Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

prizefighter

fishy fishy wrote: »

i pointed out the defects in your post. Let's leave it to the professionals shall we :D

What professionals might that be?

fishy fishy

kylith wrote: »

Like Weldoninhio below I'd rather go with a local lawyer who is familiar with the Peruvian system and employ an interpreter rather than engage an Irish lawyer who knows relatively little about the Peruvian system.



You asked if I had read any legal documents, so please don't get the hump when I answer your questions.

not getting the hump at all at all - just pointing out that because you are 'pretty okay' with reading legalese, don't automatically assume everybody else should be. IN reality anyone can be "pretty okay" at reading legalese, that is until a chunk of their life is on the line - lets see who gets to the professional the fastest then. because believe me "pretty okay" is just not good enough when your life is on the line.



I would agree. A Peruvian lawyer would probably have told them straight off that since the drugs were in their bags, and they admitted they knew there were drugs in their bags, that there was no point in trying to plead not-guilty. If it weren't for Madden they may well have been sentenced by now and would be one step closer to getting out in a few years.

I am pie

prizefighter wrote: »

What professionals might that be?

You are dealing with qualified professional in smiley face deployment it would seem.

SyntonFenix

fishy fishy wrote: »

I would rather have a lawyer from home tell me the rules than somebody from a different country who I would find hard to understand. But hey, some people might just settle for anything.

:rolleyes:

kylith

fishy fishy wrote: »

not getting the hump at all at all - just pointing out that because you are 'pretty okay' with reading legalese, don't automatically assume everybody else should be. IN reality anyone can be "pretty okay" at reading legalese, that is until a chunk of their life is on the line - lets see who gets to the professional the fastest then. because believe me "pretty okay" is just not good enough when your life is on the line.

Fair enough.

Do you not think, though, that a Peruvian lawyer would be better with legalese in Spanish than an Irish one?

hardCopy

kylith wrote: »

Fair enough.

Do you not think, though, that a Peruvian lawyer would be better with legalese in Spanish than an Irish one?

They have a Peruvian lawyer.

fishy fishy

SyntonFenix wrote: »

:rolleyes:

so in your book - finding somebody hard to understand makes them 'Inferior".

I see where your'e going wrong now.

fishy fishy

kylith wrote: »

Fair enough.

Do you not think, though, that a Peruvian lawyer would be better with legalese in Spanish than an Irish one?

they have a peruvian lawyer - the peruvian lawyer is in discussions with the Irish lawyer who then explains in layman's terms to the girls what is happening.

it's very simple really - thank goodness none of ye lot are representing anybody - I say ye couldn't represent yourselves out of a paper bag.

kylith

hardCopy wrote: »

They have a Peruvian lawyer.

Who is currently second to an Irish lawyer. The Irish lawyer is redundant, imo.

SyntonFenix

fishy fishy wrote: »

they have a peruvian lawyer - the peruvian lawyer is in discussions with the Irish lawyer who then explains in layman's terms to the girls what is happening.

it's very simple really - thank goodness none of ye lot are representing anybody - I say ye couldn't represent yourselves out of a paper bag.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have to have an Irish lawyer to explain to the women what is going on?

My argument against your previous point is that you're assuming that you require an Irish lawyer over a Peruvian lawyer in this instance.

spurious

I really don't buy that there isn't a competent translator, or Peruvian lawyer who worked (or trained) in the US available to them.
Can't see any reason for the Madden guy to be involved.

kylith

spurious wrote: »

I really don't buy that there isn't a competent translator, or Peruvian lawyer who worked (or trained) in the US available to them.
Can't see any reason for the Madden guy to be involved.

TBH, I'd go with self-aggrandisement and money.

hardCopy

spurious wrote: »

I really don't buy that there isn't a competent translator, or Peruvian lawyer who worked (or trained) in the US available to them.
Can't see any reason for the Madden guy to be involved.

I don't think I'd want him myself but I can see why they would want someone from home involved.

Grandpa Hassan

spurious wrote: »

I really don't buy that there isn't a competent translator, or Peruvian lawyer who worked (or trained) in the US available to them.
Can't see any reason for the Madden guy to be involved.

If I were the dad my first reaction would have been to get a lawyer from home. I would challenge anyone to say that they wouldnt have the same knee jerk reaction in his shoes. And of course the attention seeking Irish lawyer was all to keen to get his hands on the whole thing

He may well be having 2nd thoughts now having been down there and realised, I have no doubt, that Peruvian lawyers are perfectly competent. But I dont think you can blame the family for their intial knee jerk reaction

ArmaniJeanss

Would ye not be worried that your court appointed local lawyer is effectively working for the state, or if you picked one from the golden pages that he might be Limas most useless lawyer?

Gut instinct for me would be to have a lawyer from home as well if only to act as liaison and go-between to ensure everything is being done properly.

Allyall

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

If I were the dad my first reaction would have been to get a lawyer from home. I would challenge anyone to say that they wouldnt have the same knee jerk reaction in his shoes. And of course the attention seeking Irish lawyer was all to keen to get his hands on the whole thing

He may well be having 2nd thoughts now having been down there and realised, I have no doubt, that Peruvian lawyers are perfectly competent. But I dont think you can blame the family for their intial knee jerk reaction

That would have been your first mistake.

The first thing you should do (he should have done) is type "Boards.ie" into the address bar, then go to 'After Hours' to check if there is a thread, and follow instructions from there.

Grayson

I am pie wrote: »

So the crux of your argument is that they aren't intelligent enough to understand someone speaking English in a different accent.

Ridiculous.

I have to disagree. people do have the view that a lot of these countries are corrupt or that local counsel won't care about them. That's why they bring in the external guy to double check everything. they are facing a possible 15 year sentance, it's perfectly reasonable to want a second opinion from someone at home. And if you were their parents, you'd especially want someone from home who knew what they were talking about.

That being said, it's not reasonable that they are still spinng a cock and bull story. But I guess the longer you swear something is true, the bigger the lost in standing when you admit you made it up. Plus they probably don't want to own up to their parents.

Paddy Cow

fishy fishy wrote: »

don't think so - I think it's fairly logical myself. I would rather have a lawyer from home tell me the rules than somebody from a different country who I would find hard to understand. But hey, some people might just settle for anything.

Have you seen the episode of Banged Up Abroad with the two American girls? Their story is pretty similar and both girls were in denial until a lawyer had a chat with them and explained the reality of the situation to them. They pleaded guilty and were out in 2.5 years. They said the best thing they ever did was listen to their local, Peruvian lawyer who surprise surprise was well able to speak english.

ardle1

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Have you seen the episode of Banged Up Abroad with the two American girls? Their story is pretty similar and both girls were in denial until a lawyer had a chat with them and explained the reality of the situation to them. They pleaded guilty and were out in 2.5 years. They said the best thing they ever did was listen to their local, Peruvian lawyer who surprise surprise was well able to speak english.

Exactly, and now that Madden has decent knowledge of the Peruvian system, he now is recommending that they plead guilty, but it seems the girls want to prove their innocence! which will take at least 2yrs to get to court,and possibly end up a total disaster,with the girls maybe getting 15yrs in jail...... In my mind it makes no sense to take that chance!

EdCastle

fishy fishy wrote: »

you don't know the facts synton. remember that next time you call for their heads.

Yeah, because two women in a Peruvian airport surrounded by cops loaded down with two suitcases full of cocaine ready to traffick to Europe just aren't enough cold hard facts for most.

ardle1

Still finding it hard to believe that some posters are basically suggesting that kidnapping,serious threats of harm or even death, forced drug muling, and God only knows what else, doesn't go on!!! anyway for some of you with your throw away the key attitude,well it's just laughable... Now I certainly don't know if these two particular women are telling the truth or not! but I do suggest that they plead guilty and get this nightmare over sooner rather than later...

dirtyden

ardle1 wrote: »

Still finding it hard to believe that some posters are basically suggesting that kidnapping,serious threats of harm or even death, forced drug muling, and God only knows what else!!! anyway for some of you with your throw away the key attitude,well it's just laughable... Now I certainly don't know if these two particular women are telling the truth or not! but I do suggest that they plead guilty and get this nightmare over sooner rather than later...

Seriously, what?

MonaPizza

Chris Dolmeth wrote: »

Why? Because they're Irish?
They got caught smuggling drugs.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Yawn! If I had a penny for every time I read or heard this cliche casually trotted out like it's some pearl of wisdom, I could buy 11kg of coke.

goose2005

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Would ye not be worried that your court appointed local lawyer is effectively working for the state, or if you picked one from the golden pages that he might be Limas most useless lawyer?

Gut instinct for me would be to have a lawyer from home as well if only to act as liaison and go-between to ensure everything is being done properly.

Yes, except that Madden most likely did his research on Peruvian criminal law on Wikipedia on the flight over.

For Forks Sake

MonaPizza wrote: »

Yawn! If I had a penny for every time I read or heard this cliche casually trotted out like it's some pearl of wisdom, I could buy 11kg of coke.

But could you get it out of Peru successfully?

MonaPizza

lukesmom wrote: »

Still can't understand why they are pleading innocent. They must be believing their own lies. They seriously need to cop on and plead guilty.

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime. Public prosecutor tells the kid to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 6 months with fines and community service. Kid follows the advice only for the judge to hand down a 7 year sentence in some brutal state prison. Kid collapses in tears and has to be carried from the court room.

Would you plead guilty if there was no guarantee of you being freed in 2 years. Everyone on here was saying how the Peruvian authorities want to make an example of these two. What if they plead guilty and the Peruvian Authorities really do make an example of them with an 18 year stretch sans parole

jack presley

MonaPizza wrote: »

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime. Public prosecutor tells the kid to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 6 months with fines and community service. Kid follows the advice only for the judge to hand down a 7 year sentence in some brutal state prison. Kid collapses in tears and has to be carried from the court room.

Would you plead guilty if there was no guarantee of you being freed in 2 years. Everyone on here was saying how the Peruvian authorities want to make an example of these two. What if they plead guilty and the Peruvian Authorities really do make an example of them with an 18 year stretch sans parole

Daily? Can you send me a link for today's example?

ardle1

dirtyden wrote: »

Seriously, what?

Yeah just edited my post...

Allyall

MonaPizza wrote: »

Would you plead guilty if there was no guarantee of you being freed in 2 years. Everyone on here was saying how the Peruvian authorities want to make an example of these two. What if they plead guilty and the Peruvian Authorities really do make an example of them with an 18 year stretch sans parole

Yep.
Because if they plead 'not guilty', they'll have to wait up to 3 years before their Trial will even start.
They can't get an 18 year stretch, as it has already been agreed maximum 15.

I think what everybody that said that (make an example of them) means, is if the girls continue to criticise Peru's Judicial system, Country, Law etc.. and plead 'not guilty' to what seems to many as obviously guilty, then the Peruvian authorities may want to make an example of them.

i.e. if you continue to clog up their system, and continue to lie, they will use you as a deterent for anyone that thinks it may be that easy.
"Just go over, and sher, if they catch ya, lie yer arse off!, Deny everything."

I'd say the Peruvian government wants to send out the message to as many as possible, that they know how it works, they don't listen to those stories anymore, and they will not entertain them.

If they girls plead guilty, then like so many cases before them, and as i am sure they have been told now, they will be out before they are 24/25.

MonaPizza

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Did they seek him or did he seek them? Wouldn't be surprised if he appeared at the family home up the North.



You come across as if the two women got a flat tyre in the middle of nowhere and needed urgent attention. They tried to smuggle 12kg of cocaine! These aren't two women in distress here, they made decisions that led to this.

How about do something more useful and offer comfort to the families that have lost members of their family to drugs?



Ah right, so it's ok to support drug smugglers that you know? They deserve those 2 long years and anything the Peruvian courts give them. Like any other drug runner or drug dealer.

I can see you now feeling all remorseful for Katy French and her family and cursing the wretched mules who were responsible for her death. No way you'd shout out "stupid little rich girl snorted a load of drugs and died. Tough sh!t. She knew what she was doing!"

No way you'd vent your spleen about junkie "scum" in Dublin. Rather you'd spare your (obvious) tender thoughts of comfort for them and their families and damn the evil couriers who are responsible for their dreadful affliction.

MonaPizza

I am pie wrote: »

Why? Peruvians are capable of speaking English perfectly well. The above is fairly far fetched and patronising.

No peruvian lawyer would be able to say "The truth is that you can wait 2 years for a trial and run the risk of 10 more inside or you can plead guilty and do 2 maybe 3 max, either way you'll be inside for 2" ??

Fairly patronising claim to make in fairness.

How the hell do you know that the Peruvians are capable of speaking English perfectly well. It's not their first language and don't BS me by saying that educated Peruvians like lawyers and doctors speak English fluently. What a crock. Ever been to a hospital in Spain? If you ever are I'll bet you'll be pleading for a translator and a second opinion. I had to hire a lawyer in Germany one time. Your average English football hooligan speak better German than she spoke English. I had to bring my friend to translate everything she said.

MonaPizza

I am pie wrote: »

What do you not think? That a peruvian lawyer can't speak English and say that sentence?

It has nothing to do with perspective or anything else, just ignorance.

Oh sweet jesus!!!

This reminds me of the joke about the father complaining to the maths teacher that his kid only needed to be able to count to 10. When the teacher asked the father what the kid was going to do when he grew up the father replied that he would be a boxing ref.

So just this one little sentence needs to be said and that's it. No other discussions need take place. No questions need to be answered. No conditions need to be explained. No lengthy and complex forms need to be scrutinised and signed and witnessed and maybe amended and explained.

Your world must be a beacon of efficiency and simplicity

vepyewwo

MonaPizza wrote: »

How the hell do you know that the Peruvians are capable of speaking English perfectly well. It's not their first language and don't BS me by saying that educated Peruvians like lawyers and doctors speak English fluently. What a crock. Ever been to a hospital in Spain? If you ever are I'll bet you'll be pleading for a translator and a second opinion. I had to hire a lawyer in Germany one time. Your average English football hooligan speak better German than she spoke English. I had to bring my friend to translate everything she said.

God forbid you were actually able to speak German.

MonaPizza

kylith wrote: »

Like Weldoninhio below I'd rather go with a local lawyer who is familiar with the Peruvian system and employ an interpreter rather than engage an Irish lawyer who knows relatively little about the Peruvian system.



You asked if I had read any legal documents, so please don't get the hump when I answer your questions.



I would agree. A Peruvian lawyer would probably have told them straight off that since the drugs were in their bags, and they admitted they knew there were drugs in their bags, that there was no point in trying to plead not-guilty. If it weren't for Madden they may well have been sentenced by now and would be one step closer to getting out in a few years.

Look up "complete fuckin guesswork and conjecture" in the dictionary and this sentence will be printed.

my my my

vepyewwo wrote: »

God forbid you were actually able to speak German.

Gott ist tot

MonaPizza

spurious wrote: »

I really don't buy that there isn't a competent translator, or Peruvian lawyer who worked (or trained) in the US available to them.
Can't see any reason for the Madden guy to be involved.

Oh for fucks sake! What don't you get about this? What is so difficult to grasp?

You will have a Peruvian lawyer who will say something in Spanish. What he says in Spanish with be all legalese and offical with terminology like "statutes", "precedents", "incarceration", "forthwith", "heretofore", "preempt", "incongruent", yada yada.
This will be translated verbatim by a skilled but legally unqualified interpreter.
The two girls whose vocabulary no doubt barely stretches beyond text-speak will recognise it as English but will be baffled as to what it all means.
Madden will understand exactly what it means and explain it to our two ladettes in language they can understand.
Is that so hard to fathom?

On top of that it might just be some comfort for the two to have a lawyer from home holding their hand a little bit through the whole damn process.

hardCopy

vepyewwo wrote: »

God forbid you were actually able to speak German.

I'm sure the two girls will have fluent Spanish by the time they get out, but for now they'll needed some help understanding what's going on.

allthedoyles

Wentworth on Channel 5+1 at the moment is interesting - although it is an Australian womens prison

MonaPizza

EdCastle wrote: »

Yeah, because two women in a Peruvian airport surrounded by cops loaded down with two suitcases full of cocaine ready to traffick to Europe just aren't enough cold hard facts for most.

Nobody's denying that they were intercepted with 11kg of cocaine in their luggage. Why are you bringing that up?

A guy in Belfast gets caught by the RUC while he's driving a truck with a massive bomb inside. No further questions or investigation needed. He was caught with a bomb and those are the facts. Only it just so happens that an IRA active service unit is in his gaff with guns at the heads of his wife and kids and they will be released once he parks the truck bomb where they told him and comes back. As has often happened.

You'd have him locked up without question too wouldn't you based on the convenient but incomplete "facts" that suit you.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MonaPizza

Allyall wrote: »

Yep.
Because if they plead 'not guilty', they'll have to wait up to 3 years before their Trial will even start.
They can't get an 18 year stretch, as it has already been agreed maximum 15.

I read in an Irish newspaper that they could expect a sentence of 15 to 18 years. I notice that that has since been corrected to 8 to 15 years.

I think what everybody that said that (make an example of them) means, is if the girls continue to criticise Peru's Judicial system, Country, Law etc.. and plead 'not guilty' to what seems to many as obviously guilty, then the Peruvian authorities may want to make an example of them.

So now you think it's ok to base the harshness of the sentence on whether or not you like the "attitude" of the defendant. On the flip side of that I can't see people like you having much sympathy and agreeing with a lighter sentence for someone who kept their mouth shut and/or displayed remorse for their transgression. I still hear you yell "Remorse, me arse! Knew what you were doing. Throw away the key!"

I'd say the Peruvian government wants to send out the message to as many as possible, that they know how it works, they don't listen to those stories anymore, and they will not entertain them.

If they girls plead guilty, then like so many cases before them, and as i am sure they have been told now, they will be out before they are 24/25.

You'd say, would you? Oh well then you must be 100% airtight correct.

MonaPizza

vepyewwo wrote: »

God forbid you were actually able to speak German.

I have a smattering of German but it wasn't good enough in this instance. The point is that everyone seems to maintain that the Peruvians speak perfectly good English and that lawyers most likely are fluent. Bollocks. You seem to think I'm condescending for someone not speaking English. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was in someone else's country, I needed legal advice, my German wasn't adequate and her English was almost non-existent. I solved the impasse with a translator (who happened to be an Irish colleague).
If a Peruvian got arrested in Dublin and hadn't a lick of English, I would get all up my arse about him getting a Peruvian lawyer to sit in on things. And I certainly wouldn't blissfully state that the Irish are perfectly capable of speaking Spanish.

SyntonFenix

MonaPizza wrote: »

I can see you now feeling all remorseful for Katy French and her family and cursing the wretched mules who were responsible for her death. No way you'd shout out "stupid little rich girl snorted a load of drugs and died. Tough sh!t. She knew what she was doing!"

Zero remorse for Katy French doing drugs and killing herself. And yes, tough sh!t.

If you take, deal or smuggle drugs you are supporting the illegal narcotics trade. An industry where murders, beatings, drug related deaths and general suffering is all part of it on a daily basis. Anyone who chooses to be a part of that get what they deserve.

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

How the hell do you know that the Peruvians are capable of speaking English perfectly well. It's not their first language and don't BS me by saying that educated Peruvians like lawyers and doctors speak English fluently. What a crock. Ever been to a hospital in Spain? If you ever are I'll bet you'll be pleading for a translator and a second opinion. I had to hire a lawyer in Germany one time. Your average English football hooligan speak better German than she spoke English. I had to bring my friend to translate everything she said.

What has being brought up on criminal charges in Peru got to do with needing a doctor in Spain or a lawyer in Germany? Chances are that in any country you go to if you need the services of a doctor/lawyer they will most likely speak the language of their country.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Oh for fucks sake! What don't you get about this? What is so difficult to grasp?

You will have a Peruvian lawyer who will say something in Spanish. What he says in Spanish with be all legalese and offical with terminology like "statutes", "precedents", "incarceration", "forthwith", "heretofore", "preempt", "incongruent", yada yada.
This will be translated verbatim by a skilled but legally unqualified interpreter.
The two girls whose vocabulary no doubt barely stretches beyond text-speak will recognise it as English but will be baffled as to what it all means.
Madden will understand exactly what it means and explain it to our two ladettes in language they can understand.
Is that so hard to fathom?

On top of that it might just be some comfort for the two to have a lawyer from home holding their hand a little bit through the whole damn process.

I worked in a solicitors office for three years and I never once heard a solicitor speak "legalese" to a client. It is a solicitor's job to explain to the client in plain english where they stand with the law. It's like when I went to the doctor and had a blood test done. I wasn't told that I was suffering from insufficient ferric levels which leads to a low level of erythrocyte production, inducing poor O2 distribution, potentially reducing the efficiency of my renal and hepatic systems, which left untreated could accumulate in cardiac arrest. I was simply told that I was anemic, which mean low on iron and if I followed the doctor's advice I would be fine.

Any professional worth their salt knows their "legalese" inside out but also knows how to "translate" that knowledge into a language that the lay person understands and isn't overwhelmed by. Only cowboys/as$holes try to confuse people with unnecessary terminology.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Nobody's denying that they were intercepted with 11kg of cocaine in their luggage. Why are you bringing that up?

A guy in Belfast gets caught by the RUC while he's driving a truck with a massive bomb inside. No further questions or investigation needed. He was caught with a bomb and those are the facts. Only it just so happens that an IRA active service unit is in his gaff with guns at the heads of his wife and kids and they will be released once he parks the truck bomb where they told him and comes back. As has often happened.

You'd have him locked up without question too wouldn't you based on the convenient but incomplete "facts" that suit you.

Silly anology for two reasons.

1 Neither of the girl's families were kidnapped and had guns pointed to their heads. Neither of them were living in a conflicted Ibiza where such a fear was an actual threat of everyday life.

2 Can you name the gang that allegedly orchestrated the plot in Peru or even have any vague notion of who it maybe? Has a google search turned up anything of interest? The evidence (and a lot of testimonies of convicted mules who admit their guilt) shows that people are attracted by the easy money, think not many others are doing it and they will get away with it. They maybe coerced once they go on the trip but most willing go in the first place.

MonaPizza wrote: »

I have a smattering of German but it wasn't good enough in this instance. The point is that everyone seems to maintain that the Peruvians speak perfectly good English and that lawyers most likely are fluent. Bollocks. You seem to think I'm condescending for someone not speaking English. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was in someone else's country, I needed legal advice, my German wasn't adequate and her English was almost non-existent. I solved the impasse with a translator (who happened to be an Irish colleague).
If a Peruvian got arrested in Dublin and hadn't a lick of English, I would get all up my arse about him getting a Peruvian lawyer to sit in on things. And I certainly wouldn't blissfully state that the Irish are perfectly capable of speaking Spanish.

Without knowing why you needed to see a lawyer in Germany your point is invalid. If you were brought up on criminal charges then at best I would expect you to be appointed a lawyer would could speak english or second best, a lawyer and a translator. If it was simply you needing legal advice then it is up to you to find an english speaking lawyer or have a translator. I would expect the same treatment for a non english speaker caught up in the Irish legal system - either provide them with a lawyer who speaks their language or a lawyer and a translator.

There are a lot of foreign nationals up on charges in Peru and while I know that going by world population, english isn't the most spoken language, it is one of the most used languages per country and to suggest that Peru wouldn't be able to provide a lawyer who speaks english is quite frankly, absurd.

MonaPizza

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Zero remorse for Katy French doing drugs and killing herself. And yes, tough sh!t.

If you take, deal or smuggle drugs you are supporting the illegal narcotics trade. An industry where murders, beatings, drug related deaths and general suffering is all part of it on a daily basis. Anyone who chooses to be a part of that get what they deserve.

You could say that about the oil industry too, or the diamond trade or even the iPhone industry.

I suppose the only way to not be a part of that would be to grow your own drugs in a plant pot in your house then cut it down, smoke it and get all dopey and giggly. Would you be ok with that? Nobody getting killed or beaten.

SyntonFenix

MonaPizza wrote: »

You could say that about the oil industry too, or the diamond trade or even the iPhone industry.

The oil industry, iPhone industry and the diamond are not illegal black markets. The oil industry is an necessity for every day living.

You're diverting away from the topic to suit your argument by using the moral high ground. There are ethical and moral issues in those industries, I agree, but you can't compare smuggling cocaine with importing crude oil.

MonaPizza wrote: »

I suppose the only way to not be a part of that would be to grow your own drugs in a plant pot in your house then cut it down, smoke it and get all dopey and giggly. Would you be ok with that? Nobody getting killed or beaten.

