A flawed form of justice?High Road for Human Rights

An Indonesian firing squad executed six convicted drug traffickers last Sunday, following a vow by new President Joko Widodo that 20 executions will be carried out this year. Five of the six executed prisoners were foreigners, and President Widodo has promised the imminent execution of many more. The otherwise progressive Widodo has said that drug traffickers on death row who have exhausted all legal avenues should be put to death. There will be no presidential clemency for the 64 convicted drug traffickers currently awaiting their fate.   

Two of those prisoners are Australian men, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, imprisoned on the island of Bali for their role in a high profile drug trafficking case back in 2005. They are the last of the “Bali Nine” still sentenced for death after being caught attempting to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin out of Indonesia. Having spent the last decade in prison, both Chan and Sukumaran have been rehabilitated, with authorities describing them as reformed model prisoners. Chan and Sukumaran contribute to prison life by running art classes, computer classes and a drug rehabilitation programme. Sukumaran’s artistic talent has been noticed beyond the prison walls, with Australian painter Ben Quilty counting himself as a mentor and friend. What purpose can their brutal death by firing squad now serve? 

Both the United Nations and the Open Society Foundations have argued that the use of the death penalty will not alleviate Indonesia’s drug problems. Capital punishment for drug crimes was introduced in Indonesia in 1997 and President Widodo argues that his hard line on drug crime is representative of his government’s commitment to the fight against drugs. However, drug crime in Indonesia has been rising since 1997, not falling. 

Research by international organisations such as the United Nations and Amnesty International has consistently failed to find scientific proof that the death penalty has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Statistical studies comparing the murder rates of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty have found that there is no correlation between the death penalty and reduced murder rates.

Despite the evidence to suggest that the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, support for the death penalty in response to drug crimes in Indonesia sits at about 75%. Endless media stories about drug crime and death has fuelled widespread concern that families may lose children to drugs, while President Widodo sees drug crime as a scourge that will ruin the nation. Political advisors have argued that the President’s hard line on drug crime can be explained by politically motivated populism, as the increasingly unpopular president attempts to regain popularity by turning to nationalist issues. In a recent article The Open Society Foundations called this “a stunning display of opportunism, as people are literally sacrificed in the name of political manoeuvring.” 

Not only is the death penalty ineffective and wasteful, it also brutalises the society that exacts it. The death penalty diminishes the value of human life and legitimises the right of the state to exact irreversible harm upon its citizens. Amnesty International has called the death penalty the ultimate denial of human rights, and opposes it in all circumstances. The notion that the death penalty can be a form of justice is deeply flawed, not only for those facing the death penalty but also for the society at large, which is diminished by the premeditated murder of individuals by the state.

Chan and Sukumaran’s appeals for presidential clemency have been rejected, and death by firing squad looks increasingly likely. An attempt to secure a second judicial review of their case has been lodged but their prospects are grim. Their deaths would not alleviate Indonesia’s drug problems, but they would certainly undermine our humanity.