Hear, hear!

I do agree with the author of this well crafted article. I am a postgraduate Juris Doctor who has had a special interest in the Corby saga and have written an article which I did send to Nines 60 minutes and the Gold Coast Bulletin. Niether have replied or acknowledged the article was received. I would like to post this article on this site, therefore could some one let me know how this could be done.

Crap! She got busted, she deserves whatever she gets. All the Australian government should do is make sure she gets a fair trial inline with indonesian law by helping her get a qualified lawyer just as any Australian citizen would get here. Other than that, she can rot in jail for as long as the indonesian legal system deems appropriate. Proportionality? Whatever, what evedince is there showing that the Australian legal system is any better at discouraging crime or reforming criminals based on the sentencing dished out by Australian judges. Does Australia's rate of criminal recidivism (particularly for drug crimes) make it a shining light of appropriate and proportionate punishment compared to the rest of the world? Minimisation of pain? for who, the drug taker, or society who bears the cost? Or is drug taking a victimless crime?

Mirko Bagaric's article is timely. It bothers me that there appears to be a number of people suggesting that the Indonesian system is fair and just....including some of our most senior politicians. It is a pity that we have a number of Australians, some who appear to be more guilty than others caught up in this way. Help....of course they need help from home and the more help the better......finbar

So John Howard said "But people have to understand that if they get caught with drugs, they can't expect the government to bail them out".

I don't see how you get from here to the claim that this amounts to saying "if people get caught with drugs in Asia they shouldn't expect assistance from the Australian Government."

What the Priminister did was simply to state a fact. The Government cannot bail people out - it does not have the power to do so - so people shouldn't expect it to.

Has John Howard said that the Government won't assist such people, to the extent that it can? I don't think so.

Sylvia.

Professor

Thank you for your article. I guess it is what I would expect from a Deakin socialist academic.

You call Leslie "stupid" and seem to forgive her for behaving in a criminal manner - on the grounds that she is "stupid". And then you expect taxpayers (you say the Government should pay - we pay the Government with our hard earned taxes)to foot the bill for her lawless behaviour.

You are trivialising her behaviour by calling it "stupid". Her behaviour was not stupid - it was downright wrong. She chose to take illegal drugs into another country - despite the myriad warnings aired on TV, radio, in newspapers, and at airports. I presume that she is not deaf, mute, or blind? The same can be said for Corby and the Bali 9. None are "stupid". They are all adults who make their own [irresponsible] choices. They all chose to ignore Indonesian law and warnings - albiet their laws are draconian.

I note that you did not call Leslie "stupid" when she tried to play the Muslim game - half naked on a cat walk one minute - and the next wearing a berka and swearing her faith to Allah. What a joke. Her only stupidity was that she tried to be cunning - and it didn't pay off! No tears from me.

The Howard Government gives a fair share of support to these very selfish and egocentric people. So you are asking we fair dinkum tax payers to give more money to selfish people? I will willingly pay more taxes to assist profoundly mentally ill people who are homeless in our country.

And to say that she only took a "few" ectasy tablets. Let's face it, in the Aussie vernacular - a few is anywhere between two and twenty two - any any drug addict.

I suggest that Deakin University Academic Intelligencia work to change Indonesian law. The Howard Government is far too busy sending milliions of dollars (our money) to Indonesia for Avian Flu education - to save their lives and ours.

Agree with you Weapon.

Cheers
Kay

Three cheers for Mirko Bagaric.
I find it difficult to believe the heartless stupidity of people like Kay. What if it was your daughter facing years of rotting away in an Indonesian gaol? For two tablets?Probably you'd be the first to scream for help from our government.
The very least we have a right to expect is that our government will use all its considerable influence to protect us from blatantly unjust and excessive punishment overseas, even if we have been a little stupid.
But Mirko - your support for torture seems at odds with your concern for human rights and justice now!
Noel

I have to agree with noel, and I also support the thrust of Bagaric's article. Yes, she broke a law by taking drugs, as she would here (or any country I can think of, offhand). However, the penalty for such an offence in Indonesia is out of all proportion to the damage done by the commission of the offence. At worst, this young Australian has taken a couple of pills that made her feel good.

So bloody what?

The utter hypocritical futility of the prohibition of some drugs but not others is such an incredible waste of time, energy, resources and - worst of all - people's lives.

Australia should lead the way in decriminalising these victimless offences, and IMHO should develop a system of standardisation and regulation of 'recreational' drugs. People will always use them and produce them, so a rational legislative approach would focus more on identifying and dealing with problems associated with endemic drug use, rather than destroying the lives of people at the bottom of the pyramid. How is jailing a naive kid in unspeakable conditions going to affect the illegal drug trade in the slightest way? Answer: zip, zilch, zero.

Like someone above has said, imagine if it was your daughter in an Indonesian jail for an 'offence' that at most would result in a slap on the wrist in any humane judicial system, unlike the draconian penalties faced by admittedly "stupid" young people seeking thrills and adventure in countries like Indonesia.

Get real and have a heart.

If Mirko thinks that international human rights activists could help him if he were caught with a prescribed amount of heroin in Singapore, I believe that he would be sadly dissappointed. About the only last wish they would entertain would be a request that the only music played in the prison on the night before the execution would be swing.

Those on the left who think that globalisation will result in the spreading of soft western values around the world should realise that international law only has any effect anywhere to the extent that it is validated by national law. Different societies have different values, and should be respected for it. Long live the sovereign state!

Duck et al

I am real and I have a heart.

Indonesian laws are their laws. There is no way in bloody hell that we can change them. They are horrendous. For God's sake. I did not say that I believe in shooting, long term gaol and stuff. We cannot change their laws - not in this lifetime. I wish we could. We have to live with their draconian and horrible laws.

Don't go there if you are gonna take illicit drugs!

Use all of the drugs you like in Aussie! Get real. Grow your own hydro. Snort your nostrils out. I don't give a damn about your personal choice here.

I am not against illicit drug use in Aussie. At least you know what you are not in for here - slap on the knuckles.

People who choose to go to barbaric countries and who still choose to defy their barbaric laws have to bare the consequences - including any children that I might have.

If people really want a wonderful holiday in the South Pacific - why not Fiji, Samoa, Ni Vanuatu? Wonderful places and wonderful people.
Who will know that you are snorting under the palms? Who would want to anyway? You can get "hiigh" on the people and their culture.

Get real.

Cheers
Kay

"Australia should lead the way in decriminalising these victimless offences". You either dont know anyone whose used any kind of mind altering drug, or you have a very loose definition of the word victimless. I dont neccesarilly disagree with decriminilisation, but only if it actually leads to a better outcome for society. And personally, i dont think it would. Governments, community groups, family and friends will continue picking up the pieces and trying to repair the shattered, meaningless lives of drug addicts.

Obviously not every illicit drug user is an addict, and if you want to use illegal drugs, like alot of people do at some stage in their life, fine. Know the consequences and be prepared to take responsibility for yourself when you take it to far and dont kid yourself into thinking it's a victimless crime. And as for the comment, "imagine if it was your daughter blah blah blah". If it was, i'd do everything i could to get her out, but i most certainly would not expect my government to do anything about it by trying to have the law changed. I'd be dissapointed that she'd thought it a good idea to take drugs into a country with laws like that and perhaps regretted not doing a better job bringing her up to take responsibility for her actions (assuming she hadnt already taken that risk into consideration).

I strongly agree with plerdsus, sovereign states are just that, they make the law and you respect it, right or wrong. If you cant abide by the law, dont enter the country.

Yeah I'm with Kay, and Weapon too. Whilst reading Kay's post, I never got any impression that she was being heartless nor stupid. Realistic, I would have thought.

Its high time we started to take responsiblilty for our own actions, and stop blaming the legal systems of other countries, each time an Australian gets busted for drugs in Indonesia or where ever. I would also try to do all I could if it were my child, and most people would. Laws are laws and these differ according to national borders. We all know the risks, or we all should by now.

Secondly I thought a similar thing to you Kay, when Michelle Leslie was suddenly appearing in full Muslim dress and proclaiming she is a Muslim. Perhaps she is, and obviously a 'moderate' one at that. It did however, appear to be some sort of rash attempt to appeal to the hearts of the Indonesians. I am not sure what they thought they would have achieved, as such a stunt would only make matters worse for the girl. Didn't her Indonesian lawyer also walk away from the case, due to "unrealistic expectations" from the Leslie family? Hmmm... there's more to this case than a couple of eckky tabs...

Cheers :)

WEAPON.... "EXACTLY".. which was my whole point in the other post where u suggested I was on the turps.

We have our laws, and if anyone wishes to come here, they can abide by them.

The problem is, that many of those laws have been compromised by ethno/religious pressure groups, hence my point by point solution. If you don't have a starting point (an identity) you have nothing to say.

The X rated porn thing was me using an opportunity to follow up on something I've been in communication with the government about.
If the states outlaw the sale and hire, duh.... then they are saying "Its a nono". Possession, access via internet or whatever.. the choice is yours, go for your penile content, u can live it 24/7. But the idea of sneaking it into Vic 'around' our existing laws is social terrorism.

You.... can do what you like. (u can even sound like a whingeing pom if u want :)

But anyone who thinks they have have their Australian cake and eat it in Indonesia is not only stupid, they are insulting to another sovereign nation. No matter how we might regard some of their laws, they are THEIRS and they are sovereign.

So, if some drug taking Aussie screwball wants to go there.. the old law of 'reap what you sow' applies and no sympathy is required.

Telling the Indonesians how they should shape their legal penalties sounds just a bit like Neo Colonialism.

Duck. So B.....y what ? plenty what.. Their culture, their laws, their society.

Drug use is a health concern not a criminal concern. Government needs to concentrate more energy and resources on providing health care and education rathere than policeing.

PS Boaz_David if you keep it up you'll go blind.

It seems to me that the main issue here is whether or not the Australian government has a responsibility towards its citizens who fall foul of draconian laws and judicial systems while abroad.

Some people seem to take the view that the laws and customs of sovereign states are immune to criticism and pressure to change from outside their borders. Surely if that were the case, South Africa would still have apartheid, Berlin would still have a wall and Saddam Hussein would still be esconced as Iraq's dictator. That this type of claim is espoused by others who have proudly admitted in these forums to going to another country in order to bring about religious conversion just underlines the disingenuousness of this argument.

I realise that my plea for the Australian government to set an example by repealing ineffective laws that attempt to prohibit the recreational use of some drugs, and replacing them with a regulated system of production and distribution, will be seen as too radical by the mostly relatively conservative contributors to these forums.

However, that doesn't mean that prohibition of drugs has worked anywhere. On the contrary, the extraordinary waste of time, money, resources and lives associated with the illegal drug industry globally is almost entirely attributable to the fact that the drugs are illegal, rather than anything inherent in the drugs themselves.

Some day people will wake up to the fact that the 'War on Drugs' approach that has been dominant in the USA and its client states (including Australia and Indonesia) since the 1970s has failed utterly to contain the production, distribution and use of recreational drugs globally - in much the same way that they will wake up to the fact that the 'War on Terror' has only succeeded in proliferating more terror. That's what I mean by 'getting real'.

Speaking of which, several people have suggested that Leslie imported the 'shabu-shabu' (methamphetamine) tablets she was busted with into Indonesia - where is the evidence for this, in the media or elsewhere?

If there was a prize for missing the point, the write of this article would get the gold.

As a barrister who has both prosecuted and defended drug related matters, I find his comments disturbing and offensive.

So what if sentencing is tough in a number of Asian countries?

People know the law when they go there (if your fly into any of these countries as I have it is on the immigration documents that you are given). Noone has suggested that they were unaware of the state of the law.

People don't seem to understand that Schapelle Corby probably would have been convicted in Australia on the same evidence. The only difference would have been the sentence.

For those of you who have never had a client up on repeated drugs charges, let me explain something to you. The reason why people continue to commit offences is people like you who talk about "health" and "harm minimisation" and "victimless crime".

I have seen the benefits of tough sentencing early. Oh and before you talk about "proportionality" maybe my learned friends might read the Penalties and Sentences Act Qld and specifically, the section relating to part of sentence should be to send a message that the community abhors the activity. In any event, what gives all of you people the insight to know what it right for the rest of the world, typcially left wing arrogance.

Further, may I draw your attention to Schapelle Corby and the Bali nine who imported drugs for a quick pay day at the expense of people who are going to take them. Yes these crimes are clearly victimless.

The posts on the forum indicate 2 things:

1. how out of touch the left is when it comes to drug related crimes and

2. how unfit they are to be setting policy at any level as they fail to understand any notion of responsibility.

Brent, you have missed one important point.......Schapelle Corby said that the drugs weren't hers..........end of story.

What if the government is actually providing a reasonable level of consular assistance to the accused, while ministers maintain a stern public attitude in an effort to ram home the message to Australians who travel ? Dont you think this would be more benefical to travellers than a guarantee that regardless of what they do OS the goverment will get them out of it ? I dont know that this is the case, but I think that regardless of what is happening in private, the public face of the government on this matter is probably the best one it can take.

As to Mirko's call for taxpayer funded "Rolls Royce representation", I dont know exactly what he means but if we consider that Schapelle's " Commodore" lawyers have already cost the Oz taxpayer $125K (the goverment didn't get much credit for that in the media did it ?) I'm guessing Mirko means we should be forking out something in the region of $250K per case.

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, it is certain sectors of the legal profession who benefit most from ineffective and futile drug laws - particularly if they're not too fussed about whether they're prosecuting or defending. Funny how so many of these self-declared experts on everything end up as politicians, eh?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone had a go at "the left" in this debate as Brent and others have. For a start, some of Corby's supporters are distinctly from the right - they talk about Indonesians the way One Nation supporters would. Their line of argument is to compare the reduced sentences of some of the Bali bombers to the harsh sentences meted out to Corby and the Bali Nine. And although I am coming from "the left", I find that hard to argue against. Don't take drugs - you'll be shot. Blow up some Westerners instead.

Secondly, "the left" do not necessarily condone drug usage. And some of "the right" are all for it. Lion Nathan and Carlton United come to mind. And this relates partly to the problem of younger people taking drugs like ecstacy. It is cheaper and you last the night longer on ecstacy than you do on approved drugs like beer or wine. Sure, there's a huge risk. But when you're younger (or sometimes older) risk is part of the excitement.

Australia's drug culture is divided into "approved" and "non-approved" drugs. So not surprisingly, some people don't accept this double-standard.

Not all drugs are good, now, remember that. Some are great.

‘let me explain something to you. The reason why people continue to commit offences is people like you who talk about "health" and "harm minimisation" and "victimless crime". ‘
Of course, because when someone has an opinion about a particular issue it causes others to commit crimes! Stop having opinions, you damn lefties! It’s a good thing this has been ‘explained to me’ now, because all this time I’ve been believing totally wrong things and I just needed one person to say one sentence and now it’s all clear.

‘In any event, what gives all of you people the insight to know what it right for the rest of the world, typcially (sic) left wing arrogance.’
Yeah, saying people should be able to make their own choices about things like drugs, that is pretty arrogant of us. Of course making bizarre laws against relatively harmless things like marijuana, that isn’t telling other people what’s right for them at all. Yes sir, no arrogance there.

‘So what if sentencing is tough in a number of Asian countries?’
Yeah! Sure, it may result in a few Australians receiving incredibly harsh punishments for puny crimes, or even no crime at all, but so what? So what. I ask you, SO WHAT??

‘how unfit they are to be setting policy at any level as they fail to understand any notion of responsibility.’
Yeah because challenging irresponsible, unnecessary and unfair laws demonstrates a total lack of responsibility from the left. Damn hippies.

‘at the expense of people who are going to take them. Yes these crimes are clearly victimless.’
Yes, because ALL people who take drugs are victims, not just the addicts. Anyone who’s ever had drugs will tell you what a horrible time they’ve had and how drugs have nothing positive to offer whatsoever.

Well, I’m glad Brent has educated me on how all this really works. Of course legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine cause more problems than all the illegal ones combined, but so what? SO WHAT! Thankyou, Brent, thankyou.

I am an Australian-trained lawyer who lived in Indonesia for 9 years. I think that if any one of those posting opinions here knew what really goes on in Indonesia and how little help Australian citizens receive there from our government, you would all agree with Mirko - whether you are left or right politically. The point about proportionality is abolutely right. But while the sentences are harsh, due process is also lacking. It's a double wammy! Article 66 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Code says that "the onus of proof is NOT on the defendant". But in Schapelle Corby's case, the onus WAS placed on her defence team. To do and say nothing about Schapelle's case as is vehemently demanded by the unholy alliance of the Howard Government and the left-liberal intelligensia helps no one except Indonesian facists wanting to prove a point about decadent Westerners. It does a great disservice not just to Schapelle Corby who has to spend the next 20 years in jail for a crime she almost certainly didn't commit but it also denies Indonesians the chance for the application of the law of rule in their country.

Mirko Bagaric, an insignificant academic unknown to most people, says that the Australian Prime Minister’s attitude to morons involved with drugs in countries such as Indonesia is impertinent! What a cheek!

The usual waffling from academics centres on cultural relativism – but not with Bagaric. He compares Indonesia’s system directly with Australia’s. What happens to transgressors in Australia is irrelevant, but Bagaric fouls his own nest by holding up our system as an ideal, and claiming that death penalties don’t work. Death certainly prevents recidivism, whereas our much more humane system does not. Our ‘controlled doses’ of punishment are worthless as a preventative in most cases. In any case, since Barlow, no Australian has been executed overseas, and the underwear model suddenly turned Muslim will get a jail sentence as has Corby. The Bali 9 deserve whatever they get. I don’t believe in capital punishment for anything but terrorism, but the Indonesians think differently. End of story. Do your drugs in Australia. That these sentences seem, to us, to be way out of proportion don’t matter to anyone but the idiots who have ignored them. It works both ways – we don’t tell other countries what to do, they don’t tell us what to do.

Like others of his ilk, Bagaric is concerned about the ‘rights’ of criminals and fools. In Australia, one can be forgiven for thinking that the bad guys have more rights than the good guys.

Our Government does not need “to continually press Indonesians about their barbaric drugs laws”, as Bagaric opines. Nor does it need to provide “the best possible legal representation and counselling” for these idiots who know full well the drug penalties in Indonesia. The harshness of the laws is no excuse for ignoring the fact that they exist.

Leigh (and some others), you miss an important point. It is not just about overly harsh penalties. In the US, they have harsh penalties, but they also have due proces and safeguards against erroneous convictions. In Indonesia, you can be convicted even if you are totally innocent. No one's legitimate interest is served if we let our citizens get sentenced without proper legal safeguards and a fair trial.

Leigh's logic could extend to Iraq. Don't go there - you'll be decapitated or blown up. Don't say you weren't warned. Didn't Douglas Wood know the penalties for being in Iraq? Didn't he know there would be no due process and next to no mercy shown to captured Westerners? Yet I don't recall the Prime Minister coming out and saying how stupid he was. On the contrary, he railed against Wood's captors as "barbarians". But surely Wood and other Westerners in Iraq knew the risks?

Any government that has any claim to democracy and human rights, such as Australia's, should extend assistance (within its resources) to all of its citizens in trouble. Oh, and just an aside - Michelle Leslie, unlike Corby, hasn't even had a trial yet.

Common Lols,

Australian xenophobia and racism greet on arrival at a local international airport when predominantly naturalised Australians especially those with not ARYAN appearance are horded into a RED lane --- and outcomes from routine checking of THOROUBRED Aussies (WHO is it --- Guantanama-based Higgs and alike?) are obvious while non-discriminatorily undertaken in Asian countries OVERSEAS.

Their is an old standard enshrined within British Law - from which Australian Law is derived

"Volenti non fit injuria"

definition

Latin for "to a willing person, no injury is done." This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts himself in a dangerous situation cannot sue for any resulting injuries.

If some dullard wants to play fast and loose with Indonesian or other national drug laws - then let them and let them pay the consequences when caught be they Corby, any one of the "Nine", Miss Leslie (who will probably be treated lightly because of the non-commercial quantity) or any of the others who lay festering at some overseas tax payers expense in prison or Barlow or Chambers for that matter.

My only disappointment is we are not more rigorous in our dealing with drug dealers in Australia - one gaol term should be enough for anyone to "get the message" - second offense demonstrates contempt for the consequences - so make the consequences final and terminal - no prison terms - just humane termination.

A couple of respondents to the article have referred to Schapelle Corby.......given that she is innocent and will be freed shortly...it would give the authors some credibility if they acknowledged the same...finbar

Garlick; just send it to the editor.

Mirko has the support of sneekeepete on this one.

Mirko is not as some have described as a little known academic -

Mirko received heaps of publicity when he endorsed torture as a legitimate tool of enquiry recently.

Sneekee draws a conclusion here; his critics arent all that well read; but that is not why we are here is it?

I class dropping a few eckkiees as pretty bloody insignificant; but that is also beside the point.

Most Australians whether charged with littering or mass murder would expect their government to apply Australian legal priciples when examining their cases irregardless of where they are; that is to our way of thinking (sneekee uses the word our with caution in these pages)the punter is innocenet until proven guilty. Most of the posts I have read have equated a charge with guilt.

And furthermore Australian Governments should promote the priciples of justice that they endorse witihn whatever jurisdiction their citizen is incarcerated - that is not meddling.

And further to my furthermore Australian governments, beyond the justice or otherwise of a sentence, needs to extend some understanding to those incarcerated in sub humane conditions.

And further to my further further more why do crime and punishment issues seem to generate a great deal of frothing at the mouth? I even note some legal persons joining in - one claims to be a barrister no less - well there isnt much less than a barrsiter!

There seems to be a lot of very muscular (between the ears I expect) christians posting here who would turn their backs on some one in need more readily than they might turn the other cheek.

Knock Knock! oh Inspector Keelty again. What! 14 days this time?! What for?! is it coz I spelt your name wrong last time? You cant tell me. I understand. Who said I was a latte' sipping leftie. Oh! you got it from on line opinion posters. Fair enuff. They'd know.

To Finbar,
Yes, Schapelle Corby is innocent. No, she will not be released because the Indonesian courts are requiring her (in violation of Article 66 of their own criminal procedural code) to prove her innocence beyond doubt, but all the evidence to prove her innocence is in Australia and our government has done virtually nothing to help her to get hold of it. Isn't that precisely the point the author is trying to make? And while we're on the subject of Schapelle Corby, why is it that the Australian Government was allowed to get away with spreading the lie (to parliament and then to media all around the world) that Corby supporters had launched a bio-terror attack on the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra on June 1? Is anyone able to refute the fact that Howard, Downer and Beazley lied on this issue?

Why should she and alike must be freed in Indonesia?

Because of a more flexible Australian law? Or because they are better than local slaves for being born in a different tribe?

Would any Indos be spared in Melbourne if bent-over 78 year pensioner at her house because of a natural urge caused with a long absence of an affordable partner in Australia?

In Rome do as Romans do.

MichaelK,

Suggest you learn English first before you post your opinions. Your opinions may be valid, but better to have them translated first..please....

rogindon

The Indonesian court found Schappelle Corby guilty.

You profoundly state that she is innocent. Thus you must be privy to information which exonerates Schappelle, and which the courts do not have. Why didn't you share this information with the Australian Government? Had you done so - surely she would now be free? How can you live with your conscience if you have such informed and vital information?

Please tell us all of your irrefutable information to free Schappelle.

Cheers
Kay

Kalweb “Please tell us all of your irrefutable information to free Schappelle.”

I totally Agree

I was going to respond with same or contest the same statement but it is nicer to agree with someone.

Viz

Indonesian Customs Officer (ICO) “Excuse me, is this your bag”

Corby “Yes this is my bag”

ICO “Open IT”

Corby opens bag

ICO “ Why are your carrying this 4kg + bag of Drugs in your bag”

Corby “Oh I don’t know that must belong to someone else”

ICO “Do I look like I have just fallen out of a tree, smartass?”

We are responsible for our own actions as well as our own luggage – Corby’s excuses are just “excuses” – lame and pathetic – seeing the way she “performed” on TV would tend to confirm it.

Barlow and Chambers should have used the same excuse – or the Bali 9 – using the Corby “irrefutable” defence (per rogindon) - “Oh those drugs strapped to my thigh ? They must belong to someone else!”

Yeah – drug dealers have been known to tell lies – and as a measure of “character” (or absence thereof), are more likely to lie than tell the truth.

As for “Is anyone able to refute the fact that Howard, Downer and Beazley lied on this issue?”

rogindon you are the one who is making the claims – So show us the “irrefutable Evidence” that they lied as well as the “irrefutable Evidence” of Corby’s innocence

To Rogindon

.....can you, or anyone else tell me why the judges have requested another thirty days to make a decision on Ms. Corby's appeal?

To Kalweb and Col Rouge
Now it seems to me that you guys both completely missed my point. I DO NOT have conclusive proof that Schapelle Corby is innocent. But I DO have complete proof that she is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is all that any justice system requires. It is all that the Indonesian criminal justice system requires on paper. Article 66 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Code (KUHAP) states: “The onus of proof is NOT on the Defendant”. Given that no one has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either her guilt or her innocence, then she must be freed.

Now regarding the PROBABILITY that she is guilty or not, we have all seen much of the evidence. There was no motive (marijuana is cheaper in Bali than in Australia); there is no fingerprint evidence; there is indisputable evidence of criminal gangs involved in drug smuggling running rampant in our airports (including a criminal gang in operation at Sydney airport on October 8, 2004); there is no CCTV footage or record of the weight of her bags at check-in at Brisbane Airport on October 8, 2004 to suggest 4 kg of marijuana was in her bag; and in evidence to the Denpasar District Court on August 3 a Brisbane Airport employee said that he would have been able to smell the marijuana if it had passed through check-in at that time and there was nothing suspicious about Corby’s bag. This is only a part of the evidence casting doubt on her conviction. Her demeanour has been completely consistent with innocence. When Channel Nine ran a feature in May presenting all the evidence both for the Prosecution and for the Defence, the poll conducted immediately afterwards showed that 8% considered her guilty and 92% innocent.

The Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are unanimous that we must not risk relations with Indonesia over the Corby case. But at the end of the day, Schapelle will have to spend the next 19 years in jail for a crime she didn’t commit.

I'm 100% behind you rogindon, I watched the whole business closely and reached exactly the same conclusion. It's also worthy to point out that it seemed pretty obvious the Indonesian Government wanted to make an 'example' out of her from the beginning. And boy did they ever.

My solution: boycot Bali! The moment those tourism dollars start disappearing, you can bet they'll change their overboard drug policies pretty damn fast.

I am aware that although cannabis may be cheaper in Bali, it's not hydoponic, which is in demand, and which is what corby was carrying. I am also aware that you can't not feel an extra 4 kg in a boogie bag. I also know that I'd never ever ever go to Bali.

To Lisamaree,
It is possible that there is a market for high quality Australian marijuana in Bali, but Indonesian police refused an AFP offer to have the marijuana checked in this way to reveal its quality and origin – just like they refused to check the bags for fingerprints or to weigh the bags. Even if there was a market for the kind of marijuana found in Corby’s boogiebag, it is difficult to see how the price in Bali could have offset the cost of obtaining such high-grade ganja in Australia – not to mention the huge risk of carrying such a bulky prohibited substance unconcealed in an unlocked bag..

Regarding the claim that Corby must have noticed the difference in weight, she was not the only person carrying the boogiebag. Her brother James helped to carry the boogiebag along with Corby’s other luggage. All this luggage was being carried together by two people in a matter of minutes in the context of their excitement at having just touched down for a holiday in Bali. Even if she did notice the difference in weight, what was she to do? Tell customs that the bag felt heavier and ask them to check and see if someone planted something? She would still have been convicted because police and prosecutors in Bali consider possession alone to be sufficient for conviction and that is why they conducted no forensic tests.

One of Australia’s most experienced barristers Dr Phillip Opas QC put it this way: “Either she’s the greatest actress since Sarah Bernhardt or she’s innocent”. That about sums it up. He also said that he would “eat his wig” if he couldn’t obtain an acquittal were the Corby case to have been tried in Australia.

I wonder why you would never go to Bali. Is it possibly because you are doubtful you would treated fairly if you got into trouble with their legal system or are you convinced you would get a fair trial like you apparently think Corby got?

GOOD, that is what supposed to hear instead of any intelligence communication – however, what sort of communications lower races that who are from non-English background deserve at all?

<<MichaelK,

Suggest you learn English first before you post your opinions. Your opinions may be valid, but better to have them translated first..please....

Posted by rogindon, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 5:41:19 PM>

More precisely, to rogindon and alike-et.: understanding in-English-written messages especially if English is your native and one only language, is absolutely YOUR problem. This is not advice but a reality explicitly materialised around a globe most recently.

rogindon a barrister is game to suggest anything including self- promotional grandstanding illustrated with farcical caricatures such as eating his own wig - that is the stuff of spivs and circus sideshows.

Doubtless his advise, as a paid retainer of Corby's might have been less bombastic and more prudent.

It still does nothing to dispell the illustration I presented

Viz

Indonesian Customs Officer (ICO) “Excuse me, is this your bag”

Corby “Yes this is my bag”

ICO “Open IT”

Corby opens bag

ICO “ Why are your carrying this 4kg + bag of Drugs in your bag”

Corby “Oh I don’t know that must belong to someone else”

ICO “Do I look like I have just fallen out of a tree, smartass?”

Corby's bag, corbys drugs, corcbys responsibility, corbys crime.

Every drug dealer starts with "oh I know nothing about those drugs, I realise I have been caught, there must be some mistake".

The lies of the criminal class never change.

Are you saying it's not even possible that someone else put drugs there?

Do you accept that drug smuggling does happen that way, from baggage handlers hiding drugs in luggage? If you do accept that, why have you decided without any doubt of Corby's guilt?

What if drugs had been placed in your bag Col, and if you tried to tell someone they weren't yours, they just said: 'the lies of the criminal class never change.'?

The truth is you never know with these things, which is why they should have checked for finger prints and why they should have kept records of the scans etc. With as little evidence as they had, the case should have been chucked straight away.

Spendocrat "Are you saying it's not even possible that someone else put drugs there?"

On the balance of reasonable probability - the drugs are Corby's

" why have you decided without any doubt of Corby's guilt?"

I am anticipating the result of the trial - i am not paid to decide on her guilt, Judges in Indonesia, listening to "ALL" the evidence do that.

"What if drugs had been placed in your bag Col, and if you tried to tell someone they weren't yours, they just said: 'the lies of the criminal class never change.'? "

I will deal with that if and when it ever happens

"The truth is you never know with these things, "

The truth is - you don't know either - you are just guessing and colouring your views wih a twisted version of reality to support your personal prejudices.

" With as little evidence as they had, the case should have been chucked straight away. "

Not according to the judges who heared all the evidence.

- according to her trial judges and that is what really matters -

Corby is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

- may she rot in gaol for a long time.

Col Rouge, You seem rather harsh. I worked in Indonesia for 9 years and studied their justice system closely. Indonesians refer to their judicial officers as the "mafia pengadilan" or "courtroom mafia". Judges in Indonesia are widely considered to be extremely corrupt and deficient and the judicial system largely unreformed from the Soeharto era. Indonesians, in referring to the performance of their judiciary, say it is "nol besar" - a BIG ZERO! Decisions are made based on a variety of legal, financial and political reasons. I am not denigrating Indonesia or Indonesians as a whole. But they themselves would be the first to recognise the shortcomings of their system. I'm sure 9 out of the 10 people they catch with drugs are guilty, but that leaves one out of 10 who is not. I put it to you that a person who was as guilty as you claim Corby is would not act in the way she has. If she were really guilty, she would accept her fate eventually. Corby is either not guilty OR she deserves an Oscar! Finally, your lack of knowledge of the Corby case is clearly illustrated if you think that Phillip Opas, QC was retained as Corby's lawyer. He is one of Australia's most experienced barristers, now retired, who gave his opinion on the case gratuitously.

Playing words is a talent itself, however NONE can assumes own guilt, even Jake the Riper.

And what do AUSTRALIANS think of their juridical system IN-PRIVATE, not as usual double-meaningly-bumbling something to avoid being written in a b l a c k b o o k?

By a way, no mistakes have been shown by Spelling and Grammar

Col believes that because neither of us know for sure, she should 'rot in jail for a long time'. Can't argue with that logic!

Rogindon “He is one of Australia's most experienced barristers, now retired, who gave his opinion on the case gratuitously.”

Advise is usually worth what you are paying for it –

Free (gratuitous) advise costs nothing. I will leave you to join the “all too obvious” dots

Spendocrat – “Col believes that because neither of us know for sure, she should 'rot in jail for a long time'. Can't argue with that logic! “

I suggested she had be tried and by Indonesian court and due process found her guilty and presently sentenced to 20 years – subject to appeal.

That you suggest you know as much as the sentencing judges and suggest your opinion should prevail over theirs is only your ill informed opinion and personal delusions of grandeur – but posting it is nothing new from the likes of you

Ah but you see Col, I never claimed she was innocent! I merely am of the point of view that 20 years seemed wrong, in my OPINION, considering the lack of evidence. I believe it was you passing the all-knowing judgement of 'guilty guilty guilty'.

There's really no need for the personal attacks, friend, we're all just expressing our opinion here.

Peace!

The bottom line is to be aware of the laws of the land you're visiting (and shrink wrap your luggage)...If I was aware of a country's death penalty for selling cannabis, I wouldn't try and smuggle it in, and who knows what drives a person to challenge something like that. HOWEVER, I don't believe cannabis warrants death penatly, and if that were the case, I would expect Australian Gov't intervention...PLUS I am very intrigued by ColRouge's faith in the balinese judicial system. It implies it's infallibile, which I don't believe is the case for any law court in any country. We have all heard of cases of someone doing the time for something they didn't do, even in Australia.

Look only Schapelle knows what happened, the Indonesian Justice system probably knows as much as I do and that is not much in relation to this case.

What I do know is that after fifteen years of work in a drug enforcement and interdiction role on the east coast of OZ is that we confront a health issue not a criminal issue.

The "War on Drugs" is an attack on innocent people, in many respects, and we need to see it that way. Drugs have been around since Adam and Eve and will continue to be refined or enhanced. I am not suggesting I have the answer but criminalisation it is not it. Criminalisation only protects people in positions of power.

If you have time look at the following link for some rational explanation of what is happening in relation to drug wars:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/.

Enough said.

To Schapelle - you do not deserve what is happening to you in Bali and you do not deserve the vilification you cop from a bunch of undereducated bandicoots that poo all over this webpage and many others.

Now let’s move to the letters sections of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age:

“In strange contrast to drug trafficking, the Indonesian judicial system is
hardly a deterrent for terrorism.

At the rate the sentences have been reducing, before long they'll be
handing out medals for it.

William Lloyd Denistone

So to finish – I understand cannabis is legal in The Netherlands but you can get death for it in Indonesia, yet the Indonesian legal system is based on the Dutch system, you know Romans no longer keep slaves (we hope) – “When in Rome?”

Anyone agreeing with Indonesion law in regard to this matter should do so from within the Oz ballot box or Indonesia itself. We should expect our citizens to be subject to our standards of punishment for criminal act no matter where they are. We (Oz) have a pretty humanely balanced legal spread & should do our best to ensure our tourists etc. are not subject to grossly unfair punishment for things regarded as minor offences here.
4 eccies equals a fine in OZ. If Indonesia insists on more, attempts should be made to bring the subject home.. 100% prisoner exchange?

The Australian government wouldn't dream of doing something so radical as to ask for Australian sentences for Australians being tried overseas. In Schapelle's case, she arrived off a direct flight from Australia with drugs in her bag and the consular service (if you can call it that) wouldn't even ask airport authorities in Brisbane and Sydney to find out how it might have gotten there. I suppose they were scared that this would constitute inference since Indonesia wanted to send an Australian to jail for 20 years and we wouldn't want to embarass them by finding evidence that would exonerate her. They didn't even help her to find a decent lawyer. I lived in Indonesia for 9 years and this is the reality of how much help Australian consular authorities give - none and it's their policy to give none.

Dearest Mirko

You write...

We don't refuse medical treatment to drunks who walk into the path of parked cars, obese people who have heart attacks or drug-affected drivers who slam into trees...

to which I add

... however it's not a bad idea.

A nine-gang heroin trafficking told-to-be ringleader caught with no drug on him was shoot by Indonesian police as critical evidence against him was lost – news arrived.

Hi,

Just because she took 2 tablets shes in jail! Its fair, its how indonesia handles their government and laws. its just like someone you know is smoking inside your house but you dont want them to, and you kick them out side, because its your house and your rules so i believe that it is definetly FAIR!

cheers

Hayley

Most people here say if its ecstasy or cannabis its no big deal. Then people who are into stronger stuff cop the persecution of our local law.