Is Indonesia right to execute drug smugglers?

[Praktik]

see below

 

[Praktik]

Try reading all of my posts. Throughout the point is a developed countries perspective is different from a developing countries and it is arrogance to try and impose views if you haven't lived in a different culture.

try responding to these please

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8941450&postcount=91
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8942476&postcount=98

 

[Praktik]

An interesting point has been made- that while Indonesia clearly does have the legal right to apply the death penalty, they do not have a moral right.
I do not understand how anyone can justify moral certainty of this sort, given the clear tendency of "What is morality?" threads to invariably bog down in the matter of moral relativity v absolutism.
If we cannot define "morality" in the first place, any opinion on the morality of execution is simply that- an opinion. Some say yes, others no. On moral grounds alone, neither is a coherent response.
Question then is- does execution work in this case? Like Nessie, I can't help feeling that shooting someone who has apparently squealed long and hard, is unlikely to encourage others to do likewise, so it may be counterproductive in this case.
In general though- I used to fly into Saudi Arabia frequently. The landing card bore the words "Death for drug smugglers", in red ink, in English and Arabic. I'm unaware of comparative statistics on drug use in the UK and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps someone can provide them?

Good post.

I think brings up larger question of what mode of justice you support. A punitive form of justice or one that sentences commensurate with the harm of the crime - and with an aim to rehabilitate. One might even ask if drug use belongs in a judicial/enforcement model in the first place and is rather better dealt with in the realm of public health and civil society.

A good question would be that even if it were determined that a Saudi approach to drug use results in some kind of benefit - at which point have we crossed the threshold into a mode of governance incompatible with basic principles of human rights and democracy.

Maybe those admiring the application of the death penalty, and surmising it may be appropriate, just don't share these values.

I am open to being wrong about that last point...

 

[shuize]

Question then is- does execution work in this case?

If by "work" you mean keeping Sandiford from trafficking more drugs into Indonesia, then the answer is clearly "yes." If by "work" you mean showing other drug smugglers that Indonesia will follow through with the maximum punishment regardless of age or nationality, then the answer is "yes" again.

Deterrence is difficult to measure, but it has always been one of the fundamental reasons supporting criminal punishment. Indonesia seems to think it has merit and I find it hard to believe it won't have any deterrent effect in this case. In fact, as I noted above, the more people cry about how "unjust" Sandiford's sentence is, the greater the effect.

Like Nessie, I can't help feeling that shooting someone who has apparently squealed long and hard, is unlikely to encourage others to do likewise, so it may be counterproductive in this case.

Yeah, Sandiford sang like a bird, didn't she? Then the court went ahead and sentenced her to death anyway when the prosecutors were only asking for 15 years. That may (or may not) be a bad idea. But such are the choices Indonesian courts get to make for themselves. I will lose exactly zero sleep over Sandiford's bad luck. Especially since she could easily have avoided all the trouble she's in now if she'd just stayed home.

 

[Praktik]

What is the demonstrated evidence that a deterrent effect from harsh criminal penalties for drug crimes makes a meaningful impact on the drug trade?

What comparative analysis can you offer to show that it is more effective than other options in terms of reducing the harms of drug use?

Or is this simply a belief based on assumptions you have never bothered researching to confirm with evidence?

 

[Praktik]

If harsh punishment is proven to be largely ineffective - with little material benefit and impact to the harms of drug use - the capital sentence becomes more and more difficult to justify.

A capital punishment should be balanced by a significant benefit the punishment brings - if there is little material impact from it then it becomes a waste of human life with little to no return to broader society.

 

[psionl0]

Try reading all of my posts.

If you are referring to this post . . .

. . .

Here drugs have an extremely negative effect, not on users but also on innocent people. In some parts of the country it is virtually locked down because of the production drugs. So much so the Shining Path terrorists group have become drug exporters all in the name of revolution.

. . . then it makes your execute them irrespective of whether such a policy works or not mentality even more stupid. It plays right into the hands of these terrorists groups. Prohibition has made organized crime very profitable in the US and in third world countries where poorly paid police and public servants are more susceptible to bribery and corruption, it is an absolute godsend (and prohibition is a religious policy).

You are never going to stop the drug trafficking when so much money is involved. For every dupe that gets caught, thousands get away with it. Poor villagers have little choice but to continue growing drug crops or make moonshine because they could not survive without it.

 

[lionking]

What is the demonstrated evidence that a deterrent effect from harsh criminal penalties for drug crimes makes a meaningful impact on the drug trade?

What comparative analysis can you offer to show that it is more effective than other options in terms of reducing the harms of drug use?

Or is this simply a belief based on assumptions you have never bothered researching to confirm with evidence?

As I said earlier, Singapore seems to have done the trick.

 

[shuize]

As I said earlier, Singapore seems to have done the trick.

Singapore really has done a good job, haven't they?

 

[Morrigan]

The people who die of drug overdoses chose to buy those drugs and get addicted in the first place. Why have sympathy for them? They brought it upon themselves. They don't deserve death, but whoever brought a tiny fraction of those drugs in the country does?

Or is it because they are not from 1st world countries, and therefore are less capable of being responsible for their own choices than a British-born white woman is?

Nothing like that. I am personally not in favour of the death penalty for drug offences.

My point is simply there is a certain arrogance in expecting other cultures to have the sme opinion. My point is not whether in this case it is right for her to be put to death, morally it probably isn't. My point is that the view of various cultures around the world is that if you traffic drugs then death is the penalty.

Indeed, who are we to judge? If other countries want the death penalty for blaspheming against the Prophet, it would be so arrogant of us to criticize them. It's their culture!

 

[Mycroft]

It is possible to send the right message and prevent future criminal activity at the same time. If Indonesia follows through with Linsay Sandiford's execution by firing squad, it demonstrates that they are not joking about the consequences of drug trafficking and neither age nor nationality will protect convicted smugglers. It also effectively guarantees that Sandiford will never reoffend.

Is it your opinion that the punishment fits the crime?

 

[Mycroft]

Singapore really has done a good job, haven't they?

What benefit do they really get for the price they pay? They get very low rates of drug use, but is there a problem with societies that have higher rates? The UK, for example, almost 10% of its population uses marijuana, but is it really a problem? And how many people would you be willing to kill to bring that number down?

 

[Mycroft]

Try reading all of my posts. Throughout the point is a developed countries perspective is different from a developing countries and it is arrogance to try and impose views if you haven't lived in a different culture.

I disagree. I think that the very concept of human rights implies that they apply to all humans, regardless of what culture they belong to.

 

[Praktik]

What is the demonstrated evidence that a deterrent effect from harsh criminal penalties for drug crimes makes a meaningful impact on the drug trade?

What comparative analysis can you offer to show that it is more effective than other options in terms of reducing the harms of drug use?

Or is this simply a belief based on assumptions you have never bothered researching to confirm with evidence?

As I said earlier, Singapore seems to have done the trick.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8941084&postcount=88
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8941421&postcount=90

I dunno, reading through the data doesn't seem like Singapore is doing much better than the rest of us. I have already highlighted some of the data quality issues and the fact we have only the government's own data to rely on, but even reading that I feel like I'm reading a report from pretty much anywhere else.

What about the Singapore experience seems so beneficial? And, what connection to this benefit can we say is the result of capital sentences for drug offences?

Feel free to support with specifics.

 

[Praktik]

http://www.cahrproject.org/wp-conte...C-Briefing-Paper-Drug-policy-in-Indonesia.pdf

Yikes, this is some interesting reading.

pg 2

Most arrests and charges relating to drugs are made on the grounds of dealing or possession. Data from the Badan Narkotika Nasional (BNN), the Indonesian narcotics agency, shows that between 2007 and 2012, 38 per cent of the 189,294 individuals arrested for drug offences were suspected of possession offences.7

Over the past six years, reports have emerged regarding systematic police mistreatment and abuse of people who use drugs, including beatings, burns, electrocution and sexual violence.8 There have also been reports about widespread corruption in the criminal justice system – the police, prosecutors and judges have been known to ask for bribes from people who use drugs in exchange for lighter charges and sentences.9

One of the systemic factors driving corruption is the fact that a police officer is more likely to be promoted if he or she has successfully handled a greater number of drug cases. In addition to bribery, this practice has facilitated a policing culture where the entrapment of people who use drugs, such as the planting of evidence by the police, is common practice. Other structural causes of police abuse and violence include an over-reliance on confessions in the judicial system, inadequate funding for the police, and the lack of effective mechanisms to investigate complaints.10​

 

[Praktik]

http://www.cahrproject.org/wp-conte...C-Briefing-Paper-Drug-policy-in-Indonesia.pdf

page 7

Nahdlatul Ulama is one of the largest independent Islamic organisations in the world. It acts as a principal recipient for a major HIV grant from the Global Fund to establish drug rehabilitation centres for people who inject drugs in Indonesia.

Concerns have been raised about the organisation’s capacity to provide quality, evidence-informed and humane rehabilitation services, primarily due to its ideological bias against people who use drugs. This issue was highlighted when the Chairperson of the Nahdlatul Ulama Board, responding to news of a fatal traffic accident in Indonesia that allegedly involved someone under the influence of drugs, issued a statement that ‘drug addicts… deserve severe punishment, namely death’.69 Subsequent advocacy action lead by PKNI (the national network of drug user organisations) resulted in the Chairperson expressing a softer approach, along with words of support for HIV prevention and rehabilitation for people who use drugs​

This was an interesting quote because it highlights not only the cultural context under which death for drug offenses is seen as appropriate there, but Montag and others should take note that the chairperson was shamed into correcting his odious statement by Indonesian civil society (not arrogant Western orientalists).

Page 9 details the reports recommendations for reform - one of the big issues being the huge, diverse nature of the country coupled with recent decentralization. Drug policy approaches thus vary widely across the country.

But what we do see here is a burgeoning domestic movement to reform drug policy, taking shape in new laws that allow for more treatment, a growing recognition that their particular HIV epidemic is concentrated among injection drug users and a cultural shift whereby users are starting to be seen as sick, rather than morally depraved.

There are definitely multiple reasons to be optimistic, and if shaming them over the execution of a foreigner, the lowest rung on the drug totem pole, for a minor drug offense - helps encourage these domestic reform forces and validates their work from outside, then I say let the condemnation ring!

 

[shuize]

There are definitely multiple reasons to be optimistic, and if shaming them over the execution of a foreigner, the lowest rung on the drug totem pole, for a minor drug offense ...

Again with the attempts to minimize.

Trafficking 5kgs of cocaine valued at GBP 1.6 million (USD 2.5 million) is not "a minor drug offense" nor is it anywhere near the "lowest rung on the drug totem pole."

 

[Mudcat]

deathpenalty is barbaric and has no place in the civilized world.

Hypothetical:

A man living in your county kidnaps, tortures, rapes, and kills your mother, whom I assume you love. This is just his latest victim. He gets caught and his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

He is sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole.

Your taxes, as well as the taxes of families whom this waste of space have harmed, help keep him alive in jail, no rent, with free health care.

Is this justice?

Or is execution justice?

 

[BazBear]

If I believed in the death penalty (which I no longer do, but I'll get to that below), I don't think this crime rises to that level of punishment. 5kg of coke is a serious amount, and a serious prison sentence is in order, but certainly not death.

I used to believe in the death penalty, and I still would if there was a perfect way to always insure it was implemented properly, as well as for only the most serious of crimes.

There are people who certainly deserve it, but any justice system, no matter how fairly run, is still run by human beings. Human beings are fallible. Once you have executed someone, there is no way to bring them back if a mistake was made. And the fact that people on death row (and in jail for long sentences) have later been exonerated by DNA evidence makes it a certainty mistakes have been made.

Secondarily, I've not see any convincing evidence that the death penalty is much of a deterrent; I'm not saying it's never deterred anyone ever, but as far as I can tell facing a sentence like life with no possibility of parole is probably just as effective.

 

[Mudcat]

That's because you look at the criminal justice system as a deterrent.

It isn't, because even with harsh sentences like chopping off the hands of thieves thievery still exists.

Criminal justice isn't about deterring crimes, its about bringing criminals to justice. Sometimes the wrong person is punished, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime (like executing a person coerced into trafficking drugs, for example), but there it is.