Sanctioned killing not the civilised way

IT'S a curious world. Australia is pleading with Singapore not to hang convicted Australian drug smuggler Nguyen Tuong Van. In Britain, people are pleading for the death penalty to be reinstated. The irony is inescapable. In a sense, people in both countries have got it wrong.

Let's begin this tragic tale in Britain. Last week, a female police officer and mother of five, Constable Sharon Beshenivsky, was shot dead while carrying out routine inquiries. The gunman simply opened fire, killing PC Beshenivsky and wounding another officer.

One of London's most respected newspaper columnists, Colin Wilson of the Daily Mail, has for years been a consistent opponent of the death sentence for serious crimes. Suddenly, he has changed his mind. In his regular column, Wilson says it is time to talk about the restoration of the death penalty. For Wilson, this is a major reconstruction of a core belief.

Former London metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens has admitted the shooting has made him change his mind and that the "monster who executed this woman in cold blood should in turn be killed as punishment for his crime".

The London shooting was horrific. It has touched a nation in a way few events do. But it is no excuse for Wilson, or Lord Stevens, to abandon the proper and tolerant views of a lifetime so that the community can take revenge on a tragic simpleton.

Human emotion is a curious beast. While Britain is grappling with the murder of PC Beshenivsky, Australia is trying to deal with a very different issue involving capital punishment.

British people are baying for revenge as Australians try, quite properly, to convince the Singapore authorities not to hang convicted drug courier, Nguyen Tuong Van, who has been sentenced to hang on December 2. It is demonstrably wrong for governments to deliberately take lives. In Australia, we place a high price on the value of life.

When there is a murder, particularly the murder of a police officer, prison warder or a child, as a community we are appalled. But we do not stoop to the level of the killer and impose a government-sanctioned death penalty. In Singapore, where Van was arrested with his deadly haul of drugs, drug dealing carries the death penalty. It is the same in most Asian countries. Any fool who goes to Asia, or tries to leave Asia carrying drugs, knows the potential consequences of their actions. Van would have known but he took the risk and was caught red-handed.

Australia is right to ask the Singapore Government for clemency. It is the Government's responsibility to fight for the life of any citizen.

And this is where those in Britain baying for the return of the death penalty are wrong. An angry domestic community wants to satisfy its blood lust by bringing back the death penalty.

This would automatically disqualify Britain from taking the high moral ground if one of its citizens is sentenced to death in another country.

It would deny Britain the right to enter international debate on human rights. They would be stooping to the same sordid level as countries which have the death penalty.

Australian authorities should do what they can for Van. Much diplomatic work has already been done, without much success. If, as seems likely, Van is hanged on December 2, it would be futile, as some have suggested, to apply trade sanctions and travel restrictions on Singapore.

In the end, the death penalty – wrong as it may be – is part of Singaporean law.

Newshawk: http://www.napnt.org
Pubdate: Thurs, 24 Novwember, 2005
Source: The Advertiser(Australia Web)
Author: Rex Jory
Website: http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au