The Execution of Van Nguyen: An Australian Perspective
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Author | Mirko Bagaric |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.3.215 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
The Execution of Van Nguyen: An Australian
Perspective
Mirko Bagaric*
The execution of 25-year-old Melbourne man, Van Nguyen, by Singa-
porean authorities on 2 December 2005 for attempting to smuggle 400
grams of heroin out of Singapore was cruel. It was also futile.
Yet, there are three important lessons that can be learned from his
killing. The first lesson is that if Australia is to exert genuine moral
pressure on nations to abolish the death penalty it must do so in a
principled manner, rather than making expedient pleas when Austra-
lians happen to be on the wrong end of the cruel practice. Secondly,
sentencing practice in Australia, while not condoning capital punish-
ment, is unjustifiably punitive and we should ameliorate the harshness
of some of our sentencing laws. Finally, the death of Nguyen, while
tragic, was no more tragic than the millions of other preventable deaths
that occur daily throughout the world. The compassion displayed to-
ward Nguyen should be used as a catalyst for enlarging our sympathy
gland in relation to all preventable deaths. I now discuss these in further
detail.
Lesson one: capital punishment is universally bad
Van Nguyen’s death should be used as watershed moment in Australian
foreign relations. The Australian Government should display a zero-
tolerance policy to capital punishment. It needs to put pressure on the
75 countries that practise capital punishment to abolish the death pen-
alty. It should not wait until the next Australian is placed on death row
to do this. Last-minute diplomacy does not work.
If Australia is to act as a moral compass it should make high-level
diplomatic representations urging all nations to abolish laws and prac-
tices that involve egregious violations of fundamental human interests.
As far as capital punishment is concerned, as already stated, it should not
wait until the next Australian is sentenced to death.
The Government should not let considerations of moral relativity and
national sovereignty mute its moral voice. Moral relativity is illusory. All
people are entitled to have their fundamental interests (life, liberty and
physical integrity) at least minimally protected. That is why we are
witnessing a slow, but sure, convergence in fundamental moral prin-
ciples across the globe.
* Professor and Head of Deakin Law School; e-mail mirko.bagaric@deakin.edu.au.
215
The Journal of Criminal Law
The notion of national sovereignty has, fortunately, been beaten
down by the twin forces of globalisation and the human rights move-
ment so that it can longer be invoked as an impregnable shield to justify
draconian laws—a lesson that that the likes of Saddam Hussein have
learned the hard way.
So how does Australia convince other countries to abolish capital
punishment?
There are three ways to get people or institutions to do what you
want. Force is the crudest method, but is obviously not an alternative.
Even threats of imposing tangible sanctions on death penalty countries,
such as limiting trade activities, are not likely to be effective given
Australia’s relative minnow economic status on the world stage.
The second method of persuasion is by legitimising one’s position
through the weight of numbers. This is why democracy works so well.
But again this is not an option in the international arena, where each
nation has its own governmental system
The final method is the moral force of one’s arguments.
To that end, Australia was hamstrung in its bid to secure a reprieve for
Nguyen by the fact that it was only in relation to his case that Singapore
was implored not to impose the death penalty. This had all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial