S

tories about the impending executions of convicted drug smugglers have been dominating the Indonesian and especially the Australian media over the last few weeks.

Opinions have been as sharply divided as in the less ethically challenging Internet debate over '€œThe Dress'€ (are you in the '€œblue and black'€ or the '€œwhite and gold'€ camp?). Apparently our perception can be as deceiving and as confusing as our moral compass.

The topic of capital punishment has been seriously and passionately debated in many parts of the world for years, but in Indonesia it is seldom discussed openly. As the issue rarely comes up for air, it is quite startling to read on Wikipedia that, according to a media survey, 75 percent of the country'€™s citizens support capital punishment.

I don'€™t know if that figure is accurate, but I do not believe that the majority of Indonesians bear contempt for human life (even if observers of the streets of Jakarta might think otherwise).

It seems more likely that those who support capital punishment are frustrated that there is not enough protection and security and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to deter criminals from reoffending.

The deterrent effect was President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo'€™s main argument when he talked to Christiane Amanpour of CNN a while ago about his stance on drug
traffickers.

The media are increasingly considered the sole and infallible source of truth, and public opinion is shaped by what is written and amplified by journalists.

Unfortunately, not all journalists are well informed and not all readers are selective; many of us rely on TV news that, for the sake of brevity, often twists context and leaves out inconvenient facts in order to sell a cozy narrative.
_________________

Those who still practice capital punishment are also shifting their methods of execution to ways that are more humane.

Instant news and busy lives don'€™t give us the time to digest and reflect, and people are encouraged to react with fierce emotions to stories whose truths remain shadowy.

In the end, this makes it more difficult for politicians to negotiate and find the best solutions, as the media and public attention drive them to a more publically popular action or decision, rather than the best long-term solution.

Along the way, this sours bilateral relationships and puts the citizens of two countries at odds.

Rather than jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other, we should probably step back and ask a few questions to understand where we should stand on this topic, and more importantly, to find solutions for similar problems in the future.

Obviously, countries'€™ positions on the death penalty have changed over the years and those who still practice capital punishment are also shifting their methods of execution to ways that are more humane.

However, one might argue that a killing is a killing regardless of the reason and the method.

Who should decide whether one reason is more valid than another to kill somebody? Is one human life worth more than another? Should we plead and save someone because they are our citizens and turn a blind eye if they are the citizens of other countries?

Do terrorists like Imam Samudra, Mukhlas and Amrozi who acted on their beliefs and killed so many innocent lives in the Bali bombing deserve death in front of a firing squad more than those who made an active choice to earn a living by selling drugs, a practice that, according to Jokowi, kills 50 people every day?

Should we treat differently those with previous criminal records and those who get caught the first time? Should we applaud someone who regrets doing wrong and treat him or her as a martyr after the execution? Is justice about compassion and mercy or is it about fairness? And can we, as humans, be truly fair?

Obviously, these are morally difficult questions and nobody would want to be in either President Jokowi'€™s or PM Tony
Abbott'€™s shoes to answer these questions at the moment. I think it is, at least, positive progress to see President Jokowi'€™s willingness to engage in a dialogue about the relevance of capital punishment in Indonesia.

Unfortunately, the dialogue between the Australian and the Indonesian government did not happen 10 years ago when the incident happened, when it would have provided ample time for both parties to consider their options.

A better solution at the time was probably for the Australian police to work together with the Indonesian police to arrest the Australian drug traffickers in Australia instead of on Indonesian soil or to arrange for a bilateral agreement so that prosecutions could be held in Australia.

Offering a swap option 10 years later and after the executions of other citizens put the Indonesian government in a difficult situation, although it'€™s not unfeasible as an idea.

The Australian government has shown its determination to protect its citizens regardless of their innocence or guilt.

This certainly will bring comfort to their citizens. For the sake of both countries, I do hope that the governments and citizens of both countries reflect rather than acting out of arrogance or emotional posturing.

It is high time for Indonesians to formally be given a say on capital punishment.

The Indonesian government must begin structural preparations in case the death penalty is abolished, and work toward a justice system that prioritizes deterrence and prevention.
________________

The writer is an Indonesian who is currently working in a multinational company in Sydney, Australia