HRI report into the death penalty for drug offences

Harm Reduction International have published a report about the death penalty being used for drug offences. The report uses data from UN documents, media reports, articles, databases, NGO’s and government statistics (where applicable). The report came three main conclusions firstly capital punishment for drug offences were “handed down disproportionately to foreign nationals”, secondly the number of people sentenced to death for drug related crimes has increased despite death penalty sentences for all crimes decreasing and finally a large number of those sentenced to death are low level couriers and not cartel bosses.

The situation when it comes to foreign nationals being executed is huge for instance out of 40 people executed in Saudi Arabia for drug offences 36 of them were foreigners and in Indonesia out of the 57 awaiting execution 43 of them are foreign. The fact that Indonesia has such a small number of its nationals on death row due to drugs is also quite peculiar considering that there are 142 Indonesians in Malaysia who are on death row due to drug related offences.

The report talks about several countries, such as the Philippines stopping the use of the death penalty for drug users but for that country in particular there is still an active debate about whether drug offences should be a capital punishment. Senator Vicente Sotto III for instance in September 2011 called for the death penalty to be brought back for drug smugglers he is planning to re-file the bill to re-impose the death penalty. The debate therefore is not over in the Philippines.

Mandatory death sentences are ineffective, unjust and don’t take individual situations into account. In many cases judges themselves believe that the individual does not deserve to be sentenced to death but are powerless. As High Court Justice Mohtarudin Baki (Malaysia) said when sentencing Seok Hann to death, “I did not have any choice but impose a death sentence on you. There is not a single judge who is happy to impose a death sentence. I have searched for opportunities not to impose the death sentence on you but failed.” If even the judges do not support the death penalty then how can a government justify forcing the judiciary to give out a sentence which the judge does not feel is representative of the crime.

The Mandatory death sentences in Malaysia and Singapore also means that those who are innocent and have been tricked into smuggling are sentenced to death. Take for instance the case of Chun Yin who was tricked into bringing in 2.7kg’s of heroin. A long time customer of his father’s business asked him to carry gold bars from Burma into Singapore, it was only after custom officials opened the bag containing the ‘gold’ that he realised he was carrying heroin. Chun Yin upon being arrested gave the contact details and a description of the man who had arranged the trip but investigators did not follow the lead.

When being given his sentence the judge said that the fact investigators did not follow the lead was “immaterial". This seems a bit odd though considering Chun Yin if correct was tricked into carrying drugs. Surely the lead should have been followed instead of condemning a man for ignorance. This is not the only case where someone has been duped into carrying drugs in fact there is a long list of people who have been sentenced to death despite claiming that they had no idea that there were drugs in their bags. Such as Noor Atiqah, her supporters claim that her Nigerian boyfriend had put it in her bag and that she had no idea she was carrying it.

Even without taking into account those duped into smuggling drugs there is still many arguments which show that mandatory death sentences are not the way to go. In the case of Van Tuong Nguyen the mandatory sentence failed spectacularly. Firstly Nguyen never had any intention of entering Singapore he was merely in transit from Cambodia to Australia at no time did he go through immigration or customs, surely then it stands to reason that he was not a ‘threat’ to Singapore and that it was up to the country he was smuggling to (Australia) to decide his sentencing. Some have even claimed that his arrest in Singapore was illegal as area’s in an international airport before immigration are considered ‘international zones’ and therefore follow international laws.

Due to mandatory sentencing his situation was not taken into account. As Nguyen explained he was carrying the heroin because of his former drug dependent brother running into financial troubles after incurring defence fees for drug trafficking and other criminal charges. Nguyen tried to help him by taking out a loan to help finance his brothers debts but when losing his job he felt the only way to help repay his loan was through smuggling. He was just a mule, the man who gave him the powder is still free and most likely still sending other desperate people through the same route with the same risks associated with such a trip.

The Singaporean law minister once said ‘If [the Appellant] escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules’. The problem with that reasoning is that drug barons don’t really care. They will find more desperate people who are in need of the money or someone ignorant and if they get caught it is no big loss for the drug barons they are still free whilst the poor person who smuggled the drugs loses his/hers life.

What the report highlights is the hypocrisy of some nations when it comes to the death sentence. They are alright when the death sentence is used on non-nationals in their country yet when one of their own nationals are sentences to death overseas they somehow seem to have objections to it. Take for example Indonesia who’s president (Yudhoyono) has sent letters to the Saudi Arabian government asking them to commute the sentences of several Indonesians facing the death penalty. Yet the president of Indonesia pleading for a commute of sentences is the same man who is on record as saying “I turn down almost all requests of pardon and acquittal from the death sentence.”

Guaranteeing a fair trial is also dubious in some countries take for instance the case of the American Frank Amado who has been sentenced to death and has lost his appeal. He openly admits storing and transporting crystal meth for a drug dealer. He did this due to ignorance and financial desperation. He stored drugs for a drug dealer which seemed like the only way out of his situation with the drug dealer telling him that he would only get a few months in jail if caught instead he was sentence to death.

What was really amazing was that his boss who supplied him the drugs and told him to store them was only given 15 years. One prosecutor told him that “$50,000 would get me a 15-year sentence, but I didn't have it," this is just another example of the mule being punished while the baron manages to escape the harsher punishment but what is even more concerning about this story is that it highlights the corruption and unfair nature of the Indonesian system where money can be the difference between life and death.

The report says “Wherever counter-narcotics resources and intelligence are shared, there can be no guarantees that such assistance does not lead to the application of the death penalty”. This has been seen in many cases such as the Bali Nine charged with heroin smuggling where the Australian Federal police tipped off their counterparts in Indonesia and provided evidence in the court case two of the nine have been sentenced to death. Considering the Australian government has said it does not support the death penalty the question has to be raised why were they helping and giving evidence to a court where there was a risk that the death sentence could be handed out?

Drug offences never warrant the death sentence and the situation in Malaysia and Singapore is particularly worrying. The people who suffer in these situations are the poor, desperate people who are tricked into carrying drugs whilst the ones who keep the trade going and profit from it remain safe and continue trying to get drugs through countries like Singapore. Sending innocent people to the gallows is not the way to go it is ineffective and unjust.