Schapelle Corby Case: Australians Misjudge Indonesian Justice System

[Danger]

Soilwork; I was about to edit my last post to apologize to you for carrying things even farther off-topic, but you seem to have saved it nicely. I don't know enough about the case you referenced to comment definitively. The little snippet that I overheard on a newscast said that she was claiming to have be 'set up' by the Australian Customs (or whatever you have there). That just doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, if she is indeed guilty, then she deserves whatever the country of jurisdiction deems appropriate. Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

Soilwork; I was about to edit my last post to apologize to you for carrying things even farther off-topic, but you seem to have saved it nicely. I don't know enough about the case you referenced to comment definitively. The little snippet that I overheard on a newscast said that she was claiming to have be 'set up' by the Australian Customs (or whatever you have there). That just doesn't make much sense to me. Regardless, if she is indeed guilty, then she deserves whatever the country of jurisdiction deems appropriate. Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

Oh really?

Are the people of that country suffering due to her 4 kilos of weed? She is the only one who is affected by this law - and there is no 'other' party involved - as in case of an old lady and her ($140) loss.

How is this law applicable or even relevant if there is no harm done? She wasnt busted dealing this drug or administering it to anyone. She will be in that jail for 20 years for smuggling a blob of chemicals that happens to be slightly different than something that is legal.

 

[Danger]

Oh really?

Yes, really. Whether or not you or anyone else outside of Indonesia agrees with it, that is the law. It's applied equally to everyone. Why should a foreign visitor, who, if guilty as charged, deliberately violated that law, be exempted from a penalty that would be applied to their own citizens for the same crime? If you want to take that argument, then terrorists have every right to do whatever they want in the States because in their own country it's legal to kill Yanks. I can't see anyone accepting that.

 

[cronxeh]

One thing I picked up from answering everytime to posts like these, is that the audience is usually not aware of the argument

 

[gerben]

To think that people don't deserve harsh penalties for breaking the law because it's barbaric isn't exactly right.
I do think Indonesian law is quite harsh, but in no way do I think that the Indonesians should be threatened or boycotted because of it.
While it is harsh it doesn't exactly bother me too much because it's a criminal who knew the laws of that country.

Whether you feel it is right or not depends on the sentence that you feel is appropriate for the commited offense, and I feel that 20 years imprisonment for transporting marihuana is not right.

Some of the protesters may overdo it a bit by threatening Indonesia with boycots, but I feel it is a good thing because these anti drug laws are a serious wrong.

 

[Huckleberry]

One thing I picked up from answering everytime to posts like these, is that the audience is usually not aware of the argument

What are we not aware of? All you have to do is point it out. If that doesn't work then the problem isn't that people aren't aware. It is either that we misunderstand or that we disagree. If everyone seems to be misunderstanding you then it is more likely that you are wrong.

 

[gerben]

Yes, really. Whether or not you or anyone else outside of Indonesia agrees with it, that is the law. It's applied equally to everyone. Why should a foreign visitor, who, if guilty as charged, deliberately violated that law, be exempted from a penalty that would be applied to their own citizens for the same crime? If you want to take that argument, then terrorists have every right to do whatever they want in the States because in their own country it's legal to kill Yanks. I can't see anyone accepting that.

The fact that it is the law does not make it right.


Would you not protest against a law stating that "it's legal to kill Yanks"?
Would you simply feel that:

Whether or not that law is harsh, or even unreasonable, is irrelevant.

 

[cronxeh]

What are we not aware of? All you have to do is point it out. If that doesn't work then the problem isn't that people aren't aware. It is either that we misunderstand or that we disagree. If everyone seems to be misunderstanding you then it is more likely that you are wrong.

The argument is that the people have a right of choice - whether they want to smoke weed or take pills or sleep in their car naked, parked on the highway - its a choice, and no government should have a right or capacity to interveine. If they want to take drugs - its their choice, its has to be their right. The governments of the world are full of hypocracy - I already mentioned the alcohol/tobacco inconsistancy, as well as religious idiocy

 

[Danger]

Would you not protest against a law stating that "it's legal to kill Yanks"?

Keeping in mind that I'm not one...

One of the primary reasons that the US is almost universally detested in most of the world is that very attitude of 'I don't like it, even though it's none of my damned business, so I'm going to change it.'

 

[zoobyshoe]

What humanity fails to realize is that the Earth is a petridish, and the humans are the bacteria.

This is deluded ranting.

Even in the petri dish the bacteria share between each other, communicate, and compete.

Deluded ranting. Humans aren't bacteria.

This case of robbery and wars is a typical example of that. Your mother lived on this petridish for 92 years - that's great, far beyond typical average, however as the world's population grows exponentially bigger (thanks to the religious instutitions that prohibit condom use), we will see the cut-throat competition - and most differential equations that use 'limiting factors' won't ever include the factor of human stupidity that will overflow the population in a decade from now.

