I'm glad at least one person has picked up on the suspiciously media-friendly nature of this nation's number one story. Thank you Wesnat. However, I honestly don't think you go far enough.
I'm not going to read 13 pages of rubbish to find the one to four decent posts that will reside therein but I will give you all a proper rundown of this entire fiasco.
John Howard has proven his worth as a fair, just and respectful diplomat and leader. His comments on Corby's situation have only been fair to the Balinese (spelling), Greater Indonesia and to the seperation of powers. He, while supporting Corby, failied to take a side and failed to negotiate for some sort of deal. In doing so he was completely and utterly correct.
to those out there who protest her innocent and make it quite clear that the court erred
stfu. You cannot and should not judge a foreign case without fully understanding the system, the law and facts of the case. If anyone is intimately connected with the trial, please step forward. Otherwise, can everyone PLEASE shut up?
to those who simply protest her innocence
If you know anything (other than what the media has told us i.e. "She's innocent"... another great moment in mass media) that the rest of us don't, pray let us know. The media is to blame for many things, including the majority of Australia having near absolute faith in her innocence. I have news for you. ANY young woman her age would react the same way to her arrest, incarceration and sentence regardless of innocence or guilt.
In the end. Howard is absolutly right in warning the public against demanding she be set free. The law MUST take it's course in all countries lest it be undermined in our own. If it were appropriate for us to demand such things then it would to totally inappropriate for Howard or the Indonesian President to intervene in any way due to the seperation of powers. In this case, the judiciary MUST be allowed to exercise it's duty for Corby and for the next murderer that comes before the court and the next rapist and even the next innocent drug smuggler (not to say that Corby is innocent). If the judiciary is EVER prevented from excersing it's duty then the entire judiciary will be undermined.
KEY QUESTION: Does this mean a potentially innocent woman should spend a great period of her life incarcerated?
ANSWER: Yes. Clearly the system is not perfect and it will sometimes fail to send guilty people to gaol and it will sometimes fail to set the innocent and the framed free; But would justice exist without it?
Schappelle Corby is a potential example of far greater issues.
1. Trial by media. Hell, I hate the media at the best of times. The only paper I like is the Financial Review because I know where it's aiming and it's not trying to push anything upon me. Working her trial through a live feed, Channel Ten's little 'Untold Story' where the Audience could gauge her innocence was just offencive. I don't know what they expected, but I think we all know it would have rated and in the end that is all Corby is. Ratings. The media is a heartless, unfeeling, power-crazy machine and should be treated accordingly.
2. Innocent prisoners She could be innocent, I don't deny this. But what about all those people in Australian gaols who are serving sentences for things they didn't do?!?! Where's your bleeding heart for them, Australia? Ohhh.... they're not all young, female and emotional? Shit... makes sense now. Grow up Australia. See Corby for what she is; a poster-child for the failures of judicial systems the world over. Stop crying about her and start looking at the greater issue and see if you can fix it. If you can't, I suggest you keep your useless prattle to yourself.
Thank you for taking the time.
(NB// While in number two it could seem that I assumed her innocence for the purpose of calling her a "poster-child", I was actually referring to the media fabrication.)
Sure they are somewhat corrupt (perhaps more-so than our own), however it simply doesn't make sense for them to lie.
