The Indonesian way of administering a prison sentence in many respects provides an outcome that ends up seeing a convicted person serving about the same length of time in prison as they would in Australia.
The Australian system usually involves the imposition of a "head sentence" and then a non-parole period. For example, a person convicted of a drug crime might be sentenced to 20 years in prison with a non-parole period of 12 years. After 12 years the convicted person can begin to apply for parole. Assuming that the person has been of good behaviour and are ready to be re-integrated back into the community, they will be paroled.
In the Indonesian context a person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment and then there is a system of remissions that may see a 20-year drug sentence reduced with remissions to a period of 12 years. A remission is generally granted for good behaviour and showing signs of remorse for one's conduct that lead to the prison sentence being imposed. In most cases a convicted person will serve about two-thirds of their original sentence. In some cases a convicted person may even serve less time than that.
Remissions in Indonesia are generally granted for Indonesian Independence Day and for the religious holiday of the relevant prisoner. A prisoner of Islamic faith may get two remissions a year; one on Independence Day and one at Idul Fitri (Eid ul-Fitr). For prisoners of the Christian faith a remission may be granted on Independence Day and on Christmas Day.
Schapelle Corby has just been granted a 45-day remission on her sentence. Corby has received remissions to date that now total 18.5 months.
Corby has a clemency appeal currently being considered by the President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). The Supreme Court of Indonesia was tasked with making a recommendation to the president. If the Supreme Court recommends quashing the conviction or a reduction in the sentence, then the president then decides as to whether they will endorse the Supreme Court recommendation and grant the clemency appeal or refuse to sign-off on the Supreme Court recommendation. It has been reported that the Supreme Court recommended a significant cut in Corby's sentence. Although, the Supreme Court has not officially confirmed or denied the reports.
What does this mean for Schapelle Corby? Assuming the president rejects the clemency appeal, which is being made on humanitarian grounds relating to Corby's mental illness, then it would still be likely that Corby would serve approximately four more years and then be released. However, if the president was to affirm the Supreme Court recommendation which allegedly includes a sentence reduction then Corby may in fact be released and returned to Australia sooner than that. One might need to be a psychic to predict an exact date, but generally there is an expectation that Corby will not serve two-thirds of her sentence.
Irrespective of her guilt or innocence at this stage, Corby has done more than enough time for the crime she was convicted of. Personally, I would not be outraged if the Indonesian authorities decided that she has done plenty of time, she has suffered in prison, she has been suitably punished for the crime for which she was convicted, and that there is no longer any need to keep her in prison. Yet, many wonder whether Corby's steadfast belief in her innocence and the subsequent belief that she has nothing to show remorse for is providing Indonesian authorities with the necessary reason to ensure she serves the complete sentence in an Indonesian prison.
In the end, a 45-day remission is 45 days that she does not have to serve in Kerobokan.
18 comments:
Hi Rob, its nice to see that you have finally concluded that 6.25 years in the hell of Kerobokan Prison is sufficient punishment for Schapelle's supposed crime.
I very much doubt that anyone in Australia would get 20 years in prison for a marijuana related crime, and certainly not for one involving only 4.2kg. That lying sod McCauley only got 3 years for transporting 100kg of marijuana to Qld from SA, and was released after 15 months. Even by Indonesian standards, Schapelle's sentence is unprecedented.
Every remission that Schapelle gets is potentially a good thing, but as we both know, these remissions will only apply when her sentence is nearly at an end.
For these remissions to date (1.55 years) to be of any use, Schapelle needs to have her sentence massively cut by the Indonesian President. Of course, having it cut to 'time served' is what we are all hoping for, but anything less than a 10 year reduction will be a waste of time. If such a reduction was announced today, Schapelle would still be left with 2.2 years left to serve, barring further remissions, and the slim (at best) possibility of parole, which is not normally granted to westerners.
Despite what many have said about Schapelle Corby faking her mental illness, the fact remains that she is not. In 2009 Professor Jonathan Phillips described her as "hanging on by a thread". Yes, this thread has not yet broken, and thank God it hasn't, or Schapelle would be dead already. However, the thread has been severely stretched, and like an elastic band, could break at any time without warning.
Schapelle has some idea that an application for clemency has been lodged, and it may very well be her hope that it is going to succeed, which is keeping her going. If the President rejects this application outright, don't be surprised to read that Schapelle has slashed her wrists, or jumped off the water tower, within hours of his announcement.
Finally, Schapelle does not believe she is innocent, she knows she is, and so do I. Yes, she was judged guilty, we have been through all this before, but this does not change the reality of her innocence. Despite what the Indonesian authorities might be looking for in Schapelle, how can she possibly show remorse for a crime she did not commit? Could you?
@ Simba...
Thanks for dropping by and commenting. The posts that I have been doing of late relating to Schapelle do not attract any comments, but they do attract a little interest in the sense that my blog stats show visitors and key word searches.
Anyways, to the substance.
Nothing "finally" about it. If you care to go back through the posts and comments you will see that I have been arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive, even by Indonesian standards, and that Schapelle has done enough time for the crime for which she has been convicted.
What McCauley did and how much time he got for it in Australia is irrelevant in so much as Indonesia is a sovereign state, makes her own laws, and her drug laws are much harsher than what we enjoy here in Australia.
If a comparison is to be done as to sentence, then the best bet is to look at how manifestly excessive it is by Indonesian standards. It goes without saying that she would not have been sentenced to 20 years in Australia if she was found guilty.
As to the remissions. A remission is a remission. It does bring her one day closer to freedom and a return to Australia irrespective of whatever else eventuates with respect to the clemency appeal.
As to her mental illness / psychotic depression, I believe that she is in fact depressed. However, the fact that she is seemingly taking her meds and surviving is indicative of her condition being treatable where she is.
A more likely scenario is a transition home where Schapelle is transferred to a psychiatric facility in Bali and then repatriated to Australia. To be honest, I hope the president comes back with "time served".Yet, it seems unlikely to me that he will.
The part about not really being aware of the clemency appeal and a denial of that appeal resulting in an attempted suicide or suicide within an hour does not make sense to me. If she is not really aware and if she has regressed to a child-like state then an attempt to kill herself being liked to a negative outcome on the clemency appeal seems illogical.
Remorse for a crime I did not commit. Interesting question. It would depend on what other options I had and whether I was prepared to serve out the rest of the time or the crime for which I was convicted.
It is easy for me to be sitting here in my rumpus room saying that I would suck it up and not show any remorse. I am not in Kerobokan and looking down the barrel of at least another 4-5 years if the president does not come good on my clemency appeal.
Rob, you are correct. Indonesia is a sovereign state and does make its own laws. Interestingly, Professor Loebby Lukman, who actually drafted Indonesia’s tough drug laws, took the stand for the defence during Schapelle’s trial. Asked if a person could be convicted of drug smuggling if they did not know the drugs were in their bag he replied, “If there was no intention to import, and if she was used by others, then she should be freed.” His testimony was totally ignored, as was the testimony of every defence witness.
Regarding Schapelle, she is far worse than depressed. In Dr Jonathan Phillips' own words: “SC has a severe treatment-resistant psychotic illness. She can now be said to have become insane....The only redeeming features at the present time are the direct support of her family and the medications obtained privately for her. Sadly, these matters will not save her in the longer-term.”
“She has no hope, her treatment is inadequate and cannot work in the current environment. She is condemned to a private hell which is hard to contemplate and which will probably end in death.”
Of course, I cannot say with certainty that Schapelle will commit suicide within hours, or even days, if her clemency appeal is rejected, I am merely suggesting that it should not be discounted. She may be child-like in her behaviour, but this doesn’t mean she walks around swinging teddy bears and engaging in baby talk. She has days where she is more in touch with reality than on others. A lot will depend on what happens on the day the President’s announcement is made. If she is hounded by the media, has huge cameras shoved in her face, and is asked pathetic questions by insensitive journalists, which has been a feature of her case since day one, she could very well decide to end it all. In April 2010, when Channel 9’s Mark Burrows was in the prison, hell bent on convincing us all that Schapelle is faking her mental illness, Schapelle spent her mother’s entire visit the next day weeping in her arms, telling her mother she just wanted to die.
Regarding showing remorse for a crime she did not commit, I gather from your reply that you would fake remorse yourself, simply to get out of prison. Of course, in faking remorse you would, essentially, be admitting guilt. This is something Schapelle has said she will never do, because she is innocent. Whether she will ultimately succumb to a false confession, in order to survive, is yet to be seen.
You are correct. Indonesia is a sovereign state and does make its own laws. Interestingly, Professor Loebby Lukman, who actually drafted Indonesia’s tough drug laws, took the stand for the defence during Schapelle’s trial. Asked if a person could be convicted of drug smuggling if they did not know the drugs were in their bag he replied, “If there was no intention to import, and if she was used by others, then she should be freed.” His testimony was totally ignored, as was the testimony of every defence witness.
Despite what you may think, Schapelle is far worse than depressed. In Dr Jonathan Phillips' own words: “SC has a severe treatment-resistant psychotic illness. She can now be said to have become insane...”
“She has no hope, her treatment is inadequate and cannot work in the current environment. She is condemned to a private hell which is hard to contemplate and which will probably end in death.”
Of course, I cannot say with certainty that Schapelle will commit suicide within hours, or even days, if her clemency appeal is rejected, I am merely suggesting that it should not be discounted. She may be child-like in her behaviour, but this doesn’t mean she walks around swinging teddy bears and engaging in baby talk. She has days where she is more in touch with reality than on others. A lot will depend on what happens that day. If she is hounded by the media, has huge cameras shoved in her face, and is asked pathetic questions by insensitive journalists, she might decide to end it all. In April 2010, when Channel 9’s Mark Burrows was in the prison, hell bent on convincing us all that Schapelle is faking her mental illness, Schapelle spent her mother’s entire visit the next day weeping in her arms, telling her mother she just wanted to die.
Regarding showing remorse, I gather from your reply that you would fake remorse yourself, simply to get out of prison. Of course, in faking remorse you would, essentially, be admitting guilt. This is something Schapelle has said she will never do, because she is innocent. Whether she will ultimately succumb to a false confession, in order to survive, is yet to be seen.
@ Simba...
For some reason your comment went into the "spam" folder.
Working backwards.
Nope. I would invite you to read again what I said about showing remorse. However, cutting to the chase: depends on what options are available to me.
I would not show remorse for a crime I did not commit. But, it is easy to sit here in Australia as a free person and hypothesize about what I might or might not do.
It would be a matter of interpretation as to whether the defense testimony was ignored or just discounted in the face of "overwhelming" prosecution "facts".
Might it be a case of, rightly or wrongly, the judges considered the defense testimony and then decided it was not convincing? No need to recount offers to test evidence and the like, I am more than a little aware of all those arguments.
In terms of Dr. Phillips report. I am not going to say he is wrong about his diagnosis. He is the esteemed expert and I am not. However, in spite of the dire predictions and the inability of Indonesia to treat her, Schapelle still lives.
In the court of public opinion even the most die hard of supporters must recognise that this is sure to give rise to people questioning Dr. Phillips' report and conclusions.
As I have said on numerous occasions, I hope SBY comes back with a favourable response on the clemency appeal. Schapelle has done enough time for the crime for which she has been convicted.
One final point. In terms of the media, Schapelle Corby is a story and therefore the media, like it or not, will follow that story. It is fair to say that the Corby family has used the media to keep Schapelle's plight in the national spotlight as much as possible. And, unfortunately, one does not always get to pick and choose that media coverage.
You are correct. Indonesia is a sovereign state and does make its own laws. Interestingly, Professor Loebby Lukman, who actually drafted Indonesia’s tough drug laws, took the stand for the defence during Schapelle’s trial. Asked if a person could be convicted of drug smuggling if they did not know the drugs were in their bag he replied, “If there was no intention to import, and if she was used by others, then she should be freed.” His testimony was totally ignored, as was the testimony of every defence witness.
Despite what you may think, Schapelle is far worse than depressed. In Dr Jonathan Phillips' own words: “SC has a severe treatment-resistant psychotic illness. She can now be said to have become insane...She has no hope, her treatment is inadequate and cannot work in the current environment. She is condemned to a private hell which is hard to contemplate and which will probably end in death.”
Schapelle may be child-like in her behaviour, but this doesn’t mean she walks around swinging teddy bears and talking baby talk. She has days where she is more in touch with reality than on others. Whether she will commit suicide in the face of an outright clemency rejection, I cannot say for certain. A lot may depend on other factors. If she is hounded by the media, has huge cameras shoved in her face and is asked pathetic questions by insensitive journalists (highly likely), she may decide to end it all. In April 2010, when Channel 9’s Mark Burrows was in the prison, hell bent on convincing us all that Schapelle is faking her mental illness, Schapelle spent her mother’s entire visit the next day weeping in her arms, telling her mother she just wanted to die.
Regarding showing remorse, I gather from your reply that you would fake remorse yourself, simply to get out of prison. Of course, in faking remorse you would, essentially, be admitting guilt. This is something Schapelle has said she will never do, because she is innocent. Whether she will ultimately succumb to a false confession, in order to survive, is yet to be seen.
Rob Baiton - “I would not show remorse for a crime I did not commit.” This is why Schapelle has not shown remorse. She may now be insane, but she is not stupid. If showing remorse for her crime would help her case, and if she had in fact been guilty, I’m certain she would have shown great remorse.
As for the defence testimony being discounted in the face of “overwhelming” prosecution “facts”, this is funny. The only “fact” the prosecution had was the marijuana in her unlocked boogie-board bag. The secondary evidence required for conviction was concocted from a plethora of lies.
Yes, the defence case was also weak, but with fingerprinting denied, weighing baggage “not necessary”, forensic testing denied, access to CCTV footage from Ngurah Rai Airport denied, and all CCTV footage from 3 Australian airports mysteriously unavailable, it never stood a chance of being ‘convincing.’
Facing death by firing squad or a life sentence, Schapelle should have been granted access to everything she requested to help prove her innocence. This didn’t happen, yet you condone the verdict every time as though it has credibility. You defend the Indonesian judicial system, when even you must surely see that her trial was a crock.
Back to Schapelle, yes, she still lives, a testament to her strength in the face of unspeakable adversity. Does she actually have to die in order for Dr Phillips’ diagnosis to be believed? As I said earlier, her hope for Presidential clemency may be all that is sustaining her. If this last pillar of strength is pulled away, she could very easily fall.
Finally, there is a big difference between the media following a story, and meddling in its outcome. Australia’s toxic mainstream media are peddling government propaganda. They are also supporting the commercial interests of the establishment, those with business ties in Indonesia, and as such, have a hostile agenda against Schapelle Corby. If you have not yet realised this then you need to take a much closer look.
@ Simba...
I am more than happy to engage in debate on the pros and cons of my opinions.
I am not, though, going to debate how you can be so certain about what Schapelle may have or may not have done in different circumstances. I do not see the point, suffice to say that history shows us that there are plenty of people who have committed crimes and show no remorse, and in fact maintain their innocence.
And, then there are those that are innocent ad wrongly convicted. This is what Schapelle supporters believe, right?
You will note that the terms that you quote back to me were in quotation marks; there was a reason for this.
The case was run pursuant to Indonesian law, Schapelle was convicted of having committed a crime, she was sentenced, she appealed, she went to jail. They are facts, are they not? Irrespective of whether you agree with the outcome, they are the facts.
The question is not whether Schapelle Corby was proven guilty to an Australian standard of criminal law, but rather was she convicted to an Indonesian standard of applicable criminal law. She was.
The question then becomes whether the Indonesian standard is then considered to be in breach of a prevailing international standard of what is acceptable in criminal law. If it was unacceptable then it would seem likely that the Australian government would have been jumping all over this case, perhaps the UN, at least Amnesty International.
So, let's get this clear once and for all! Yes, I have argued that she is guilty. I have done this within the narrow confines of the following facts. She went to Bali, she was arrested at the airport with 4.2kgs of wacky weed in her boogie board bag, she was tried, she was convicted, she went to jail, she appealed, and all of her appeals have ended up with a clemency appeal on humanitarian grounds.
I have never discounted the possibility that she is innocent. I have argued merely that the is guilty under the provisions of the Indonesian law as they currently stand.
I have not argued that the trial was not problematic, nor have I said that there were not issues with how the trial was run. However, the trial was within the parameters of "fair". If it was not then why have others not leapt to Schapelle's defense. A conspiracy?
@ Simba (Part 2)...
The response to this is that there is some huge conspiracy about drug money and funding. And, this follows closely on the tail of Australia being complicit in Indonesian corruption.
I guess the real story is going to be told in a book about Qantas and the evidentiary details regarding Schapelle's case will be footnotes to that expose.
