Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

chopper6

RasTa wrote: »

This is nonense, roughly less then 1% of the coke is smuggled by people via airports. These 2 had 11k's so for example, 1.5 tonnes washed up in Cork in 07 followed by them finding another 1.7 tonnes a year later.

6 years won't do anything, 2 is plenty.

Well what's the point in having custodial sentences at all?

Why not just let people away with it if they're young and dopey looking?

Sure,very little dope is bodypacked or in luggage at airports but something must be seen to be done.

Obviously there's no way these two idiots are big players but it's precisely people like this that need to be warned off doing these smuggling runs...you can very easily end up a patsy for a much bigger shipment.

2 years for 11 kilos is ridiculous...that's the sort of time you'd get for a spot of joyriding with a load of previous.

But if that was Thailand...you'd either be executed or you would never see the light of day again.

RasTa

chopper6 wrote: »

Well what's the point in having custodial sentences at all?

There is no point, they haven't done anything to make it a high enough deterrent to anybody as the rewards are too high.

Exact same as booze back in the day.

Holsten

armchaircoach wrote: »

Does this logic apply to all criminals everywhere? Or could you supply a list of crimes/types of people to whom the law shouldn't apply.

I'd apply it to all non-violent offenders.

chopper6

RasTa wrote: »

There is no point, they haven't done anything to make it a high enough deterrent to anybody as the rewards are too high.

Exact same as booze back in the day.

The rewards arent usually very high for the mule...they're the ones taking the hit if everything goes pearshaped...and there'll always be people willing to risk everything for a few grand.

So...what do they do?

It's not an easy call to make but as i said they need to at least try to deter people.

RasTa

chopper6 wrote: »

It's not an easy call to make but as i said they need to at least try to deter people.

They have being doing that for the past 60 odd years. When are they going to admit they are wrong and stop wasting billions of tax payers money

Holsten

chopper6 wrote: »

The rewards arent usually very high for the mule...they're the ones taking the hit if everything goes pearshaped...and there'll always be people willing to risk everything for a few grand.

So...what do they do?

It's not an easy call to make but as i said they need to at least try to deter people.

But it doesn't work, it doesn't work for any crime but ESPECIALLY for smuggling crimes, these people are willing to do it for the money, they don't care about the risk.. for them the money means more and they don't think they'll ever be caught just like every criminal ever.

Something new needs to be taught up.. like I dunno, removing the power from the smugglers in the first place and ending the war on drugs?

who the fug

Holsten wrote: »

But it doesn't work, it doesn't work for any crime but ESPECIALLY for smuggling crimes, these people are willing to do it for the money, they don't care about the risk.. for them the money means more and they don't think they'll ever be caught just like every criminal ever.

Something new needs to be taught up.. like I dunno, removing the power from the smugglers in the first place and ending the war on drugs?

Stop with the logic, you will break the internet

end of the road

chopper6 wrote: »

The rewards arent usually very high for the mule...they're the ones taking the hit if everything goes pearshaped...and there'll always be people willing to risk everything for a few grand.

So...what do they do?

It's not an easy call to make but as i said they need to at least try to deter people.

they have tried and failed, waste of time now, just legalise the lot and be done with it, their always will be someone willing to take them, honest education instead of the hypocritical education in relation to drugs currently received in schools will help but flushing money down the drain to fail to deter people is no longer an option

chopper6

end of the road wrote: »

they have tried and failed, waste of time now, just legalise the lot and be done with it, their always will be someone willing to take them, honest education instead of the hypocritical education in relation to drugs currently received in schools will help but flushing money down the drain to fail to deter people is no longer an option

As with anything costing billions of dollars,the war on drugs has as many vested interests as the illegal drugs industry...many of them out of the hands of western Governments.

Menas

Looks like their day of reckoning will be next Tuesday barring any more confusion or delays.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/d-day-peru-two-michaella-connolly-2917633

The Mirror talking about them getting a short sentence and being back in a UK prison before Christmas?

A source close to the case said: The logistics of getting them home is the hurdle. Whether everything can be sorted that quickly after sentencing on Tuesday is the problem. It’s a case of preparing for the worst and hoping for the best and they’ve been told not to get their hopes up they’ll be home in time for Christmas.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby

RTE reporting that these two will find out today how long they must serve.

chopper6

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Looks like their day of reckoning will be next Tuesday barring any more confusion or delays.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/d-day-peru-two-michaella-connolly-2917633

The Mirror talking about them getting a short sentence and being back in a UK prison before Christmas?

Back home for christmas?

Aww bless thier little cotton socks.

Sure they deserve it.

keith16

Holsten wrote: »

I'd apply it to all non-violent offenders.

Pick pockets? Fraud?

Holsten

Yes, they are non-violent offenders.

If someone is going to smash your head in with a metal bar then they should be in custody, if they take a phone from your pocket they should not.

Simple.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Holsten wrote: »

Yes, they are non-violent offenders.

If someone is going to smash your head in with a metal bar then they should be in custody, if they take a phone from your pocket they should not.

Simple.

So a solicitor that steals the deeds to numerous peoples homes and commits fraud that runs into 10 of millions of euros should walk free?
Nice.
I suppose it's called looking after your own!:rolleyes:

keeponhurling

chopper6 wrote: »

Back home for christmas?

.

Well, not really "home", just moved to a prison in their home country

Holsten

Look, prison is used to protect the public from people who are dangerous. Is that man dangerous? No he is not, so why waste a prison cell putting him up when there could be other punishments handed down?

Like locking these two very silly girls up will achieve nothing for nobody, it's a waste of time, why not let them go home and actually try and move on with their lives and contribute to society instead of wasting away for 8 years in a Peruvian prison?

You can't really send a message being tough of crime like this when everyone knows the punishments they'll receive and still do it, imagine how many kilos of cocaine have left Peru since these two were arrested?

bruschi

Holsten wrote: »

Look, prison is used to protect the public from people who are dangerous. Is that man dangerous? No he is not, so why waste a prison cell putting him up when there could be other punishments handed down?

Like locking these two very silly girls up will achieve nothing for nobody, it's a waste of time, why not let them go home and actually try and move on with their lives and contribute to society instead of wasting away for 8 years in a Peruvian prison?

You can't really send a message being tough of crime like this when everyone knows the punishments they'll receive and still do it, imagine how many kilos of cocaine have left Peru since these two were arrested?

you must be a judge with logic like that. makes sense now to the ridiculous sentences we see handed out these days.

kylith

Holsten wrote: »

Look, prison is used to protect the public from people who are dangerous. Is that man dangerous? No he is not, so why waste a prison cell putting him up when there could be other punishments handed down?

Like locking these two very silly girls up will achieve nothing for nobody, it's a waste of time, why not let them go home and actually try and move on with their lives and contribute to society instead of wasting away for 8 years in a Peruvian prison?

You can't really send a message being tough of crime like this when everyone knows the punishments they'll receive and still do it, imagine how many kilos of cocaine have left Peru since these two were arrested?

So, because other people haven't been caught these girls should get off scot-free? They were caught committing a crime, why should they not be punished? What's to stop anyone from stealing or embezzling if only violent offenders are jailed?

Allyall

Holsten wrote: »

imagine how many kilos of cocaine have left Peru since these two were arrested?

Some of the things you said, i may agree with. But that makes no sense.

Imagine how many people have been murdered since Charles Manson was arrested?

Stupid Girls

They aren't in a bargaining position, and trying to gain the Public sympathy won't work.
They should just tell the Police what they need to know, and what they need to tell them to get a lighter sentence.

I'm find myself thinking more and more, that for sheer stupidity alone, these girls deserve 20 years.

Holsten

kylith wrote: »

So, because other people haven't been caught these girls should get off scot-free? They were caught committing a crime, why should they not be punished? What's to stop anyone from stealing or embezzling if only violent offenders are jailed?

They HAVE been punished, that's the thing! Just not punished enough to your liking! They've been in jail for how long now?

What will it achieve locking them up for a further 8 years? Tell me?

Allyall

Holsten wrote: »

What will it achieve locking them up for a further 8 years? Tell me?

It will deter many other similar minded people, and it will prevent them from trying to smuggle drugs again..

Holsten

Allyall wrote: »

It will deter many other similar minded people, and it will prevent them from trying to smuggle drugs again..

Are you serious?! NO IT WILL NOT!

These people are in it for the money, the punishment doesn't even come into their heads.

These girls are PROOF of that! My god.... :rolleyes:

irish_goat

Holsten wrote: »

Look, prison is used to protect the public from people who are dangerous.

That's only one of the many reasons we have prisons.

Allyall

Holsten wrote: »

Are you serious?! NO IT WILL NOT!

These people are in it for the money, the punishment doesn't even come into their heads.

These girls are PROOF of that! My god.... :rolleyes:

Well then, if they're locked up, they won't be able to be tempted to try it again.

Also, if they are released after a few months, it will definitely send out the wrong message.

Idiots who think a couple of months locked up, are well worth the risk of a couple of grand if they don't get caught, will definitely be running ideas over in their head.
8 years, most wouldn't even be tempted.

Holsten

Allyall wrote: »

Well then, if they're locked up, they won't be able to be tempted to try it again.

Also, if they are released after a few months, it will definitely send out the wrong message.

Idiots who think a couple of months locked up, are well worth the risk of a couple of grand if they don't get caught, will definitely be running ideas over in their head.
8 years, most wouldn't even be tempted.

Do you not see how silly your argument is?

If what you are saying was true, it would have been true for these girls and they wouldn't have done it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But it's not true, it wasn't for them and it won't be for anyone else.

kylith

Holsten wrote: »

They HAVE been punished, that's the thing! Just not punished enough to your liking! They've been in jail for how long now?

What will it achieve locking them up for a further 8 years? Tell me?

My liking has nothing to do with it, their sentence is dependant on what the Peruvian justice system decides is suitable.

They have been in jail for about 5 months. Do you really think that that is a fair sentence for smuggling ST£1.5m of drugs and lying to the police?

Allyall

Holsten wrote: »

Do you not see how silly your argument is?

If what you are saying was true, it would have been true for these girls and they wouldn't have done it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But it's not true, it wasn't for them and it won't be for anyone else.

No, i am pointing out how silly and contradicting your argument is.

Also, i said for a few months, "More people" would be likely. I didn't say at 8 years nobody would.

Also, i don't believe the girls understood everything when they were convinced to do it. I also believe the story that MMcCC did a couple of smaller runs to mainland Spain first, and liked the lifestyle that came with it.

You think the punishment doesn't come into their heads?
For most normal thinking people, it does. Also, the money isn't that great. These two may have received €5,000 between them, had things gone the way they wanted.
It is most likely they were used. It will be harder for Drug Smuggles to use people like these two in the future, if more idiots are aware of the serious consequences.

Grandpa Hassan

Holsten wrote: »

But it's not true, it wasn't for them and it won't be for anyone else.

But do you not think even more people would do it if there was no deterrent?

Forget that these are nice white middle class girls. Would you apply the same to every drug trafficker around the world. A 5 month standard sentence? geez, everyone would be at it if that were the case!!!!!!!

Holsten

kylith wrote: »

My liking has nothing to do with it, their sentence is dependant on what the Peruvian justice system decides is suitable.

They have been in jail for about 5 months. Do you really think that that is a fair sentence for smuggling ST£1.5m of drugs and lying to the police?

I got the impression you were not happy, it wasn't enough punishment for you.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be punished, but years in jail is not really the correct punishment, it achieves nothing.

Look at it like this, will they ever do this again? I very much doubt that.

Drug smuggling cannot really be stopped, it's a lost war. I think they've been given a big enough scare that will last them a life time.

