Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Death politics
Hello. Published below is the Australian Law Council's statement yesterday on the death penalty debate. The recent history of this issue is very interesting, as is its prominence now.
WEBDIARY on capital punishment
The danger for Australians of approving death for Amrozi, by Margo, 8 August, 2003:
John Howard and Simon Crean yesterday discarded decades of bipartisan policy on capital punishment, and in the process left Australians more vulnerable to being put to death overseas.
Our principle had been crystal clear, and was last enunciated in 2000 by Attorney-General Daryl Williams.
At that time political controversy raged over whether the federal government should overrule laws in Western Australia and the Northern Territory which gave the courts no choice but to send children to jail for property offences. Then WA Premier Richard Court upped the ante by threatening to introduce capital punishment in his state.
Williams immediately ruled that out, saying the federal government would overrule any such law. "We have international obligations which commit us to maintaining that abolition [of capital punishment], and we have actively lobbied other countries which have the death penalty," he said.
As
so the government did on behalf of David Hicks, an Australian to be
charged with terrorism in the United States. Williams said on July 8
that Australia had "re-iterated to the US Australia's long-standing,
strong opposition to the death penalty".
But yesterday, in the wink of an eye, Howard and Crean created an exception by refusing to make representations to Indonesia to commute the death penalty. John Howard has gone much further, saying he supports the death penalty for Amrozi, not merely that he won't oppose it. "If the law of Indonesia requires that he be executed, then I regard that as appropriate," he said this morning. The logic of that statement is that Australia could no longer credibly lobby for Australians who end up on death row in Indonesia, and would face huge credibility hurdles in lobbying other countries on such matters. Is he thinking straight?
Would we make representations if an Australian citizen had been found guilty of the charges against Amrozi? If not, then we have decided that in certain matters, Australian citizens will be left without the support of their nation when convicted of a capital offence overseas. If so, then we are clearly saying to the Indonesian people that our citizens are superior to theirs.
This is a consequence of making exceptions to a nation's commitment to universal human rights. In the context of the war on terror, we are simply playing into the enemy's hands.
Then there's the question of our blatant double standards on due process. Neither Australia or the United Kingdom passed retrospective new criminal laws against terrorist acts after September 11. The reason is simple - it is a bedrock basic to a Western democracy that the country is ruled by laws, not men. In other words, if your liberty is at stake, as it is for a criminal offence, the law as it is laid down at the time you do something is the law that applies. Otherwise, the society is wide open to capricious ex-post-facto abuses of power by political leaders and the enforcement apparatus of the state.
Yet Indonesia did make its anti-terror retrospective, and charged Amrozi under that law. That law is in clear breach of a specific clause in the Indonesian Constitution banning retrospective criminal laws, the core fact Amrozi's lawyer will argue on appeal. The Indonesians failed to also charge Amrozi with murder or offences under the law as it stood at the time of the Bali bombing, meaning that if appeal courts strike out his conviction as unconstitutional, he will walk free.
So how could Australia, through Howard and Crean, back a death penalty resulting from the degradation of the rule of law, a core standard the principle our nation says it's fighting for in the war on terror? Did Australian authorities assist Indonesia in laying the charges against Amrozi as it did in investigating the bombing?
If Australia did not help ensure that the Indonesian judicial process was watertight and scrupulous, our government has failed us in a profound sense. The precautionary principle is crucial in handling the war on terror. It appears this principle has been ditched along with quite a few others in this trial.
A legal injustice - and this one is blatant - gives explosive ammunition to our enemies in the war on terror. How, for example, can we now credibly lobby other governments on behalf of our citizens caught up in overseas criminal proceedings on the basis that our citizens did not receive a fair trial? For the values we are fighting for to survive, we must consistently apply those values in practice.
These grave consequences of our leaders backing the death penalty are in addition to the fear of many - after seeing Amrozi's spectacular propaganda throughout his trial to other would-be martyrs - that the death penalty is manna from heaven to the enemy, particularly if Amrozi dies laughing.
And that result would be disastrous for our neighbour Indonesia, and for us.
*
Howard to the states: capital punishment your call, by Margo, 8 August 2003:
John Howard today gave the green light for State governments to
reintroduce capital punishment. He even suggested the Victorian liberal
opposition might try a policy of reintroducing the death penalty on for
size. He's stated clearly that capital punishment is a matter for the
States, in direct contradiction of his Attorney General Daryl Williams,
who's said consistently for years that Australia is obliged by
international agreements and longstanding bipartisan policy to overturn
any such state government law.
Here's what Howard said to a talkback caller demanding the death penalty in Australia:
"The
criminal law of this country is overwhelmingly administrated by state
governments and I don't, even if I'm in favour of the death penalty, I
couldn't pass a law to apply the dealt penalty for example in the state
of Victoria. You can raise, and this matter can be pursued at a state
political level, you say why haven't you got the right? Well that's up
to the Victorian Government. ... If people want to raise it again it
would be open for example to the Victorian Opposition, if you have a
different view on this matter to promote it as an electoral issue..."
What the hell is going on in this man's mind? What sort of country is he trying to turn us into? I've published below the transcript of his extraordinary interview with Neil Mitchell on capital punishment on Melbourne Radio 3AW this morning. Among the many gems, he did not explicitly oppose torture for Amrozi before death, and completely avoided the question of whether he'd try to save an Australian from death row in Indonesia. Read him and marvel at his manipulation skills. This guy is in a class of his own. Congratulations to Neil for a fine job of persistent questioning.
How bloody stupid is Simon Crean? Why did he agree with Howard yesterday that Australia shouldn't make representations to Indonesia to commute the death penalty in line with longstanding bipartisan policy? He'd also have the strong argument that death would be heaven to our terrorist enemies, a view that many Australians adhere to. Why disenfranchise so many Australians by following the Howard line? As soon as Labor avoided the wedge by agreeing with Howard, Howard moved the goalposts, AS HE ALWAYS DOES. He'll now sit back, let the debate take off, watch his cheerleading media team beat the living daylights out of it, and relax. Will Labor ever learn that they must take a stand early on principle?
