. The whole story is exactly about the pros and cons of the death penalty.

So be it.