Referring to this news, “Sirul likely to be holed up in Australia for a while” (TheStar, 22 January 2015). It seemed that Australia will not allow extradition of convicted murderer if the meted sentence is death (not sure if this is true). It would seem a bad idea to keep a convicted murderer who is an expert in explosives and a well trained “soldier” in ones home country. If Australia does keep him, I guess Malaysia is still considered safer if Sirul is indefinitely kept in Australia. We will have to let the Australians worry about safety (and not to mention the fund needed to sustain Sirul during “his stay”)….
I remembered the Bali bombing that killed scores of Australians and other people in 2002. Some of the convicted murderers/terrorists were sentenced to death and what surprises me was how Australia kept mum over the execution. What didn’t surprised me was that 55% of the population agreed to it (and Australia sort of agreed to the sentence).
Now, did the death sentence meted out against terrorists served as REVENGE for Australia? Some might think of it that way, but I believe majority of Australians do not. I for one think of the death to murderers as a humane way to remove threats from society. It is much more humane than allowing the person to rot in jail. That is because a swift death is better than prolonged vengeful mental torture to the convicts. To lose one’s freedom forever is worst that quick death!
Just a thought.