re: banjar: douglas wood
Sorry about the delay but I had to run off for a few hours.
Let me take your post bit by bit: "$1K per day is pretty normal for engineers on short term assignments anywhere overseas if they are involved in the construction or extraction industries. Anybody going to Iraq for that sort of money would have to have other reasons other than just the money."
Perhaps, for you and for any other country on earth, $1k per day is reasonable. a) Wood was making much more than that. The word I used was "average... for all foreign workers there" b) I don't particularly care what he makes but whom he's representing. The resistance fighters see him as someone contributing to their demise rather than their remedy. In other words, Wood didn't go there looking for the resistance -as other foreigners did- to see if he could help them, but he went there looking for business. Business given to him by the puppet government, a bunch of people they, the resistance are fighting tooth and nail against and losing many lives in the process. c) His $1k a day (along with the $1k which a whole lot of other foreigners are making there) will eventually be paid back by the government which they, the resistance, hope to install, rather the ass-licking Kurds. It's how they see it. d) It is often said (particularly our Mr Downer) that these "terrorists are doing it for the money!" Well, dah!!! What are the foreign invaders and their parasites there for, the sprawling desert vistas? e+) I'm sure you can extrapolate more reasons why the analogy with Sharpelle is flawed.
"Expert opinion that I have seen from Australian legal experts familiar with the Indonesian justice system believe that not only is their system adequate but in some ways better than our own, which incidently is the more minor one of the 2 basic types there are in the world, ours that is." a) I don't care if OURS is good or bad. It has nothing to do withe what Corby is going through. She is faced with the Indonesian legal/police system. Whether there are a million systems better or worse than that of Indonesia is of no concern to anyone sitting in the Indonesian dock. b) I don't know who these friends of yours are and how adequate their expertise is. In the end, it ought to be a matter of proof, of evidentiary analysis. All of us here can only and should only surmise her innocence or guilt from what we read in the press or hear/see in other media; and to my understanding, there are a great many items which have not been adequately answered by way of proof of her guilt, which ought to mean, proof of her innocence. For example: i) No previous conviction or use of drugs. People commented on how beautiful she looks. I don't know about the beauty part but I do know that someone going "cold turkey" does not look beautiful. ii) Difficult to see why anyone would take that stuff to Bali. iii) Difficult to believe that anyone would be so stupid as to deliver it in such insecure way. Unlocked body board bag which anyone could open and take it away. This is not a good way of transporting such a highly priced product. iv) If she has been to Bali before then she would know of the penalties and strictness of the customs/police/legal system there. v) Judges seemed to be ruthless when it came to admitting evidence. vi) It has become a very distorted process because of the involvement of politicians, both, here and there and the outrageous statements made by Keelty. vii) Distorted also, now by the mass hysteria shown by the muslims, much akin to that shown by the christian fundamentalist who want to remove judges they don't like. The incident at Guantanamo will not help Corby in this respect c) The punishment, if death or life in such prisons is indeed a realistic sentence, is far too harsh for a first offence, even if she was guilty. When one claims that a particular legal/judicial system is good or otherwise, one checks at this sort thing. Does it mete out fair punishment? Other criteria should be, is the encarceration doen in a humane way and place? Is there a chance for the person to be rehabilitated? etc.
"In addition they feel that the judges presiding over Corby's case have been professional on both this case, and previous bigger cases and acting in accordance with the law, and have extended extra liberties to the Corby defence, more so than what a judge would do so here."
"I don't know what this word "professional" means, though I've seen it bandied about frequently. One should act according to one's thoroughly educated conscience. If you're only acting according to the wishes of your professional boss then you're doing a disservice to the wider community. We are talking about a court of law and the life of another human being. Professionalism can only be a guide, in so far as technicalities are concerned. If this, so called "professionalism" gets a judge to ask an expert witness (criminal psychologist) to "look into Corby's eyes and work out if she's guilty or not" then I'd say it's a very primitive form of professionalism." I don't know what "extra liberties" they've extented to Corby. From here, I see none. At the very least, they should have allowed spontaneous translation of her final speech. Instead, they took its translation later and we have no way of knowing what they did with it. Did they understand it? Did they laugh at it? Did they understand what nuences were missed in the writing which were there in the presentation?
"Whilst I had a basic understanding of the Indonesian justice system this case has caused me to delve deeper into it, and given the number of cases we have here in Australia where frequently we hear victims of crime claiming that they have been denied justice, I am left wondering if we should not change our system to the one that is more in line with the rest of the world."
I don't understand what exactly you mean by that. If you mean, you'd like to see, a first offender been given the death penalty, or life imprisonment, then absolutely not! If you mean -as I understand it- that the onus of proof shouls lay far heavier on providing proof of innocence rather than of guilt, then also certainly not. If you mean that the police should not have to chase evidence, like fingerprints, dna etc, to prove their case, then again certainly not. Law should be absolutely meticulous in its persuit of justice. THAT is its primary function. The rest is fancy words. And whilst we should always examine our legal system -as with all other systems of Government- we should not be the lap dogs of other countries, including Indonesia or America. We should, indeed, try and correct what flaws and errors our own system has, with a cool mind but with a mind firmly attached to our heart.
