20 years? For this? Yet O.J. and Robert Blake are free?

[LT. Columbo]

AFX News Limited
Indonesia court jails Australian woman for 20 years for smuggling marijuana
05.27.2005, 01:26 AM

DENPASAR, Indonesia (AFX) - A local court has sentenced a young Australian woman to 20 years in prison for smuggling marijuana into the resort island of Bali, in a verdict likely to generate outrage in Australia, Agence France-Presse reported.

Judge Linton Sirait said Schapelle Corby, a 27-year-old beautician was guilty of carrying 4.1 kilograms of marijuana onto the island last October despite her claims she was the victim of drug smuggling racket.

Corby broke down in tears as Sirait said she was 'legally and convincingly guilty' of smuggling.

Her case has generated fanatical support in Australia, where polls show most people were convinced of her innocence. Her trial, which could have resulted in a death sentence, has been front page news for months.

Unrelenting media attention has prompted the involvement of Australia's government, which has urged Indonesia not to use the death penalty and mooted a one-off prisoner exchange deal that could see Corby repatriated.

Holidaymakers have warned they will boycott Bali, which desperately needs Australian cash to revive its tourism industry after an October 2002 bomb attack by Islamic extremists that killed 202 people, many of them Australian.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/05/27/afx2060350.html

[blutach]

Hi columbo.

Yes, this is a controversial case, and there are very suspicious circumstances surrounding the young lady and whether she had anything to do with it. So much so, that the Australian government submitted evidence showing that we had caught a huge ring of drug traffickers, including baggage handlers at international terminals.

However, no-one in Australia heard the evidence - only the Balinese court did, and we who are sympathetic and prepared to give the benefit of the doubt, give that benefit without having heard the evidence, which may very well be compelling against Ms Corby.

By western standards the sentence is ridiculous - but the verdict may not be. However, she could have been given the death penalty! As it turns out, a month or so back, 9 Australians were caught red-handed trying to smuggle drugs from Bali to Australia (Corby was accused of smuggling in the other direction, which makes it all the more puzzling and suspicious).

Indonesia has a hard reputation on drug smugglers and some of these 9 will almost certainly get the maximum penalty. I just hope the deterrent is big enough to reduce the scourge of drugs on our streets and in our schools.

As for Ms Corby, if she is truly innocent, I feel deeply for her. If not, she deserves her fate IMHO. However, it does seem that this prisoner exchange is on the cards - where I can only presume she will be paroled in a shorter period of time.

As a final word, it is sickening to see the entrepreneur, who bankrolled her defence, setting up a company named Shapelle Corby Pty Ltd, to exploit her plight to the media.

Regards

[setarip]

To columbo999

"yet O.J. and robert blake are free?"

Chances are they wouldn't be, had they been tried in Indonesia, rather than L.A.

[blutach]

There is no jury in Indonesia, just 3 judges - but that is no reason for the implied racism.

Regards

[setarip]

To columbo999

I've re-read both your post and mine scrupulously -

I didn't say anything about a jury nor did you

I didn't imply anything racist, did you?

Perhaps it's just too sensitive an issue to be discussed...

[blutach]

My info and comment in my second post was not directed towards columbo, but in response to you setarip.

No, you said nothing about racism. That's why it was implied.

Regards

[LT. Columbo]

well i for one didn't say or imply (IMHO, to use one of your acronyms bltuach) anything racist. perhaps you mis-interpreted setarip's post. i was hoping that this thread could provide an interesting discussion when there are no new posts and we are bored. so if others have comments we should keep them coming.

@blutach

"Indonesia has a hard reputation on drug smugglers"

this seems true, but when in comes to the individual convicted of the bali hotel blast that killed 202 people, 30 months they felt was enough...your 2 cents on that?

[setarip]

To blutach

Since you've addressed me directly, I'll respond.

I have IMPLIED nothing racist.

You have apparently INFERRED that something in my post is racist.

Please advise, what you interpreted as being racist in my post.

[blutach]

Yes, that light sentence seemed disgusting columbo. No doubt about it. However, perhaps that particular perpetrator had little to do with the bombing and was only on the periphery. We don't know.

Again, we didn't hear the evidence - only the judges did and made their minds up on what was presented. No matter how heinous the crime, you can only go on what is presented against the accused in court, not in the media. All too often, the media portrays someone as "white" or "black", when in fact the evidence proves otherwise (or, more likely, a shade of grey).

I, for one, am prepared to trust the Indonesian judges as unbiased. And I am Australian. Yes, 20 years for smuggling grass is a lot by our Western standards, but who are we to impose our standards on other countries?

In fact, in your nation, various States have different laws in relation to the death penalty (of course, all States have different laws in relation to the powers they are given by a nation's constitution). If you murder in Florida, for example, you risk death, but in many other States, you get "Life". So, who are we to question the laws of other nations, when we allow various States to make their own laws? Non-DP States don't gang up on Fla (and other DP States) - they simply accept their rule of law. And so should we - we simply should abide by the laws of the lands we visit (and I'm sure we all do).

Again, if she is innocent, then she should be free. But if not, then Indonesian law should prevail.

Regards

[setarip]

To columbo999

"when in comes to the individual convicted of the bali hotel blast that killed 202 people, 30 months they felt was enough..."

To my way of thinking, that is FAR more grievous than letting two celebrities off the hook.

As a side note, on legal grounds only, I don't see the Blake verdict being as wrong-headed as the Simpson verdict - primarily due to the fact that virtually all of the Blake prosecution witnesses were not credible.

Ito allowed the Simpson defense team to take utter and complete control of the trial and turn it into a "circus".

[blutach]

Were those trials completely televised?

Regards

[LT. Columbo]

to setarip

"As a side note, on legal grounds only, I don't see the Blake verdict being as wrong-headed as the Simpson verdict - primarily due to the fact that virtually all of the Blake prosecution witnesses were not credible."

absolutely--everyone knows o.j. did it

blutach, oj trial was televised, ooohhhh i remember the days back in 1994. the biggest crime of the century is not televising the michael jackson trial.

as for the blake case cameras were allowed into the courtroom, it may have been on court tv. not sure.

[blutach]

I guess I ask that, columbo, on the basis that being fully televised allows (including the judge's directions to the jury) you to then make up your mind as a (single) juror.

And anyone who watched it in its entirety (but only them), I would say more or less qualifies to make a decision on those cases. I say more or less, because you still wouldn't see eveything a jury would - how various people react to things. Cameras can't be everywhere (Big Brother (yecch) notwithstanding).

Regards

[blutach]

And again, with Jackson, we don't know and never will know. No evidence to view.

I'll trust the jury. Yes, mistakes are made, but the system does seem to work. In any event, I would think that Jackson's life will have changed forever because of this. Certainly, IF he has molested children (and that's a big IF), I suspect it won't happen again. But who knows with the instincts of paedophiles (which I am NOT accusing Jackson of being)?

Regards

[LT. Columbo]

blutach

"I guess I ask that, columbo, on the basis that being fully televised allows (including the judge's directions to the jury) you to then make up your mind as a (single) juror"

yes, but i didn't have time to watch every day, just when i had some spare time.

i don't need to be a juror to decide if o.j. did it. free speech is a wonderful thing. maybe we could start a poll here and see how many think innocent or guilty?

the sysytem works sometimes like the scott peterson trial for example, that's another animal who is guilty as hell.

your not affraid of o.j. or mikey comin after you, are you?
(well o.j. i could see , but mikey?)