The death penalty is a wider issue than the Bali Nine

For Oklahoma man Clayton Lockett, it was not a pharmaceutical experiment, but rather a tragic human error that led to the excruciating pain he endured during his execution in April 2014. Lockett thrashed on a gurney for 43 minutes after doctors failed to administer adequate amounts of a three-drug cocktail.

In a democracy this is a cold-hearted interpretation of the meaning of justice.

The numbers in the US are small enough for us to put a face to each individual. In China, however, the sheer volume of executions is beyond comprehension. In 2013 the country is estimated to have executed 3000 prisoners. No one really knows the exact figure, as these statistics are considered state secrets. It is thought that lethal injection is the main means of execution in China today; but firing squads are still very common.

China's organ transplant services are sustained by the forced harvesting of organs from executed prisoners. The head of China's organ donation committee, Huang Jiefu recently announced that the harvesting of executed prisoner's organs will end this year. As if that were any consolation to the countless victims of this disturbing afterthought to the ultimate punishment.

One could mention the various other countries guilty of equally grave or even more serious abuses of the death penalty – Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea just to name a few. But that would be unnecessary to emphasise a claim that is as trivially true as it is serious: these nations are guilty of widespread and utterly unacceptable human rights abuses. The issue of death penalty cruelties must not fall on the backburner of the international community's typically ephemeral policy concerns.

There have already been promising developments as a result of pressure from the United Nations. At a high-level UN summit on the death penalty in Geneva last week, Indonesian delegates reluctantly indicated that a moratorium on the death penalty might be reintroduced. US Secretary of State John Kerry, in contrast, did not even mention the topic. A change in US policy does not seem to be on the cards.

This is one reason why Australia needs to universalise its action on the matter. If capital punishment is wrong in Indonesia, then it is wrong in China and equally wrong in the US.

The latter two are major trading partners. It is certainly inconvenient for the foreign minister to press their respective state departments on this aspect of human rights. Perhaps this is one reason why the rhetoric of Mr. Abbott and Ms. Bishop has been targeted at Indonesia alone.

But with the vivid insights that we have all gained into the cruelty of the death penalty recently, we should recognize that this matter goes beyond political convenience. Perhaps its time that Ms. Bishop stress the issue during consultations with our powerful economic friends.