Death Penalty in Bali

Status
Not open for further replies.
boyfalldown said:
Equally a large number of appeals and miscarriages of justice are based around poor legal representation of the defendant at the original trail, in capital cases
Click to expand...

And this information come from where?
 
Does it matter how much the barrister earns if you are caught red handed and don't deny it?
 
tiler65 said:
Does it matter how much the barrister earns if you are caught red handed and don't deny it?
Click to expand...

True...No...Absolutely not. And no-one should be surprised when said defendant gets the wall. Not that this woman will ever actually see the wall. :shake:
 
tiler65 said:
Does it matter how much the barrister earns if you are caught red handed and don't deny it?
Click to expand...

depends - if the difference between a competent lawyer and one who's not is the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence then yes, it makes a difference
 
Right. OK. Now I see. And that site isn't at all biased in favour of the defendants.

My source is easy. Personal experience of practising for a law firm based (but not exclusively) in Oakland, California. Based on time spent with defendants held in San Quentin prison; Quite obviously guilty defendants....based on irrefutable evidence....based on time spent trying to garner defenses for said defendants on the instruction of my superiors and ultimately leaving because I couldn't reconcile my own opinions against trying to get obviously guilty parties off thier sentences. This is one reason why now I work exclusively with international commerce law, and now live and work back in the UK.

My problem was not that we couldn't save these people from the sentences handed to them, but rather that we (as a firm) tried. Yes, it was a "kudos" based firm.
 
boyfalldown said:
depends - if the difference between a competent lawyer and one who's not is the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence then yes, it makes a difference
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that a good barrister can bend the laws of the land to get a guilty person off scot free?
 
viv1969 said:
That is completely untrue. You really need to do some research. There are plenty of very highly paid, very skilled attorneys in the US who will handle death penalty defences and appeals on a completely pro bono basis. SOme of them do it because they believe deeply in the cause....others for the kudos, but either way many many felons who are about to be toast get some of the best legal representation in the country.
Click to expand...

A cause célèbre maybe. The vast majority make do with sometimes awful representation. A black man accused of murder being represented by an 83 year old former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who slept through portions of the trial for example. Not exactly O.J.'s dream team.
 
viv1969 said:
True...No...Absolutely not. And no-one should be surprised when said defendant gets the wall. Not that this woman will ever actually see the wall. :shake:
Click to expand...

You seem to be continually vexed that you won't get to hear about another human being being shot to death. Why is that?
 
tiler65 said:
So are you suggesting that a good barrister can bend the laws of the land to get a guilty person off scot free?
Click to expand...

nope not at all, but I am suggesting that they may well be better able to mount a good defence and obtain a 'better' outcome for their clients. Not one that bends the laws, but simply does a better job
 
viv1969 said:
Right. OK. Now I see. And that site isn't at all biased in favour of the defendants.

My source is easy. Personal experience of practising for a law firm based (but not exclusively) in Oakland, California. Based on time spent with defendants held in San Quentin prison; Quite obviously guilty defendants....based on irrefutable evidence....based on time spent trying to garner defenses for said defendants on the instruction of my superiors and ultimately leaving because I couldn't reconcile my own opinions against trying to get obviously guilty parties off thier sentences. This is one reason why now I work exclusively with international commerce law, and now live and work back in the UK.

My problem was not that we couldn't save these people from the sentences handed to them, but rather that we (as a firm) tried. Yes, it was a "kudos" based firm.
Click to expand...


But many of those sources are outside of that organisation and tbh its hard to see how you can accuse the supreme court or the Dallas morning paper of bias. And the accusation of bias could equally be levelled at you. I mean no offence by this, but its not a checkable, or comprehensive source, your personal experience is it?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
But many of those sources are outside of that organisation and tbh its hard to see how you can accuse the supreme court or the Dallas morning paper of bias. And the accusation of bias could equally be levelled at you. I mean no offence by this, but its not a checkable, or comprehensive source, your personal experience is it?
Click to expand...

No. No you're right, it's not. But nor is it based on someone Googling themselves to death to try to prove a point.
 
viv1969 said:
No. No you're right, it's not. But nor is it based on someone Googling themselves to death to try to prove a point.
Click to expand...

?? you'll forgive me.. but thats just unfounded and to be frank unneeded. I disagree with you. I'm assuming thats OK. Much of what you've posted is plain wrong. I've not resorted to insults yet though. Why do you need to?
 
Last edited:
We still talking about the USA?
 
boyfalldown said:
?? you'll forgive me.. but thats just unfounded and to be frank unneeded. I disagree with you. I'm assuming thats OK. Much of what you've posted is plain wrong. I've not resorted to insults yet though. Why do you need to?
Click to expand...

Can't see any insults on that's at just an opinion that you have been googling :shrug:
 
pepi1967 said:
Can't see any insults on that's at just an opinion that you have been googling :shrug:
Click to expand...

'googleing myself to death to prove a point' which clearly is intended to insult. From someone who asked for a source a couple of posts before as well......:)
 
boyfalldown said:
'googleing myself to death to prove a point' which clearly is intended to insult. From someone who asked for a source a couple of posts before as well......:)
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't se it as an insult. I would have thought anyone in a heated debate would want to find info to prove they are correct. More than likely using google or similar. :shrug:

Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't have felt insulted by that statement.
 
pepi1967 said:
Sorry I don't se it as an insult. I would have thought anyone in a heated debate would want to find info to prove they are correct. More than likely using google or similar. :shrug:

Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't have felt insulted by that statement.
Click to expand...

maybe it is just you, or just me - but to ask for a source and then accuse me of googleing myself to death is a bit much......:shake:,anyway
 
Perhaps I should have requested an unbiased, factual based source. My bad. I shall hush now. This is good, active, opinion based thread and I would hate for it to be locked because of a disagreement between just 2 members.
 
viv1969 said:
Perhaps I should have requested an unbiased, factual based source. My bad. I shall hush now. This is good, active, opinion based thread and I would hate for it to be locked because of a disagreement between just 2 members.
Click to expand...

I love a good debate. :thumbs: For a quote from a source though to support what I'm saying.

"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Hopefully shes reasonably unbiased

In fairness its going to be very hard to find sources of information, either wa y which aren't open to accusations of bias
 
boyfalldown said:
I love a good debate. :thumbs: For a quote from a source though to support what I'm saying.

"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Hopefully shes reasonably unbiased

In fairness its going to be very hard to find sources of information, either wa y which aren't open to accusations of bias
Click to expand...

I probably agree with what Ms Ginsburg has written but shouldn't that spur on the US judicial authorities to right the wrong? I mean, how can you have such a disparaging difference of skill to pass a bar exam...is the bar set too low? (no pun intended.....well it was a little)
 
tiler65 said:
I probably agree with what Ms Ginsburg has written but shouldn't that spur on the US judicial authorities to right the wrong? I mean, how can you have such a disparaging difference of skill to pass a bar exam...is the bar set too low? (no pun intended.....well it was a little)
Click to expand...

you'd of though so.......but:shrug:
 
Laudrup said:
Not all barristers are created equal, you'll get what you pay for. You can see this in America already where attorneys of poor quality handle death penalty cases. If I'm facing the needle I want the barrister earning £1 million a year, not £50k.
Click to expand...

Your argument is wrong. The highest paid barristers tend to be on the side of the defence. The prosecution represents the state which doesn't pay £1M a year.

I'd guess that in this case both barristers were state funded and were most likely on similar salaries, which is, in any case, totally irrelevant.
 
dod said:
Your argument is wrong. The highest paid barristers tend to be on the side of the defence.
Click to expand...

Only if the defendant can afford them though.........which rather assumes the defendant is O.J. and not some illiterate getting a court appointed incompetent
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Only if the defendant can afford them though.........which rather assumes the defendant if OJ
Click to expand...

dod said:
I'd guess that in this case both barristers were state funded and were most likely on similar salaries, which is, in any case, totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
 
dod said:
I'd guess that in this case both barristers were state funded and were most likely on similar salaries, which is, in any case, totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...


you'd guess, the supreme court would disagree with you though ;)

boyfalldown said:
"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Click to expand...
 
wow, just wow 300 posts of armchair lawyers going round and round in circles. :shrug:

Lets all just sit back and chill a bit..

FACT: You are tried according to the laws of the country the alleged crime took place in. In this case Indonesia. Therefore the laws of any other country DO NOT apply. (I use alleged as I am talking of any crime, not a proven one!)

FACT: She is as guilty as a puppy sitting by a pile of poo.

FACT: It is well known that if you try to smuggle drugs, (esp what We as in uk - class as class A) in the quantities that she did.. (4.8 Kg) into Indonesia you are odds on to face the firing squad.

FACT: the sentence was given as death because she showed no remorse whatsoever for what she had done.

FACT: Whether you agree with the death penalty or not is pretty irrelevant, as the laws of the land in which the crime took place do not consider your opinion as being worthy of note or consideration.

What I am not sure of though (and it appears the indonesian courts) is her "defence"

I've deduced we have some supporters and non-supporters of the death penalty here.. but cheap point scoring comments... are not making a healthy debate...

It's akin to "my dad is better than your dad" in the school playground...
 
When this thread going to go back on topic? Do we have a yawn smiley?
 
Lynton said:
wow, just wow 300 posts of armchair lawyers going round and round in circles. :shrug:

Lets all just sit back and chill a bit..

FACT: You are tried according to the laws of the country the alleged crime took place in. In this case Indonesia. Therefore the laws of any other country DO NOT apply. (I use alleged as I am talking of any crime, not a proven one!)

FACT: She is as guilty as a puppy sitting by a pile of poo.

FACT: It is well known that if you try to smuggle drugs, (esp what We as in uk - class as class A) in the quantities that she did.. (4.8 Kg) into Indonesia you are odds on to face the firing squad.

FACT: the sentence was given as death because she showed no remorse whatsoever for what she had done.

FACT: Whether you agree with the death penalty or not is pretty irrelevant, as the laws of the land in which the crime took place do not consider your opinion as being worthy of note or consideration.

What I am not sure of though (and it appears the indonesian courts) is her "defence"

I've deduced we have some supporters and non-supporters of the death penalty here.. but cheap point scoring comments... are not making a healthy debate...

It's akin to "my dad is better than your dad" in the school playground...
Click to expand...

Lynton most of what you say is probably correct and reasonable. But, we're having too much fun here for being reasonable.
Come on in to the mosh pit with rest of us :D



Oh, and my dad IS better than your dad...
 
dod said:
Your argument is wrong. The highest paid barristers tend to be on the side of the defence. The prosecution represents the state which doesn't pay £1M a year.

I'd guess that in this case both barristers were state funded and were most likely on similar salaries, which is, in any case, totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes because defence pays more, that's a given. A self employed barrister acting on your behalf earning £1 million a year is much more attractive than one earning £50k a year. I wouldn't be skimping on my life with just anyone. O.J. Simpson got $5 million dollars worth of justice from Johnnie Cochran. So trying to dismiss a link between wealth and justice is a little myopic.
 
Lynton said:
wow, just wow 300 posts of armchair lawyers going round and round in circles. :shrug:

Lets all just sit back and chill a bit..

FACT: You are tried according to the laws of the country the alleged crime took place in. In this case Indonesia. Therefore the laws of any other country DO NOT apply. (I use alleged as I am talking of any crime, not a proven one!)

FACT: She is as guilty as a puppy sitting by a pile of poo.

FACT: It is well known that if you try to smuggle drugs, (esp what We as in uk - class as class A) in the quantities that she did.. (4.8 Kg) into Indonesia you are odds on to face the firing squad.

FACT: the sentence was given as death because she showed no remorse whatsoever for what she had done.

FACT: Whether you agree with the death penalty or not is pretty irrelevant, as the laws of the land in which the crime took place do not consider your opinion as being worthy of note or consideration.

What I am not sure of though (and it appears the indonesian courts) is her "defence"

I've deduced we have some supporters and non-supporters of the death penalty here.. but cheap point scoring comments... are not making a healthy debate...

It's akin to "my dad is better than your dad" in the school playground...
Click to expand...

It's in the article of post #1 of this thread:

The charity said she was held for 10 days without access to a lawyer or translator after her arrest and the Indonesian authorities had failed to inform the British embassy during this time.

In response to the sentence, Reprieve's Harriet McCulloch said: "She is clearly not a drug king pin - she has no money to pay for a lawyer, for the travel costs of defence witnesses or even for essentials like food and water.

"She has cooperated fully with the Indonesian authorities but has been sentenced to death while the gang operating in the UK, Thailand and Indonesia remain free to target other vulnerable people."

During the trial Sandiford's defence lawyer said a history of mental health problems made her client vulnerable.

In a witness statement, Mrs Sandiford apologised to "the Republic of Indonesia and the Indonesian people" for her actions.

She added: "I would never have become involved in something like this but the lives of my children were in danger and I felt I had to protect them".

In another statement to court, her son Eliot said he believed his mother was forced into trafficking after a disagreement over rent money she paid on his behalf.
Click to expand...
 
OK I haven't read all the posts so sorry if repeating what has already been said.

First of all lets consider what would have happened if she got away with it. There could well be instances of people dying due to overdosing on the drugs she was trying to smuggling in.

She would have had a good pay off for that amount, so her greed gave no thought for those users.

Death sentence? if carried out at least she wouldn't do it again, or life imprisonment costing the country lots of money. Another alternative is sever public flogging which is what I would go for.

All I can say that before the death penalty was repealed in the UK serious crime such as murder was minimal (no drug problems back then), which showed it worked as a deterrent.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
It is a difficult one.

She is a UK citizen, but she committed a crime elsewhere. She is in a foreign country and committed a crime against their laws, not ours. Unfortunately, she must then be subjected to their punishment as well.

Can you imagine the uproar here if some "Johnny Foreigner" tried to tell us that we should change our judicial system and our punishments dealt out were wrong?

I don`t know how much leverage the UK goverment has over there or even if they should be trying to interfere. The woman knew the risks, I don`t believe her excuse, does she deserve to die? It doesn`t matter how much we argue on here, the Indonesian Laws say that she does.

Harsh, yes.
 
fracster said:
It is a difficult one.

She is a UK citizen, but she committed a crime elsewhere. She is in a foreign country and committed a crime against their laws, not ours. Unfortunately, she must then be subjected to their punishment as well.

Can you imagine the uproar here if some "Johnny Foreigner" tried to tell us that we should change our judicial system and our punishments dealt out were wrong?

I don`t know how much leverage the UK goverment has over there or even if they should be trying to interfere. The woman knew the risks, I don`t believe her excuse, does she deserve to die? It doesn`t matter how much we argue on here, the Indonesian Laws say that she does.

Harsh, yes.
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
fracster

+ (another) 1

I don't particulally agree with death sentences, but it's their Country, they make the rules.

She knew what she was up too, and if she didn't know the possible consquences, then she should have done.

In short, can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
boyfalldown said:
Being anti death penalty does not mean you are against killing in defence of your family etc.....

I assume you see the difference
Click to expand...

I was reffering to london headshots assertion that we (I assume he means the uk) don't kill for ANY reason, in order to maintain our supposed position of moral leadership in the world.

that said the difference is tenuous

if you are okay with killing in defence of your family, its not a long step to killing in defence of society in general (after all why should a strangers family be of any less value)

and if we are okay with killing in the defence of any innocent person , why should we not kill nonces, rapists, murderers, drug smugglers etc , to stop them posing a risk to the innocent in society ?
 
viv1969 said:
Perhaps we would once again be seen as a country not to be ****ed with. It would make a change.
Click to expand...

haha, I love this.

Where do you fit into this image of Badass Britain, Ruth, aged 43?

You're a middle aged woman - you're statistically the least threatening demographic of adult, yet you're the most vocal in your support of state violence.

Guaranteed, if someone put the pistol in your hands you'd **** your pants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top