Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
But Wellard - you are judging things only from our western view of what justice is. Not everyone applies the western system of the presumption of innocence. That is the fact. We are free to feel that our system is better but that doesn't mean that everyone else's has to mimic the priciples that our courts work under.
|
I accept your argument Davros. And I also note that the trial was a low level court, how would a western low-level court reflect under such a high level of scrutiny?
Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
Corby was caught in Indonesia with the drugs in her luggage. That in itself is sufficient under Indonesian law to find her guilty of possession. Innocence at that point was never a question - guilt was proven, and the trial was to determine extent of culpability and the appropriate sentence. That is the way their system works.
|
I accept that the court was working under that system; it does however reinforce my belief that the presumption of innocence is a western trait worth preserving.
Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
If they had managed to find someone who admitted to putting the drugs unknowingly in her luggage at Sydney Airport they would still have found her guilty of possession. The judge that you complain of with the 100% guilty record would still be bound under law to apply a penalty appropriate to her guilt (i.e. minor fine, suspended sentence, court warning for negligence - whatever).
|
The 'law is an ass' is applicable world wide then
