I don’t know if this is news in the UK or outside Australasia, it’s obviously headline news here in Australia and has been for some months. Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were the ringleaders of the so-called “Bali Nine”, nine misguided kids who got caught smuggling heroin in Bali 10 years ago, and were sentenced to death. After umpteen legal processes and pleas from the Australian government it looks like tonight they will be lined up and shot by a firing squad.
There are so many issues surrounding this case – the death penalty itself, the weakness of the newly elected Indonesian prime minister etc etc. What is often overlooked is that the Australian Federal Police knew about these people and let them be arrested in Bali, for whatever reason.
Another issue is that if ever there was a case for commuting the death sentence it’s this – the two men seem to have remarkably got their act together and are willing to remain in an Indonesian jail for the rest of lives helping other prisoners. One of them is an accomplished painter.
There’s a lot of killing and disasters in the world at the moment but this case makes me feel quite ill.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/bali-nine-chan-and-sukumaran-denied-spiritual-support/6428222
This sad tale was in the UK news this weekend and they mentioned the important point that you make about the Australian police letting them be arrested in Indonesia.
Were they the ringleaders Mousey? I think they were the organisers of the mules that were caught but I understood the ringleader to be. Back in Australia and has now retired from trafficking having won $5 million in the lottery .
They were the ringleaders of the 9 but yes as usual the big bosses got away – yeah I read about the lottery win too.
I think they were stupid but they seem to rehabilitated themselves impressively, and I imagine that takes some strength given what you read about Indonesian jails.
A cynic writes that people seeking clemency often seem to be able to turn their lives around in clink.
Funny that.
But they don’t all rehabilitate. Quite a few of the group caught with them appear to have not done so @sitheref2409
True enough. But because others don’t ‘reform’, their acts don’t become any more genuine.
Agree Mousey
Hmmm. I see, pretty much on a daily basis, what heroin does to people, which leads me to think that the main problem with the death penalty for traffickers is that you can’t dig them up and shoot them again. Wishy washy bien pensant liberal or not, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who put their own financial gain above the misery and horror they bring to others. It does stick in the craw that the Mr Big gets away, of course.
I know there is a long and rich argument to be had about death vs rehabilitation, and most of the time I’d be on the life side of that debate, but I honestly can not get too riled up about people who knew what the stakes were when they started, and whose guilt doesn’t seem to be in doubt.
“The main problem with the death penalty for traffickers is that you can’t dig them up and shoot them again” is flippant and grotesque and possibly one of the most reactionary things I’ve read on here.
Of course it’s flippant. It’s a ludicrously overegged statement supposed to underline my dislike of heroin traffickers. Quite a simple rhetorical device, really.
I understand the arguments for legalisation and regulation of drugs, and I do believe that this would indeed alleviate a lot of the social issues around their use. But that’s not the world we live in, nor is it likely to be any time soon. In the meantime, I find it a little dispiriting that, of all the injustice in the world, we’re choosing to get worked up about people who wanted to profit from the misery of others coming to the end of a road they knew they had every chance of walking.
With you on this KidDynamite. There is a big difference between Drug Addiction where the addicts need our help and Drug Dealing where the dealers deserve all the punishment meted out on them.
I cannot believe they were unaware of the potential consequences so in that regard they got what was coming to them. Showing contrition after getting caught is merely an attempt at a survival mechanism as far as I can see. One that has failed.
I was in Thailand one time around 18 years ago on honeymoon. In the Customs and immigration line it was clear to see the signs ‘Attempting to smuggle drugs into the Kingdom of Thailand is punishable by death’ There is no ambiguity in the declaration. My understanding is that Indonesia is exactly the same.
They took the risk, they paid the price.
FWIIW, I am against the death penalty in all cases & at all times (it only takes one innocent man to go to the gallows etc…)
And yet I cant help thinking that Kid Dynamite has a point in that they knew the score before they did the deed.
My opposition to the death penalty is total & absolute, but I have little sympathy for heroin smugglers.
OOAA.
I’m with Jack and Kid Dynamite. Fuck anyone who transports or deals heroin. Fuck them in the ear. Worse than murderers.
That said, I wouldn’t condone the death penalty for anyone. Pre-measured coffins and firing squads are not the work of a civilized society.
“Fuck them in the ear”? Isn’t this what’s called a “total mindfuck?”
This joke was in The Young Ones Book in 1984. You’re welcome.