It is interesting that fingerprinting was denied, but that in and of itself does not invalidate the whole case. So, the argument is one of a preponderance of anti-defense outcomes that make the trial a sham, right?
The testing of the wacky weed. Again interesting. Yet, are their not Australians on the record saying that they offered to test the weed, and are there not defense team representatives on the record saying that a test sample was offered up, but a strategic decision was made not to proceed with testing?
This may have been against Schapelle's wishes, but if that is the case, then it is hard to sustain the argument that the weed was not tested therefore the case is inherently unfair.
The CCTV footage is all part of the conspiracy, right? The belief being that the CCTV footage would show a baggage handler putting the weed in her bag in Australia or a corrupt customs official after UN drug money in Bali, right?
And, the weed was nothing more than a diversion for another much larger shipment of narcotics.
They are all possible alternate theories. Yet, I wonder of all the people the Australians and Indonesians could have targeted, and one would have to assume that they had copies of the passenger manifest, they chose Schapelle Corby.
It must have been a crime of convenience in that she was the only person with a suitable and open bag in which to stash the drugs.
@ Simba (Part 3)...
Prison is not summer camp. It affects some more severely than others.
Nope, Not arguing that she must die to make Dr Phillips diagnosis ring true. But, the reality is that she still lives no matter how thin that thread is. If you are arguing that this is only because the family is supplying the necessary medications and the prison authorities are not, then pursue that with the Australian government. Indonesia has international obligations with regard to the treatment of prisoners, to which they have generally complied. Why not for Schapelle?
Oops, I forgot, it is all a big conspiracy and Schapelle is but a pawn in a much bigger game.
The media is a conspiracy too? You are arguing that the mainstream Australian media agenda is to keep Schapelle behind bars for a crime she did not commit? Really? Based on what? That Australian news agencies pursue images of her when she is going about her daily business in jail, like attending a Christmas Day service, or hearing the news of her latest remission offer?
Government propaganda? What propaganda is that? Is the argument that keeping Schapelle in prison makes good business sense for BHP or Rio Tinto or someone looking to start a cattle or feed business in Indonesia? Seriously, how far do you think this conspiracy goes? And, if it is as big as that, why is it that someone has not tried to spill the beans and blow this thing out of the water?
I would argue that if you have proof of this hostile agenda and multi-faceted conspiracy, then you have an obligation to ante-up and provide the proof. Firstly, because it would be a potential case breaker that would see Schapelle free, and secondly because it would turn public opinion overwhelmingly in favour of Schapelle that would ensure that the Australian government was boxed in and sans alternatives but to see her brought home.
Surely there is a news agency that would run with it. If not Wikileaks is an option, right?
As I said, I am always more than happy to engage anyone in civil debate on the substance. Ultimately, though, this will always be a situation where you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe, we simply agree to disagree.
Nevertheless, we can both agree on that it is time Schapelle Corby came home.
Rob, I'm sure I have told you before that I have known Schapelle and the rest of the Corby family for over 25 years. I am a close friend of the family. As such, I believe that I have a fairly good idea of how Schapelle would have behaved, had she in fact been guilty.
It is because I know the family so well that I can say with certainty that she is innocent, and this is irrespective of the years of research that I have done, which also confirm that she is innocent.
Regarding the claims by former, and now disgruntled, members of her legal team, that the baggage handler defence was made up and that Mercedes vetoed the testing of the drugs, I have read all these, and they are just plain lies.
Yes, Schapelle was tried, convicted, sentenced, went to jail, appealed and stayed in jail. I obviously cannot dispute these facts. However, this does not make it right or fair. As for the trial being run pursuant to Indonesian law, no, this did not happen. There were repeated violations of Indonesian law during the course of her trial.
As to there being a conspiracy against Schapelle, absolutely, and it is enormous. Expect to be totally gob-smacked at some stage in the future. As for the details, sorry, but my lips are sealed.
So, it appears we can only agree on one point. It is time for Schapelle to come home. At this stage, this is the most important point of all. So, Mr Yudhoyono, please, show mercy for Schapelle.
Listen to this song by Peter Reynolds: http://www.artistsforschapelle.com/mr-yb.mp3
@ Simba...