This is what I call "deprivational thinking." It is generated by fear. The operational notion is "There's not enough for everyone! Not enough space, food, or money!"

Deprivational thinkers are afraid and they spread fear. Their solution to everything is "Grab what you can, cause there isn't enough!"

Now if you think about it, that old lady is, in fact, a burden on society.

Actually, no one is more of a burden to society than people who believed they are deprived amidst plenty. You, and the television thief, are much more of a burden than any old lady minding her own business. The false notion there isn't enough to go around has been used to start wars, and justify theft and looting from time immemorial.

I have heard these deprivation rants before.

However way you view this message - I really couldn't care less - your opinion about me or my statements won't change the reality. You may as well just face it.

I'm not buying the view of reality offered by anyone who thinks he's had an insight in viewing humans as bacteria.

 

[cronxeh]

This is deluded ranting.

Deluded ranting. Humans aren't bacteria.

This is what I call "deprivational thinking." It is generated by fear. The operational notion is "There's not enough for everyone! Not enough space, food, or money!"

Deprivational thinkers are afraid and they spread fear. Their solution to everything is "Grab what you can, cause there isn't enough!"

Actually, no one is more of a burden to society than people who believed they are deprived amidst plenty. You, and the television thief, are much more of a burden than any old lady minding her own business. The false notion there isn't enough to go around has been used to start wars, and justify theft and looting from time immemorial.

I have heard these deprivation rants before.


I'm not buying the view of reality offered by anyone who thinks he's had an insight in viewing humans as bacteria.

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting. Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

Thank you, come again.

 

[Danger]

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting. Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

Thank you, come again.

1. Those bacteria are symbiotic and/or parasitic organisms that in no way contribute to the thought processes that separate humans from non-rational creatures. Their presence, for the purposes of this discussion, is irrelevant. You might as well say that people are stalactites because their bones are primarily calcium.
2. While Zoob's response might not be cross-referenced and foot-noted enough to go into a professional journal, it is scientific in that is thought-out and backed by observation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

1. There is more bacteria cells in human body (gut) than eukaryote cells. Humans are mostly bacteria.

Why are you focusing on the quantity of bacteria we have in our gut? Is it so you can rationalize depersonalizing the rest of the human race in your mind? Sounds like it to me.

2. Rational thinking is not a deluted ranting.

True, but that doesn't change the lack of rational thinking in your post.

Your response, which is a) unscientific and b) based on sociological standards is a deluted ranting

My response was psychologically sound. Don't you realize where your deprivation thinking comes from? Think back. Where did you learn that attitude?

 

[cronxeh]

Danger: What good is a thought process if you won't last without your body for more than a heart beat? All of a sudden the little bacteria, as well as their function, starts to play an important role not only for you, but for society at large. If you don't have enough of food you will have a riot - by your organism - by your bacteria - through their signals to the brain. If you don't have enough of freedom you will riot - by your thought process.

And you seem to know what contributes to the thought process - please, Mr. Danger, do contribute - I'm sure there is a group of people who would like to know your insight on this

Zoob: Psychology is only as advanced as knowledge of Biology. It is not exactly a common sense to assume that 3 people will have different opinions - perhaps based on their physiology or certain microbiology - but certainly you, me, and Danger have different opinions which only means that psychology is not as good of an indication

 

[Huckleberry]

The argument is that the people have a right of choice - whether they want to smoke weed or take pills or sleep in their car naked, parked on the highway - its a choice, and no government should have a right or capacity to interveine. If they want to take drugs - its their choice, its has to be their right. The governments of the world are full of hypocracy - I already mentioned the alcohol/tobacco inconsistancy, as well as religious idiocy

A right to choice? I am a firm believer in human rights. Sleeping naked in a car is not a human right. Smoking weed is not a human right. Human rights are based on what is necessary for human survival and well being in society. A person sleeping in a car because they were homeless is something that I believe they should not be punished for. A person who smokes weed because it is the subscribed pain killer for their cancer should not be punished.

A person has a right to life, not the right to act a fool and steal what doesn't belong to them and push around old ladies and be disrespectful of the sovereignty of other nations by disregarding their laws. They have decided on these laws as what they consider best for their society. That is not your choice regardless of how many bacteria are in your pitri dish. People use those dehumanizing analogies to strip human rights, not to promote them.

 

[Danger]

If you don't have enough of food you will have a riot - by your organism - by your bacteria - through their signals to the brain.

I'm beginning to suspect that microbiology isn't your specialty.

If you don't have enough of freedom you will riot - by your thought process.

No, that's the reactionary response of frightened people who abandon rational thought.

