Aussie drug dealers (alleged)

[Sunfish]

"If she'd not be gaoled for 20 years for bringing marijuana INTO Australia perhaps it's OUR laws which are too light!!!"

We are trying to straddle two chairs. On the one hand we believe dealing dangerous substances is a henious crime but on the other we don't want to criminalise our wayward youth. (Bloodyell! Judges' kids do it) Naturally if we can demonise some "organised crime figure" and give the Judge's kid a slap on the wrist life is perfect.

So, Indonesian Judge's kids don't need protection written into law, "innocence" is traded, so that they can be staunch in their opposition to drugs. Personally I'm agnostic. Illict drugs have never touched my life but I accept the right of others to protect their children with tough laws.

Thommo

 

[Lplate]

Nat,

Think about your comments for a moment....you may be showing some of that hidden prejudice that many of us carry.

A sympathetic judge - sympathetic for what reason? Because she had breasts? Because she is a white Australian? Surely judges are not there to be sympathetic but to be just.

A competent legal team - this could easily be read as meaning that you think that every Indonesian lawyer is incompetent. Judging from Corby's choice of lawyers she'd have picked an incompetent bunch here as well.

If she'd not be gaoled for 20 years for bringing marijuana INTO Australia perhaps it's OUR laws which are too light!!!

Cheers,

Aceyducey

Touche.
Some sectors of the media (and some politicians) have a lot to answer for in promoting racism and xenophobia in this case. It is a nonsense to assert that an Australian jury would be superior to the senior Indonesian judges who heard this case.

Of course judges are notorious (sic) for being concerned with fact and interpretation of the law and are not easily influenced by emotion.

The media and some others are ruthlessly playing this case for their own ends. It provides a good case study of the arrogance, wilfulness and cynicism of certain sectors of the media.

LPlate

 

[natmarie73]

A sympathetic judge - sympathetic for what reason? Because she had breasts? Because she is a white Australian? Surely judges are not there to be sympathetic but to be just.

Read my post again Acey, I never said that. I said she possibly would have a sympathetic jury - big difference.

A competent legal team - this could easily be read as meaning that you think that every Indonesian lawyer is incompetent.

Hmmm, didn't say that either. Again, my exact words were "...she would have been able to get a decent legal team" and "It is not unknown in this country for guilty people to get off due to a competent legal team..." I never said that all Indonesian lawyers were incompetent. If people choose to misread my posts or put words into my mouth I can't be held responsible.

It is a nonsense to assert that an Australian jury would be superior to the senior Indonesian judges who heard this case.

Whoa! I hope you're not attributing those words to me LPlate. I invite you to scroll back through this thread and find the post where I said any such thing, or even mentioned the word "superior" or compared the legal system of Indonesia to Australia in a degoratory manner. Again, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I agree that the media in many cases is guilty of promoting xenophobia though, at least until the community backlash against those who wanted their tsunami donations back.

If she'd not be gaoled for 20 years for bringing marijuana INTO Australia perhaps it's OUR laws which are too light!!!

You sure are right there Acey! The main fact of the matter is that marijuana is not considered to be a dangerous drug in this country, might get a suspended sentence or some other slap on the wrist, but that's about it.
Cheers,
Nat

 

[Sunfish]

Trouble is Nat, you seem to be trying to say something, mainly by inference, and then you deny saying it if asked to elaborate.

You said: "Still I think the outcome would have been different in this country."

To which I replied: "I thought that the Chika Honda case showed it has happened here."

You: "I meant the outcome for Schapelle would have been different here. Sorry I should have elaborated."

Me: "Keep elaborating, please.

Are you saying Schapelle would have got off where Chika didn't. Why?"

You: "No, I am not in any way comparing the two cases at all."

which is where I quit because the cases are eeriely similar.

Nat, you clearly believe that Schapelle has been hard done by and that you would like to help. Think carefully about what you do and what you urge others to do though. And keep clearly in mind that all of Australia is not convinced of her innocence. Personally I believe David Hicks is suffering a much greater injustice but he is a lot harder to like.

Thommo

 

[natmarie73]

Hmmm, I am not sure what I am trying to say by inference and subsequently deny? Perhaps you can spell in out for me in 2" high letters...

To address your post:

For one, I am not convinced of Schapelle's innocence myself and I have said all along that I do not know if she is innocent or not. Her story is plausible and not beyond the realms of possibility though.

Two, While I personally believe a 20 year sentence is overly harsh for a bit of puff, I am certainly not doing anything to help her, nor am I urging anyone else to either. I'm sure the readers of this forum are able to make up their own minds on the matter. Considering she could have copped the firing squad I think she actually got off pretty lightly according to the laws of Indonesia.

