Well said Philo! This case (and no doubt others - and I'm thinking David Hicks) has been an absolute bastardisation of law. If it comes down to cashing the judges, well, she may just has well have pleaded guilty and saved herself a whole lot of heartache. The previous poster that mentioned she had a lot of husbands. Hello? Price of fish? and the fact that her dad and brother had convictions with dope? Did you read that in No Idea? I had a charge of police assault against me 20 odd years ago. Does that make my parents cop bashers? The facts are that Indonesian law is geared toward the prosecution, the fact that had the judge been bribed, the outcome would have been different, makes a joke of that country having any laws worth cocking a leg to. That doesn't make me racist or xenophobic, it makes me angry that we still tip our hats and call it the law. Corruption should have no place in any judicial system. It's apparently obvious it does in Indonesian law from the guards in the jails up to the prosecution and judges. That's what sucks. Not whether No Idea is making any circulation out of it.

Trade251 – bzzzzzzzz - there is a big difference between the presumption of trafficking and the presumption of guilt. You don’t have to prove you weren’t trafficking in drugs if you’re not found guilty of possessing them. Similarly you don’t have to prove your property wasn’t obtained by unlawful means if you haven’t been convicted of an offence.

Corby had to prove she was innocent. Any fair-minded person would realise that this is not the way a modern and fair judicial system should work, whether it be in Indonesia, Australia or anywhere. The only racism comes from people who don’t believe that Indonesians should enjoy the same high standard of judicial process that we do.

Of course all Australians should boycott Bali and the rest of Indonesia. It seems obvious that you don’t have to be guilty of any crime to suffer at the hands of their backward justice system. Why would you take the risk?

People like Rainier amaze me with their hypocrisy. Their “compassion” (what a joke – the most bastardised word in the English language) only seems to extend to people subject to liberal, humane laws enacted by the Australian Commonwealth. Break (or not) any laws from a justice system based upon 19th century backwardness and it’s a great big “who cares?” Selective compassion is a great defining element of our enlightened intellectual superiors. You’d think they’d be able to see this if they’re so enlightened and intelligent. I suppose this is where arrogance comes in.

The Chief Judge in Corby's case, who is a Christian, has said he is not responsible to the people, but to God.

Well Linton Sirait, you should ask youself whether one can profess Christianity and impose cruel and disproportionate sentences on offenders. A Christian legal system is a rehabilitative--not a retributive--system.

Pharisees: "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of comitting adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women."
Jesus: "Let anyone among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

(all the Pharisees went away)

Jesus: "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
Woman: "No one, sir."
Jesus: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

Linton Sirait, save yourself from hypocrisy: resign, and then repent.

Well now, let’s not forget our own criminal justice system...but then again lets...so we can be pious and narrow. It clear now that the cultural cringe some experience about Australian attitudes is a virtue for others...
I was about to provide some statistical information about the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples, the detention of people simply wanting to become Australians, and even something about our immigration laws. But then I thought, what’s the point...

I think that there is a serious issue as to whether the continental law system meets the criteria set down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. While it appears to be silent on the question of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it does prescribe a presumption of innocence in penal matters (Article 11). I've written a short blog post on the issue http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000631.html, and it seems to me that there is an issue here with more than the Indonesian legal system, as well as some developments in our own where basic human rights issues are being ignored in law making.

You're right Rainier - there's absolutely no point in whineing about Australian laws when you're quite happy for people in other parts of the world to be subject to much more horrendous processes.

I respect anyones right to have a position in relation to asylum seekers etc. but what I can't understand is why you don't have the moral fortitude to condem abuses where ever they occur in the world. Isn't an Indonesian or a Cuban worth as much as you? How come an Iraqi is only worthy of consideration when he is illegally attempting to enter Australia?

Just some of the mysteries of perverted compassion.