Schapelle Corby: The Reaction

Schappelle Corby was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison in Bali after 4 kg of Marijuana was found in her Body Board Bag at Bali Customs.

Corby's defence consisted mainly of saying that she was an unwitting drug mule in an interstate drug ring. The defence said the drugs were planted in her bag by Baggage Handlers in Brisbane to picked up in Sydney.

After the sentence was handed down, there has been reaction from the Australian community. Some people are totally convinced she is innocent and in some cases rang charity organisations to demand their money back (after giving to the Tsunami Relief Fund). Some people believe she is definitely guilty.

People have cancelled holiday plans to Bali and are planning to boycott everything Indonesian. Australians make up a great number of tourists visiting Bali, so a boycott could be very detrimental to Bali.

Packages with white powder inside were sent to the Indonesian Embassy in Australia, causing fears of a bio-terrorism attack. The powder was later found to be harmless.

Her legal team is lodging an appeal to try and get the sentence overturned or reduced. It could go the other way, though, possibly increasing the penalty to life in prison or death. Her legal team consists of Indonesia's top lawyer and an Indonesian soap star (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=22844).

I'm not here to say whether she's innocent or not. I have no evidence either way, and those who say they "know" she's innocent or guilty have nothing to base it on. What I'm here to discuss is the reaction. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I am disgusted with the way a lot of Australians have reacted. Especially asking for their money back from the Tsunami relief. The people getting that money have nothing to do with the court system. Sending the white powder to the embassy is just disgraceful. What are your thoughts?

People whining about getting their donations back annoys me. They're acting like small children.

And as for the smuggling? Well, I think 20 years is a bit harsh. She'll never get through all the Marijuana in that time.

ah, finally someone on the Schapelle Corby case. heh, you never hear the end of it here in Australia.

anyway, i think she is guilty. i saw a newspaper pic once that was supposed to be a frown. looked like a forced scowl. got me convinced.

Innocent. I'm not going to go over it all now, but if someone needs convincing, they can ask me.
P.S People might stop going to Indonesia more in fear of the same thing happening to them than because of a boycott.
P.P.S Mr. Spork, that link isn't working because the ) is showing as part of the URL.

Guilty. But yeah, 20 years is a little over the top.

Fixed the link.

Anyway, this topic isn't discussing whether she's guilty or not. Besides, a picture in the newspaper of Corby scowling is hardly overwhelming evidence of her guilt. Circumstantial evidence of baggage handler's misdeeds only slightly related to the case is also hardly overwhelming evidence of her innocence. This topic is to discuss the reaction of the Australian people to the verdict. I understand that the reaction is caused by people's perception of Corby's guilt/innocence but I would prefer to focus on the reactions themselves, not what your personal opinion is in the case.

It's sickening that people would ask for the money back from a charity. Money that goes towards feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and rebuilding what was destroyed has nothing to do with this case. I don't really understand how people could even contemplate asking for their money back from a charity.

If she is guilty, 20 years is too, too much. Over here, I read that a rich couple who poisoned their foster-son only got five years. There are so many different punishments for different people. Why is the world's law so pick-and-choosy?

20 years is way too much for that kind of crime. People who commit serious, violent crimes are often given less than 20 years in prison in the US.

As for the donations, that has nothing to do with the Schapelle Corby case. The Tsunami Relief Fund and her case are two completely separate things. If you donated money, you sure as heck better not expect it back, as you shoul've willingly given it expecting no material thing in return.

TRhe 20 years is what Australians are angry about. Though it's only a short sentence in Indonesia, the Australians compare it to their own justice system.

