Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Nguyen Tuong Van - Australia cannot stand idly by

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Tuesday, 29 November 2005


Singapore has executed hundreds of convicted prisoners over the past few years. All these executions were no doubt every bit as tragic, as would be killing Mr Nguyen, yet there was no pressure by Australia to provide clemency to any of these prisoners.

Despite this, we must still continue to make the strongest possible representations to save the life of Mr Nguyen. This can only be done in an atmosphere of rational exchange aimed at advancing the interests of both nations. Insults don’t work - they tend to make people even more entrenched in their position. The prime minister is right that “megaphone” diplomacy is impotent in the international arena. The hanging of Brian Chambers and Kevin Barlow for drug trafficking by Malaysia several years ago shows that.

Diplomacy in this regard involves an element of seeing things from Singapore’s perspective and finding common ground.

Advertisement

This involves acknowledging that we share with Singapore an unyielding desire to eradicate the illicit drug problem and a recognition that drugs cause death and personal destruction to users and other members of the community.

However, at the same time the drug problem must be approached in a manner that is likely to be effective and respects moral values that transcend all cultures.

Although common sense would indicate that executing drug traffickers would deter people from selling drugs, wide-ranging empirical evidence conclusively rebuts this proposition. Countries with capital punishment don’t have lower levels of serious crime and when countries abolish the death penalty, the crime rate does not increase. The greatest deterrent to wrongdoing is not the size of the penalty but the perceived risk of detection. Thus, it must be pointed out the citizens of Singapore are no safer from drugs (trafficking) as a result of capital punishment.

Moreover, a fundamental sentencing principle that should underpin all sentencing systems is the principle of proportionality. This prescribes that the harshness of the penalty should match the severity of the offence. This is violated when the most severe form punishment is imposed for offences which do not constitute the most heinous forms of offending. Drug-trafficking is bad, but clearly crimes such as murder and homicide are far more serious.

Finally it needs to be impressed on the Singapore Government that we all share a common morality and ultimately are unified by a desire to maximise human flourishing where each individual's interest counts equally. The most important interest recognised in this universal moral code is the right to life - violation of this right makes all other rights devoid of meaning. The right to life can only be violated where there is a compelling reason to do so (such as self defence). This is not the situation in the case of capital punishment. No benefit is derived from killing wrongdoers.

Acknowledgement of this will enable Singapore to act as a moral beacon to the many other countries in South-East Asia that execute criminals. A failure to endorse these universal truths is likely to be a source of considerable regret for the government of Singapore in the foreseeable future.

Advertisement

Nguyen’s best chance of a reprieve rests with the Australian Government’s capacity to engage the Singapore Government along such lines. If Australia fails in this exercise, such a cruel blow must not discourage it from continuing to make such representations. We should not wait until the next Australian is placed on death row. All lives count equally - irrespective of where a person happens to be born.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in the Canberra Times on November 24, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

54 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mirko Bagaric, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash), is a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy. He is dean of law at Swinburne University and author of Australian Human Rights Law.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mirko Bagaric

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mirko Bagaric
Article Tools
Comment 54 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy