Schapelle Corby -- What Matters Now?

I have written a few posts over the life of this blog about Schapelle Corby and her conviction and subsequent sentencing to 20 years in a Balinese prison. In many of these posts there has been some discussion of events as they unfold. However, it was one particular post on Robin Tampoe and the fact that he had been struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners for divulging privileged client information.

The Tampoe post has attracted some 490 comments. Quite a number of those have been personal attacks on myself and some other posters. It has included quite a number of anonymous comments and a lot of people using pseudonyms, both in and of themselves not problematic. However, to launch personal attacks from behind a supposed veil of anonymity is not in the spirit of open and free discussion.

Nevertheless, the post has given rise to some interesting issues as people have sort to rehash the evidence in support of Schapelle's innocence. The evidence has also been rehashed in an attempt to debunk my statement and belief that Schapelle Corby is guilty. The reality, like it or not, is that Schapelle Corby has been convicted in an Indonesian court of law, and the conviction has stood the test of the appeal process. So, the reality is that she is guilty.

There are no appeals left in this process. What is left is an appeal for clemency.

Rather than make a detailed post on the issues, I pose the following questions?

1. Is there any benefit in revisiting and rehashing the evidence when the appeal process is complete? (What remains is an appeal for clemency or pardon)

2. Can, or should, Australian principles of common law be applied to the Indonesian civil law system? (Perhaps, and particularly, whether Australians arrested overseas have the same rights that they would be entitled to in Australia with respect to a trial by virtue of their Australian citizenship)

3. Should the focus be on proving that the guilty verdict is flawed under Indonesian and International law, or must the focus be on the best interests of Schapelle Corby with respect to obtaining treatment for her mental illness?

4. Can you be a supporter of Schapelle Corby without having a position on her innocence or guilt, or believing that she is guilty but that she does not deserve the punishment she has been given or deserve to suffer in the way that she apparently is?

I am not sure that there will be many comments in response to these questions. To be honest most of my posts only draw one or two comments. There are only a handful of posts that have drawn more than 20 comments.

Nevertheless, responses to these questions should make interesting reading.

Underage Gambling in Indonesia -- Big Time Crime?

Gambling is illegal in Indonesia. This does not mean it does not happen. There is probably a case to made for instances of gambling and then gambling. The point here is that organized gambling is clearly against the law and any attempt to regulate it into existence has met with fierce opposition. Then there is gambling that kids partake in like having a flutter on the outcome of a coin toss. The first one sees hundreds of millions of Rupiah change hands and the other is lucky if it sees tens of Rupiah change hands.

A recent case that was heard in Tangerang District court has ended with ten children being convicted of gambling. Their punishment to date is that they have been sent home with their parents. The result is clearly not the right one. The case should never have even seen the light of day. But, it did and it highlights the lunacy of the law enforcement system in Indonesia. Anyone who argues that reform is taking hold is kidding themselves.

The lawyer of the children intends to appeal the decision. If I can help out from afar, then I would be more than willing to do so. The idea that these children were ever in detention was outrageous. The fact that they have been convicted is just as outrageous. The Attorney General should have instructed prosecutors to drop the case. The fact that he did not indicates where the priorities lay. I would also suggest that the masks provided hardly are sufficient to conceal the identities of these children, so the Tangerang prosecutors have failed in this regard as well.

There must be something in the water out Tangerang way. These are the prosecutors from the same Tangerang office that placed a young mother of two, Prita Mulyasari, in jail for writing a letter complaining about the service she received from the Omni International Hospital. There must be absolutely no serious crime in Tangerang that these prosecutors have nothing better to spend their time on than jailing young children and mothers.

This is a case that must capture more people's imagination and not just in Indonesia but further afield. An excellent piece, some might call it an enlightened and educated rage against the machine was written by a resident expat in Indonesia, Patrick Guntensperger, and can be found here.

The stupidity of the whole affair is that there are hardened criminals and organized criminal activities continuing to go about their ways without any concern at all about being arrested or brought to justice. Now, whether this is because they have connections to the right people or pay the necessary "fees" to avoid trouble, I will leave to you and your imaginations. However, the lawyer for the ten children, Kristin Tambunan, has a point when she asks, "since when is playing a crime?" This becomes even more absurd when one considers that these children are currently convicted criminals because they were tossing coins to fill in time between shoe shining gigs.

The conviction of these children is, plain and simple, wrong. The appeal must be accepted on the grounds that the judges erred in allowing the case to proceed, as the prevailing laws and regulations clearly state that the prosecution of children is a last resort. The verdict must be vacated and these children need to be allowed to get on with their lives without the noose of convicted felon hanging around their neck.

What is the Office of the Public Prosecutor thinking?

Schapelle Corby -- Guilty?

How things change over time. Based on a recent Taverner Research poll it is clear that the majority of residents surveyed feel that Corby is guilty of the crimes for which she is doing 20 years. The majority in this case is slim at only 53% however, there are only 15% of those surveyed who believed her to be innocent. The rest remained unconvinced either way on guilt or innocence (perhaps they just do not care one way or the other).

The survey also found that people would be favourable to Corby serving out her sentence in Australia if and when a prisoner transfer agreement was reached. I have posted on this before and my view is that it will depend on the conditions of the agreement. If 20 years means 20 years in an Australian prison then perhaps Corby and her family would need to give some serious considerations to the generous remission provisions that prevail in Indonesia.

Public opinion would seem to be shifting on whether Corby is guilty or innocent.