Oh come off it. She doesn’t owe the people of Indonesia a day, it’s just anti-drug grandstanding.
Besides, I heard her wailing that she was innocent, and it sounded damn convincing to me. I don’t think a truly guilty smuggler could have managed it.
Let me rephrase that. She doesn’t owe the people of Indonesia a damn thing, any more than I’d owe you if I possessed pot.
(I don’t, but still.)
I have no problem with anti-drug laws, and if she really did admit she did this in front of witnesses then I’d say she’s getting what she deserved. The length of her sentence doesn’t sound outrageous to me at all, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone got 20 years for smuggling that amount of pot in the U.S.
What bothered me was from the 2 articles on CNN.com I read about the incident I had seen nothing to suggest she had gotten a fair trial.
If she admitted the drugs were hers (without being “coerced”) then she’s getting what’s coming to her. Indeed the drug laws of Indonesia are much stricter than Australia but she was a regular visitor to that country. I’ve been to Malaysia and Singapore where drug smuggling is a mandatory death sentence. She’s from the Oceania area of the world if she didn’t realize the severe penalties possible then she’s stupid. And agree with the penalties or not, if you go into a country KNOWING those penalties and break the law anyways it’s very to arouse any sympathy in me.
You wouldn’t owe any individual but you would owe society. Simply via the fact that society crafts the laws and when you break them they make you pay for them. Aside from certain natural rights many of us have come to accept society can pretty much make anything illegal, which includes infringing on your right to get high.
Which brings up the debate about whether an act should be wrong because it’s illegal, or illegal because it’s wrong. For my part I prefer the latter alternative, because the former leads to capriciousness and heavyhandedness on the part of the majority that will not allow its selfrighteousness to be questioned.
As for her confession, they can probably get you to confess to anything if they browbeat you enough. Another thing about this case is that she doesn’t seem to fit the ‘druggie’ profile, based on statements by her friends quoted in the article. Of course, they would say that, but the whole thing just seems too ridiculous, actually trying to smuggle 9 pounds of pot in a suitcase.
Please, this is the Straight Dope. Why not try researching the definition of the word Gaol, before being snarky.
As I remembered, Gaol is an older spelling of the more modern word Jail. As recently as the 1700’s in England, the gaol was where criminals were sent.
It does not involve an education on the part of the person who used the word Gaol in this thread. However, it might require a smidgen of humility on your part… 
Cartooniverse
Interesting debate indeed. I think something does need to be done about the drug problem, there is the debate that it’s “my body I’ll do what I want” but when what you are doing with your body is causing systematic problems for society, society has to do something. I don’t know what, if I did I’d probably be pretty famous for fixing the world’s drug problem. But I don’t think the current stance of punishment first seems to be working all that well.
The only point I was making is it is pretty much fact that some things are illegal because they are illegal. And we can decry the injustice of it all we want, but was also need to live in the real world and I’d advise everyone to follow this laws lest they want to end up like the Corby woman.
As for the confession, that’s why I’m not sure about it. It’s very easy to get someone to confess to crimes they didn’t commit (not that uncommon in the U.S. for people to commit to crimes they didn’t commit, even without physical harassment from police.)
Saying Corby doesn’t look like a druggie is a mistaken statement, though. I know lots of people that are hopelessly addicted to very “hard” drugs that you wouldn’t believe such a thing about if you saw them in person.
The confession part reminds me of Brokedown Palace, a fictional movie that deals with this subject. Two girls, clearly innocent, unknowingly become mules at the Bangkok airport, as a new “friend” plants dope in one of their backpacks. Yeah, I know, one should be more careful, etc… However. They get convicted, and sentenced to a long prison term, and eventually, one of the girls confesses–even though they didn’t do it. It’s been a while since I saw the film, so I don’t remember it that well. But my take was that she confesses out of a general sense of guilt and worthlessness which had been browbeaten into her. If you continue to insist that you’re innocent, but to no avail, then you might begin to believe that you’re wrong and they’re right.
Her confession was at the airport, shortly after the drugs were discovered, not at a police station after extensive interrogation, and the witness to her confession was not a police officer, but someone at the airport.
I don’t believe there was a confession at all. Her “confession” was the customs officer’s account of Corby’s actions when asked to open the bag. He says she refused because “I have something” and tried to stop him opening the bag. Her account and the account of the people with her was that she happily opened the bag and expressed surprise upon discovery of the bag of dope.
The impression i got of her “confession” was that she admitted that the bag was her’s before it was opened, which in the eyes of the customs officials means she admitted to possession of everything in the bag.
The whole case is pretty shady,
- who would want to/ try to smuggle that much pot into bali?
- Why would baggage handlers risk this happening, dont they realize how easy it is to simply drive drugs between Brisbane & Sydney?
- asuming it was a baggage handler, why have we not caught this person? it cant be that difficult to narrow down suspects.
Also, from what I heard, the customs official who said he witnessed the “confession” doesn’t speak any English, so there is some doubt that he would have been able to accurately report exactly what she said.
I believe Corby would have been convicted in a lot of tribunals on what was presented. Do I know if she’s guilty? No, and very few people would. A lot of people have an opinion.
I can understand that baggage handlers could use such a method to transport contraband between airports, but I can’t see why they would. It strikes me as enbelievably clumsy.
Well how about :
from this article?
That story certainly indicates that smugglers may have been using other people’s suitcases.
Sadly, it does not prove that Ms. Corby’s suitcase was one of them.
In fact, think about this in reverse: if that evidence alone were sufficient to prevent conviction, what is to prevent any smuggler from simply putting contraband in his suitacse? If he’s caught, he has only to point at the drug-smuggling baggage handlers to win instant reprieve.
Not to be too much of a hard-ass here, but Indonesia wasn’t founded last month. The laws and strict penalties are the stuff of legend- except that they are not in any way urban legend, but are based in THEIR OWN RULE OF LAW. Objecting to another nation’s rule of law smacks of hubris and arrogance normally only found within the walls of the State Department. :rolleyes:
If it was a set-up, I feel awful for her. If she was smuggling, -shrug-… Aussie or not, she is within the borders of that nation. I’ve travelled all over the world ( almost ), and have always been mortified at the completely arrogant attitudes of Americans I encounter. It is as though every nation, every street, every native citizen, every shop or natural wonder is a kind of Disneyworld ride, where they can be sampled, used, and then tossed aside. Locals are to be made fun of, yelled at loudly when they don’t understand English ( helloo??? ) and so on. It is an imperialist attitude at it’s worst.
What could possibly make anyone think that Indonesia will bend the rules for this one woman? They are permitted to interpret their rule of law, and render judgements. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of plea bargaining? Anyone unaware that a black 19 year old in North Philly who is pulled over may well wind up in jail ( or gaol ), whereas a white 19 year old in Chester County who is pulled over will be sent on his way after a warning not to speed? Judgement calls are made daily by people in power. I do not in any way agree with the incredibly harsh judgement here, but the fact is that she crossed an international border and whether she likes it or not, she is bound by the laws of the land she has entered.
As a side-note, the scene in " The Interpreter" where the cops charge in and are stopped by the UN Police, who inform them that their warrants have no power is accurate. When you walk across the sidewalk from 1st Avenue in NYC, and step onto the property owned by the United Nations, you have left the United States of America and are bound by whatever particular rules and regulations are defined by the UN. -shrug- It is the way of the world. ** AFAIK, it is the only border crossing that involves a US border line that does not require a passport or ID to make. **
I was in Marrakech, Morocco quite a few years ago. I was the only guy who didn’t go shopping for carpets at a place where you could also ride the so-called Marrakech Express. The very last thing I wanted to do was be busted in another country for smoking hashish, and never get out.
Cartooniverse
I don’t know about that. Seems like a remarkably smooth operation to me. All that’s needed is for two baggage handlers in different countries to communicate with each other, presumably via the Internet, and if everything goes right nobody outside the conspiracy ever knows about it.
It seems to me that a possession charge of this type is almost impossible to defend against. It’s not like a ‘traditional’ crime if I may use that expression…there’s no body, no broken lock, no missing property, or automobile that has been dented in the night without a note left behind. And the prosecution doesn’t need to prove that you acquired the drugs, only that you have them. Which she clearly did.
Except in her case, there’s an admission that the contraband was hers. That goes beyond a simple strict liability situation.
I know you’re also questioning the strength of the evidence of her confession, but it’s wrong to suggest that the ONLY evidence against her was the possession.
No the only evidence against her was the simple possession. All the people with her gave the same account - her brother carried the bag and when asked whose bag it was she said it was hers. The court discounted all these witness statements because they were made by friends and relatives. Her father closed the bag when she left Brisbane and stated that it contained only flipper and her boogy board. She never admitted that the contraband was hers only that the bag was.,