Friday, 1st February 2013
LINDSAY SANDIFORD GETS THE DEATH PENALTY – I think there is little introduction needed for Lindsay Sandiford, the 56 year old grandmother, who has recently been found guilty of smuggling 1.6kg of Cocaine into Indonesia from Thailand, and has been handed the death penalty by the judges.
Lindsay Sandiford and her family have also just lost an appeal from the Foreign Office to provide adequate funds to help her launch an appeal.
The story of Lindsay Sandiford is not one of much intrigue or such that would even make half a good book, it was simply a matter of someone greedy enough for money to act as a drugs mule. In Lindsay Sandiford she did fully co-operate with the Indonesian Authorities, and also gave them an account whereby her family was threatened if she didn’t transport the drugs on behalf of the gang.
I think the judge saw little merit in this plea – it takes little intelligence to realize that you have to run with a certain crowd in order to get involved in this illicit trade.
I have read a number of articles on this case and the comments are pretty mixed and varied, with a proportion of people, generally the bleeding liberal heart sect, talking about the barbarism in executing someone. Views on the death penalty will always vary, as will the actual method of the execution. On that note should Lindsay Sandiford receive financial assistance to fight an appeal paid for by the British taxpayer and indeed should she be put to death from her crime?
It appears from the thousands of comments that I have scan is that the answer to the first part is a resounding no. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a defense of a crime not committed within the UK. The consensus appears to be that if she could afford to go traveling, or have someone pay for her travels for such purposes, then the burden clearly lies with Lindsay Sandiford, or her family, to foot the bill.
As for the death penalty, this really is a mixed bag, but it does err on the side of being in favour, although many people are stating that the method of execution should be more humane, such as a lethal injection, instead of facing a firing squad.
There are several facts to this particular case that cannot be ignored and it is these facts that finally convinced the judge to impose the death penalty, these were:
Lindsay Sandiford knowingly transported a large quantity of illegal drugs into Indonesia.
Lindsay Sandiford knowingly was smuggling a substance that is responsible for crime and the death of its citizens, including children.
Lindsay Sandiford knew full well the penalties for being caught – that is she knew that Indonesia carried the death penalty for such an action and yet decided it was worth the risk.
While the method of execution is unsettling, it is in place as a direct deterrent; as a clear warning to anyone stupid enough to attempt to smuggle drugs into Indonesia. This issue now is that if Lindsay Sandiford appeals to the higher courts and is given a lesser sentence the Indonesian Government is fully aware this could send the wrong message to would-be drug smugglers.
While it may seem cold to some, I have to agree fully with the Indonesian Court for passing down the death penalty considering the three points above. It will certainly ensure that she can no longer smuggle drugs and potentially kill thousands of innocent men, women and children who come into contact with the drug.
As for the method of execution; I would say it is more than a little grim, however it is not only the fact that a death penalty is imposed, but by its very method, that is designed to deter others from attempting such an act.
Latest Update: Sunday 14th April 2013 - Lindsay Sandiford Facing Execution in Bali Says She is Ready to Die