And you seem to know what contributes to the thought process - please, Mr. Danger, do contribute - I'm sure there is a group of people who would like to know your insight on this

What constitutes the thought process is electrochemical action in the brain, which I think that you might be artificially altering. Innumerable factors contribute to it. I know enough about it to know that someone like Moonbear is qualified to elaborate whereas I'm not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoob: Psychology is only as advanced as knowledge of Biology. It is not exactly a common sense to assume that 3 people will have different opinions - perhaps based on their physiology or certain microbiology - but certainly you, me, and Danger have different opinions which only means that psychology is not as good of an indication

Where did you acquire your attitudes about humanity? Think back. "...people are the bacteria..." Where did you pick that attitude up? "...and most differential equations that use `limiting factors' won't ever include the factor of human stupidity that will overflow the population of the Earth in a decade from now." Humans are stupid, We don't have much time left. Where were you, cronxeh, exposed to these ideas, this kind of desperation?

 

[gerben]

Keeping in mind that I'm not one...

One of the primary reasons that the US is almost universally detested in most of the world is that very attitude of 'I don't like it, even though it's none of my damned business, so I'm going to change it.'

Yes I know you are Canadian, I am not American either but that is not important here. Your remark about why many detest the US is a bit too simple I think. I believe it is good to object to certain laws or customs, even in foreign countries. It is much better than having the indifferent attitude of 'it is their way of handling things so that is how it is'. You should just choose some peaceful way of protesting, which is what the US have not been very good at.

 

[Soilwork]

Well I was going to post a reply earlier, but I had to go out so I will post it now.
Anyway I wanted to put Corby's sentence into perspective here.
She is a semi-attractive lady who has said what all drug dealers say when they are caught..."Those aren't mine, I'm not guilty".
This combined with the fact that her family are feeling bad that it's most likely their fault she could have got the death penalty have led to the recent media frenzy.
How many other Australians have been 'victims' so to speak, of this law??
A LOT! and a lot more from other countries as well.
As an example there are 4 males awaiting the death penalty in vietnam for a similar crime and 2 more have already been killed because they got the death sentence.
Why isn't the media latching on to them?? because they didn't have the looks and their families didn't get enough attention.
While it is a harsh penalty as I've repeated and is most obvious to everyone, it isn't fair to the other criminals that haven't had the media behind them and have received the harshest of verdicts.

Some of the protesters may overdo it a bit by threatening Indonesia with boycots, but I feel it is a good thing because these anti drug laws are a serious wrong.

Sorry I need to clarify this. I didn't mean that they threaten Indonesians BY boycotting I meant that they literally threaten the lives of Indonesians, as well as boycotting them. There have been quite a lot of assault cases recently of idiots beating up Indonesians because they blindly believe the word of a woman they don't know and who isn't an angel in the slightest.

I have to go along with Huckleberry on the rights argument. Doing drugs isn't your right as a human being. You can choose to do it, but it definitely isn't a right. Marijuana isn't such a big deal but ecstacy, speed, cocaine and heroin for example are a huge deal.
I didn't used to take this view, but I can see this side of the story with respect to drugs. The view is that drug dealers can severely stuff people's lives up because in some cases the people who end up taking drugs have a lot initially going for them.
That is, you have to factor in the possibility that some people have little or no will power. If they have no will power then they can easily be coaxed into taking drugs by the people they might hang out with. It will either stuff their life up by initiating an addiction or by killing them straight away.

But yeah thanks for a good discussion guys :)

 

[Mk]

Let's all go to Cunédeeuh!

 

[FredGarvin]

Sorry to go off topic again...

Tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana to a human body...

Spoken like a true pot head. Care to back that up?

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Even infrequent use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways(10). Smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and the more marijuana smoked the greater the increase(11). A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

...THC impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer.

Depression(19), anxiety(20), and personality disturbances(21) have been associated with marijuana use. Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off(22, 23).

The best scenarios for marijuana paint it's effects as equal to to tobacco. I couldn't find anything that states "tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana."

 

[Curious3141]

All of a sudden the little bacteria, as well as their function, starts to play an important role not only for you, but for society at large. If you don't have enough of food you will have a riot - by your organism - by your bacteria - through their signals to the brain.

I am (actually) a microbiologist, and I already feel dumber for reading this.

 

[Danger]

Yes I know you are Canadian, I am not American either but that is not important here. Your remark about why many detest the US is a bit too simple I think. You should just choose some peaceful way of protesting, which is what the US have not been very good at.

I agree that it's an oversimplification, but accurate in its simplicity. I have no desire to get into the Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Argentina, etc. meddling. And I agree with your last statement; I'm a supporter of Amnesty International, which takes a humanitarian rather than militaristic approach to resolving injustices. As for whether or not particular drug laws are justified, that should be left up to forensic pharmacologists. I don't even know whether or not that particular field exists, but if not, it should. So far the argument seems to be between addicts and religious extremists (of varying religions). It's about time that they both get the hell out of the way and let science determine the appropriate action. (And I mean a consensus of international scientists, not to be swayed by political, economic, or religious pressure.)