Why those executions should never have taken place

"Those people knew what they were doing. You do the crime, you do the time."

So you have personally investigated each and every case? You know for a fact they each put those drugs in their bags? You trust the justice system of the same sovereign state that allows children to be placed into arranged marriages. The same sovereign state that allows child labour to continue. You'll argue vehemently against those last two, funnily enough. 

Significantly, there was supposed to have been a ninth person executed, but she was rescued at the very last minute when someone came forward with information that exonerated her. How many of the others were innocent? 

Finally, I also know in many cases, police officers and border security are given hefty commission incentives on the number of 'smugglers' they bring to book. I traveled to Paris a few years ago. When my bag arrived at Charles de Gaulle airport, it was empty. They cleaned me out and still put the lock back to make it look like the bag had been untouched. Go to Indonesia on holiday. I dare you. 

"These drug dealers destroy families."

Why is it that when the man with the (known) drinking problem leaves the pub at 22h00, as he always does (having spent 11 hours drinking), and crashes into another car, killing the occupants, the world bays for his blood, and not the pub owner who sells  the alcohol to the man, knowing full well he is addicted and destroying the lives of those around him.

BUT, when eight drug smugglers get caught transporting their (someone else's) products, the world bays for THEIR blood, and not the people using the drugs, essentially destroying the lives of those around them. Why are drug addicts absolved from any blame, but not alcoholics? 

What's more, is that in the first example, the seller (perpetrator, if you will) looks his intoxicated, desperate customer in the eyes every day, but more than happy to make a penny from him. In the second example, the (mere) transporter is distanced from - and sometimes even naive to - the effects of the product s/he is transporting. And, in many cases, comes from a place of blind desperation and abject poverty, and really does not know the consequences. That does not mean to say the consequences are just. They are anything but.

"Oh, because alcohol is legal," they will tell you. So you will relinquish your autonomy to a law, and not enter into a conversation about what should be 'legal' and what should not be. Do some research on how many lives and families are destroyed through alcohol abuse. You might want to think twice before you shout for those teams sponsored by those brands. Or you might not. Because, hey, it's legal. It's cool to be seen on social media funneling beer after beer after beer. Soon it might be legal for someone to take away your home in South Africa and illegal for you to resist. But go on! Keep playing that 'legal' card. It might just give you a paper cut. 

American philosopher and linguist, Noam Chomsky put it perfectly when he argued that it was legal for America to send fatally poisonous gas to Vietnam to destroy civilians, but it was illegal for someone to urinate outside the White House. Those were not his exact words, but you get the point. Those in power make money from alcohol tax, therefore it will always be portrayed to be cool to down a beer. They get nothing from the sale of drugs, therefore it will never be cool to transport it. Regardless of which one is more destructive.

"Freedom of choice and they made a bad one."

Firstly, I refer to the above and ask once again if you have personally researched each case (no pun) and know for a fact they all made the choice? Have you ever driven your car after more than two beers? Never ever jumped a red light because you were in a hurry? Never asked a friend to check for road blocks because you were completely intoxicated and sat behind the wheel anyway? You could have killed someone, you know. That would have been 'your freedom of choice'. 

Secondly, I'd like to unpack this idea of 'freedom'. How free are you really if you live in a place of abject poverty, no chance of earning a penny, and have no food for your family, who is wilting away around you every day? Thirdly, how many cases have we heard where families are held hostage by cold-blooded drug kingpins while one member is forced to travel with drugs? So, you know for a fact this was not the case with any of these? Your choices every day are so simple. For some people, they are not. Also, for reasons mentioned above, it doesn't mean the consequences are fair.

"We don't scream and shout when America executes people."

I agree with this completely, and maybe this should change. This is also perfectly summed up by Chomsky in his book entitled Manufacturing Consent (1988), in which he illustrates the power of the mass media in shaping ideology. Chomsky makes a differentiation between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' victims. The former are the ones we will know about (those eight people in Indonesia) through relentless (usually Western) media coverage. Or, as Chomsky puts it, "[w]hile the coverage of the worthy victim [is] generous with gory details and quoted expressions of outrage and demands for justice, the coverage of the unworthy victims [is] low-keyed, designed to keep the lid on emotions" (Chomsy and Herman, 1988, p.39). In short, our attentions are shifted to where they are ostensibly supposed to be. The victims the media deems worthy of coverage, you will hear about daily. Those 'unworthy' victims are swept under the carpet. News is filtered. Your right to argue should not be.

"Bring the death penalty to South Africa."

This was possibly the most popular comment, and liked by hundreds and hundreds. These are the same people who said Reeva Steenkamp was not done justice and the system completely failed her. Also, the same people who said the justice system failed dismally in the Shrien Dewani case. Also, the same people who argued that Schabir Shaik, who served less than 3 years of his 15-year prison sentence, should never have been granted medical parole, but that there was political interference. And finally, and most importantly, also the same people who will shoot dead an intruder, and suddenly find themselves convicted of murder, staring at a noose for saving their family. Be careful what you call for, because you could find it in your living room very, very quickly. 

In conclusion:

Those are just a few of the comments I felt really needed a response. This is a heated topic, I agree. There are families that have lost loved ones to drugs, I agree. But, if we are to use the harmful nature of drugs to argue the execution of eight people, we must step backwards and look at the harmful nature of those substances which are legal too, and make the same argument. 

Those people in Indonesia had been in prison for ten years. Do yourself a favour and read Warren Fellows's The Damage Done (1997) to see what 10 years in one of those prisons will do to you. Fellows says something along the lines of 'if after reading this book you still believe I got what I deserved, you essentially, are a bigger criminal than I will ever be'. After which, to be shot dead? I cannot agree, and never will. 

Finally, I'd like to say to everyone who was cheering on social media: Be careful of calling for (or agreeing with) the death of anyone whose path you have never walked, and whose circumstances you have never experienced. And, if you still feel those people got what they deserved, never travel to the East, because in the blink of an eye, someone could pull 5 kg of heroin from your bag that you really, really had no idea was there.

Fast forward: You're facing a firing squad. That pub owner is on holiday in the Maldives, because the rules don't apply to lives he destroys and you never made the argument against it.

Stop baying for blood just because you're indoctrinated into believing what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

We're all entitled to our opinions and this is mine.

For a far ligher take on the news, visit my website right here.

(Rory Petzer produces the Drive with Damon every week day from 3 - 6pm)