Australians: Are you sick of hearing about the "Bali 9"

[Pseudopod]

Would I deserve death If I forced you to smuggle drugs or your Family Dies...? I think I would.

why should i let you off that easily?

 

[Com Fox]

I never said they would let me go easy. If I were to threaten your families lives, I think I would be deserving of a death sentence, I made you go against your will for doing something that would send you to prison and ruin your life forever if you fail...

Same things goes for the smugglers, even better is that they know about the laws in Bali yet they did it anyway. It's kinda like playing a game, you know the rules but you cheat anyway, the punishment is very much deserved as it is written...

 

[Grayfox]

They don't deserve punishment in countries that has a huge drug problem with drug dealing that needs to be resolved ASAP (I'm not saying this is the best solution to their problem but it's one of them).

So let the smugglers live in jail where the Balinese people pay to keep them alive.
Drugs are a big problem in bali so why should the balinese people have to deal with drugs and keeping drug dealers/smugglers alive.

They should never get rid of the death penalty as it will serve as a deterrent to anyone who thinks they can make it rich by bring drugs into and out of bali.

Some countries are starting to castrate pedophiles and rapists that re-offend are people going start crying that that is wrong and barbaric?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the lives of two convicted drug smugglers could stop being put on a pedestal, that would be sweet. They aren't heroes. They are convicted criminals.

And that's the problem - everyone has lost sight of that. They've suddenly become "our boys", morphing into a strange hybrid of Peter Greste and the ANZAC legend, which is an insult to both. I was very disappointed to see Waleed Aly - who I think is usually pretty insightful - doing it, talking about how "the system failed them", without actually mentioning that they were convicted drug smugglers. The rest of the commercial media latched onto the reprieve granted to the Philippino woman, even though it was pretty obvious that she was a drug mule like Scott Rush and Renae Lawrence, and not the mastermind behind an operation like Chan and Sukumaran, and so commuting her sentence is consistent with the punishment handed down to drug mules.

Worse, how can our government trumpet the human rights angle in this case when their own policies effectively take a dump on asylum seekers? We willingly abuse human rights and treat Indonesia's maritime borders like a sieve so long as it serves our interests (and they don't notice), and attack the messenger if the messenger dares to carry a criticism. Then we turn around and argue passionately in the defence of two convicted criminals, pretending like we haven't deliberately made the lives of thousands of people a living hell just to prove a political point.

 

[Famine]

Some countries are starting to castrate pedophiles and rapists that re-offend are people going start crying that that is wrong and barbaric?

More like "stating" than "crying".

It's also fundamentally discriminatory - you can't blame testicles for the behaviour of female rapists and paedophiles - and governments should not be treating their citizens differently in law.

 

[mustafur]

Call me a cynic, but Singapore hasn't executed an Australian.

Incorrect: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

I actually remember it at the time, the Australian government also tried to get involved to stop it, however due to Singapores much faster Deathrow process he was Executed just over 1 and half years after being convicted.

 

[FoRiZon]

Incorrect: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

I actually remember it at the time, the Australian government also tried to get involved to stop it, however due to Singapores much faster Deathrow process he was Executed just over 1 and half years after being convicted.

Thats what i thought. Their response are the same as Indonesia. And the response was the US making that as a basis for their drug policy. And i would like to see is Singapore is barbaric for that.

On the other news, Mary Jane from Philippines withheld its execution and possibly reduced to several years in prison since the claimed her mastermind was surrendered to police.

 

[croozer_63]

The government gets taxes from it.
If they taxed cannabis it would be legal too.

Plus if a country like Australia were to make Tobacco illegal every single tobacco company would take Australia to the international court.
The tobacco companies tried to prevent plain packaging on boxes

Yes, Understand the financials, still doesn't make it right. How do you justify profits from death?

 

[Grayfox]

While we are on the subject of drug smugglers.
An individual by the name of Peter Gardner is facing trial in Guangzhou, China for attempting to export 30KG of ice out of the country if convicted he will be executed.
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/d...ver-drug-charges/story-fnh81fz8-1227327323067

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Incorrect:

I know how much you love to correct me, but once again, you have completely ignored the context of the situation for the sake of what you think is a clever retort, but is really a cheap shot.

This time, try reading the whole discussion in the context of an emerging democracy instead of a developed nation ten years ago.

 

[Robin]

While we are on the subject of drug smugglers.
An individual by the name of Peter Gardner is facing trial in Guangzhou, China for attempting to export 30KG of ice out of the country if convicted he will be executed.
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/d...ver-drug-charges/story-fnh81fz8-1227327323067

Gosh that girl with him got a lucky escape, not exactly a great advertisement for Tinder!

