The legacy of Ronald Ryan's last day.(Law)(capital punishment)(Law overview)

IT IS NOW FORTY YEARS since the last man in Australia was "judicially murdered". Ronald Ryan was hanged by the neck until dead at Melbourne's Pentridge Prison on February 3, 1967. Although the Bolte government, which ignored all demands for clemency, was accused of insisting on Ryan's execution to gain short-term electoral advantage by demonstrating that it was tough on crime, the controversy it created gathered enough political momentum for the death penalty to be removed from the statute books within twenty years in all Australian jurisdictions for all offences. But the use of capital punishment nonetheless remains a contentious matter. The continuing presence of deeply-held beliefs was apparent in divided reactions to the death sentences imposed by the Indonesian courts on several of the convicted Bali bombers. The families of some victims were delighted with the verdict and said they wanted to witness the executions; others thought that life imprisonment without parole was justified and hoped that Jakarta would respond to pleas for clemency.

As emotion plays a large part in shaping reactions to capital punishment, estimates of support for its possible reintroduction tend to be variable and unreliable. Polls conducted immediately after a gruesome murder in which a victim is subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment before being killed will generate an inflated result as public outrage seeks an avenue for expression. Conversely, surveys produced after what is considered the unnecessary use of capital punishment will show a reduction in support. One such instance was the execution of young Melbourne man Nguyen Tuong Van, convicted of drug trafficking and hanged in Singapore despite appeals for mercy from the Australian government. But do surveys conducted over an extended period hint at any real consensus on this issue?

A Gallup poll published in the Bulletin in 1990 found 51 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of capital punishment. Five years later the figure had risen to 53 per cent. Researchers at the Australian National University surveyed more than 3000 people in 1999 for the Australian Constitutional Referendum Study. They put the figure at 54 per cent. A poll conducted by Quantum Australia SCAN immediately after the Bali bombings in October 2002 found that 51 per cent of Australians favoured the death penalty with a further 18 per cent being undecided. Noting clear indications in the data, the Law Society of New South Wales concluded that "the majority of Australians support capital punishment for serious crimes". This support has hardened with the proliferation of terrorist atrocities.

In August 2003, a Newspoll survey asked respondents: "Would you personally be in favour or against the introduction of the death penalty in Australia for those found guilty of committing major acts of terror?" Fifty-six per cent of respondents said they were in favour. Noting strong residual support for capital punishment among the electorate, the August 11, 2003, edition of Melbourne's Herald Sun alleged that the public approval of Amrozi's death sentence exposed the

 
   hypocrisy of our leaders, our preachers, our 
   teachers. We say we're a democracy. So why do 
   we not allow Australians to vote for something 
   they insist they want: capital punishment for the 
   worst killers? For too long our opinion makers 
   have acted as if our bans on capital punishment are 
   quite natural, quite popular, a settled question. But 
   Amrozi ... exploded that particular little fiction. 

Irrespective of apparent majority support, Australia is prevented from legislating for the reintroduction of capital punishment because it is party to a number of international treaties whose objective is the global abolition of the death penalty. While there remains a strong desire to condemn violent crime, how is this condemnation to be expressed? Four decades after the last execution in Australia, this essay describes the successful campaign to abolish the death penalty; briefly canvasses the philosophical, practical and moral arguments for and against its reintroduction; and asks whether a scale of punishments that excludes death provides an adequate range of responses to violent crime while serving the cause of justice.

ACHIEVING ABOLITION