Only if they have anything between the ears, Moose.
“Worse than murderers”? Really? People who deal in a synthetic opioid, a pain killer about as addictive as nicotine, are worse than murderers? I’m sorry, but I find that an astonishing statement.
Yes, worse the murderers.
I don’t recognise the notion, which seems to be under advancement in places on this thread, that you could legalise heroin and it would be served up as a light aperitif at social gatherings in between readings of Proust. It’s a nasty, nasty drug that damages people and communities.
I lived in such a community in my teens. A commuter belt town which saw an explosion in hard drugs off the back of the opening of the channel tunnel. Lives were ruined: not just those of users, but of their families as well, many of whom lived through a hell I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Do I think the people who knowingly instigated and profited from the whole thing are worse than someone who, in the weakest case, gets involved in a drunken punch up and hits the other bloke a bit too hard? Yeah, I absolutely do. Do I want them shot? No – per my post elsewhere on this thread.
The tobacco argument, by the way, is classic “whatabboutery” – the fact that other addictive (and legal) substances are widely available and cause harm is not, to my mind, a strong argument for the introduction of further such substances. For what it’s worth, I’ve never smoked and if you want to ban tabs tomorrow I honestly couldn’t give a hoot. I certainly wouldn’t vote to legalise them from a position of illegality, knowing what we now do.
On that note, I understand the academic argument for drug legalisation, but to my mind it remains just that. It’s a little like communism: a beautiful idea on paper, but I’ve never actually visited anywhere with legalised drugs that I would want to live, much less raise my kids. My own policy choice would be harsh sentences for dealers and extensive rehab for users. OOAA.
As for calling heroin “a pain killer”, that’s factually accurate but also decontextualises the debate to a preposterous degree. It’s a bit like calling the World Cup final eleven men kicking a pigskin around a patch of grass. Nobody is objecting to heroin because it’s a painkiller: you make it sound like Ibuprofen.
Are people worse than murderers for selling heroin to individuals who can handle it and will use it moderately and with restraint? Of course not. But I’ve yet to meet a drug dealer (and I’ve met a fair few) who is ultimately all that fussy when it comes to their customer base, so you need to consider the alternative (often extremely unpleasant) use cases.
Other opinions are available, and I can understand how others may hold a different view. As is my prerogative, I will continue to hope that the people who peddle this horrible shit get fucked in the ear. If that prompts astonishment, then so be it – I feel I’ve thought about this one long and hard enough that I will be able to live with such a reaction.
I don’t think there is anywhere with legalised heroin. Is there? I don’t see it as an unworkable utopian ideal though. It seems logical, feasable and desirable to me. Take control of the market, out of the hands of the unscrupulous. (I doubt it will happen though, at least not in my lifetime).
As for the Proust scenario, I imagine you were being a tad facetious, yet that pretty much sums up exactly what I see. Of course there are ruined lives and communities too. It should be assumed that anyone entering the debate does so knowing that and hoping to prevent it.
That’s fair enough, Gary. I understand the conceptual argument for legalisation, and it makes sense. I just don’t believe it would play out to create a better scenario than the current status quo. That said, the strongest argument for drug legalisation that I can see is the potential reduction in human misery along the production and supply chain route.
I’m not aware of any country where heroin is legally available for sale as opposed to prescription. My comment was aimed more widely at the legalisation of drugs, not specifically heroin.
I was being facetious about Proust. If that’s been your experience, then you’re a lucky chap. Suffice it to say, it has not been mine, although I do know a handful of people who smoked the stuff a long time ago and emerged entirely unscathed. They’re very much the exceptions from where I’m sat.
Your whole argument seems to be built on the view of heroin addicts as victims. Taking heroin is a choice. Do you think that if heroin was removed from the market overnight, the pursuit of oblivion would disappear?
You are attempting to demonise a chemical (“horrible shit”) that is still used in a clinical setting. Doctors distribute addictive, dangerous chemicals every day, so I’m not sure I agree that this one drug deserves the opprobrium you seem keen to heap on it.
Of course, you are correct that heroin can damage and destroy lives. So can poverty, social inequality, poor job prospects and a million other things. Are the purveyors of these policies also worse than murderers?
This is just further whatabboutery, isn’t it?
The world is full of horrible things. If you want to discuss social inequality, and who’s to blame then let’s discuss that topic. I don’t need to defend tobacco, alcohol and social inequality to condemn the heroin trade.