 

[croozer_63]

While we are on the subject of drug smugglers.
An individual by the name of Peter Gardner is facing trial in Guangzhou, China for attempting to export 30KG of ice out of the country if convicted he will be executed.
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/d...ver-drug-charges/story-fnh81fz8-1227327323067

Good, another maggot gone. Next. Sorry if I offend anyone, but people who would profit from destroying other people are, IMO, the lowest form of crap on the planet.

 

[LeMansAid]

Good, another maggot gone. Next. Sorry if I offend anyone, but people who would profit from destroying other people are, IMO, the lowest form of crap on the planet.

I don't think you're sorry at all. I think it's your pale little shtick. Also, it's very simple - the seller profits from drugs, the users may or may not destroy THEMSELVES.

I don't need anyone nanny-ing me, and I don't wish to insult others by supporting the appointment of nannies for them. Clearly you have a lesser opinion of yourself and/or others though.

 

[Grayfox]

the seller profits from drugs, the user may or may not destroy THEMSELVES.

If the seller has no product he cant provide the death.

There is no difference between a murderer and a drug smuggler.
One kills directly
One kills indirectly

But both kill.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think that everyone needs to calm down, but the drug smugglers knew the risks if they got caught drug smuggling in a country with the strictest laws on the books. I actually applaud Indonesia for not bowing to international pressure and enforcing their own laws. The US could learn a thing or two from them.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think that everyone needs to calm down, but the drug smugglers knew the risks if they got caught drug smuggling in a country with the strictest laws on the books. I actually applaud Indonesia for not bowing to international pressure and enforcing their own laws. The US could learn a thing or two from them.

I agree, because there's no point in having a law, if it's not enforced.

There is no difference between a murderer and a drug smuggler.

I disagree, because it's an utterly ludicrous untruth.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no difference between a murderer and a drug smuggler.
One kills directly
One kills indirectly

They may both cause homicide. There's an important distinction between murder and manslaughter though.

And, of course, a murderer is somebody who undertakes the act of directly killing somebody. A drug smuggler may be moving weed, heroin, viagra... you're reading a lot into the job title that simply may not be there.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The war on drugs has been the biggest failure. If recreational drugs were legalised, addicts could be treated as someone with a health issue, as opposed to criminals, the drugs would be safer to produce, people wouldn't have to go through shady dealers (effectively putting criminal gangs out of business) to get them... and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

People are going to get their hands on drugs no matter what, may as well make it safer for to purchase and use. Decriminalisation has proved to work in Portugal, marijuana legalisation has been a big success in Colorado. We need to move on from this pointless 'war' and people should be able to make decisions for themselves.

 

[Imari]

If the seller has no product he cant provide the death.

There is no difference between a murderer and a drug smuggler.
One kills directly
One kills indirectly

But both kill.

You're right. We should lock up all car salesmen immediately, because they're clearly dangerous murderers who are indiscriminately maiming and killing the baby children.

.....

A drug dealer provides a product. If that product is impure, then they may be guilty of killing someone outright, the same way that anyone selling cyanide laced soft drinks would be guilty. But otherwise it's just a product, and they're no more guilty of murder than the seller of any other product that people use to kill themselves, from ropes to plastic bags to pain pills to alcohol.

Even people who sell guns aren't usually considered responsible for what others do with them.

 

[croozer_63]

I don't think you're sorry at all. I think it's your pale little shtick. Also, it's very simple - the seller profits from drugs, the user may or may not destroy THEMSELVES.

I don't need anyone nanny-ing me, and I don't wish to insult others by supporting the appointment of nannies for them. Clearly you have a lesser opinion of yourself and/or others though.

Your just an all round champion and tough guy. So you believe its cool for people to destroy others in the name of profit.Pale, little schtick? You must really have it going on mate. Enjoy being the hero. Just for the record though, Ive been making my own way in the world for a long, long time, and no, Im not going to miss another dope dealing maggot. When you have seen and lived through what I have, tell me I have no self respect, champion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

and no, Im not going to miss another dope dealing maggot.

The only person I can think of who died from smoking dope actually choked on their kebab.

When you have seen and lived through what I have, tell me I have no self respect, champion.

I don't know about anybody else but I involuntarily stood, saluted, and shouted "huzzah!" at this point.

 

[squadops]

A drug dealer provides a product. If that product is impure, then they may be guilty of killing someone outright, the same way that anyone selling cyanide laced soft drinks would be guilty. But otherwise it's just a product, and they're no more guilty of murder than the seller of any other product that people use to kill themselves, from ropes to plastic bags to pain pills to alcohol.

That's not so in some of the U.S. states, being found to have provided drugs that result in an overdose death can and does land a charge of homicide.

 

[Imari]

That's not so in some of the U.S. states, being found to have provided drugs that result in an overdose death can and does land a charge of homicide.

Maybe so. But the point stands that it's in contrast to the way pretty much every other potentially lethal substance is treated. A person being found to have provided a woodchipper that results in a woodchipper accident doesn't face a charge of homicide.

