Praktik
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,244
Hey it's ok if you dont have the energy or interest to put a lot of thought into it - just don't act like a naked assertion should be some kind of argument-ender! I have offered a series of logical arguments, backed by topical research in many cases, which you have not yet bother to unpack save to hand-wave away with assertions of them being "unconvincing". Let me show you how this works.
You offered up the street value as potentially a data point we could consider as important to considering Sandiford's culpability:
- Listing the street value means little if it isn't situated in the broader context of how much is flowing into Indonesia in general (ie, what % of the whole population of cocaine is represented by Sandiford's slice). A 2 min google found this 2006 article, ballparking the illegal drug trade in Indonesia @ $4 billion - even if we take this at face value, puts Sandiford's piece in perspective (the article talked about all the boat traffic used to bring drugs into the country's 17, 000 islands, which adds more context).
- On its own, this data point tells us little about Sandiford's relative responsibility because we cannot situate her in the broader ring of people involved in moving that 5kg of cocaine.
- For instance, what about the larger pile of cocaine from which the 5kg was cut, is Sandiford more or less important than the individual who controlled THAT stash?
- Mules have high risk of getting caught which is why drug organizations send lots of mules out, hoping the ones that make it through make up for the ones who don't. Given mules are replaceable and replaced all the time - is Sandiford more/less important than the permament members of the drug organization who recruit/direct/pay the drug mules?
- Is Sandiford more/less important than the dealer inside indonesia who then distributes the 5kg to actual customers?
- Is Sandiford more/less important than the actual leadership hierarchy of the drug organization in question?
- We could even go outside this particular gang and ask ourselves what piece of the pie that gang controls - maybe even the most important person in that gang is less important (in terms of getting drugs into indonesia) than middle managers from a far larger organization?
- Missing in any of your posts is this kind of thought to Sandiford's actual responsibility. What we get instead are naked assertions clothed with snide dismissals - with no backup work put into it - and no attempt to actually engage with any of my claims.
On this forum I am used to a little more effort put into argumentation. This is why I have been asking for not only a more carefully considered positive case but also for more earnest engagement with my own arguments. For you to consider a dismissal of my argument complete you must first actually tangle with my arguments, quoting relevant points, and explaining why they are wrong.
I say all this because the real exercise here is to determine, as per the OP, whether Indonesia is right to execute drug smugglers. A core plank of justice is a sense of proportionality and equity in judicial outcomes - at least these are values a lot of people consider to be core planks of any proper approach to justice (you may think differently).
So to determine whether executing Sandiford is just and the right thing to do we need to situate her responsibility along with everyone else's responsibility in delivering drugs to Indonesia. If killing Sandiford is just, we must then tangle with what we do with everyone who is determined to be MORE responsible than her. Do we apply death sentences then to the entire organization, from the lowest rung like Sandiford all the way on up?
Maybe so. Still, that Asia Times article I linked to offered this nugget:
In the capital itself there have been well-publicized raids on several top nightclubs, but the big dealers usually bribe their way out of trouble. The judicial system is one of Indonesia’s most corrupt state institutions and the highest bidder can buy police and the courts. Well-connected, big-time dealers have never been brought to trial and there is widespread acknowledgement among Indonesia’s citizens that the courts have failed to mete out similar harsh justice to members of the security forces allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking. There are also complaints that children of powerful military officers and politicians are rarely punished, let alone put to death, for drug offenses.
So why are we to applaud when Indonesia's harshest laws are applied to only those least able to fight back? As with the drug war in western countries, it falls most heavily on the poor and disenfranchised, on "the pawns" (as David Simon has taught us). In Indonesia this inequity of outcome is even worse. And it's why so many people should be appalled at the outcome of this particular case. It's an example of a waste of human life for the purported end of a draconian law which is applied selectively, only to the weakest victims who don't have a powerful benefactor able to bribe their way out of trouble.
Last edited:
