Breaking News: Schappelle Corby found guilty! (3 Viewers)

[Wesnat]

I'm with spell check,
for example - Aparthite was fucking stupid.

Yes. There are just some laws that go beyond the boundaries of human mind. But before we say "we demand their laws to be changed", we should look at the other side of things too. Aparthite is unacceptable, that's universal. I don't know what kind of problems drugs have caused in Indonesia, so I'm in no position to demand that law to be changed; not yet. Perhaps the law sounds stupid, but for this reason, I am in NO position to disrespect it, although I am in a position to question it.

Maybe when we know for sure of the reason for the harsh law, then we can see the obvious....

Justice in one person's view occassionally doesn't mean justice in another's. Justice can be subjective. I'm with Einstein on this one. The only thing that is absolute in this world is light and its speed.

 

[Wesnat]

yeah everything is gettin' tough huh
i've got a email address from people to join this site.
BanBali.com
wonder what people gonna say?
right or wrong for the site??

Hahaha. That's obvious. It's wrong 100%.

Stupid, unnecessary, pure garbage.

Not going to Bali because of the case is a matter of individual opinion. Not going to Bali because one fears of more bombings or corrupt baggage handlers is perfectly reasonable.

But creating a petition to boycott Bali is just pointless. Why encourage people to do so? Why make the Balinese suffer even more, after the bombings and whatnot?

This action is selfish - people do it for the interest of one Australian woman, at the expense of other people's interests. There are many other more productive things people can do to assist Corby.

EDIT: I find it amusing that people are soooooo compassionate about Corby, yet they ignore the adverse effect their idiotic petition would have on people who also deserve and need compassion.

 

[withoutaface]

yeah everything is gettin' tough huh
i've got a email address from people to join this site.
BanBali.com
wonder what people gonna say?
right or wrong for the site??

"We fully respect...Indonesian law"
" We simply want...them to alter the... laws. "

From banbali.com.

HMMMMMM.

 

[spell check]

Yes. There are just some laws that go beyond the boundaries of human mind. But before we say "we demand their laws to be changed", we should look at the other side of things too. Aparthite is unacceptable, that's universal. I don't know what kind of problems drugs have caused in Indonesia, so I'm in no position to demand that law to be changed; not yet. Perhaps the law sounds stupid, but for this reason, I am in NO position to disrespect it, although I am in a position to question it.

Maybe when we know for sure of the reason for the harsh law, then we can see the obvious....

Justice in one person's view occassionally doesn't mean justice in another's. Justice can be subjective. I'm with Einstein on this one. The only thing that is absolute in this world is light and its speed.

firstly, it's apartheid, not aparthite

and secondly, there can be no reason to kill someone just for bringing 4kg of marijuana into the country.

 

[Wesnat]

firstly, it's apartheid, not aparthite

and secondly, there can be no reason to kill someone just for bringing 4kg of marijuana into the country.

Whoops, you are the spell checker after all.

Do you know their reason? Or do you simply ignore that possibility? You are assuming that there can be no reason for the law to exist. Apartheid is deemed unacceptable because we know of the ridiculous reason behind it.

Justice is NOT ALWAYS absolute. People just can't jump to conclusions without knowing about the other side. They CAN form opinions, but they CAN'T discredit the law (just yet).

PS. I find it funny how you didn't spell check NTB, who agreed on your point. I took that spelling from his post. Not to discredit you NTB, of course. I'm sure it's just a minor mistake.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Who cares if he spells checks you?
I make many mistakes, i'm not writing an assignment and i'm too ignorant to make sure I spell correct.

Edit: I also see Asquithian's viewpoint, and I think he probably accepts that a balance has to be reached between striving for what you believe to be 'fair' and accepting what others think is 'fair'.

We should consult with the indonesians if we believe that their drug laws are too harsh (I guess? seems a little intrusive...) but at the same time we cannot force them to change their laws - IF - we can't change their minds.

 

[Wesnat]

^ Well, the point I was making was that he only spell checked people for the purpose of discrediting their arguments...

 

[Wesnat]

I also see Asquithian's viewpoint, and I think he probably accepts that a balance has to be reached between striving for what you believe to be 'fair' and accepting what others think is 'fair'.

We should consult with the indonesians if we believe that their drug laws are too harsh (I guess? seems a little intrusive...) but at the same time we cannot force them to change their laws - IF - we can't change their minds.

Bull's eye. It's not an easy issue, this 'injustice'. But by disrespecting their laws, we might as well disrespect their values and offend them. Laws often reflect people's values after all.

Perhaps by consulting, we can see their sides of things. At this stage, though, it's too premature to simply deem the law as 'unjust'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That's true, it's definately NOT the reason why most people are outraged. (except spell check, who'd i'd say is a small segment of the population).

 

[Newbie]

she is australian and therefore deserves a full pardon


imagine if you had to do a casenote on this shit
haha 1st years writing stuff like the judge erred because he did not apply Martin J A Current Affair Ep3403 (2005)

 

[Wesnat]

That's true, it's definately NOT the reason why most people are outraged. (except spell check, who'd i'd say is a small segment of the population).

Are you referring to Indonesia's law, still? I'm not sure about that. I still find people insulting their law blindly all over the place. The thing is, people forget, at times like this, that Australia's law isn't the fairest of laws either...

 

[v sia]

bitchgirl your a sad story ... * sigh
Ill pray for you every night

 

[Wesnat]

Here is an example of injustice that can occur under Australia's law. This was a rehashed post, but still... I was addressing an ignorant person who stated that the Australian legal system is more efficient than Indonesia's (so don't take offense in my rather strong language...):


Hahaha, how naive of you.

Okay, let's consider a very sensitive case in Australia: pedophilia

Under the Australian system (innocent until proven guilty):

- if the guy is this ugly old bastard, then everyone in the nation (90% of them) may find it "clearly", "undisputably" "obvious" that he is guilty.

- however, the evidence is not enough to proof him guilty, after all, he is 'innocent until proven guilty', no? So, he escaped jail sentence.

- Australian people are outraged beyond words. They deem the court's case "unfair"

- now any of their children can be victims of this pedophile.

Notice any parallels? This hypothetical (yet possible) court's decision is, as you said, "fkn stupid" no? Our legal system is soooooo much more efficient indeed, heh.

Corby happens to 'commit a crime' where the legal system puts her at a disadvantaged position, but it works the other way too.

Any legal systems have weak points and will result in several "unfair" judgements. I find it amusing that it is soooo fast for people to demonise the foreign legal system before looking at the injustices that have been created by Australian's own system. More efficient system? I think not.

 

[spell check]

uh guilty people are acquitted all the time because of insufficient evidence and a myriad of other reasons. the very reason we have obstacles such as evidenciary rules and the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard and the presumption of innocence is that we value protecting the innocent from being incorrectly locked up higher than putting as many people in prison as possible in order to get more guilty people

 

[withoutaface]

But wasn't the fact that there was prima facie (however you spell that) evidence (ie drugs in bag, bag is hers) enough to mean that the burden of proof was shifted to the defence?
EDIT: Even in a country like Australia, wouldn't this have occured?

 

[Wesnat]

uh guilty people are acquitted all the time because of insufficient evidence and a myriad of other reasons. the very reason we have obstacles such as evidenciary rules and the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard and the presumption of innocence is that we value protecting the innocent from being incorrectly locked up higher than putting as many people in prison as possible in order to get more guilty people

Doesn't mean the other system is inferior though... which was the point of my post.

Guilty people escaping (and quite possibly committing more crimes - think of pedophiles who escaped gaol sentence) can be just as bad as innocent people being found guilty...

Which is the greater good? It's completely subjective.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But wasn't the fact that there was prima facie (however you spell that) evidence (ie drugs in bag, bag is hers) enough to mean that the burden of proof was shifted to the defence?
EDIT: Even in a country like Australia, wouldn't this have occured?

Yes that is correct, and more or less the same here

 

[Vahl]

The defence's reasons and attempts to defend Corby are weak in comparison.

Corby is Guilty. she had no solid defence, ie, people said this or that may have happened, but could not prove that someone else put the drugs in her bag. It was hearsay evidence, and it wouldn't be accepted in an Australian court. Based on the evidence, an Australian jury may also have found that it was beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty.

I think people just want to protect her because she is a 'pretty' young white female.


Considering the size of the drugs haul and the punishment precedents, Corby was lucky she didn't get the death penalty, and Australia should be grateful.

 

[Vahl]

Here is an example of injustice that can occur under Australia's law. This was a rehashed post, but still... I was addressing an ignorant person who stated that the Australian legal system is more efficient than Indonesia's (so don't take offense in my rather strong language...):


Hahaha, how naive of you.

Okay, let's consider a very sensitive case in Australia: pedophilia

Under the Australian system (innocent until proven guilty):

- if the guy is this ugly old bastard, then everyone in the nation (90% of them) may find it "clearly", "undisputably" "obvious" that he is guilty.

- however, the evidence is not enough to proof him guilty, after all, he is 'innocent until proven guilty', no? So, he escaped jail sentence.

- Australian people are outraged beyond words. They deem the court's case "unfair"

- now any of their children can be victims of this pedophile.

Notice any parallels? This hypothetical (yet possible) court's decision is, as you said, "fkn stupid" no? Our legal system is soooooo much more efficient indeed, heh.

Corby happens to 'commit a crime' where the legal system puts her at a disadvantaged position, but it works the other way too.

Any legal systems have weak points and will result in several "unfair" judgements. I find it amusing that it is soooo fast for people to demonise the foreign legal system before looking at the injustices that have been created by Australian's own system. More efficient system? I think not.

Exactly.

Personally I think that the 3 judge trial is fairer than the jury system that we have in Australia. ie The judges are legally trained and will attempt to make a decision purely on the facts of the case wheras a jury will be more inclined to let their prejudices get in the way of the facts. eg. The higher conviction rate of black males and gay/lesbian people in US trials when compared with 'normal' white middleclass trials where similar facts are presented.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Exactly.

Personally I think that the 3 judge trial is fairer than the jury system that we have in Australia. ie The judges are legally trained and will attempt to make a decision purely on the facts of the case wheras a jury will be more inclined to let their prejudices get in the way of the facts. eg. The higher conviction rate of black males and gay/lesbian people in US trials when compared with 'normal' white middleclass trials where similar facts are presented.

To some extent - it depends on the crime.