I would not be ok with that, it's illegal and is hazardous to your health. Other than medicinal use prescribed by a doctor, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to take illegal drugs.

http://www.hrb.ie/health-information-in-house-research/alcohol-drugs/adru-news/adru-press-release-story/release/169/

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Paddy Cow

MonaPizza wrote: »

You could say that about the oil industry too, or the diamond trade or even the iPhone industry.

I suppose the only way to not be a part of that would be to grow your own drugs in a plant pot in your house then cut it down, smoke it and get all dopey and giggly. Would you be ok with that? Nobody getting killed or beaten.

Another silly analogy. You can buy fair trade diamonds and we need oil and phones for everyday life. You don't need cocaine. Should we shut down DoneDeal and EBay because not everything on there was gotton legally? How many people were mugged/beaten so that their IPhone could be sold illegally?

Your argument could be applied to any industry, as all industries no matter how they are regulated are open to abuse but the fact is, cocaine is illegal and if you are caught trying to smuggle it, you will pay a price.

Just as a matter of interest, what is your opinion on what should happen to the two girls? I have followed this and the previous thread from the beginning so I may be forgetting things but I don't get your outrage and random side tracks at all. Personally I think the girls were in Spain having a great time and they thought that going a run would earn them a few easy euro. I think they willingly went to Peru but things went pear shaped from there. They got caught and have to do time for that but I do feel sorry for them doing their time in a tough Peruvian jail.

Allyall

MonaPizza wrote: »

I read in an Irish newspaper that they could expect a sentence of 15 to 18 years. I notice that that has since been corrected to 8 to 15 years.

Yes, it was always 8 - 15 Officially.

MonaPizza wrote: »

So now you think it's ok to base the harshness of the sentence on whether or not you like the "attitude" of the defendant. On the flip side of that I can't see people like you having much sympathy and agreeing with a lighter sentence for someone who kept their mouth shut and/or displayed remorse for their transgression. I still hear you yell "Remorse, me arse! Knew what you were doing. Throw away the key!"

You can't see me at all. Read over my other posts. Even go back to the original thread. Where did you get that I think it's ok to base the harshness of the sentence on whether or not I like the attitude of the defendant?
I do not believe for one second that these girls/women are innocent. But i don't think they deserve 15 years in Peru.

IMO, i think 3 would be enough. Also, they'll probably be watched at every Airport for the rest of their lives.

MonaPizza wrote: »

You'd say, would you? Oh well then you must be 100% airtight correct.

That's why i said 'I'd say', and didn't state it as fact - Unlike:

MonaPizza wrote: »

A daily occurrence in courthouses in America is a black kid totally innocent and falsely accused of some crime. Public prosecutor tells the kid to plead guilty to a lesser charge and get 6 months with fines and community service. Kid follows the advice only for the judge to hand down a 7 year sentence in some brutal state prison. Kid collapses in tears and has to be carried from the court room.

*I looked, and i can't find it todays papers. Or the one that happened yesterday. Nor can i find the occurrence of it on Tuesday or Monday in any of this weeks Newspapers, online or otherwise.
Some help/links?




* I may not have looked, because i believe you are full of cráp, like i believe the two girls are.

SyntonFenix

Allyall wrote: »

IMO, i think 3 would be enough. Also, they'll probably be watched at every Airport for the rest of their lives.

Why do you come to the conclusion that 3 years would be enough? I think whatever the courts in Peru give them will be enough.

They'll be labelled as drug smugglers for the rest of their lives in the court of public opinion. Again, they made that decision and choice.

Allyall

SyntonFenix wrote: »

Why do you come to the conclusion that 3 years would be enough? I think whatever the courts in Peru give them will be enough.

They'll be labelled as drug smugglers for the rest of their lives in the court of public opinion. Again, they made that decision and choice.

First time offence (as far as i am aware of), and because i believe they were coerced, because they were easy targets.
In a way (I know what they knew they were doing was illegal, but) i believe they were scammed, different from the scammer that would call to your door and convince you to part with cash. But i'd say they feel stupid now.

I think 3 years in a foreign Prison would be more than enough for them. Maybe they could help others from falling into the same shíthole they fell in to, in the long run.
Maybe they could help the Police in future.

Nothing will be gained by them serving a decade or more, except the ongoing clogging up of Peruvian prisons.

I don't believe their lives should be destroyed because of the many things to take into account in this case.