***
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP'S INTERVIEW WITH NEIL MITCHELL, RADIO 3AW, AUGUST 8
MITCHELL:
What is your reaction to the Democrats suggesting this would be on a par with terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't agree with them. Neil, I don't myself support capital punishment in Australia. The reason I don't support capital punishment is pragmatic. I know that from time to time the law makes mistakes and innocent people can go to the gallows if we have capital punishment, and subsequently if you discover they were innocent, then there is nothing you can do about it. It's a purely pragmatic thing. What has happened here is that under the law of another country people have been tried. They are citizens of another country. Amrozi is not an Australian citizen. He's an Indonesian. And I find it extraordinary that anybody can use the word barbarism in relation to this man. I just find that extraordinary. I mean it's the judicial process of that country. There is a legitimate debate about capital punishment. And I don't know that people, if I may say so, picking up your introduction, I don't know that people are dancing in the streets. I don't feel any sense of jubilation about this and I don't think people do. But if you have lost somebody, the emotional release of at least thinking that the process of justice has been served, and I'm impressed by the fact that amongst the families of the people who died, some are in favour of the death penalty, some are not. They reflect the division in our community on that matter and they are behaving in an understandable, normal Australian way.
MITCHELL:
You dont find the popping of champagne corks and the sort of die you bastard, die as a little un-Australian?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well these people lost their kids.
MITCHELL:
Sure.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I mean I have met a lot of these people. I remember how they felt. And I just try and put myself in their situation.
MITCHELL:
I think my point is this is going to go on for years now, isn't it? I worry about people being consumed by revenge.
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't think the Australian public is consumed by revenge. I think the Australian public has reacted to this tragedy in a very heartfelt, mature way. Australians know that our lives have been changed forever by the coming of the age of terrorism. There is no doubt about that. It started with the attack in New York and Washington in September of 2001. It came horribly close to our own country and claimed all those lives in Bali. And again this week weve been reminded that were living in a region that is very unstable and we can't for a moment imagine that it won't happen in our own homeland, in one of our cities on the Australian mainland. It could happen. We have to work very hard to prevent it occurring. Now against the background of all of that, I don't think Australians are behaving in an un-Australian way. They accept realistically that we have to live our lives differently, but they're determined to get on with their lives. They react in a very passionate way when pain and death is inflicted on their family and their friends, and that's perfectly normal. I am frankly filled with admiration at the way in which Australians have reacted and adjusted to this new situation.
MITCHELL:
Australia has been involved with Indonesia in helping in the investigation and the rest of it since this happened. Presumably because of that we do have the right to have an opinion and express a view on the death sentence.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes. Yes we have a right, and I have chosen as the elected leader of this country to say that I will not be raising any objection to the normal processes of Indonesian law being carried forward. I mean it would be open to me, if I chose, to do otherwise, but I have thought about this.
MITCHELL:
So you think execution is appropriate?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I think is appropriate is that the law of Indonesia be applied.
MITCHELL:
But do you think it's appropriate this man be executed?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he should be dealt with in accordance with the law of Indonesia.
MITCHELL:
But I'm taking it a step further Prime Minister. Do you believe its appropriate he be executed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Neil, I'm answering your question. What I'm saying to you is if the law of Indonesia requires that he be executed, then I regard that as appropriate.
MITCHELL:
If he was an Australian? With an Australian citizen you'd have a different view.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Neil, were not dealing I mean please, this is too important and sensitive and heartfelt an issue for us to deal in hypothetical situations. I intend to deal with the facts and the facts are that this man is an Indonesian citizen, he was tried in accordance with Indonesian law, Indonesian law obliges the imposition of the death penalty, it has been imposed and in those circumstances, I regard that as appropriate and I do not intend, in the name of the Australian people, to ask the Indonesian Government to refrain from the imposition of that penalty.
MITCHELL:
Do you hold that view if the remaining five are found guilty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me hear the evidence. Let me state the principle and then say I'm not going to hypothesise about future trials. The principle is that these people should be brought to justice in accordance with the processes of Indonesian law, and that is what may I just finish this is important That is what the Australian people would demand if this crime had been committed in Australia.
MITCHELL:
I guess the broader point and perhaps even the more important point now Prime Minister is the effect of the sentence. Do you believe that this sentence will reduce the terrorism risk in this region?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's more likely that it will be neutral.
MITCHELL:
You don't think it will increase it either?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can only speculate. The more that you communicate a capacity to apprehend, try and convict people involved in terrorism, the greater is the warning given to the terrorists. When I answered neutral, I was thinking more in terms of the actual verdict, as distinct from the whole process.
MITCHELL:
Well do you think the death penalty will reduce or increase the risk of terrorism in this region?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the death penalty will have a different impact on different people, and therefore I think its probably neutral.
MITCHELL:
This man seems to seek martyrdom. Is this what were giving him?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe so.
MITCHELL:
Why?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in the long run people who decide to embark upon terrorism have already embarked upon a fanatical mode of behaviour, and I don't know that the execution or the sentencing to life of somebody like that is going to alter the original decision.
MITCHELL:
I noticed the judges in their sentencing said they thought this would prevent a repetition or help to prevent a repetition. You don't agree with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I hope they're right. I think terrorism is going to be with us for a long time. We have begun the fight against it. It's a fight that will involve greater emphasis on intelligence gathering and cooperation between the agencies of different countries. It will involve also dealing with issues that give rise to conditions that can be exploited by terrorists. I do believe that one of the most positive things that have come out of the Iraq war has been the renewed push for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. If that settlement can be achieved, that will remove an argument that the terrorists have used.
...
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, before we leave the security issue, as I mentioned also, a British family one with a Bali victim is appealing against the death sentence. They want Amrozi to spend time in jail instead. Presumably you would hope that appeal fails if it goes ahead?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I dont know that I've quite thought about it. I've expressed my view Neil, and my view is that the law of Indonesia should be applied, and if the law of Indonesia requires the imposition of the death penalty and if the appeal processes within Indonesia result in the death penalty being imposed, then that is appropriate and I'm not going to object.
...
CALLER:
Yeah good morning. This guy that they're putting to death, I think first off that they should be making him suffer first, I mean he wants to die a martyr and by putting him straight to death, giving him what he wants, he should be made to suffer first, I mean he caused so much suffering for so many other people.
MITCHELL:
We are getting, thanks Michael, a lot of reaction like that, Prime Minister, saying torture him first. What's your response?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not in favour of that. I'm in favour of applying the law of Indonesia. We don't control this process.
MITCHELL:
No, but we've got a right to have a say in it.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we've got a right to express an opinion and that is what I'm doing. And I'm not reluctant to express an opinion, I know some people disagree with me, some people say that I should be thumping the table and saying don't execute the man, I'm not going to do that because I do respect the judicial processes of Indonesia, I also believe that for me to do that would offend many Australians who lost people, who legitimately feel as decent Australians that a death penalty is appropriate.
See there is a division in our community on the death penalty, many Australians who are a decent and as moderate as I hope both you and I are actually have a different view on the death penalty and perhaps your view and my view is different, I don't know, but I know lots of Australians who believe that a death penalty is appropriate and they are not barbaric, they're not insensitive, they're not vindictive, they're not vengeful, they're people who believe that if you take another's live deliberately then justice requires that your life be taken.
Now I have a different view from that because I've read of and I've seen the law make mistakes, and it's a terrible thing to judicially murder somebody and subsequently find that that person is innocent and that's why I have this pragmatic view so far as Australian courts are concerned that we shouldn't impose the death penalty.
We're dealing here with the citizen of another country whose murdered 88 of our own in another country and the law of that other country says the death penalty is appropriate. Now I am prepared to accept that, I will not object to it and I think it is appropriate because I respect the judicial processes of that other country. And if we are to get the total co-operation between Australia and Indonesia in the war against terrorism that could go on for years one of the things we have to do is develop a code of mutual respect and co-operation between the judicial systems of our two countries.
NEW CALLER:
Mr Howard I might just say to you that I find the government, including your own and other past governments, very hypocritical when it comes to the death penalty here in this country. Quite happy to see the death sentence carried out over there to their law, I want to know why it is that we haven't got the right here, why it's not being put up as an electoral point where we can't vote to have the people to decide whether or not the death sentence be reintroduced here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well a couple of things on that, firstly the criminal law of this country is overwhelmingly administrated by state governments and I don't, even if I'm in favour of the death penalty, I couldn't pass a law to apply the dealt penalty for example in the state of Victoria. You can raise, and this matter can be pursued at a state political level, you say why haven't you got the right? Well that's up to the Victorian Government.
MITCHELL:
I assume from what you're saying today that you are not supporting the reintroduction of the capital punishment in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not supporting the reintroduction, I mean my position, let me repeat, is for reasons of pragmatic concern that the law from time to time will make mistakes, I am against the death penalty. That is the basis, always has been the basis of my objection. But I respect the fact that a lot of people are in favour of the death penalty, a lot of people who are close to me are in favour of the death penalty. It's just that different people have different views.
MITCHELL:
What do mean people close to you? You mean in your Cabinet?
PRIME MINISTER:
Just generally, Cabinet, friends, etc, etc. You know more friends than others. But I've had this view for a long time and it's been debated ad nauseam in Australia and if people want to raise it again it would be open for example to the Victorian Opposition, if you have a different view on this matter to promote it as an electoral issue, I'm not encouraging them to do so but I'm just making the point that there should be debate on it, I mean nobody's trying to stop debate on it, were debating it now and I'm expressing a view.
*
Bali busts: our road to a new form of fascism, by Michael de Angelos, 19 April, 2005
Why the continuing dance with death? by Rachel Walsh, comment on the AFP handing the Bali 9 to the Indonesians, 1 May, 2005
Four female MPs urge clemency for Mr Nguyen, 31 October, 2005
The sorrow of a mother, by PF Journey, 25 November, 2005
Against the dying of the light, vigil for Tuong Van Nguyen, 2 December 2005
Law Council Laments Leadership Vacuum on the Death Penalty
The Law Council of Australia has described Labor’s hasty backflip on the death penalty as disappointing.
Yesterday, Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Robert McClelland signalled that, if elected, Labor would adopt a principled and consistent approach to opposing death sentences – wherever and whenever imposed. The Law Council would unreservedly support such an approach.
However, Mr Rudd has today distanced himself from that commitment, citing a desire not to offend the families of those killed or injured in the Bali bombings.
Law Council President Ross Ray QC said, “It is disappointing that Kevin Rudd has retreated from his Shadow Minister’s statement.”
“This is matter of principle. Adopting a position of vocal and absolute opposition to the death penalty should not be regarded as offensive to anyone,” Mr Ray said. “Opposition to the death penalty is based on a belief in the sanctity of human life – who better to understand that than those who have seen the lives of friends and family cut short by the violent acts of others.”
“Consistent, public opposition to the death penalty is desperately needed in this region. The hypocrisy of the current Government’s silent consent to the impending execution of the Bali bombers is not lost on our Asian neighbours. The Australian Government can hardly expect that last minute rallying to save the lives of Australians will succeed, when other executions are met with tacit approval.”
“At the moment we have leaders who will sign treaties and make polite statements but only if it doesn’t upset or incite anyone. Lives are at stake – surely that should elevate this issue above the political ruck,” Mr Ray concluded.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
A change in the wind - New Jersey repeals the death penalty.
Good news from the US has been rare under the Bush regime, but now perhaps there is a change in the wind. Congratulations to New Jersey the first state to repeal the death penalty in thirty years.
Death, Where Is Thy Sting?
Personally, I can't see how death penalty / no death penalty should make any difference to the cost of an accused person's defence. Is someone saying that if the accused is not going to be put to death if found guilty, but only jailed for life, his defence should be pared down to save money? Doesn't sound right to me.
In regard to cost, the death penalty should ultimately save money. It must cost the state an awful lot of money to keep a person in jail for the rest of his life. Much more than a lethal injection. Again, this should have no relevance, at least not in a civilised country.
For myself, if I were convicted of a capital crime I would rather be put to death and get it over with than have to spend the rest of my life in jail. That would be doubly true if I were wrongly convicted. Imagine having to spend the rest of your life in jail, knowing that it was all a mistake, and being unable to convince anyone that you were innocent!
Cost of defence leaves state unable to conduct executions.
The high cost of defence has forced a US judge to delay a trial where the death penalty is likely. Cuts to the state public defender system have left it broke: no money no justice.
Listen to the executioner.
Spare a thought for the people who carry out societies dirty work. As a society we can not support capital punishment.
The Logic of Innocence
Mike Lyvers, to clarify my point please change it to:
If you believe in guilt, aren't all wealthy people (i.e. most Westerners) guilty for letting children die in Africa?
Is the logic clear now?
"We close at 5." Three hours later Richard was executed.
Disgraceful conduct by a Texas Judge caused the death penalty to be carried out on Michael Richard because of a computer problem. Justice shuts down at 5pm.
Howard now inciting murder
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australians-expect-executions/2007/10/12/1191696179077.html
Australian's will be let down if there is no execution says John Howard. Thank god Rudd didn't say me-too.
Mixed messages & the Howard meltdown
Mary J - it's Howard's dog whistle dance.
But I dunno. Is it just me, or is Howard sending so many mixed messages at the moment that nobody can possibly understand what he's saying?
On capital punishment:
On reconciliation:
Howard is like that robot on Lost in Space when it was in panic mode, arms flailing, randomly re-playing moments from the last 11 years as he short-circuits and melts down. It’s truly bizarre.
As is watching Rudd trying to keep in step.
What a strange election campaign this is!
Everybody is ultimately innocent.
Personally, I believe everybody is ultimately innocent. People perform appalling acts because they are operating at the survival level of thinking: me vs you, us vs them, gain vs loss, victimhood vs revenge, etc. And society supports such thinking, so we are all to blame if anyone is.
At the happiness level of thinking, we realise that we are all in the same boat together and we must stop blaming individuals or "human nature".
Blame and punishment just keeps us divided and fighting each other. It stops us accessing our greater potential. It's as if Satan realised he could rule us by making us blame each other when we should be trying to understand each other and our collective human predicament.
Nevertheless, I would keep violent destructive people separate from the rest of society - not for punishment but for survival and happiness.
As for the current political debate:
How many deaths is Howard responsible for in Iraq?
Shouldn't Howard face the death penalty if he and others believe in it?
Aren't all wealthy people (i.e. most Westerners) guilty for letting children die in Africa?
After all, there is a crime on the books called, "Callous Indifference."
Deterrence?
Since Samuel Johnson a couple of hundred or more years ago observed pick pockets working the crowds during a hanging the argument for deterrence has been dubious.
Is the murder really less in societies with the death penalty? The US? I think not.
For deterrence to work the perpetrators (if calculating rationally) would need to be sure of being caught.
If they are acting irrationally the deterrence probably won't work in any case.
Deterrence is not a good argument in favour of the death penalty.
Love cats
In Pamela Williams book about the '96 election, I remember reading that John and Janette spent Easter reviewing the entirety of the election night footage supplied to them by one of the TV stations. This is a good idea in a political sense - giving you a thorough illustration of the electorate - but it is not really a "holiday" endeavour. Howard cares about his family but his family is a political unit. I read in the press Howard's joy at his son's cricket successes but it means nothing, because in his world sport = propaganda. There was also that cat that the Howards seem to care about, "Honeycomb".
If I were in the Chinese Communist party I would have installed a veterinarian to plant a listening device on to Honeycomb. Purrrrrrr.
Margo: Her book was called The Victory. Great book.
C'est la vie
People die all the time in all kinds of circumstances. It is one of the universals of human experience to lose loved ones: it will happen to everyone eventually, and, it may be sudden and unexpected. It is a hard truth but that is life. Prepare for it now, whilst you have the chance.
I read the other day in Mx a man in Russia was killed by an elephant (This seems to happen a lot. I used to read Russian newspapers like Pravda and there was almost always a zoo fatality). Should we desist discussing whether elephants should be kept in captivity out of sensitivity to the victim's families?
Why elevate the deaths of the Bali victims any higher in importance than any other murder? For every day of the year there will be an anniversary of a murder, somewhere and for someone. If we had to be sensitive to all private griefs, then we would never be able to discuss such policy issues at all and that would be undemocratic. Now is a perfectly suitable time to discuss such issues. The hell that the victims of "terrorism" feel is no less and no greater than the hell that the victims of other violent crimes feel. Singling out these particular victims for special sympathy is a political decision. It may even be an unselfconscious and innocent political decision, but it is what it is.
They are no undeserving of sympathy, of course, just no more deserving than others in like situations. Such events occur frequently, almost daily, in Iraq and Afghanistan. When have the political class ever expressed sympathy for those victims?
It is a hard world. A lot of things in it hurt and hurt very deeply. Unfortunately we cannot stop the business of living, arguing and negotiating the complexities of right and wrong because it may hurt someone.
As a matter of statistics the biggest threat to the lives of Australians is cardio-vascular disease, a condition heavily influenced by "lifestyle" factors. Every day Australians die, in part to subsidise corporate power like cigarette, alcohol and junk food companies. This is distasteful, too, but that is democracy.
What Webdiary said on death for Amrozi in 2003
Howard defends McClelland
Interesting that Howard has defended McClelland so vigorously in that interview with Laws.
I wonder, what would be the outcome if the death penalty for the most heinous crimes (such as mass murder) was put to a referendum here in Australia?
Margo: Hi Mike. Many years ago, during the Mabo debate, I attended drinks in Reith's office and had a conversation with Howard. We were discussing the idea of Citizen Initiated Referenda. I said no, mentioning capital punishment, which is popularly supported. He said he was opposed to CP, and was confident that after a full debate, most Australians would be too. Yes, very interesting that he's defending McLelland. I thought a desperate PM might raise the matter to wedge Labor. But no, the tide has changed. He needs to keep his traditional blue-ribbon liberal seats. How weird!
Hi Margo, has it occurred to you that.....
Hi Margo, has it occurred to you that in defending McClelland Howard may have just been speaking his mind?
Margo: No.
Why not?
Howardspeak
Howard's crocodile defence of McLelland
Mike, don't you think you're being just a little bit naive? Or disingenuous, perhaps, I’m not sure which.
Howard (with Costello) responded to McLelland’s speech, which outlined an anti-capital punishment policy Howard himself claims (when it suits him) he shares, by accusing him of lending support to and expressing sympathy for the Bali bombers. Not very nice of Howard. The speech, recall, was also about Howard’s inconsistency on this matter.
Then Howard makes it plain he thinks the Bali bombers should go down in a hail of bullets, while maintaining he is opposed the death penalty in Australia. Proving McLelland's point.
Now I’m supposed to believe Howard genuinely feels sorry for McLelland for being chastised by Rudd - for bad timing.
Puh-lease!
Wake up and smell the mixed messages, Mike.
response to David
David, it is certainly possible to favour the death penalty for mass murderers such as the Bali bombers but oppose it for drug importers. In the latter case the punishment clearly does not fit the crime, so paint it all with one brush is not logical.
The majority of Australians support the death penalty for the Bali bombers, so yes, Howard and Costello were playing that political ball. Indeed, a nationwide poll in 2004 showed that a majority of Australians were in favor or reintroducing the death penalty for horrific crimes in Australia. The reason that some US states have the death penalty (such as Texas) is because at the state and local levels the voters consistently vote for it by voting into office those who champion it. That's democracy at work. I don't always like the outcome, but there it is.
As for the poster who claimed "everyone is innocent" and then tried to claim that all westerners are "guilty" because of starving Africans - that's the sort of illogical divorced from reality nonsense that gives lefties a bad name these days.
Craig,
Those who kill or maim on the roads who are drunk, unlicensed, driving stolen vehicles hooning or racing, mostly get a suspended sentence, lose of their licence for a short time and a piddling fine. Repeat violent offenders who get bail, light sentences, unprovoked assaults, young offenders who commit arson or other crimes and only get counselled, which makes them feel untouchable. Women who kill their kids or spouses and then claim provocation, or temporary metal instability. Courts being lenient when someone says they were effected by drugs or alcohol, when they should get double the sentence for being doubly irresponsible.
Everyone should be allowed the benefit of making a mistake, but not when it's repeated, premeditated or could have been avoided using other methods. You must have adequate viewable deterrents which are imposed when all else has failed, if you don't have outcomes which make people think of the consequences, then it's open slather. It's those cases which become headlines where the courts impose the higher sentences, many others just go under the radar.
When you have one group of elitist people in control of every aspect of the legal system, you have conflicts of interest and we need to change that, to represent community requirements for the control of crime and not the whinging political correct minorities. Actually rape for rape may not be a bad idea to deter those who perpetrate such a debauchery on others. I 'm sure there are many who would be happy to push the button, or instil the same damage done to them or their loved ones, it's not really revenge, but “how do you like it”.
That other right wing smear
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22572159-601,00.html
Do people remember the so called shredder gate and that rape of a 14 year old girl that I posted?
Seems the documents turned up under FOI, fancy that.
Richard: It'll be interesting to see how many "dark secrets" turn up over the next few weeks. May I be the first to say thanks, Mary J?
To Mary j.
Like Richard - let me be the second.
Cheers Mary,
Enr G.
Sounds Good To Me Alan
Bill Shorten or Julia Gillard sound pretty good to me. Do we really have to endure every pathetic Coalition talking point-currently Julia Gillard's youthful endeavours-spouted out by every ratbag right-wing media mouthpiece ?.
I don't mind debate but I object to it being driven by that slug Akermann and his daily drivel about Labor Party identities.
What are satisfactory outcomes for henious crimes.
Discussions on the death penalty always seem to border around religious or ideological viewpoints. Yet to have a safe functioning society, what deterrents and repercussions does society impose to ensure heinous crimes are kept to the absolute minimum? I'd like someone to tell me what deterrent would achieve the aims of society and surviving victims. Currently the softly softly approach to crime, mostly ends up with a tut tut smack on the wrist outcome, isn't working and won't. An education system which addresses living, rather than just turning out economic slaves would go a long way to solving the death penalty problem. But I still believe the death penalty should be available for those killing crimes which are repeats, involve numerous victims or proven to be premeditated, should have the ultimate deterrent available.
Living where I do in Tasmania, I know quite a number of people badly effected by the murderous events of Port Arthur. There are still some who are scared to leave their homes, or travel for fear the perpetrator may either escape or be released by some brain dead politically correct approach. These people suffer every day the perpetrator is alive and desperately seek relief and closure, which can't happen with a sentence of life imprisonment or less, which is more common. It's all well and good to sit on the sidelines and fluff your feathers, but what benefit is it to those who have to suffer seeing those who've taken their loved ones life, looked after for the rest of their lives, whilst they struggle mentally and economically. There's no respite for them they say, until the death of the perpetrator. The ongoing pain associated with sudden or accidental death is very tough for most, but murder for personal or ideological reasons, in my experience is extremely hard to cope with. Many spend their lives trying to ward of unwarranted guilt, or seethe with frustration at not being able to vent their feelings upon the perpetrators.
