DEATH row. The expression conjures stark images. One of them for me is the faces of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, 2 of the Bali 9 being held in Kerobokan prison. They have been sentenced to be shot. When I last saw them 10 days ago, their anxiety was raw. Ten prisoners have been executed in Indonesia since June and one question on the minds of those working for Australians on death row in Bali is, what are the implications of Sunday's execution of the Bali bombers for them?
In the light of 3 significant political events that have occurred since Sunday, perhaps surprisingly, the implications are not all bad.
First, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has announced that Australia will be co-sponsoring a resolution at the UN calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions. Australia voted to support such a motion last December at the UN. That we now propose to co-sponsor and lead from the front is encouraging news for all those on death row in Asia.
The fight against the death penalty has been too quiet in Asia for too long. We are well positioned to argue the case calmly, respectfully and convincingly in our region, and should do so. I have my own clients in mind, but there are hundreds of others (typically poor and marginalised) who deserve our attention. I would have preferred less silence in the past few weeks from all our community leaders, but even so this announcement is just what is needed. Second, other political leaders in Australia, including Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Helen Coonan, and Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, have spoken out on the issue, reaffirming their parties' opposition to the death penalty, even in difficult cases.
Third, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, has spoken about this very issue, saying, exactly as is the case, that the legal process for the Australians on death row was not complete, and that there are still the possibilities of a final legal legal appeal and clemency. His words are a further sign of the objective way the Australians' case is being treated in Indonesia.
Wirajuda certainly makes no promises, but also just as clearly and appropriately he does not link the fate of the Bali bombers with the fate of the Australians.
It is difficult to overstate the complexities of the cases faced by Sukumaran and Chan, who apart from having their Indonesian lawyers, are assisted by several Melbourne lawyers, including myself. Because of the social harm caused by drugs, many Indonesians regard drug offences as among the most serious, easily compared to murder. For that reason, drug traffickers have already been executed there this year.
On the other hand, newspaper articles and blog comments show there is definitely a transition under way towards greater opposition to the death penalty in Indonesia. Indeed, Australians may be surprised at the liveliness of the Indonesian press, including the willingness for head-on debate. The Constitutional Court has called for a rethink on the death penalty and Parliament is considering a new draft code that would radically reduce the number of executions.
Into that mix we must face the reality that some will say that if execution is allowed for terrorists, why not for drug traffickers? Our answer is that we must regularly explain why the death penalty is wrong. It is premeditated, state-sanctioned, ritualised killing, a failure of justice. To confuse hatred or vengeance with enduring principles of justice is a mistake, allowing, as it does, emotional responses to form foundations for how society works. The data has made it clear again and again: Executions do not act as a deterrent. What they do is lower respect for life. As our political leaders have shown in the past 24 hours, they broadly agree with that analysis. It is important that they speak clearly and consistently about their position. This will increase the chances of saving Australians on death row, because the Asian press will report that we are consistent in our principles, and not hypocritical.
It has been argued that we should not seek to "interfere" in the justice systems of another country, that travellers know the penalties they risk and must cop it sweet. This argument fails to stand up. There are some universal principles that must be defended.
When a young woman in Somalia, condemned as an adulteress, is stoned to death after being raped, do we stay silent as to those laws?
When apartheid is entrenched in law in South Africa, do we stay silent? When Afghanistan wants to execute a person for converting to Christianity, do we say nothing? So too for slavery, child exploitation, and, I say, executions. Premeditated ritualised killings demean us all.
Source: Opinion--Julian McMahon is one of several Melbourne barristers assisting Sukumaran and Chan. Scott Rush, also on death row, is assisted from Darwin by Colin McDonald, QC.----The Age
In the light of 3 significant political events that have occurred since Sunday, perhaps surprisingly, the implications are not all bad.
First, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has announced that Australia will be co-sponsoring a resolution at the UN calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions. Australia voted to support such a motion last December at the UN. That we now propose to co-sponsor and lead from the front is encouraging news for all those on death row in Asia.
The fight against the death penalty has been too quiet in Asia for too long. We are well positioned to argue the case calmly, respectfully and convincingly in our region, and should do so. I have my own clients in mind, but there are hundreds of others (typically poor and marginalised) who deserve our attention. I would have preferred less silence in the past few weeks from all our community leaders, but even so this announcement is just what is needed. Second, other political leaders in Australia, including Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Helen Coonan, and Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, have spoken out on the issue, reaffirming their parties' opposition to the death penalty, even in difficult cases.
Third, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, has spoken about this very issue, saying, exactly as is the case, that the legal process for the Australians on death row was not complete, and that there are still the possibilities of a final legal legal appeal and clemency. His words are a further sign of the objective way the Australians' case is being treated in Indonesia.
Wirajuda certainly makes no promises, but also just as clearly and appropriately he does not link the fate of the Bali bombers with the fate of the Australians.
It is difficult to overstate the complexities of the cases faced by Sukumaran and Chan, who apart from having their Indonesian lawyers, are assisted by several Melbourne lawyers, including myself. Because of the social harm caused by drugs, many Indonesians regard drug offences as among the most serious, easily compared to murder. For that reason, drug traffickers have already been executed there this year.
On the other hand, newspaper articles and blog comments show there is definitely a transition under way towards greater opposition to the death penalty in Indonesia. Indeed, Australians may be surprised at the liveliness of the Indonesian press, including the willingness for head-on debate. The Constitutional Court has called for a rethink on the death penalty and Parliament is considering a new draft code that would radically reduce the number of executions.
Into that mix we must face the reality that some will say that if execution is allowed for terrorists, why not for drug traffickers? Our answer is that we must regularly explain why the death penalty is wrong. It is premeditated, state-sanctioned, ritualised killing, a failure of justice. To confuse hatred or vengeance with enduring principles of justice is a mistake, allowing, as it does, emotional responses to form foundations for how society works. The data has made it clear again and again: Executions do not act as a deterrent. What they do is lower respect for life. As our political leaders have shown in the past 24 hours, they broadly agree with that analysis. It is important that they speak clearly and consistently about their position. This will increase the chances of saving Australians on death row, because the Asian press will report that we are consistent in our principles, and not hypocritical.
It has been argued that we should not seek to "interfere" in the justice systems of another country, that travellers know the penalties they risk and must cop it sweet. This argument fails to stand up. There are some universal principles that must be defended.
When a young woman in Somalia, condemned as an adulteress, is stoned to death after being raped, do we stay silent as to those laws?
When apartheid is entrenched in law in South Africa, do we stay silent? When Afghanistan wants to execute a person for converting to Christianity, do we say nothing? So too for slavery, child exploitation, and, I say, executions. Premeditated ritualised killings demean us all.
Source: Opinion--Julian McMahon is one of several Melbourne barristers assisting Sukumaran and Chan. Scott Rush, also on death row, is assisted from Darwin by Colin McDonald, QC.----The Age
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar