Oceania Schapelle Corby: a conviction or an acquittal?

Note: this is not per se a poll as to whether people think she's innocent or not--it's more to examine how much faith people have in the Indonesian judicial system

Personal opinion: I don't believe for a minute she did it, especially in light of new evidence, albiet circumstancial.

Realisticly, the Indo government is out to make an example.

I agree.

Agreed.
As for the other people in the simialr circumstance...may they burn in hell, drug trafficing bastards.

1) The life of a woman is more important than an Australian media spectacle.

2) Indonesia should not have the death penalty; certainly not for 'trivial' cases such as drug smuggling.

3) If Corby wasn't white there would be no where near as much attention.

4) She should get off on the principle that she shouldn't die for smuggling drugs, regardless of her innocence or guilt.

5) We should all bugger off and let her be (and not comment on an ongoing trial - if it were being held here such scrutiny would be unthinkable)

It's hard to say. The relationship between Australia and Indonesia is at an all time high. The nine folks who died in the Dea King crash were all awarded the highest medal you can get in Indonesia, and their President came here to award it - the 3rd Indonesian president to ever visit Australia.

I would say Indonesia have a bit more banking on this than just trying to make an example. Their going to get to execute those nine other silly wossnames, so I don't see why they can't just let Corby go...

the Indonesian judicial system

Would that be the one that let terrorists go because of something as trivial as the ex post facto application of antiterrorism legislation?

E_S

I think she will get convicted, whether she is really innocent or guilty is another thing altogether

2) Indonesia should not have the death penalty; certainly not for 'trivial' cases such as drug smuggling.

What, and treat drug smuggling the way our government does?

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty under any circumstances, but I can certainly see Indonesia's reason for having it as a penalty for drug smuggling. It is a very large, very serious issue in the SE Asian region and there needs to be a strong deterrent for it. Unfortunately that same logic is going to work against Corby when Indonesia wants to send a strong message to any potential smugglers that they won't stand a chance if they get caught.

That said, I'm no lawyer and certainly no expert on Indonesian government and politics so I could be completely off on this issue. There's a good chance she'll be convicted IMO, despite a seeming inability to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Why are we assuming she's innocent?

Even removing the presumption of innocence, looking into the matter will reveal a bias on the part of the Judges towards favouring the prosecution, and an unwillingness to admit new evidence such as bag tampering in Sydney airport.

They're out to convict her, and it's not a fair trial.

Well she's not innocent of carrying drugs into Indonesia. She did it, it was her bag. Whether or not the drugs belonged to her....she trafficked drugs. If Indonesian judges look at the case like that (like they should at this point) then it's not even a barely defensible case. She did it, she opened her own bag and the drugs were inside.

The current case is not to determine whether the drugs were hers or wether she intended to do it, whether someone planted them on her somewhere else or whatever. It's to determine whether she brought drugs into Indonesia. And she did. So she's guilty.

In the past appeals in similar cases to higher courts have quashed rulings so there's a chance that will happen. But I think there's heaps more to this story, like the involvement of dodgy Gold Coast business dude Ron Bakir who leapt to her defense for no real reason. As to whether she was really ignorant to the fact that she was a drug mule, I don't know.

What I don't like about the entire thing is the way everyone assumes she is 100% innocent. I mean, I'm not saying that she's "as guilty as sin", but, come on, people, take into account that she could be crying crocodile tears here.

Well she's not innocent of carrying drugs into Indonesia. She did it, it was her bag. Whether or not the drugs belonged to her....she trafficked drugs. If Indonesian judges look at the case like that (like they should at this point) then it's not even a barely defensible case. She did it, she opened her own bag and the drugs were inside.

The current case is not to determine whether the drugs were hers or wether she intended to do it, whether someone planted them on her somewhere else or whatever. It's to determine whether she brought drugs into Indonesia. And she did. So she's guilty.

Darth, does the Indonesian statute against possession of drugs require knowledge that you're in possession of said substances? I understood there's some debate over the issue whether you have to know you've got the drugs for the charge to be proven. If the Prosecution doesn't have to prove she knew the drugs were there, then I'd agree she's probably done like a dinner. But if they do have to prove she knew they were there, I would've thought she has a chance at least.

What, and treat drug smuggling the way our government does?

Only fools and Sith deal in absolutes. You'd do well to find some middle ground. It's actually very Irish.

E_S

You'd do well to find some middle ground. It's actually very Irish.

Three letters for you in retort: IRA


I do agree with those that keep asking why we have to assume she's 100% innocent. There is way too much about this that does not add up for you to assume that she is without a doubt innocent. Whether it fits the burden of proof for a guilty verdict is a different matter.

And intent doesn't always have to be proved. Just because you say that any drugs that are found in your possession (car, house, etc) does not automatically give you an out in our legal system, you have the chance to use it to provide reasonable doubt, but it's not a sure thing.



Frankly, whether you (or our government for that matter) agree with capital punishment or not is absolutely irrelevant. In Indonesia it is part of their system, and isn't exactly a secret. I'm sure that even before all this media frenzy for a juicy 'human interest' story that one of the only things most people would have been able to say about Indonesian laws is that you run the risk of the dealth penalty in relation to drugs in Indonesia. You are completely and utterly at the mercy of the laws of whichever country you go to regardless of your or your countries own beliefs and have to take that risk whenever you go overseas.

We assume she's innocent since the basis of the adversial justice system is predicated upon the notion of innocence until guilt is established. And we're not trusting the Indonesians more than is necessary.

E_S

There is a presumption of innocence in most (not all) judicial systems, but that is a presumption only, not a statement of 100% innocence. Only those that are going to be involved in deciding the merits of the case are required to hold an opinion that is close to that, the rest of us are allowed to think whatever we wish.

"Darth, does the Indonesian statute against possession of drugs require knowledge that you're in possession of said substances?"

I don't think so Saintheart, in Indonesia possession is ten tenths law. This is basically why our federal Government didn't seek to submit evidence of baggage tampering at Sydney airport....it doesn't matter. It's not relevant to the case, it just muddy's thing up and drags out this leg of proceedings. She's going to lose this round but stands to enter evidence later that will probably get her off on appeal. So the point now is to get this stage over and done with, get her out of the Bali prison, back to an Australian gaol and appeal from here.

The media and the public don't see it like that though, they see it like a Hollywood movie were a sentence is immutable and the key is thrown away (a la Bangkok Hilton ). There are numerous flaws in the case and they'll be examined at the correct time. As if the Bali bombing wasn't enough of a reminder, all Australians need to understand they're not in Australia when they travel to Bali. It's not a cheap, friendly place to visit for good times with your mates. It's Indonesia and their laws are much harsher on a range of different things.

*shrug* Fair enough. As I'd understood the Indonesian justice system, the State only has to establish a prima facie (i.e. "on the face of it") case, following which the accused has to prove their innocence.

That's probably the most foreign (no pun intended) part of it; in Australia, the presumption of innocence would apply unless the Prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. And an accused person here never, ever has to prove their innocence or present evidence to that effect. Indonesia's system, as E_Sai said, is an inquisitorial one rather than an adversarial one.

But still...geez...over five hundred cases tried and not one acquittal...bit over the top...

You're a genius tiger. The Whole Case according to the guidelines in the Indonesion legal system is pretty open and shut, But Australian's obviously assume that if she had been tried in an Australian Court, that her case would be a lot stronger, as other factors come into account. But fact is using their legal procedures, it seems that these other factors don't matter, which may not seem just, but it's their system!

the moral is: stay at home, and try not to make eye contact with anyone, then you'll be fine!

Thing I find ironic, is that if the Indonesian government tried to but in on an Australian case then you'd all be chucking a ****.

To be sure, to be sure.

Then again, maybe not; you'll notice most have made more of a contribution here than making extremist black-and-white delineations and acting self-righteous.

Bad craic, no?

E_S