The point I am trying to get across, and obviously I'm not being clear enough about it, is that in my opinion the laws and court system we have in Australia would not put someone away for 20 years for smuggling marijuana. Now whether or not that is a good thing is up to each individual to decide depending on their personal stance on drugs.

Three- While the two cases are "eerily" similar there are a number of differences, the main difference is that Chika Honda was caught with heroin, a "hard" drug considered vastly more dangerous, and which would always attract a harsher sentence and perhaps more suspicion and less sympathy from authorities and the media/public. Was she guilty? I don't know, but I certainly do not discount her story as it is just as possible as baggage handlers planting drugs. Do I think she had a fair trial? - don't know. I'll bet that if Schapelle had been caught with 13kg of heroin instead of 4.1kg marijuana, she probably would have copped the same though.

I agree with you about David Hicks though - at least Schapelle was charged with a crime and received a trial before being incarcerated.

Cheers
Nat

P.s - please feel free to PM me if you have any issues with what I post I am happy to address any concerns

 

[Jamie]

The point I am trying to get across, and obviously I'm not being clear enough about it, is that in my opinion the laws and court system we have in Australia would not put someone away for 20 years for smuggling marijuana. Now whether or not that is a good thing is up to each individual to decide depending on their personal stance on drugs.

Three- While the two cases are "eerily" similar there are a number of differences, the main difference is that Chika Honda was caught with heroin, a "hard" drug considered vastly more dangerous, and which would always attract a harsher sentence and perhaps more suspicion and less sympathy from authorities and the media/public.

Hi Nat,

I think this is a point people are overlooking. In Indonesia, marijuana is a Class 1 narcotic, which puts it in the same class as heroin and cocaine.

Right or wrong, Indonesian authorities consider smuggling marijuana to be identical to smuggling heroine or cocaine - they dont differentiate between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs like Australian courts do.

Jamie.

Found a great piece on comparisons between the Corby and Honda cases:

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/06/01/1117568256175.html

In what has become an embarrassing farce, with some Corby fans demanding the return of tsunami aid and calling for a boycott of Bali tourism, many are looking for reasons for the vitriol: racism, xenophobia, a feeling that Bali is an "Australian space". But maybe there's something deeper.

What lies at the root of the Corby hysteria is a Eurocentric view of the world - a view that ultimately celebrates the rise and triumph of the West over the East. At the heart of this idea is an attitude that, broadly speaking, the West is dynamic, intelligent, rational, free, tolerant, honest and civilised, while the East is stagnant, ignorant, superstitious, enslaved, intolerant, corrupt and barbaric.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the truth is the world is a global network of rich and poor countries. Only by ditching a Eurocentric perspective can it be possible to see that the world today is a result not only of European advances, but massive contributions by the East. What's required is perspective and respect.

 

[Lplate]

Maybe this bloke didn't own the stuff either:

From The Age, Melb:..."Nguyen Tuong Van, the Melbourne man arrested in Singapore in December 2002 with 396.2 grams of diamorphine (heroin).
Nguyen, 24, lost an appeal last October against his conviction and mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking and his last-ditch appeal for clemency to save his life is expected to be decided this month."

No photos so I can't comment on how cute he is. But then maybe men are more likely to be guilty of a crime (or at least that is the PC folklore).

 

[nomadic]

Hi Nat,

I think this is a point people are overlooking. In Indonesia, marijuana is a Class 1 narcotic, which puts it in the same class as heroin and cocaine.

Right or wrong, Indonesian authorities consider smuggling marijuana to be identical to smuggling heroine or cocaine - they dont differentiate between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs like Australian courts do.

Jamie.

Found a great piece on comparisons between the Corby and Honda cases:

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/06/01/1117568256175.html

I agree with you Jamie.
I remember seeing Corby's mum on telly with an interview with Ray on ACA and she specifically said that "Australians, Canadians, Americans and English" people won't stand for this! It's interesting that she didn't mention any other countries. It's almost like she was suggesting that it was an "us" and "them" mentality

 

[Aceyducey]

It's almost like she was suggesting that it was an "us" and "them" mentality

Gee - now who do I remember bring up that point earlier..

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Aceyducey]

Read my post again Acey, I never said that. I said she possibly would have a sympathetic jury - big difference.

My mistake, reading judge for jury.

Even so having a sympathetic jury would not be a good thing legally speaking. Juries should be fair and come to a verdict based on the evidence rather than skin colour, breast size or some other factor.

But we don't live in an ideal world.....

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Corsa]

Anyone who is interested in following the Bali 9 this article "The road to hell" is a great summary of how they all got there in the first place.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/91453B421EC7ED14CA25711A006BF1B2