Yep, I know who you are and I know what your relationship with the Corby Family is. This still does not make you an unequivocal expert on how Schapelle might respond. Once again, their are plenty of examples of families torn apart by the actions of husbands, wives, children who could not have possibly done the things that they were charged and convicted for.
As I said, no point in arguing this one.
The breaches of Indonesian law are what? Hopefully, you are not going to trot out the DJ Wolf arguments here, because I have argued those elsewhere and quite comprehensively so.
In any event, you had Hotman Paris on your gun legal team there for a while. If there was a legal procedure problem that was going to get Schapelle off then he would have found it.
I am not a big fan of Hotman, but I will say this about the man, he knows Indonesian procedural law better than most. He has made a career out of it. Once again, if procedural flaws were there then he would have found them and exploited them.
Sadly, the whole affair seems to be littered with lies. This must make it hard to generate support as many potential supporters would feel alienated from the truth. Personal experience tells me as well that you cannot just think she has done enough time, but you must also believe that she is innocent. I would have thought at this point in time any support would be better than none at all.
@ Simba...
What I do not get about the conspiracy is this:
If one exists and you can prove it, then I am at a loss for words as to why you are letting Schapelle Corby languish in Kerobokan.
You claim to have been a family friend for 25 years or more and you love her like your own, yet you are willing to let this thing take its course including the risk that Schapelle dies in prison.
Your lips are sealed? What does that really mean?
If you have proof of any wrongdoing that can alter Schapelle's situation in a positive way, then I would argue that you have an obligation to Schapelle to make that known.
My guess is the
"big conspiracy" is the gist of the Qantas book that Ms. Bax is promoting over on the Women for Schapelle blog.
Hopefully, for Schapelle's sake, whatever it is that you have you get it out into the public as quickly as possible. The sooner heads roll and Schapelle gets home seems like a good thing, right?
I am still shaking my head at the thought that you and other "real" and "true" supporters have evidence of an enormous conspiracy against Schapelle and you are sitting on it while she sits in jail.
The mind boggles...
No Rob, it is not necessary to believe that Schapelle is innocent in order to think that she has done enough jail time. All it requires is a bit of compassion, which you obviously appear to have. The same cannot be said for many others in this country. Just look at some of the disgusting comments people make on the internet when articulating what they would like to see happen to Schapelle.
I will always, however, continue to promote her innocence, because I know she is innocent. Indeed, it is her innocence which has made the tragedy that has befallen her, all the more tragic.
Regarding the breaches of Indonesian and International law throughout her trial, rather than go through them all, might I suggest that you check out the following Independent Research Paper: http://schapelle.net/report.html You may, or may not, agree with it, but it is there for all to see.
Finally, Schapelle’s best interests are, always have been, and always will be, at the forefront of every initiative designed to free her, and ultimately save her life. How these initiatives are played out is known as strategy. So, when I say my lips are sealed, it means that I will not be revealing our strategy to you, or anyone else for that matter. As such, do not try to fish for anything, because I will not be taking the bait. Suffice it to say, the truth will be revealed when it best serves Schapelle, and not a moment beforehand.
So, stop shaking your head, because you will just get a headache. Thanks for the conversation. I hope you liked the song.
@ Simba...
The link to the alleged breaches I have seen and read before. All of these have been addressed elsewhere and countered.
This is the stuff that DJ Wolf uses in most of his arguments. I could not find who authored the report. How is it impartial if there is no name on it to verify the claim to impartiality. Schapelle.Net is not an impartial site is it? I thought that Schapelle.Net was owned by a pseudonym known as Morpheus?
Not trying to bait you actually. I am just trying to understand. So, are you arguing that Schapelle's best interests are currently being served by her staying in jail?
Nah, I have to keep shaking my head, even with the risk of a headache. It makes no sense to me that you have the magic bullet but you will not fire it.
Strategy? Interesting.
I have not checked out the song. Although, you should already know this by checking the visitor stats to the link in question.
Quite useful material, much thanks for this article.
A lot has been debated about our schapelle and what was right and wrong .It goes around in a very big circle , but Indonesia is where schapelle is and Indonesia is making a statement. They are saying they can do what ever they want with schapelle ,and anybody else who comes there way and they have.Its like a spider web you get caught they don,t let go, you get sucked. I won,t be going.
Post a Comment