Originally Posted by Mr Spork

Besides, a picture in the newspaper of Corby scowling is hardly overwhelming evidence of her guilt.

i didnt say it was overwhelming evidence, i said its what tipped the scales for me. at that point, i was pretty neutral, then i was walking to school and passed the newsagent on the way and saw that paper propped up. the headline was something about her fear and sadness or somewhat, but all i saw in the expression of the pic was forced innocent-yet-sad look, which didnt look innocent OR sad.

anyway, guilty or not, i do think 20 years is a little over. the reaction here is basically that she will be out within 5 or so years, and then transferred to Australia [where she would inevitably be released]. in any case, Indonesia dont exactly have as developed a country as we Australians, and the amount of drug that was carried in her bag is a lot, and could cause a lot of big economical things. I believe that is the main reason the initial sentence is so hefty. in australia, we have many times the amount of people than that of indonesia, which is probably why our judicial system would be more forgiving.

I think the reaction of the Aussie people has been totally childish, going to lengths to get donations back is just wrong. I dont know if she is guilty or innocent but regardless of what happened I dont care, the things that are happening are making Aussies look like wusses and people who take it upon themselves to sabotage other countries affairs.

And I think Corby is damm lucky, she could have got life in prison...or even worse, death by firing squad. I guess no body has thought how lienient (sp?) the countries government has been, had it have been a local he/she would be dead by now.

So before anyone says that the 20 year sentence was harsh than think about that.

Originally Posted by Feline Witch

Why is the world's law so pick-and-choosy?

Because Indonesians hold a grudge against Australians.

I don't think she's lucky at all (seeing as I think she's innocent). I just think that it was really horrible for a random traveller on a trip to Bali to have 20 years of her life lost because of this. I don't agree with everything the public is doing, but I agree with the general push, the support for a poor wrongfully jailed woman.

Many of you people are really generalising about the reaction. Not everybody is asking for it back. Heck, half the letters feature articles (and opinion pages) in the paper condemn the select few who reacted by boycotting holidays to Indonesia. Soccer mums and so on might fall into this category <_<;

Anyway, the appeal still continues. Corby's "top" lawyer looks like quite the character though.

That he does, Chuc. I can't help but think that this 'all-star' defense team is going to hinder her rather than help.

In other news: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-38876,00.html

That 'top' lawyer might be quitting after an Australian QC said the defense was going to bribe judges overseeing her appeal.

There have also been reports that Gold Coast business man, Ron Bakir, wants Corby to repay him $500,000. Mr Bakir denied these allegations.

Originally Posted by Feline Witch

If she is guilty, 20 years is too, too much. Over here, I read that a rich couple who poisoned their foster-son only got five years. There are so many different punishments for different people. Why is the world's law so pick-and-choosy?

It's not. Schapelle was not convicted in the US, you can't apply their laws to her crime. She was caught in Bali, she was sentenced in Bali and she is treated the same as any other would be there.
I'm honestly kind of sick of hearing about her.

Overpublicised garbage. Sure, I feel for her a bit if she's not guilty, but if not, she had it coming to her.

People are saying that 20 years is too long, but they originally wanted to give her the death sentence. And its sickening how Australia is treating Indonesia because of these laws. Does anyone realise that it was actually Australia that was putting pressure on Bali to tighten and stricten their drug laws. Bali simply said, screw you, if it's more strict laws you want, we'll just kill 'em. She's probably lucky she even got 20 years.

That's all I'm saying... I absolutely hate this whole topic, and how Australia is overly biased about it because of the ways it is publicised.

Originally Posted by OldBeane

Overpublicised garbage. Sure, I feel for her a bit if she's not guilty, but if not, she had it coming to her.

People are saying that 20 years is too long, but they originally wanted to give her the death sentence. And its sickening how Australia is treating Indonesia because of these laws. Does anyone realise that it was actually Australia that was putting pressure on Bali to tighten and stricten their drug laws. Bali simply said, screw you, if it's more strict laws you want, we'll just kill 'em. She's probably lucky she even got 20 years.

That's all I'm saying... I absolutely hate this whole topic, and how Australia is overly biased about it because of the ways it is publicised.

Thank you OldBeane, you hit the nail on the head and strengthened my point that Corby was lucky in the end. I have grown tired of this topic too.