Oceania Schapelle Corby: a conviction or an acquittal?

I'd say Miss Secura hit the nail more or less on the head...

Unless of course "ale" has some kind of special, secret, Irish translation that I didn't pick up when I was over there...

 

Actually no E_S. I'd pronounce it ballocks but not write it.
If you were smart you'd know that.
Besides, there is a different accent for prety much every county bucko.
Especially Northern Ireland.

 

I'd pronounce it ballocks but not write it.
If you were smart you'd know that

Look, SoE, no offense, but I were you I wouldn't go around making cracks about other people and their intelligence. Glass houses and all.

Secondly, if you'd "pronounce it a certain way but not write it", why do you write "your" as "yer"?


E_S

EDITS; Markups be damned.

 

With above, I didn't mean that to sound as harsh as it did. Soz.

E_S

 

Look, SoE, no offense, but I were you I wouldn't go around making cracks about other people and their intelligence. Glass houses and all/

Then don't try and bait me.
Hell, I'm suprised Hawk hasn't been giving you warning about it...not doing his job.
Grow dude....please. This whole thing with you trying get me at every corner is just pathetic.

 

Mature of you to acknowledge the apology posted right after it, SoE.

E_S

 

On topic, it would appear that Schapelle's Indonesian lawyers are now trying to use the media machine in an overt (rather than covert) manner, with the recruitment of an Indonesian soapie starlet, Anisa Tri Hapsari, to try and sway Indonesian public opinion in Schapelle's favour.

From Matthew Moore's article in The West Australian today, at page 4:

"Anisa Tri Hapsari was instroduced to a media conference yesterday packed with reporters from television stations best known for their celebrity gossip and soap operas. Wearing a big diamond necklace, Corby's Jakarta-based lawyer, Hotman Hutapea, said he had hired Hapsari because the Indonesian public's view would be critical in the outcome of Corby's appeal against her 20-year sentence for drug smuggling. 'The public's view is important because usually Indonesian judges are reluctant to give a decision that's contrary to the public's view.'"

Intriguing...because that could be seen in one of two ways:

(1) As an implication that the Indonesian High Court blatantly does not follow the rule of law--that is, rendering a decision solely based on the applicable law as determined by precedent; or

(2) As a blatant attempt to influence the Court by trying to intimidate the judges in the court of public opinion.

I think in either case Corby's stuffed. If the first holds true, nothing short of a Coke-sized public relations campaign is going to convince a placard-waving anti-drug, pro-death-penalty society that she's innocent.

If the second holds true, I doubt a Court is going to be amused with a second attempt to sway its decision by an appeal to the mob (albeit an Indonesian mob rather than an Australian mob this time) ... and it also renders rather stupid the Indonesian lawyers' bitter complaints about media condemnation of the prosecution and the case against her, given they are now courting (no pun intended) the very public they proclaimed they didn't want involved last time.

Is it just me, or do they seem a bit out of their depth?

And is it just me, or are we seeing more and more articles and people willing to believe in Schapelle's guilt because of some psychological imperative in our collective mind that courts do get things right most of the time?

 

shut it ender!

go ... i don't know, drink or something

 

Good analysis, Sainty. You should be a lawyer.

I think that essentially you're correct about them being out of their depth, and the image of drowning men and straws springs to mind.

I admit to knowing little about Indonesian law, other than the fact it's inquisitorial rather than adversarial and that apparently the constitutional court is very literal in it's rulings - hence the situation with the Bali bombers and the court striking down ex post facto application of anti-terrorism legislation. So I was wondering if you're aware of public opinion influencing a Court ruling in the past?

But it strikes me from my analysis that politically, Indonesia has some issue with admitting it's wrong in any given circumstance. We call it intrasingence, they call it pride I guess. So I can't see the campaigns(s) to sway people in favour of Ms Corby having any effect except the unintended one - to infuriate the Indonesian judiciary and make recourse even harder for her.

E_S

 

So I was wondering if you're aware of public opinion influencing a Court ruling in the past?

Fortunately, no, not in the Australian context--at least, not if one's talking about a decision by judge/s sitting without a jury. Jury trials are another ball game altogether, mostly because it's not the judge who's making the decision. If there has been an influence from public opinion on a judge, it's been very subtle. Judges don't talk publicly about their decisions, aren't elected, and aren't easily dislodged from their positions by Parliament; it makes it hard for the media to mount campaigns to oust them. The best kind of judge, to me, is the one who may have great personal distaste for the decision he makes, but makes it true to the law nonetheless. Having said that, I've seen a certain predisposition in most of the judges I've appeared before towards the Prosecution's viewpoint, but I'd view that more as an institutional influence rather than an influence due to public opinion--and only because many judges in WA were prosecutors before being appointed to the Bench.

But it strikes me from my analysis that politically, Indonesia has some issue with admitting it's wrong in any given circumstance.

I think that's true of any government in a volatile society; the apparent power of the state being in control is sometimes the greatest tool the state has in keeping the people under control.

 

Well, certainly that's true in the MidEast which is why they hate al-Jazeera so.

Insofar as being influenced; I recall now a judge in SA (?) endorsing mild violence against one's wife, so I guess society doesn't always influence the judiciary.

Do you know much about international law, specifically jurisdiction? Because IIRC, Australia could have claimed to try her under the notion of nationality jurisdiction, though Indonesia might not have agreed to that...

E_S

 

i've always found it interesting in comparing the justice systems that australia has compared to countries such as indonesia, then comparing them to other countries like the US. Only a few hours apart on the globe and yet it's such a stark contrast to each other. fair and equal justice doesn't exist in some, is lacking in others and we're probably the least harsh of them all when it comes to delivering penalities, in some cases at least.

i'll put this question to our legal mind, Mr Director Sir Do you think there is the possibility of a justice system created that all countries follow, or is that too much to ask of a new generation to consider? In the same way as one currency or equal rights, for example. I mean, it's highly unlikely it could ever come to that, not any time soon that's for sure, but if it ever came to be, would it work?

 

As the Euro's slow death illustrated, common currency is an ideal, not an economic reality.

As for one, large legal system; we already have supranational laws in the form of jus cogens, but ultimately laws are as much a product of their society as culture. They reflect societal values, so on that front it's hugely unlikely. Heck, we need to get enforcement of the jus cogens crimes listed most comprehensively in the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC happening before we talk of anything larger.

E_S

 

It's the beards of our icons. That's why people can't tell us apart.

Insofar as being influenced; I recall now a judge in SA (?) endorsing mild violence against one's wife...

The one and only Justice Bollen, with his wonderful catchphrase "rougher than usual handling".

Do you know much about international law, specifically jurisdiction? Because IIRC, Australia could have claimed to try her under the notion of nationality jurisdiction, though Indonesia might not have agreed to that...

I don't know much about international law, but that last bit's the rub, isn't it? Not much you can do with a subpoena when they won't let you get off the plane...

But on the overarching laws question, I think there's the possibility of ultimate overarching laws or overarching courts of appeal, such as the European Court of Human Rights, or even the Privy Council in England, as an addition[i/] to local legal systems, but I don't think you'll see worldwide codification of law during our lifetimes. Psychologically it's unlikely; we're so determined as a species to mark out our own physical territory on earth that submitting to an overarching authority is against our natures. One might see a change in that if mankind colonises the solar system en masse--there would be a greater perception of earth as one world among many, rather than many nations on one planet. Or at least that's what I hope.

 

Saintheart, I believe under customary international law, there's 4 types of jurisidiction, of which the two "mains" are territoriality (where the crime occurs) and nationality (the nationality of the perpetrator). As the Avena and other Mexican Nationals Case (Mexico vs United States, 2003-2004) in the ICJ illustrated (as did the LaGrand Case (Germany vs United States, 1999-2001)), states can petition the Court to have nationals brought home to their soverign country if the laws in the country they were arrested contest too strongly with domestic laws. In both Avena and LaGrand, the applicant nations filed the case in the ICJ because both the German and Mexican nationals in said cases were facing the death penalty. Of course the US went ahead and executed them before the Court made it's decision - oops - but certainly there remains a precedent.

As far as the ECHR, that kind of supranational jurisidiction isn't dissimilar to the ICJ's jurisdiction, in that it's the product of a treaty by all nations. What I was referring to, insofar as jus cogens and applicable international law, is more the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). Jus cogens is understood to be a crime against all humans and thus it's legality transcends the state, by evolution more than anything else. If we do end up with a universal legal system, it'd likely be by evolution rather than design - though a single currency would be a nightmare in terms of PPP, inflation, wage/salary etc.

E_S

EDITS: Markups

 

[image=http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/JOHNNAGE_THE_BRAVE/brainfig.jpg]

"What Indonesia wants, and what you and you and your viewers have, is Civilization, Yeees. Now take this fellow for example here...."

*Shoots Eddie Mcguire in the head*

"Now was that civilised? no, clearly not. Fun, but in no sense civilised!"

 

I can't figure out why JOHNNAGE's post makes me feel like I've been hit in the head with a rubber chicken.

 

A question which has haunted mankind since the dawn of time.

 

hmm, do you think that kind of mentality, using gremlins as her defense team, would work?

 

You guys are ruining my awesome law post!

Shut it, Kart!

E_S

 

Settle down Tiger,

you can go sit in the corner now, Hows that for a Legal System?

 

Supernanny = teh judge.

"Schapelle, you're guilty of bringing cannabis into Indonesia...that is not asseptable behaviour! Now go and sit on the naughty chair for 20 years!"

 

Ahh Supernanny. I wonder if her biological makeup is enchanced by the Earth's Yellow Sun...

 

Supernanny = Teh Gremlin with Jedi mind powers over wayward younglings

 

More like the Emperor with FEAR power over the Galaxy.
She's like her own Death Star!