Those laws exist because of the war on drugs. Those laws might still exist if the drugs in question were legal, but then it becomes more of a question of how were they provided. If I provide someone with rat poison in a child-proof container with big warnings all over it, I'm not liable if a child dies. If I provide rat poison in a container labelled "Super Delicious Candy", I'm probably at least liable for manslaughter.

There are going to be exceptions in law simply because of the war on drugs. If we're going to have a discussion about drugs, I'd prefer to have the discussion rationally with any potential exceptional circumstances for drugs explicitly explained and supported with reasoning.

I don't think appealing to authority (in this case, by citing US laws) does any of us any good, we can all think of at least one law that we think is completely retarded. If it's a good law, you can make your case by referring to the justification that makes it a good law, instead of appealing to the law itself.

Personally, if we're having a discussion about these things I don't see many reasons for "illegal" drugs to be treated any differently to say, alcohol. Of which I have two half litre bottles of 95% in my cupboard (for making delicious limoncello), and which are totally capable of killing me several times over were I to drink them right now. I bought these totally legally down at the local liquor store from their latest minimum wage worker. They don't kill me because I'm not suicidally depressed, nor am I a moron.

 

[squadops]

Personally, if we're having a discussion about these things I don't see many reasons for "illegal" drugs to be treated any differently to say, alcohol. Of which I have two half litre bottles of 95% in my cupboard (for making delicious limoncello), and which are totally capable of killing me several times over were I to drink them right now. I bought these totally legally down at the local liquor store from their latest minimum wage worker.

The trend is not isolated to illegal drugs, here is an example regarding alcohol. Now of course there is the added element 'minors', which you've also mentioned.

Prosecutors in Pottawatomie County are expected to charge a man with second-degree murder for allegedly providing a teen with alcohol that led to a fatality crash.

http://www.abc3340.com/story/15211241/man-charged-with-murder-for-providing-alcohol-to-minor

My point is not if it makes sense or not, I'm simply showing that it's happening.

 

[Imari]

The trend is not isolated to illegal drugs, here is an example regarding alcohol. Now of course there is the added element 'minors', which you've also mentioned.


http://www.abc3340.com/story/15211241/man-charged-with-murder-for-providing-alcohol-to-minor

But then that's the circumstances under which he provided it, not necessarily the alcohol. It's very similar to my rat poison example.

My point is not if it makes sense or not, I'm simply showing that it's happening.

And my point is that these laws existing is not justification for anything.

I'm trying to head things off at the pass and make sure that people use actual reasoning as justification for their arguments, instead of "there's a law against it so it must be bad".

The existence of these laws does absolutely nothing to the original point I was making, which was that selling someone something does not make you a murderer. That there are laws that would convict someone of murder for simply selling someone something simply means that they're bad laws.

They can convict you of murder, but it does not mean that you're a murderer.

 

[squadops]

The reason these laws are popping up is because they are deemed justified on their own merit. Maybe we don't believe it makes one a murderer but the powers that be are thinking otherwise.

 

[FoRiZon]

The reason these laws are popping up is because they are deemed justified on their own merit. Maybe we don't believe it makes one a murderer but the powers that be are thinking otherwise.

It bogs down to each opinions though. One says consequences, the other says human rights.

Oh yeah, now Australia lobbying ALL the countries who practicing death sentence. Ok, fair enough.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It bogs down to each opinions though. One says consequences, the other says human rights.

And a third says "get real, prove a causative homicide link on a case-by-case basis and stop thinking that all drugs are killer drugs..."

 

[FoRiZon]

And a third says "get real, prove a causative homicide link on a case-by-case basis and stop thinking that all drugs are killer drugs..."

I guess so.
But the thing is, Indonesia isnt that stupid. They wouldnt think all drugs are bad. Is just that the ones they carry is a type one (high) level drug.

Lesser levels are ussually charged with a fairly long jail time, but time will tell if it going to be changed. But less likely.

 

[squadops]

It bogs down to each opinions though. One says consequences, the other says human rights.

If you're talking about the execution of the two then the consequences of their actions needs to be addressed, not the consequence realized in their death. The same goes for their human rights, did they violate another's rights? There is no question that theirs were violated to the highest degree.

I don't see the question being between rights and consequences in this instance, I think it's more to do with personal capability and responsibility. There are situations where people are not capable of self protection even though the responsibility is present. Sometimes the choice to not act responsibly even though the capacity is there is made, in that case identifying the victim/victims is a deciding factor in law.

So, does the act of illegally smuggling drugs always produce victims, and if so is a penalty of death warranted? I set aside the idea that a person of sound mind choosing to use illicit drugs endeavors on their own and should accept the risks and rewards, in doing so I look towards other reasons such a law is justified. Of all the scenarios I can think of none of them or their effects can justify death to a drug smuggler.