An Australian is currently on death row in Indonesia for drug trafficking. He was 19 at the time of his arrest.
He was caught because his father found out what he was doing and contacted the Australian federal police in the hope of stopping him.
Instead, the federal police contacted the Indonesian police, who waited until the deal was done and swooped.
The federal police took this action knowing Rush may face the death penalty as a result.
There is no death penalty in Australia.
Were the actions of the federal police ethical?
2007-04-30 00:15:01 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I should add that it's against the law for Australian police to take action that can lead to someone recieving the death penalty.
2007-04-30 01:42:03 · update #1
Yes, they are indeed ethical. Ethics = duty. You are confusing ethics with morals, and they are two completely different animals. Ethically speaking, the Australian authorities had a duty to alert the Indonesian authorities. They complied with their duties, which is absolutely ethical.
2007-04-30 01:29:03 · answer #1 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course not. The death penalty is only justifiable in a murder case. To send somebody to death row for anything but murder is murder. Both the Australian federal police and the Indonesian police should be condemned for their actions.
Drug trafficking cannot legitimately be considered a crime at all because it is nothing more than operating a business to provide a product that people want to purchase. It is nobody else's business if somebody chooses to purchase the drugs knowing that they are harmful.
However, Australia is a country that practices censorship (including Internet censorship), so it is pretty low morally to begin with.
2007-04-30 01:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, i think they should have handled it on Australian shores because Australia has a much more delicate legal system than Indonesia. But there may be the evidence factor... that they actually had to catch the trafficking in the act, rather than relying on the fathers evidence. So, it can really go both ways.
2007-04-30 00:25:57 · answer #3 · answered by Kateykate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the rule of engagement shd follow
the drugs must be served before it can reached the public
is still the police jobs to informed the headhunter if required
2007-04-30 00:47:50 · answer #4 · answered by kimht 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think ethics really come into it. They did what they had to do, there not here to fix stupid mistakes. Rush knew what he was in for as he had just seen what happened to Corby and went ahead and did it anyway.
2007-04-30 00:26:55 · answer #5 · answered by finabella9 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think you answered the question yourself in the additional details section.
2007-04-30 06:29:22 · answer #6 · answered by MIke B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes that has always concerned me. It seemed fishy to me
2007-04-30 00:27:54 · answer #7 · answered by ausblue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
2007-04-30 00:22:19 · answer #8 · answered by Magma H 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