Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 56797	2005-04-15 08:39:00	Drug trafficking in Indonesia	manicminer (4219)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
345287	2005-05-28 10:21:00	As Winston says, there is a rash of bleating on Oz talkback, matched no doubt by ours. As the Judge said, she has to prove her innocence under their law. But our law is much the same. If you are caught with more than qty X of dope, you are presumed guilty of an offence. It is up to you to prove innocence. I encountered this once when on jury service. Maybe Winston can provide chapter and verse.	TonyF (246)
345288	2005-05-28 11:42:00	Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system. I have no reason to think it is much different in Indonesia. The prosecution need a prima facie case to go to Court. What this means is a strong enough case that the defendant needs to answer it or be convicted. So to that extent, a defendant has the acid on them to disprove guilt. In a simple sense, a defendant has to prove themselves innocent. Unfortunately the words used by the media are incorrect. They talk of guilt or innocence. The law is more about proven or unproven. So "not guilty" means not a strong enough case. You probably did the crime but we can't prove it. Not guilty does not equal innocent. Just think about the debacle of OJ Simpson where the jury acquitted because they were exhausted and confused. The burden of proof for the prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt". And that doesn't mean some fanciful or unlikely doubt - eg. aliens planted the stash. ;) It has to be a meaningful doubt. In practice this is about a 75% probability that the defendant did the deed.	Winston001 (3612)
345289	2005-05-28 11:53:00	Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty under our system. I have no reason to think it is much different in Indonesia. Winston - could you pick up my point about qty X of dope. Our jury briefing was quite clear that we find guilty unless proven otherwise.	TonyF (246)
345290	2005-05-28 12:01:00	Winston - could you pick up my point about qty X of dope. Our jury briefing was quite clear that we find guilty unless proven otherwise. Ah, ok. I assume the charge was possession for supply. There is a presumption in the Misuse of Drugs Act that if a person possesses more than a certain quantity of drugs, then they are presumed to be supplying drugs to others. In other words it is impossible to say the drugs were for personal use. Supply is much more naughty than simple possession. Which also explains why Mark got 1 month in an Indonesian jail for 28 grams, and Shapelle gets 20 years for 4 kilograms. Possession versus supply.	Winston001 (3612)
345291	2005-05-28 12:07:00	Yes. Interesting case. The house of the accused had been busted two weeks previously, and the attic had a big dope factory with all tech facilities. He had then hired a car with a false license,driven North, and came back with a load for his customers. Case was clear. But we had one fluttery juror who was all worried about finding guilty, as explained by the judge, and we had to return to the court to have it explained again. just as well the jury was not polled ...	TonyF (246)
345292	2005-05-28 12:08:00	Wurble wurble wobble wordle Winny01, think your you're getting wombled up in legalism there. The punishment is still vastly disproportionate to the crime for a country that gains many touro-dollars out of dak-tourism. (and I enjoyed my time in Indonesia)	mark c (247)
345293	2005-05-28 12:16:00	Fair enough Mark. What I do find heartening is your positive attitude towards Indonesia when you could have been very dark on them. The penalties seem harsh but we don't live there.	Winston001 (3612)
345294	2005-05-28 22:30:00	The penalties are harsh alright, and now they are threatening to extend her sentence to life if she appeals. www.nzherald.co.nz Innocent or guilty, that is disgusting. She doesn't get a fair trial and why the hell should an appeal affect the severity of a sentence after it's been given? Bottom line - don't go to Indonesia if you're a Westerner - not that I ever wanted to in the first place. They basically take the killing of 200 tourists very lightly (only 2 years sentence for the evil ****s) but go ballistic over a bit of weed.	manicminer (4219)
345295	2005-05-28 23:05:00	Discusting or not, the same thing applies in New Zealand. If you appeal your sentence here you run the risk of having it extended.	Dally (6292)
345296	2005-05-28 23:14:00	[QUOTE=manicminer] and now they are threatening to extend her sentence to life if she appeals. www.nzherald.co.nz And who are the "they" you refer to ? The Herald quotes an Australian lawyer. More accuracy,please.	TonyF (246)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13