Human rights, death sentencing, freedom of the press - it's all linked.

I am unequivocally opposed to capital punishment. I don't care what the crime is or what the situation is. State sanctioned murder diminishes the humanity of us all.

The two Australian men currently on death row in Indonesia, part of the so-called Bali Nine, will apparently be murdered before the end of the month. The state will take a series of steps which amount to premeditation and will result in Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran being shot by a firing squad.

I also believe that crime is bad and criminals should be punished. They should also be rehabilitated. In the event that their sentence will see them re-entering society, I want them to have the best chance to have options other than crime for their survival outside prison.

I want to be assured that inmates are treated as human beings while they are imprisoned. Poor treatment, institutionalisation and dehumanisation does not help criminals develop empathy for their victims or reduce the risk of recidivism.

This is my moral philosophy and I'm happy to declare it.

Last night's episode of 4 Corners took us inside the campaign to save the lives of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. It struck me that these two men are getting on with their lives and are valuable members of their community within the prison. It's clear that they view their own actions of almost ten years ago as wrong and mistaken and that they are reformed. Their families and wider community outside prison have rallied around and would hold them accountable for future behaviour.

We saw inside Kerobokan Prison last night. We heard that even the head of the prison had pleaded for mercy on behalf of the two men. They're not asking to be released, just to be allowed to live.

I started to think about the Australian Government's representations and what support they may be offering to these men and their families. I wondered about the credibility of a Government arguing against the death penalty when they are running concentration camps, where they incarcerate innocent asylum seekers indefinitely.

Then it struck me that we have seen more of the "notorious" Kerobokan Prison than we have of our own immigration detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. As critical as we can be of a country that carries out the death penalty, Indonesia seems to at least be committed to the concept of freedom of speech and the role of the media as the fourth estate.

I don't understand how the Abbott Government seems to have no central moral philosophy. On one hand they can advocate for a free press in the case of the unjust imprisonment in Egypt of journalist Peter Greste. At the same time, they can be denying the media access to immigration detention centres. UN investigators aren't likely to gain access either. This is all happening against a backdrop of the royal commission investigating institutional abuse where the themes of transparency and independent advocacy to ensure accountability are being shouted daily. They can plead for mercy from the imposition of the death penalty, yet can rob all hope from asylum seekers and leave them in ignorant despair. The stealing of hope is also a kind of death sentence.

It's all so complicated, yet it's also really clear. We either advocate for human rights and all the mechanisms that ensure they are upheld, or we don't. It's not something we can pick and choose about.

I really hope that Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukamaran are spared. They seem like they have turned into excellent young men and learned from the stupid, serious mistakes of youth.

#IStandForMercy

What do you think?

Don't assume that I don't care!

The Big Issue seller was in his usual spot.  He didn't seem to be doing much business.  From a distance, it looked like there was something "off".  Was he doing or saying something to turn people off?  I soon found out.

I always say hello and occasionally buy the magazine.

He waved the current issue in my face and asked if I'd like to buy.

I smiled, said hello and shook my head.  As I did I also said that I had already purchased this edition.

"You don't fuckin' give a shit..." he muttered under his breath.

Ah, there it was, the thing was hurting his business.

Before I had thought about it, I turned back and said, "That's not true.  I do care.  I've already bought this edition and don't want to buy a second one."

He back pedalled rapidly.  "I'm sorry.  I didn't mean it.  I was talking to myself.  I didn't mean it."

As I walked away I thought about how the conversation would continue - it sounded like you were talking to me; you'd do better trade if you didn't accuse people; if you're going to talk to yourself, do it silently or think about what conversation you're going to have!

As I was walking home this evening, I thought about the assumptions that we make and what would cause someone to default to a reaction based on the assumption that people aren't buying the magazine because they don't care about homeless people.  This man has probably experienced being invisible and knocked back regularly, so it would be a reasonable assumption to make.  No matter how reasonable an assumption can seem it doesn't necessarily make it a truth.

One of the leaders who has been most influential in my life set up a rule in a team we were leading.  That rule was "check your assumptions".  We were rigorous in enforcing this rule.  It became a mantra within the team.  Constant attention to this need to check changed mindsets and meant that we were far less likely to make high-stakes decisions (or even smaller decisions) based on an assumption that was wrong.

It's a good discipline to instill, in both professional and personal life.

What assumptions do you make?  Have you ever made a decision based on a wrong assumption?