Exactly.

People that deal in drugs have no welfare concerns for those addicted to their poison.... why should we be concerned that they have died?

Hopefully it will be a deterrent to others although I somehow doubt it.

More scum off our streets.

Do you personally think the death sentence is appropriate for drug offences,Jimenez? Bear in mind,if a miscarriage of justice (and they do happen) comes out later,its too late for the accused.In the case of one of those scheduled to be killed,a new witness came forward at the 11th hour and their execution has been suspended.Day or two later and it would have been irrelevant...

Or is someone automatically to be dismissed as a "liberal" or a "leftie" for simply raising the point?

Edited by legaleagle (29 Apr 2015 10.38pm)

I think it's a bit f*cking rich, frankly, for Western so-called liberal nations to go round condemning other countries.

If it wasn't for the demand for drugs that so-called liberal countries tolerate then poorer countries who supply them wouldn't be riddled with crime and corruption.

If a country wants to send a strong deterrent message then it's up to them. I'm a bit ambivalent on the death penalty in principle, but I think this example acts as a pretty big warning. I bet spoilt Western kids will think twice before trafficking drugs through Indonesia again.

Problem with these countries, guilt is often determined by the same people being paid off by the primary drug traffickers. Their 'hardline' really is about protecting the monopoly of the trade, rather than any kind of justice, and frequently their trials involve questionable evidence, forced confessions and limited 'view of what constitutes' guilt. Trials can often be a farce of justice as well, along with the appeals process, and then the whole thing is generally utilized to serve political ambitions.

Reasonable doubt, for example, is rarely a consideration.

And of course usually they're the middle men, between the exporters and the importers. Often 'given up' to make it look like the country is 'doing its bit' - ie expendable costs of doing business. A variation on the Colombian 'Sacrifical Mule' (where in you send two mules on the same flight, and sacrifice one so as to reduce the risk to the primary mule).

In this case, the only one to protest her innocence is the one who got a last minute reprieve, as I understand it. So the fact that the law might be a bit corrupt is completely irrelevant (at least for the two we're hearing the most about - primarily because they're Australian - who have admitted their guilt)