View Full Version : Putting one's Citizens "in it"....

Buster Hyman
21st Apr 2005, 11:19
Okay. The story is here (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15036752^661,00.html) & the scenario is this...

Aust. Federal Police had Aust. citizens under surveillance for drug (Heroin) smuggling. The citizens were in Bali and the Indonesians were made aware of their plans by the AFP. Result, 9 arrested, 5 face death penalty. There is no death penalty in Oz.

The AFP are now under fire from some quarters for allowing them to be arrested in a place where they could be executed for their alleged crimes. So, generalising for a minute, if your country does not have such a harsh justice system, is it right to contribute to your citizens being caught within a system where the ultimate price, which is against your own "beliefs", will be paid for the crime in question?

Personally...their choice was $10,000 + a free Bali holiday vs. possible death sentence in a region known for its tough stance on drugs...I,m not convinced they had to alert the Indonesians, but I don't for one minute sympathise with the plight of the individuals.:confused:

21st Apr 2005, 11:25
Nope, death penalty is wrong. You can't trust lawyers and civil servants not to top the wrong lot.

And the rules tend to be a tad biased against the poor-how many white millionaires are there on death row in the US (where the legal system ain't all that bad)?

On the other hand, if Ozzie coppers can't get their hands on drug dealing scum in Oz, you can understand them giving in to the temptation to see them swing elsewhere.

Biggles Flies Undone
21st Apr 2005, 11:29
Do the crime, get the time (or worse). People who deal in drugs on whatever level contribute to the misery and death of others. Hopefully others tempted to take the risk in the expectation that the worst they could cop would be a jail term back home will think again.

No sympathy for them at all.

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 12:01
but...what exactly are "drugs"?

is your opinion a consequence of the effect the chemicals have or merely their legal status?

not that I necessarily disagree with you.

21st Apr 2005, 12:09
Nope, death penalty is wrong.

The rights and wrongs of the death penalty aside, every Aussie knows that trafficing drugs to that part of the world could lead to execution. It's bloody simple.

21st Apr 2005, 12:11
Take the thrill, pay the bill...

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 12:17
The rights and wrongs of the death penalty aside, every Aussie knows that trafficing drugs to that part of the world could lead to execution. It's bloody simple. I was under the impression that when you get your Oz passport, it comes with a letter on bright orange paper that says if you traffic in drugs in certain countries and get caught you will get executed and there's nothing the Oz government can do about it, yet every year people continue and get caught and even old grandmothers get hanged.

21st Apr 2005, 12:32
but...what exactly are "drugs"?

It's just the popular term for what the law terms Prohibited Substances, Onan and all that means is that nobody has to go through any sort of complicated process to decide if a substance is a "drug" or not. Just simply look it up on the prohibited list and if it's there, that's all you need to know. The heroin these people were carrying is, of course, on the Prohibited Substances lists of many countries.

I suspect these couriers will find little sympathy from anyone except, perhaps, their own families and friends. Whether we approve of the death penalty or not, it is the penalty in that country and is the price they will very likely pay.

I was under the impression that when you get your Oz passport, it comes with a letter on bright orange paper that says if you traffic in drugs in certain countries and get caught you will get executed
I just renewed mine last year and didn't get that. Maybe it's a more recent thing.

tony draper
21st Apr 2005, 13:30
If yer don't fancy the rope, don't sell the dope.

21st Apr 2005, 13:32
They can always make a complaint when they get home.

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 13:48
If to live you have a need

then don't decide to carry weed

tony draper
21st Apr 2005, 13:53
Beats me where the Pods got the idea from, shipping one's criminals abroad indeed,
who ever heard of such a thing.


21st Apr 2005, 13:54
'Twas not the weed that did them in,
But trying to smuggle heroin.

21st Apr 2005, 14:53
My inner luvvie frowns on despatching ones domestic felons to a no-doubt well deserved end.

The inner accountant, I regret to say, works out the cost of keeping one in the slammer and goes "wheeee"

21st Apr 2005, 15:05
The Oz press is full of the story about a young woman named Corby who is currently facing at least a life sentence in Bali for smuggling marijuana.... and yet these twonks go ahead an try with heroin??.... what could they have been thinking?

21st Apr 2005, 15:28
I really cannot imagine what they were thinking, Tolsti ... it's not as though the press has exactly been silent about Corby's predicament and the possible penalty she might face.

These people who couriered the heroin would find it a bit hard hard to maintain that they didn't know how it got there, strapped to their bodies as it was. The element of doubt seems to be present in Corby's case but not in this latest one.

21st Apr 2005, 15:39
Maybe they thought that, flush with success, the Bali police would be less vigilant?..... it's the money that talks at the end of the day unfortunately, the constant search for a quick buck rather than an earned dollar. With the Corby case you're right there does appear to be more than meets the eye..... Police, Loaders, Camels and Rugby...... if it were a film it couldn't be more convoluted.

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 15:50
This is the perfect example of why punishment is not a real deterrent to crime.

It might deter me because I have enough to lose that crime would rarely be worth it. Alternatively, I might not commit crime because I am happy with my lot and have what I need.

Punishment is not a deterrent for crime because people don't think they'll get caught.

21st Apr 2005, 15:59
So ... what's the alternative, Onan? Do we just let people do whatever they like on the grounds that there is no point in punishing them? Just let people commit murder, deal drugs, abuse children or indulge in whatever crimes they fancy committing and let them get away with it? If we don't have punishment, what on earth can we do instead??

21st Apr 2005, 16:03
Onan, I do seem to remember something about the letter you mention. But that aside (ok, it was a sweeping generalisation in the first place), most of the population do know, whether by what they have seen through the media, word of mouth or even movies (Nicole Kidman stars in a movie called "Bangkok Hilton" about a lady who was set up bringing drugs into Thailand). And as I have lost count of the number of times I have connected through Singapore and Thailand on my way to and from Australia, there is a brefing/announcement made by the cabin crew informing you of the very same thing.

21st Apr 2005, 16:12
No, BlueDiamond.

We catch the b*ggers first and THEN we punish them.

Onan is right - what does the punishment matter to someone who doesn't believe they ever will be caught in the first place?

Less posturing and grandstanding and more action would go a long way towards reducing crime right across the board, IMHO.

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 16:20
BlueD That's a fair question, but it's not really the point I was making. I just said punishment isn't really a deterrent, not that we shouldn't have any. Unfortunately I don't really have an answer short of removal from society, but then what happens when you reintroduce them?

I think people are like flowers though and if you scatter your seed over the garden (:ugh: sorry) some will flourish and some won't depending on where they land, I suppose I was fortunate enough to land in a sunny well drained area. On the other hand, some are thistles and weeds and don't really have much to contribute.

Some people just have criminal minds and will always end up on the wrong side. You could just erradicate them, sterilise them or even lock them up for ever before they even start, but it's only a question of time before the definition of crime gets altered and suddenly you find yourself on that list.

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question.

21st Apr 2005, 16:22
This seems to be a rare Jet Blast event so far. in a round about way, there seems to be agreement.

Although, BHR hasn't graced us with his presence yet. :rolleyes: :E

21st Apr 2005, 16:32
You did answer it thanks, Onan ... I just read it as not having any punishment at all and was contemplating the free-for-all that would accompany that concept. My mistake.

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 17:08
Oh there'd be punishment alright. Just like on the planes of the Serrenghetti. But I suppose in its own way that's a workable system. Humans would screw it up though.

I thought BHR was of the female lady pursuasion :confused:

21st Apr 2005, 17:51
Proof positive of the failures of Care In The Community.... :rolleyes:

21st Apr 2005, 18:04
Working from the premise that I disagree very fundamentally with Capital Punishment, I think that the Aus forces who notified the Bali authorities will perhaps ponder a little as they watch the culprits swing.

In no way condoning drug trafficking or dealing I can see very little good in killing someone. Whilst keeping them alive may be costly etc at least it gives them some (less than quality) time this side of the grave to contemplate the evil of drugs whilst having the opportunity to repent.


21st Apr 2005, 20:34
Thinking out loud (well, not really out loud, but you know)...

Indonesia and Australia have an extradition treaty. This treaty allows for extradition of persons who have committed, among other offenses, “an offence against the law relating to dangerous drugs or narcotics…” So had these people been arrested upon their arrival back in Oz, they could have been extradited back to Indonesia.

Except for one thing…

The treaty goes on to say that, “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence with which the person sought is charged or of which he is convicted, or for which he may be detained or tried in accordance with this Treaty, carries the death penalty under the law of the Requesting State unless that State undertakes that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.” The treaty also holds that extradition will be denied, “where the Requested State has substantial reasons for believing that the person whose extradition is requested will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Having pointed this out, I will hasten to add that the alleged offenses were committed on Indonesian soil, and whether or not I agree with the death penalty, I certainly support a sovereign nation’s right to enforce its own laws within its borders. However, it still strikes me as unsavory.

US law says we can’t torture suspects. Not all nations play by those rules. There have been, of late, reports of US personnel capturing suspects abroad and turning them over to friendly governments which don’t have a problem utilizing torture. Again, I fully understand that this is not what happened in the Australian/Indonesian arrests, but somehow it tends to give me the same feeling of unease.

The Australian government has a policy against the death penalty and torture. One of the ways they express this policy is by not extraditing persons who would then face these punishments. So, had these drug suspects simply made it to the shores of Australia before arrest, they might have been extradited to Indonesia to face trial, but spared death. However, intervention by the Australian government foreclosed that option. Without this intervention the individuals could still have been extradited to Indonesia to stand trial so long as the death penalty was not imposed. The intervention by Australia therefore served only to preserve the opportunity for Indonesia to impose the death penalty—something to which the Australian government is opposed. It just seems fundamentally inconsistent to me in the same way that the US torture policy is inconsistent.

Like I said, I’m just chewing on this, not making a stand. Perhaps a stand later...


Disguise Delimit
21st Apr 2005, 22:34
The smarmy litle sh1tbag who organised the show (and was clever enough not to wear any drugs himself) has threatened the courier's families with death.

He definitely deserves to die. Shame we can't extradite his scaly mates from Oz and shoot them full of holes too.

The couriers are too stupid to be allowed to procreate. Even their parents have said that their kids were stupid, gullible, and difficult to control. Perhaps removing them from the gene pool is a reasonable idea, and my taxes won't have to contribute to their further criminal indoctrination in a cushy OZ gaol.

(picks up BCF bottle and prepares for flames...)

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2005, 22:55
Well you raise a very good point. Sure we catch someone doing it and punish them, but do we really get the right person?

I understand that we're all responsible for our actions, but what about the people behind the scenes, the manipulators, the ones pulling the strings and ruining lives? How punished to they get?

21st Apr 2005, 23:49
I think that the AFP know exactly what they have done and thay have done it for a reason. They are sick and tired of the softly softly approach of the Australian judiciary to almost all crimes and in particular drug related crimes, an approach which does nothing to deter criminals. If four or five people now get executed it may just bring home to their would-be followers that it just isn't worth it and have, at last, a positive effect on reducing drug importation and therefore drug related crimes too.

Had these nine been caught in Singapore they would all have definitely 'swung'. Even the four in the hotel, found with 350grams of heroin plus scales etc. would have been classified as traffickers. In Singapore anything over 15grams per person is trafficking but scales and other equipment associated with trafficking will be taken into account if there is any doubt about the quantity of drugs.

22nd Apr 2005, 06:49
I'm a bit uneasy about the death penalty in general, as it is irreversible in the event of a mistake. Where the crime is proven beyond not only reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt whatsoever, then that's another matter. Of course, someone might have strapped all that stuff to their waists while they weren't looking... :rolleyes:

Despite earlier opinions to the contrary, the death penalty is an excellent deterrent. No-one who has been subject to this punishment has ever re-offended.

Buster Hyman
22nd Apr 2005, 11:54
As much as one is limited to the "informed" opinion that you can get by watching the idiot box, I think there is a reasonable doubt about Schapelle Corby's case. The 9 couriers leaving Bali all knew what they were doing...and it was for profit.

That is where I draw the line but, gee, there's lots of very valid points raised here.

The thing that really annoys me is that in almost all instances like this, the Govt. of the day somehow gets dragged in under accustions of "not doing enough" etc, etc. When will people start to take responsibility for their own actions?

One of my first OS trips was to Singapore. I researched that place and, whilst not doing a law degree, I knew enough to get my hair cut & leave the chewing gum at home.

Some Aussies must think the whole world is like Oz & if they get into trouble...well, thats why we have a SAS regiment right?:rolleyes:

22nd Apr 2005, 16:07
Some Aussies must think the whole world is like Oz

While we all know it's just like you see on Hoome and Away and Neighbours ;)

Onan the Clumsy
22nd Apr 2005, 17:08
Despite earlier opinions to the contrary, the death penalty is an excellent deterrent. No-one who has been subject to this punishment has ever re-offended. But that's not a deterrent by definition. For it to be a deterrent, it would have to stop te crime from being comitted in the first place.