So how about some answers from those who indignantly dismiss the depth of feeling and on going suffering of those severely effected by murderous events, by supporting a failed torturous outcome for the surviving victims. I believe surviving victims and their families should determine the sentence, according to the circumstances and sentencing parameters and the death penalty should be available to them if they feel it will aid their recovery and alleviate some of their suffering.
Amazing how the lib/lab coalition jumps on anything which may divert the spot light away from the most important subjects facing us, could this be another one.
let the victims decide?
Alga, what exactly is the "tut tut" approach to crime you speak of? In any of the serious crimes I can think of, the perpetrators have received extremely substantial sentences. Any of the more heinous murders have received life sentences, and the vast majority of others receive long custodial sentences. The majority of them, certainly Bryant and the gangs who murdered Anita Bryant and Janine Balding (in NSW) will die in prison as they rightly should.
The loss of freedom for the rest of your life seems a very appropriate punishment.
To me, saying it is wrong to kill a person so we will kill you seems to be perverse logic. I understand that you feel the victims family should decide the sentence. But isnt that rather closer to revenge than justice? Execute them... great... would you like the family to decide how it should be done, or maybe even carry out the sentence? I think capital punishment is a horrible slippery slope and the evidence does not indicate it stops crimes. If you kill someone for killing, should you rape someone for a rape crime?
I certainly dont want to see the death penalty in Australia, and would love to see it ceased overseas but that is up to the individual countries to decide on.
Craig, you claim "saying
Craig, you claim "saying it is wrong to kill a person so we will kill you seems to be perverse logic." Actually that is the same logic as "saying it is wrong to kidnap a person so we will kidnap you seems to be perverse logic," which argues against arresting and imprisoning criminals. I am uncomfortable with the death penalty for a number of reasons, but your argument above isn't one of them.
There have been quite a few sensationalised cases in recent years of criminals who committed despicable crimes getting off after a few years, then committing even worse crimes. In a recent example I recall reading about a little girl who was raped and murdered in an airport toilet by a psychopath who had been jailed for just a few years for raping other little girls. In many cases, unfortunately, the penalties are much less than should, in the interests of justice to the victims and protection of the innocent, be the case.
Executing the innocent.
Mike, one problem with capital punishment, is that we do not have perfect judicial systems, there are often mistakes. For this reason alone we should not have state sanctioned executions.
Yes John
1+1 = 3, kidnap = prison
Mike, the number of cases like that are few and far between, though as far as I am concerned one is too many. In most cases the problem isn't with the original sentence, it is the way that the parole is defined and implemented.
I have no problem at all with a life sentence being just that, but I do have very real issues with the death penalty. I don't agree that prison is kidnap though. Can you name many kidnaps where the family know where the person is being held and are allowed to visit them?
I have an empty page so far...
Margo: Hi Craig. Any chance you can get to the Sydney launch of SNHJ? I'd love to meet you at last. Also, where's the Webdiary piece you were working on? Would be a good one for now, do you think?
1+1 = 3 indeed
Craig, most criminals who are arrested and put in prison no more want to be treated that way than a kidnap victim wants to be kidnapped. When you capture someone against their will and put them into a place they don't want to be, that is indeed a form of kidnapping, like it or not. Your "death penalty = murder" is indeed a case of 1+1 =3.
As I said, I oppose the death penalty too in general, but your logic falls apart here.
I Agree with the Law Council
Robert McClelland is an extremely clever and intelligent man and will make a great Foreign Minister, if elected.
However, I understand Kevin Rudd's tactics at present. It's so important not to give this treacherous bunch who currently run the country an opportunity to wedge on any issue and divert people from the real task-removing Howard from office. He's clinging on like a limpet mine.
The amount of fibs told by the Howard government to retain power pales into insignificance anything Labor says now. Rudd seems to be the sort of bloke who will be far more practical than Howard and not ideologically driven. If he becomes PM I predict he will set himself a certain time period to achieve results and then handover to a successor.
Whoever said Howard has no life outside politics is right. That's what makes him so power crazed and with the possibility of soon losing that power, The Coalition is going to be lashing out in all directions.
Shivers
SENTENCING
Colonel Akkimoto I assume this would be either Gillard or Shorten, doesn't bear thinking about.
AS pro-frieing squad types might say, Colonel, that's not a sentence. This is a sentence (apols to Crocodile Dundess.
And any way, m'ol' junta lover, you should be so lucky. And you could even get Lindsay Tanner, if you're very good. And Lindsay does very good sentences, Colonel.
Now may we use your organs to prop up some aged fart in Beijing? Can we arrange free Olympics tickets for you?
Woodforde, OAM, surgical precision and executions a speciality
Lost in translation?
Woodeforde, OAM, 本当にありがとう、しかし私がTanner を渡すことを私は考える
Translation, Thank you very much, but I think I will pass on Tanner.
ANY OLD TERRORIST WILL DO
So Ang San Suu Kyi is framed as a terrorist by the Burmese junta, maybe even with a Downer fix involving the death of an Australian tourist upcountry - you know what these people are like.
Downer has just as effective a jostling small army of immoral public service "AS" snakes as KKK Andrews.
Then the sub-humans at the Daily Boggler, along with the pervy Hitlerite wankers of squawk back Hoerfunk, go for it, side by side with the usual Howard automatons.
And anybody who has ever spoken up for Burma will be labelled "terrorist" by the screaming banshees of the Reich, and especially the far-Reich. Rudd's every word on the subject will be combed for nuggets, quickly passed on by the sinister PM's private office after being deemed usable within the news or op-ed pages at The Australian, or similar. Especially if it can be quickly crumbed and deep-fried by the falangist shopping channels.
