Why is Corby guilty? (1 Viewer)

[hiphophorray123]

so you think it is a good system that people who are caught with drugs in their luggage would have to prove exactly how the drugs got into their luggage in order to be acquitted of importing drugs?

wasn't directed at me but i definently don't, as i said any situation where u have an alleged offender and the 'alleged' part is ignored is imo stupid

 

[Not-That-Bright]

so you think it is a good system that people who are caught with drugs in their luggage would have to prove exactly how the drugs got into their luggage in order to be acquitted of importing drugs?

If the prosecution has presented a solid case and given a plausable/rational scenario backed up with evidence as to how/why that person imported drugs then yes I feel it's probably acceptable.

 

[hiphophorray123]

I know, and strangely, even agreeing with him is giving me an eerie sense of IQ depletion.

'laughing at UWSers walking by'

i think it's been depleted enough

 

[kaylz]

Wow, you're one of the worst Kaylz.

[

firstly, you're an ass. their/our? what the eff else am I supposed to say?

[Oh beautiful, the racial/national superiority complex begins!

[

i'm not going to lower myself...

[I think you'll find they do believe in the concept of reasonable doubt.

[


do they? i don't know. i'm just kinda guessing. and i don't think that the total dismissal of the possibility that any external forces had interfered was 'reasonable'.

[Of course it mattered if someone else put it in there, but the defence gave no evidence to prove that this happened, it just said "this is one possible scenario" that was backed up by something a pedophile thought he might have heard in gaol.

[
how could the defence have given evidence of someone putting something in her bag, if it happened after checking in the baggage?(which to me seems like the most plausible explanation) i never said that guy was a credible source. if noone can prove or disprove either side of the case, then how can a decision possibly be reached?

[Well... since she can't prove that she didn't put it in her bag, and she can't say prove that anyone else put it in her bag, i guess that since the prosecution did a fairly good job of prooving that it was hers then yes she will be found guilty.

[
that's the point, asshole. how could she prove it? how could anyone? this case was, at best, flimsy.

 

[kaylz]

I've been on sooo many flights. and every time you check baggage in. you see it disappear down a conveyerbelt, and you pick it up at the other end. HOw could it be the responsibility of the passenger when there has been a good 4 hour time slot where it could have been tampered with.

 

[theone123]

Seriously, too much propaganda from australian media made you all think she is innocent, WE ALL DONT KNOW, ASK GOD.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's not the responsibility of the passenger, but if you're caught with drugs, and the prosecution has presented a solid case as to your guilt, then you need to present a solid case as to your innocence.

Not just "It must have been the baggage handlers" followed by some flimsy testimony by a pedophile and some sort of investigation into nosey baggage handlers Otherwise, it's putting way too much pressure on the prosecution to prove guilt, it would simply be impossible.

I'm not saying she's guilty, I'm just saying it's definately not as simple as many professing her innocence claim it to be.

 

[kaylz]

i don't necessarikly think she's innocent... there's so much that we don't know, and can't. but it still wasn't a fair trial.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i don't necessarikly think she's innocent... there's so much that we don't know, and can't. but it still wasn't a fair trial.

How wasn't it fair?

 

[_Benji_]

Oh beautiful, the racial/national superiority complex begins!

I think the issue is more around the actual state of the Indonesian judicial system. Indonesia is still full of corruption from the Suharto regime and is still recovering from the huge debt left by him, which has essentially left the nation in turmoil. How can any nation who is in this position be expected to provide justice in an effective legal framework? The point is, the Indonesian judicial system cannot accurately provide a fair an accurate trail. There is a huge lack of resources, limited training for defense lawyers etc etc.

The prosecutors didn't need to prove anything. Under Indonesian law, the only people who had to prove anything were the defense, that she was innocent. And that's not an easy task in a system where ur guilty until proved innocent.

 

[Korn]

How wasn't it fair?

Assuming she refers to the need to prove innocence VS proof of guilt

 

[bitchgirl]

it wasnt fair.....20 years
GTFOH!

 

[kaylz]

Assuming she refers to the need to prove innocence VS proof of guilt

thanks buddy

 

[hiphophorray123]

How wasn't it fair?

i think she's talking more about the outcome of the trial

even me and you feel that was unfair

but yes kaylz is a lowie

 

[Korn]

thanks buddy

No probs kay

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Under Australian law also you have to prove your innocence when it comes to drug importation, otherwise it would simple be too easy to get away with it.

20 years may not be fair, but the question was, "Was it a fair trial?"

 

[Korn]

Under Australian law also you have to prove your innocence when it comes to drug importation, otherwise it would simple be too easy to get away with it.

20 years may not be fair, but the question was, "Was it a fair trial?"

Yes, but in other crime in Aust it is innocent till proven guilty, if im not mistaken which isnt the same system as Indonesia

Yes fair trial =/= Outcome

 

[spell check]

If the prosecution has presented a solid case and given a plausable/rational scenario backed up with evidence as to how/why that person imported drugs then yes I feel it's probably acceptable.

that is such a useless statement

of course the prosecution will be able to say anyone caught with drugs in their bags imported drugs in order to sell them to make money, that's fucking obvious

i'm not asking on whether you think the prosecution should present a solid case or not, of course the prosecution has to present a solid case in every situation. i mean is the law good if that is how it operates

 

[_Benji_]

Under Australian law also you have to prove your innocence when it comes to drug importation, otherwise it would simple be too easy to get away with it.

20 years may not be fair, but the question was, "Was it a fair trial?"

But in comparing the case to our own standards i doubt she would have been charged. There's just too much doubt and areas of questionability.

considering the ineffective, under resourced/trained nature of the judicary system there was no way it could have been fair.

The judgement was completely at the discretion of the judge, and he showed considerable bias throughout the entire process. Was not coming from a position of objectivity.

 

[theone123]

"She may be innocent, she may be guilty, but in this case the evidence that we've seen isn't particularly strong in favour of her innocence," the director of Melbourne University's Asia Law Centre, Dr Tim Lindsey, told the Nine Network.