23rd Apr 2005, 06:38
Would it not also be a deterent if the death penalty, having been carried out, then stopped the crime in the second place?:confused:

Metro man
23rd Apr 2005, 07:23
How many people would have died if these drugs had made it onto the streets of Australia ? How many burglaries/armed robberies would have been committed to pay for them ? How many lives would have been ruined ?

Singapore does not have a drugs problem. To keep it this way they execute people every year for drug offences, but the total number of lives lost in these executions is far less than the number that would be lost if drug dealers were allowed free rein like they have in the west. A lot of innocent lives vs a few low life scum, no contest.

The law in Australia favours criminals, had they been allowed to travel and been caught on arrival they would get say six years in a prison that would compare to a mid range motel.

And they would have hoardes of tax payer funded lawyers swearing blind what nice people they are.

They did the crime in Indonesia let them do the punishment there as well. A good decision on the Federal polices part, saving millions of dollars of our money.

Onan the Clumsy
23rd Apr 2005, 12:56
Would it not also be a deterent if the death penalty, having been carried out, then stopped the crime in the second place? Interesting logic, though to extend it, would you therefore execute before the first crime?

23rd Apr 2005, 15:54
I remember that bit of paper with that warning. I've chucked it out now but I still have the "Hints" booklet that came with the renewed Oz passport.

I renewed the Oz one in 1998 and on page 41 it has a paragraph pertaining to the Law.
When you land in another country, it's laws apply to you. Ignorance is no defense. You remain subject to Australian laws as well.

In Australia it's illegal to traffic prohibited substances so they still should know not to do it.

Consular staff will do what they can to help, but they can't get you out of gaol, represent you in court or obtain special treatment for you. Nearly two hundred Australians are in gaol overseas. Drugs are the main reason.

There's a bit about illegal drugs.

In some countries, drug offences carry the death penalty or life imprisonment and flogging. Don't assume 'soft' drugs carry milder penalties. Penalties for marijuana and alcohol can be severe.

It's pretty hard to deny knowlege when the drugs are strapped to your body. Of course I don't know the exact circumstances pertaining to their cases. (Were they bullied into it, is it a debt they have, family menaced etc). If it's a case of thinking that it's an easy way to make some cash, then tough luck, let them swing.
If not, further investigation is required.

Shapelle Corby's case is a bit blurry in that it's marijuana to Bali which is economic madness. Also, there is a real possibility that her luggage was tampered with. Apparently the stash was found in a body board cover.

26th Apr 2005, 05:01
Onan, logic isn't ruled out.

Former public executioner Syd Dernley (The Hangman's Tale), when asked if he felt that his work had done any good, replied that during the time he worked the gallows, only three executed criminals were thought to have been possibly innocent. [It has since been demonstrated by DNA testing that one of them, James Hanratty, was properly convicted despite all his plea's of innocence and his Mum telling everyone what a good boy he was really; The others were Ruth Ellis and Timothy Evans.] On the other hand, in the fifteen years after the abolition of the death penalty in Britain, thirty five people were killed by convicted murderers who had been released upon completion of their "Life" sentences.

As Syd put it, none of his 'clients' had ever re-offended. Presumably several innocent lives were spared, though we cannot tell for sure how many...

4th Jul 2005, 09:38
Corby case to be reopenedMaybe there's more weed inside.....

And maybe this time her redneck westy tribe of bogunry will have the sense to keep their cake-holes shut and pay the kinda respect those corrupt indo judge-supremos demand if they are to be bought off.

Let her out? Not so fast. She could probably do with a bit more time inside to get the book finished off.

Just a Grunt
4th Jul 2005, 09:56
The suggestion that the AFP had some say in whether these bozos should be arrested in Australia rather than Indonesia ignores the reality. Indonesia is a sovereign nation. Like Australia it has laws that prohibit the possession and/or export of narcotics. Whether these people get arrested or not is basically up to the Indon police

Whilst there have been occasions when drugs destined for Australia have been allowed to transit Bali so that the intended recipients could be pinched in Oz, special operational considerations can arise when you have 9 offenders, many of whom with large quantities of heroin on their persons. One view might be that the best option is to get the drugs when you know that you can, rather than risk something going awry between Denpasar and Sydney.

Don't tell me these morons couldn't read the signs coming into WRRR.

BTW, would the media have given a flying if Schapelle (wtf????) had been a fat ugly lesbian (like one of the "9")