And when Suu Kyi is shot dead in a prison yard and her organs used to prop up a trio of tubby Beijing Olympics attendees, an harumphing array of News Ltd editorial will look up from its daily pudding bowls of human blood to grunt "good riddance."
"We never liked her very much anyway."
God knows what Howard part-propagandists like Miranda McFrump might snort from their own blood sausage repasts.
Woodforde, OAM, never a Chindit?
Death Penalty and Innocence
DNA
Evan, you are misreading that evidence. It didn't prove that 40% were innocent of the crimes, rather it was just one type of evidence that failed to support the prosecution case, along with a variety of other evidence that did.
I am against the death penalty in general for this very reason though - the risk of killing an innocent person.
Capital punishment is not an each way bet.
Once again Australian political leadership has taken the easy path. We have abolished capital punishment, we should be proud of that. We should encourage the abolition of capital punishment world wide. We should not back away, when it is politically inconvenient. A value is a value, a soldier died fighting for our values, we should not corrupt our values for political gain.
Our hearts go out to the victims of crime, including terrorism, but we should not lower our values to that of the terrorist. We are either for capital punishment or we are against it. Not a cowardly bet each way.
Howard set this up
It is now clear that Rudd had nothing to do with the speech, that McLelland did not use the speech in it's entirety and that a draught speech was leaked to Dennis Shanahan even though it was embargoed until today.
It is being driven through the Daily Terror where they are running blogs based on the statement about Amnesty lobbying Indonesia to stop the executions, that would not be Amnesty Australia but Amnesty international, but one of the fathers wants revenge and is screaming it out loud and long and inciting hatred for anyone who opposes the death penalty.
I was called heartless by David Penberthy for not supporting the death penalty and pointing out that the father should consider whether or not his daughter would want more people slaughtered and if he thought our government should receive the death penalty for ordering the murders of Iraqis.
I was at the hearings for the Bali bombings when they came to Adelaide and George Brandis was repulsive. The government did not want this investigation and even blamed the victims for not heeding the travel advisories. Except it was revealed during the hearings that day that the travel advisory issued AFTER the US warned about an imminent attack said that Bali was perfectly safe for travel.
And so they went like lambs to the slaughter and an advisory was issued the next day. Brian Deegan was treated like rubbish by DFAT and Downer over the ashes of Josh as anyone who wept reading his book would know. Deegan vehemently does not want revenge.
How dare Howard claim that Rudd was blaming other people when he took the blame on himself where there was no blame as he had not done anything wrong.
I would rather have a PM who can admit mistakes and state a position without letting thugs like Downer and Vaile get off scot free for shocking crimes against the Iraqi people.
I don't know how Shanahan got hold of an embargoed speech but the least he could have done was attended the reading of the speech to see if any allusion was even made to the Bali bombers. It wasn't.
The media in this country need to stop being so bloody incestuous and do some actual work, like pick up a damn phone every now and then.
I fail to see how rotting in prison equates to let's shoot them soon which is Howard's position.
Wonderful Post Mary j.
You are spot on about the U.S. Bali bombing warnings
While I wasn't at those hearings I remember my disgust at Downer admitting that he had been warned by the U.S. Intelligence that there was to be a bombing against Westerners in Bali.
That clown allowed the significant number of Australian tourists, for whom he was responsible and knew about, to feel safe - while he ignored the warning.
The result was that 88 Australians, without any protection from the Howard government of depraved indifference, died as a consequence. Just one American did not heed his country's warning and paid the ultimate price.
As you say, at the hearings he was forced to admit that he had in fact, received the warnings but did not feel it necessary to warn the Australians because it was "NOT SPECIFIC".
Yet, with the assistance of the venal media, Howard/Downer/Costello have been able to turn that criminally incompetent absence of care -to become a "shrine reminding us of a 'terrorist' attack on Australians".
How convenient? How similar to the all too suspect 9/11?
We have a right to vote - but Howard continues to abuse his power. Bring on the election.
Footnote: At the last sitting of Howard's "trained monkey" Parliament, he rushed through 35 bills which he knew would be passed by his Senate. A diversion?
"Never ever" trust the Howard "New Order".
COMPLICIT?
Is it unreasonable to speculate that Downer and Co were complicit in Bali? If he knew of the risk, why not speak up? And if he didn't read the cables (a reasonable speculation, given his mammoth AWB failure), then who in DFAT did? And when and why sleep on the job, assuming Downer did not order the warning to be gagged for evil reasons, probably dictated by Kirribilli.
Given Downer's praise of him, Robert McClelland should have some work to chew on there, alongside the mountain of other documentary evidence to put Downer and Co in jug for bulk aeons.
Is that the distant whirr of shredders one can hear in the distance?
Woodforde, OAM, mulch sorter by Appt to the Household of HRH Prince Akkimoto of the chopped and fricasseed Chrysanthemum.
Woodforde OAM, "assuming
Woodforde OAM, "assuming Downer did not order the warning to be gagged for evil reasons, probably dictated by Kirribilli".
You must be reading the same rubbish that Ern is reading. Where do you get these snippets from?
As you seem to know everything, can you tell me why we have not heard much from the "mad muftis" of Lakemba lately, or their defender Kayser Trad? It cannot be because of Ramadan (the holiest holiday) because the peace loving followers still manage to kill an Aussie soldier during Ramadan. Perhaps they have done a deal with Rudd to keep their mouths shut in the lead up to the election.
AKKIMOTO SLASHING WILDLY, AS HOWARD GIBBERS AND GESTICULATES
Colonel Akkimoto, from the steps of the war crime gallows in Tokio can you tell me why we have not heard much from the "mad muftis" of Lakemba lately, or their defender Kayser Trad? It cannot be because of Ramadan (the holiest holiday) because the peace loving followers still manage to kill an Aussie soldier during Ramadan. Perhaps they have done a deal with Rudd to keep their mouths shut in the lead up to the election.
Crikey, Akimoto. That's fantastic. Literally. Are the nips getting bigger? That's self-medication, mate. See a doctor, real quick, or you'll find it hard even to get on a bus without a mega-panic attack, or going into the crybaby routine. The suggestion of Kevin Rudd doing roadside bombs in Afghanistan is a first, even for the Liberals. But it does arouse the suspicion that you Liberals did it, old boy. I mean, a military funeral is always good for Mr Khaki Wallpaper Kirribilli. And you people have killed before for electoral reasons. At it again, Colonel?
Woodforde, OAM, ready to rock and roll
Did not happen
Ernest William, "How similar to the all too suspect 9/11"?. What do you mean by that?.
Howard on Laws today
Ok, speaking of defence, Kevin Rudd's been carpeted by, has carpeted his Shadow Foreign Minister Robert McClelland. Was that an outrageous mistake?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I thought it was outrageously unfair of Mr Rudd to carpet his foreign affairs spokesman for stating Labor Party policy. It's Labor Party policy to argue against the death penalty on a consistent basis no matter what the circumstances are. Mr Rudd even criticised me in December of last year for not criticising the imposition of the death penalty on Saddam Hussein. He said that you had to be consistent. What Robert McClelland was doing on Monday night, poor bloke, and I say that in a comparative sense, all the bloke was doing was articulating Labor policy through a speech which had been cleared by Mr Rudd's office and because it got a hostile reception in the papers the next day...
LAWS:
Rightly so.
PRIME MINISTER:
Rightly so, but the hostile reception was directed at the policy. Now Robert McClelland was the unfortunate messenger, so what did Mr Rudd do, he turned around and pretended to the world that it was all Robert McClelland's idea and then he blamed his staff. I mean, Mr Rudd has articulated that same policy himself and he should have been man enough to have accepted responsibility for it instead of trying to blame somebody else. Now...
LAWS:
Do we have any right to interfere with another country's laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have argued that it's a very difficult thing to do particularly when you're dealing with citizens of another county. I assert the right to argue in relation to Australian citizens and my policy on this, my attitude on this and people can criticise me for being inconsistent and I'll have to wear that criticism, but my policy is this: I don't support the death penalty in Australia and therefore by extension if any Australian is sentenced to death overseas I will argue for remission of that sentence, but in relation to the citizens of other countries I find it very hard to argue against the application of the death penalty in particular cases. And when it comes to people who've murdered Australians there's no way I as Prime Minister or as an Australian, as an individual, that I'm going to argue that the death penalty should not be imposed. Now people think that is inconsistent, well I'll have to wear that criticism. Now I was criticised by Mr McClelland for that attitude on Monday night, but that's Mr Rudd's attitude and what Mr Rudd has done on this occasion, in his version of the blame game, is to say well it's not my fault and you know, it was insensitive and the staff shouldn't have cleared it and they've all been counselled and Robert's been counselled and everything. I think McClelland has been treated very badly. He's a strong Labor man and he fights for his cause but most people regard him as a decent bloke.
LAWS:
Yeah, he is.
PRIME MINISTER:
He is a decent bloke and he was arguing his brief. I mean, he was giving a speech in good faith to a human rights organisation...
LAWS:
Yes but it's bad timing.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I know but I'm afraid if a speech as been cleared through the leader's office, the leader can't then turn around and say well it wasn't me.
LAWS:
He's now admitted that he must accept ultimate responsibility...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you've got to accept ultimate responsibility after sort of having grabbed some television headlines last night beating up on his own foreign affairs spokesman. I mean, that is just pathetic. Look, I get a lot of criticism and if you're the leader of a government and a party and if something good happens then you get some of the credit for it, some of it, but if something bad happens you've got to wear it and whenever anything goes wrong inside my government it's my fault as far as the public is concerned.
LAWS:
And the same with Mr Rudd.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it should be but you see he always blames. I mean, this is a pattern. He tried to alter the date, the dawn service date and that's somebody's fault, that's Channel 7 and it's his staff and everybody else and then he didn't know Brian Burke was coming to dinner and that's the fault of one of his parliamentary colleagues, I mean, in the end I think when Mr Rudd talks about the blame game what he's really saying is that it's never his fault, it's somebody else's fault.
LAWS:
Yeah, but with respect you're all pretty good at it. I mean, you and your ministers blamed staff over the children overboard affair and the AWB bribery scandal was another one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John, I went in a witness box and was cross examined on oath about my role in AWB and I wasn't dealing there with something that had been approved by my office. I was dealing there with the allegation that I had direct knowledge of the illegal conduct of an independent company and I was cross examined on oath and the royal commissioner found that I did not have knowledge so that is a vastly different thing. Here is a situation where Robert McClelland was articulating the Labor Party's policy on the death penalty through a speech cleared through Mr Rudd's office and Mr Rudd now says to the world oh well it's his fault, it's my staff's fault and they've all been counselled. Now look, it's, we move on to other things but I just make the point that if you're the leader of a party you should understand that loyalty flows in two directions. You expect your colleagues to be loyal to you and you've got to be loyal to them and the loyal thing for him to have done was not have cut McClelland loose and now left him hanging. I mean, essentially he said last night to the Australian public, this bloke's not going to be my Foreign Minister if I win the election.
LAWS:
Well he virtually said that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course he did, I mean, he's absolutely humiliated a decent bloke for what? Articulating his policy. I mean, I could understand him humiliating him if he'd come out in favour of invading New Zealand or something stupid but all the bloke was doing was...
LAWS:
...articulating...
PRIME MINISTER:
Was articulating what Mr Rudd himself has already said on several occasions.