In the case of the sale of heroin, we both accept that it damages and destroys lives. The people who produce and sell it also know this to be the case. That’s enough for me.
As far as “demonising a chemical”, I think you’re again taking my argument out of context. I’m quite clearly not arguing against the medical use of heroin, or regarding heroin as an absolute. The discussion is about the sale of heroin for recreational use. In that context, it’s horrible shit in my view.
I have no idea what “whatabouttery” means, but I’m guessing that without it, this blog might cease to exist.
You made a comment, somewhat inflammatory and reactionary in my view, that heroin dealers were worse than murderers. So the onus is on you to defend your position. Thus far, you seem to have backtracked a little by envisaging a scenario in which a dealer is equivalent to someone convicted of manslaughter, perhaps.
I certainly do not condone the heroin trade. Nor do I wish to make light of the problems that heroin addiction can cause. But I don’t think labelling a drug “horrible shit”, and it’s perpertrators as worse than murderers is conducive to a reasoned debate. It all smacks (see what I did there) of knee-jerk Daily Mail hysteria to what is a complex and difficult issue. In a carefully measured dose, heroin can be taken daily for the rest of your life with no adverse effects on health. Heroin’s dangers are a byproduct of its illegality and lack of regulation.
Well, Martin, what can I say to that?
I don’t believe there is an onus on me to “defend” anything here. I’m not on trial. I’ve expressed my view (one which cannot be empirically proven or disproven, unless you know a unit of measurement for “bad”), I’ve explained the basis of it above in polite terms (unless you’re a heroin dealer), I’ve accepted others may disagree. If you think I owe you something beyond that then I’m afraid you’re mistaken.
You’re also mistaken in your understanding of the distinction between manslaughter and murder. Intent to kill is not the sole necessary component of the mens rea for murder: intention to cause grievous bodily harm will also suffice. I have spent many unhappy hours in a law school library reviewing case law and surprising myself with just how little is sometimes required for a murder charge. You don’t need to be a moustache twiddling villain tying someone to a railway track.
Regarding your ideals as to what is and is not conducive to reasoned debate: I’ve expressed my honest opinions politely and given some background as to why I hold them. You, on the other hand, have attempted to pin the Daily Mail onto me, which is about as cheap and unproductive a shot as is imaginable in this discussion.
As for legalisation, I don’t agree. However, I do understand the argument, partly because it’s a view I once held myself. I don’t need to profess astonishment at it, or attempt to discredit it as “unhelpful to debate”, or otherwise label it. I can recognise it and simply disagree.
That’s enough from me on this. I’ve explained my position once, I think that’s enough, and I sense we’re on the cusp of a really pointless back and forth: you don’t consider my view legitimate, and I’m perfectly OK with that.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
You were the one who shouted worse than murderers! Its the kind of intemperate response I wasn’t expecting to see on this blog. You seem to have got all hot under the collar because I asked you to justify this statement. You gave me a response primarily based on personal anecdotal evidence. That’s fine. My view, also based on personal anecdotal evidence is different from yours.
I think what Bingo is trying to say is that you can take your argument, and stick it up your (hey!).
I thank God, mom & dad,
Adrian,for the love I feel inside,
Jordan, my phat ass band,
with out’em I’d be nothin’ but a pumpkin shoved inside a can.
with out the fans there wouldn’t be no show
and if that was really so then life would really blow.
WORD
Sometimes these things don’t come across in print, but I’m honestly not hot under the collar over this one. I’d just prefer to avoid an argument is all.
I think you make a fair point about both our views having their foundation in anecdotal evidence. As I say, I’m certainly not dismissing yours: for all my dislike of narcotics and dealers, I think drug policy is a complex area with numerous hues of grey.
You may in due course be proved correct about legalisation. My gut tells me you won’t, but god knows I’ve been wrong often enough before.
Let’s bring it back to music. Maybe we can agree that this is a truly great record?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffr0opfm6I4
😉
This record just makes me cringe now. First year at university, that song, that girl….GWAAAAHHH *chews leg off in embarrassment*
131 Australians died of heroin overdoses in 2005, the year this lot got caught. I wonder if their families think the sentences are too severe.
I’d like to see that number expressed as a percentage of users and to compare that percentage to figures for alcohol and tobacco. There’s no doubt heroin is dangerous if used in an unregulated and uncontrolled market. Most drugs are dangerous when used in this way.
While there’s no doubt that alcohol and tobacco cause a lot of problems, I’m not aware that addiction to booze and fags causes the crime that heroin and similar drugs do, not to mention the spread of disease from shared equipment. Heroin addicts seem to be capable of astonishing amounts of theft from homes and businesses to feed their addiction with the proceeds going straight back to the dealers. At least with booze and fags, the (legal) product is regulated and the Treasury benefits.
For what it’s worth, a quick google search “alcohol vs heroin” reveals a prevelance of articles claiming that alcohol is more damaging, both to the individual and to society.
You’re right. Surprising, although it seems that alcohol comes out ahead because it is used by so many.
I have some friends who like occasionally to use herion. They are, outwardly at least, fairly normal people with fairly normal lives. I would never get involved with it myself, but the idea that their suppliers should be imprisoned, let alone shot, seems absurd. Legalise and regulate it, then treat rather than punish addicts who want to stop.
Do you think that your friends are a typical use-case scenario for heroin?
As Harry Hill has previously noted, the thing about heroin is that it’s notoriously moreish.
Not trolling – Honestly, & I am writing from the perspective of a man in his late fifties whose illegal drug use amounts to eating hash cake on 2 seperate occasions.
I read your post with interest Gary, but am struggling with the idea of some being an occasional heroin user, I thought it was virtually instantly addictive, & once addicted it takes over the addicts life.
Somehow, I envisage an occasional user & someone who takes it with port & cigars after a very agreeable Saturday night dinner party.
But WTF do I know?
I’m not particularly informed myself, to be honest. I have a couple of friends who don’t inject, only smoke. They seem to use it very much in the same way that I do alcohol (occassional, social thing). I’d describe them as very bohemian. I have other friends who do inject. They’re from very normal middle class families. Although one might objectively describe them as losers (unemployed, not very smart), they don’t seem as dependant on their habit as some alcohlics I’ve known. Lance in Pulp Fiction would be a fair comparison.
Occasional users as you describe are in the minority in terms of grammes used I suspect. I have no idea what the actual stats are, I’m just going on *cough* anecdotal evidence.
In my view there’s no civilised justification for the death penalty for trafficking in substances. We are all free not to snort/smoke/inject any given poison after all.
Legalisation is the only sensible route forward, but that requires intellectual rigour from the political classes and no interference from the religious pontificators of this world. Not a recipe for likelihood, perhaps especially in Indonesia, it has to be said.
If the sentence is carried out it will be another shameful stain on the spineless and ignorant of the world.
Chris Morris has the answer, (After Bernard Manning)
“Two Australians” (the title and I imagine the point to this piece) were shot. Six others, too, but they weren’t Australians. The other seven Australians in the “Bali Nine” are still serving either life or 20 years in prison.
I live in a country with a chronic and under-reported rural drug problem. “Ice” and “ya-baa” (both highly addictive, both lethal, both cheap, both dirty) come across the river from Burma, where it’s made in junta factories. It’s a long round trip, but the people who make it are poor and ignorant and don’t think about consequences to themselves or the kids who finish up using the stuff. It’s not brought across the river at dead of night by evil-doers, their boats piled high with packets of merchandise, it comes over a few pills at a time, hidden in the clothing of ordinary Lao people who appreciate the cash dividend. It happens on market days, when hundreds of Lao make the trip to buy goods they can’t find over there, household goods, soft drinks, snacks, bicycles, whatever. They’re approached by a third-tier dealer (one who just gets it moved), given a phone number, and the women tuck a few pills into their bra. A bit of fun, maybe, and why not? Where’s the harm? They maybe get a cursory police or customs search (bags only) arriving in Thailand, but strip searches are never done, so they get through, phone the next guy, meet him somewhere in the bustle of the market, give him the pills, get the money, spend the money, go home happy. A few pills at a time doesn’t sound so much, but there are two market days, hundreds of people making the trip, so in the course of a year …
And that’s just here, in my little home town, one of hundreds along the river. Shooting the mule isn’t an option. Neither is educating these people, making them aware of the massive harm and ruined lives they’re facilitating. They wouldn’t care, because they need the money and it’s just a few pills, not their fault. At the top of this particular hierarchy, the manufacturers who profit most, is the Burmese Junta. Try shooting them, perhaps?
Shoot them all, right? Shoot every street corner drug dealer or mule with some shit in their bag or bra. Australians, even. If you can catch them, shoot the bulk dealers further up the chain. Shoot the manufacturers. You may be satisfied with your opinion that this solution is harsh but fair, but it’s my guess that you won’t pick up a gun yourself. That’s as far as your solution goes, because that’s the kind of guy you are and that’s the kind of opinion a guy like you likes to hold. Harsh but fair. Zero tolerance.
Shoot away. You are making no difference.
The overarching issue here, which I mentioned in the OP, is that the Australian Federal Police KNEW about the “Bali 9”, and instead of letting them board the plane and then arresting them when they returned to Australia, they let the Indonesian police, who had no idea about them, know where they were and so on. This was done because it was about a year after the “Bali bombings” (when a nightspot popular with Australians was bombed and many Australians were killed), and there was a new “spirit of co-operation” and information sharing with the Indonesian authorities. This has been sidestepped by the AFP and the Aust government every time they’re questioned about it, which is regularly. Now an independent senator is pushing it and “calling for an inquiry”.
Apart from that, HP is correct – shooting them won’t make a speck of difference. If those guys hadn’t taken up the offer to make some quick cash, the dealers would have found someone else.
Mousey, I was aware of the issue, but didn’t read it as overarching, so please read my response (aimed at the shoot-the-buggers contingent)with that in mind. It raises another question – did the AFP know a likely guilty verdict would entail the death penalty? In that case, hasn’t some international law been broken here?
No I didn’t make that clear in the OP. The AFP must have known what would happen. Not quite sure whether an international law has been broken but both Indonesia and Australia are fairly dismissive of international law or obligations anyway.
I was in Indonesia just last week and was chatting to fa TV reporter on international affairs for an Indonesian station. I asked her to reconcile this imminent act with Indonesian govt please for clemency for a number of death row prisoners in the Middle East arguing the sanctity of life.
She had no answer.
pleas not please of course.
Bloody auto spellcheck.
Further to @mousey comment re AFP
http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/andrew-chan-and-myuran-sukumaran-executions-a-black-day-for-afp-bob-myers-20150429-1mvo24.html?skin=dumb-phone
… that answers my question. Or one of them.
Can I ask, if they arrested them on the way out, what would they have charged them with and what was the likelihood of conviction? A conspiracy to commit a crime is tricky to prove. Whereas, arrested on the way back, loaded with gear, they would be bang to rights.
Or, am I missing something?
What about, right, what about if this old lady, right, she was in a coma from eating too much heroin? Eh?
That’s an readily treatable condition so pulling the plug doesn’t come into play.
I’m obviously missing something. The AFP are being slated for not stopping this crew going to Indonesia. They ‘knew’ they planned a drug run and, therefore, ‘allowed them to go to their deaths. I just wonder if the reason they did so was because they felt unlikely to secure a conviction for a conspiracy.
Boycott. How do I do it?
Well typically people would not go to Bali ,where I am just back from, and other parts. The difficulty is that while hurts the Indonesian economy in the larger sense in the narrower sense it hurts the Balinese people who are Hindus and Buddhists and not part of the power elite. Also a reason why the Bali bombings were in err Bali.
S’ok Waxl Rose and other members of the Metal community have stepped in:
http://www.teamrock.com/news/2015-04-29/guns-n-roses-axl-rose-bali-9-drug-execution
Bali is a beautiful place with beautiful people and I’ve been there a few times and have a few friends native to Bali who live there. The death penalty may be the penalty for drug smuggling in Indonesia and perhaps the executed men should have considered this.
However, in my travels to Bali, (it’s the only part of Indonesia I’ve visited) I’ve found the Police there to be particularly corrupt in my interactions with them. Probably not any more than any other Third World country, be that as it may.
I’ve had the very uncomfortable pleasure of Kuta Police trying to plant drugs on me which was shocking and only averted by onlookers who copped what was going on before I did. My Bali friends have plenty of other tales of woe to tell, many of which were resolved by handing over coin. This colours my view somewhat. I find the death penalty and the taking of life nauseating.
When your country decides the death penalty is a possible sentence it would at least be comforting to know the legal process are above reproach. In Indonesia it certainly is not. This whole story is very sad and sickening made worse by the dodgy legal system. The story of the last Brazilian to be executed there is particularly gruesome. I despair about humanity at the moment.
I just came across this video. It’s titled “Mick Jagger explains exactly why drugs need to be legalized.”
Personally speaking, I would have called it “Mick Jagger rambles in a pleasant but incoherent way about something or other.”