by David Kavanagh

The sad fate of Andrew Chan, Myuran Sukumaran, and the 6 others executed on Nusakambangan Island early this morning has caused a great deal of division in Australia and across the wider world.

While some argue to justify Andrew and Myuran’s barbaric execution, citing the fact that they knew the consequences and that Indonesia should theoretically have the right to carry out and enforce its own law within its borders, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Just to be clear, this one’s an opinion-piece but it is based in fact. In my experience debating this issue so far, those who condemn the two men are either uninformed, heartless, or both.

The truth of the matter is that it’s just not as simple as: “they were drug traffickers, they deserve to suffer the consequence.”

If you look at this particular case and the circumstances closely, something that I think many people just generally don’t take the time to do, you’ll realise that not only were these executions morally wrong but, in some ways, legally wrong as well.

As is often the case, the truth is far more complicated than people seem to realise. Here is why I strongly believe Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran should not have been executed today.

1. The legal process was marred by unfairness and corruption

Although it’s not wise for many in higher places to admit it, it’s no secret that the Indonesian court system is incredibly corrupt and inefficient. Since this fact is worthy of its very own essay, for now I’ll stick with the case at hand.

At a vigil in Sydney’s Martin Place last night, renowned international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson reiterated just how unjust Andrew and Myuran’s treatment by the Indonesian court had been.

The fact of the matter is that both Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran had another hearing scheduled for May 12th, two whole weeks after their execution.

In any other fair and democratic country with respect for judicial process, they would have had a chance to finish legal proceedings before having their sentence carried out.

More generally, it’s common knowledge that many judicial officials, including Indonesian Attorney-General H.M. Prasetyo himself, have been at the centre of accusations for corruption and conflict of interest.

Fundamentally, Andrew and Myuran were not given a fair trial. That’s it. That’s wrong.

2. Indonesia ignored international law

Indonesia and its proponents argue that it has a sovereign right to enforce its own laws.

However, at the same time as unfairly condemning two men for breaking its law, Indonesia was ignoring serious international conventions set out in a UN treaty.

Article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that:

In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

As outlined in this report, UN interpretation of the concept “most serious crimes” follows the following principles:

‘Most serious crimes’ should be interpreted in the most restrictive and exceptional manner possible.

The death penalty should only be considered in cases where the crime is intentional and results in lethal or extremely grave consequences.

States should repeal legislation prescribing capital punishment for economic, non-violent or victimless offences.

Further, it is also specifically stated that drug trafficking does not justify the death penalty. Although Indonesia ratified the ICCPR treaty in 2006, it ignored it last night.

While you can correctly argue that drug trafficking contributes to more unnecessary death and crime generally, it is in no way on par with the directly murder of another human being.

As morbid as this argument may seem, drug users still have some semblance of free will. It is why many countries refuse to sentence drug traffickers to death.

3. Andrew and Myuran were political pawns who died as part of a petty power play

Right up until this year, Indonesia had gone through a 5 year period without executing a single individual for any given crime.

Then, in October 2014, governor of Jakarta Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo was elected as Indonesia’s new president, partly on the basis that he would take a tough stance on both drugs and corruption.

Since his inauguration, Indonesia has executed 14 individuals, with plans to execute a total of 64 in the coming year.

In the most simple sense, President Widodo felt like he needed to carry out these executions, ignoring calls for clemency, so that he wouldn’t look weak in the scrutinising eyes of his supporters and other party members.

In politics, people don’t favour leaders who back away from the issues they promised to address during election time or bow to international pressure.It was primarily politically motivated.

Sadly, Andrew, Myuran and the 6 others executed are the ones to suffer the consequence.

4. There is no proof that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to further crime.

President Widodo referred to this year’s second round of executions as a necessary form of “shock therapy” designed to solve Indonesia’s drug trade problem. Unfortunately, this strategy is not based on sound research and is unlikely to succeed.

I’ll let ABC’s Fact Check speak for itself:

There is scant research on whether the death penalty deters drug trafficking. Experts who have considered the issue of the death penalty as a punishment for murder, and in some cases drug offences, around the world, say there is not enough evidence to conclude that the death penalty deters.

5. Andrew and Myuran had reformed immensely during their decade in prison

While it may be a cliched and predictable argument to make, it is absolutely true that in their 10 years in Kerobokan prison, Andrew and Myuran were very much rehabilitated.

Award-winning investigative journalist Mark Davis, who has been working in Indonesia since 2010 and received a Logie Nomination for his 2011 documentary about the pair, The Condemned, had spent a great deal of time with Andrew and Myuran.

Last night, as ABC 24 provided live coverage of the events at Nusakambangan Island, Davis recounted his opinion of the men as good men whom he would trust around his own children.

Affectionately, he referred to them as “the painter and the pastor” – Myuran having taken an avid interest in painting and Andrew having become a devoted and ordained minister within the prison.

Back in 2005, when the Bali Nine were caught, both Andrew and Myuran were arguably relatively young and stupid.

They knew the consequences, yes, but why shouldn’t they have been shown mercy?

Their fellow inmates, the guards at their prison and many others called for clemency, claiming that the duo had become good, compassionate and hard working people.

In another country, they might have had their calls for mercy heard because of this. They were an example of how rehabilitation can work.

It saddens me to think the potential that was lost along with their deaths. Perhaps they could have shared their stories. Perhaps, had they been a given chance, they could have become anti-drug advocates and saved lives.

6. The execution and the process leading up to it was dodgy, to say the least

Again, it is important to remember that before President Widodo came to power, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Indonesia had not executed anyone for a period of 5 long years.

As such, the “system” they had in the place, the “system” that required prisoners be given 72 hours notice before their appearance before a firing squad, 126 strong, was made up practically on-the-go. They had very little idea about what they were really doing.

Furthermore, as April 29th grew closer, Andrew and Myuran were initially refused their right to see a spiritual advisor. However, this was overturned a few hours prior to their execution.

Perhaps even more disgracefully, their families, innocent in all ways, were treated less than respectfully by Indonesian officials and the press.

Alarmingly also, only Indonesian officials were supposedly present at the execution to act as witnesses and check that they were carried out properly.

In countries like America, on the other hand, families, jurors, judges and all sorts of officials from relevant countries are allowed to witness executions.

7. Because they were human beings.

Admittedly, this argument draws heavily from my own world view.

In all but the most extreme cases, I detest the concept of the death penalty.

Except as listed in the ICCPR, I think it is deplorable to deprive a person of their own life, specifically for arguably non-lethal offences such as drug trafficking.

All that said, these executions, and particularly some people’s reactions to it, have shaken me greatly.

Where has our compassion and empathy gone? How are people so ready to not only condemn them, but also their families, without actually closely looking at the case and circumstance?

To quote Mark Davis one last time: “This is not justice, it is a political act… it is an outrage… it was passed upon them corruptly.”

The future is uncertain

On a political basis, the execution of two Australian citizens is really going to cause some problems between Australia, Indonesia and the countries of the others executed.

While it is true that this incident will not affect trade or policing cooperation between the two countries, the Australian government has denounced the action and already withdrawn it’s ambassador from Indonesia, if only temporarily.

If nothing else, I hope people can begin to understand what has really happened here. Perhaps movements advocating for a moratorium on the death penalty in Indonesia will ensure Andrew and Myuran’s undeserved deaths were not in vain.

More to read:

Indonesia is wrong: the death penalty is everyone’s business

Bali Nine duo executed: the view from Indonesia

Bali Nine: Poor political leadership creates lasting bilateral problems

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter