Page 4232 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A civilised state has to demonstrate in the cold, hard light of day when administering justice that it does not stoop to the level of the murdering offender or offenders. Over the years, from time to time I have viewed the death penalty as a seemingly attractive idea. There have been some very powerful arguments mounted in support of the death penalty in the past. But in addition to the overriding argument against it that I raised earlier—namely the civilising factor—there is overwhelming evidence that, in the past, we have seen in this country and other democracies, and certainly in non-democratic states, the sentencing to death and final execution of people innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced.
We still see the pardoning of people sentenced to long prison terms for murder in this country. Imagine if they had been sentenced to death under the regime standards of the 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I am saying that the strong arguments for the death penalty are outgunned by the arguments against it. Further, whilst ever democratic countries maintain a death penalty—and the USA is the overriding example with its influence on the world stage—we see the encouragement of non-democratic states and even some emerging democracies to hang onto their death penalty regimes, some of whom are clearly cavalier in their application of the penalty in the execution of innocent people. As a world democratic leader, this is another powerful argument for why we should oppose the death penalty. It is our responsibility to do so.
I stress that Australia’s position and, by extension, the ACT’s position should be led by quiet and diplomatic example. I believe it is inappropriate to hector and lecture other countries about their death penalty regimes, although it is right and proper for this country to raise with dignity, firmness and diplomacy our concerns with the innocent and reckless execution of the citizens of other states. That ought to be graduated to vigorous action, though, when we see wholesale state murder—for example, Saddam Hussein’s direct killing of, on average, 68,000 Iraqis annually over 25 years—or the turning of blind eyes to communal killings in, for example, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
I have lived and worked with the legacy of Saddam’s death reign and totally understand the deep feelings of revenge for the killing of Saddam by the peoples who have survived his regime. Even if I cannot support their desire for revenge, I entirely understand it. We should always bear in mind the sensitivities of those realities.
A clear distinction is to be drawn between these examples and those of democracies and emerging democracies with internationally accepted judicial systems who, in most other respects, demonstrate civil standards but still maintain the death penalty. I think it is supremely arrogant to do any more than firmly state our opposition to such states and firmly encourage those states to reverse decisions of death sentencing to appropriate incarceration sentencing.
I stress that this also applies in cases where Australian citizens are on death row overseas. While we must vigorously campaign to reverse the death sentences put upon Australians, we must not demonstrate disrespect, and we must not be arrogant about that. The Nguyen case in Singapore is a deeply sad and shocking case which most of us surely think is a massive overreaction to the crime committed. We do not support that sentence; we believe it is entirely out of place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .