Terrorism and capital punishment: ethics survey comments

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 53 spring 2003

St James Ethics Centre's informal Terrorism & Capital Punishment ethics survey was conducted in August 2003. Below is just a small selection of comments made by various survey participants.

The survey attracted more than 360 respondents, most of whom believed that the death sentence handed down to Amrozi - one of the convicted Bali bombers - was wrong.

Many objected on the grounds that no one has the right to take away another person’s fundamental right to life, and to do so would be wrong.

“My underlying view is that the death penalty should not be applied - we really do not have the right to determine who should live or die (although acts of terrorism show that others have a distinct opposing view).”

“The killing of a human being by the State diminishes us all and makes us no better than the original killers.”

“Killing Amrozi would only serve as revenge for the people who died in the Bali attack and, as such, is as barbaric as the act of terror that saw all those people die in the first place.”

Others believed that killing Amrozi would be a reward rather than a punishment.

“Imposing the death penalty on terrorists can just turn them into martyrs and thereby fuels the fire of the terrorists' cause.”

“Amrozi is much like a suicide bomber, in that he appears to relish his own death and believes that he will be rewarded by God for his actions. Killing him will only make him a martyr to the cause. How can the death penalty been seen as a deterrent in such a case?”

Some respondents felt that it wasn’t enough for Amrozi to die without pain, and that lifetime imprisonment would be more appropriate.

“Killing someone for a crime puts them out of their misery - they should be kept alive for as long as possible in total isolation to ponder their crimes ...”

And some called for consideration of why terrorism exists.

“Why are some people around the world forced into such desperate responses such as terrorism? Could it be that Western countries have so muted any opposing forum to their own economic, strategic and power interests, that this continuing situation has played a key role in the creation of such fundamental, reactionary strategies such as terrorism?”

Most of the small number who agreed that Amrozi should die argued that Australia had no right to interfere with the laws of other countries.

“I acknowledge the sovereignty of Indonesia and its laws. It is not appropriate for Australia to be concerning itself with the appropriateness or otherwise of criminal penalties in a particular situation. We should let the process take its course.”

“If an act of terrorism is of criminal nature in a country, then why do other countries have the right to interject?”

Interestingly, the question of leadership was also raised by many.

“This is an issue on which we should expect our leaders to exercise true leadership and resist any uninformed, superficial, or populist force to the contrary.”

“Our political readers need to stand up for what they believe, rather than what they think will be popular.”

“The official position of Australia - voted, ratified and unchallenged - is that the death penalty is not acceptable. No individual politician, as the elected representative of their electors, has the right to put their own personal opinion ahead of the official will of the people ... Howard was wrong.”

“I was horrified to see so few of our Federal and State leaders showing any real depth of thought on this subject ... I was also disappointed (but not in the least surprised) at the way the media has run with it in 'Pick A Box' style. What sort of informed debate can 'the public' have with such shallow media reporting and such uninformed commentary from our supposed leaders?”

These comments are just a few of the many contributions we received from survey respondents.