Guy:Incognito

So no more prisons for non violent crimes then. What would you suggest to the business owners in dublin city centre for example. Theres hige amounts of shoplifting happening , even more at this time of year. Should they just jave to suck it up? Tough **** if your property is stolen ? They wont even have to bother trying to hide the stuff. If a gard catches them he can just ruffle thw littlw scamps hair and tell them not to do it again .

What about if you came home and theres some little **** packing all your belongings in to the car he just stole from you then just laughs and tells ypu he'll be back for the new stuff when you replace it because sure its a non violent crime give him a fine wont pay because hes on the dole and you cant be taking from the poor.


What about if instead of you its an elderly relatives house and they collapse from the shock and die? Sure he didnt lay a hand on them, non violent crime.

I am pie

Holsten wrote: »

I got the impression you were not happy, it wasn't enough punishment for you.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be punished, but years in jail is not really the correct punishment, it achieves nothing.

Look at it like this, will they ever do this again? I very much doubt that.

Drug smuggling cannot really be stopped, it's a lost war. I think they've been given a big enough scare that will last them a life time.

Peru is getting a bad reputation as the smuggling capital of the world, until the US, EU and UK stop shovelling it up their rather well off snouts it's South & Central America that gets to suffer. Peru has very little say in any war on drugs, they do however get to try and protect themselves from becoming a failed narco state by imposing sentences strong enough to put off anyone else from coming over and trying to get out of their country with suitcases full of coke.

Will they do it again if released today, no, but someone else might think that 5 months was an acceptable risk for 1.5m profit. However, change that to 8 yrs and the risk to reward equation starts to change.

It's very simplistic to say "end the war on drugs" but that does absolutely nothing for those countries of origin. Uruguay legalising internal use of weed is a far cry from legalising the production and export of coke, any country trying that unilaterally would be a. soon for a change of govt as it would be very unpopular, b. suffer sanctions and severe pressure from the UN.

Imagine, a bunch of countries south of the US basically saying they give up, the problem is now the problem of the next transit country or final destination country. Childishly naive.

I'm afraid some time served here is the correct sentence for Peru, that's what matters here. A country which previously did not have a smuggling problem trying to get a grip on an issue before it seriously damages the fabric of society and the rule of law. Not two greedy halfwits who tried to make a quick buck to extend their vacuous party lifestyle.

Holsten

We could go around in circles all day. I am not against punishment for committing crimes, I feel we need to look at alternative to prison for non-violent offenders as it doesn't work.

My argument is sentencing for deterrence does not work, and it's proven throughout the world.

People should be sentenced if they are an immediate danger to other people or need proper rehabilitation.

Sentencing people to custody for punishment or deterrence does nothing good for society as a whole and only exacerbates the problem.

I am pie

Holsten wrote: »

We could go around in circles all day. I am not against punishment for committing crimes, I feel we need to look at alternative to prison for non-violent offenders as it doesn't work.

My argument is sentencing for deterrence does not work, and it's proven throughout the world.

People should be sentenced if they are an immediate danger to other people or need proper rehabilitation.

Sentencing people to custody for punishment or deterrence does nothing good for society as a whole and only exacerbates the problem.

Your making statements here without any facts. Are you seriously trying to say that 5months inside would not be considered an acceptable risk to smuggle 1.5m worth of drugs out of Peru?

I think your perspective is heavily skewed towards whats good for these two eejits, when the reality on the ground is much more urgent. Parts of Argentina, Peru, Bolivia and the northern Colombian jungle are outside the rule of law because of drug trafficking gangs but you think these two should get off because they won't do it again?

You're ignoring the issue. The transit countries cannot unilaterally change their laws on smuggling, its not an option. They cannot control consumption as it is largely outside their borders. (Hello US, UK, & EU). They suffer the consequences, the only response they have is enhanced security and detection, in their shoes I would make a statement with these 2. It might not have a great effect, but it's a lot better than sending them home after 5 months, there'd be a queue at the airport for people willing to try again with that low level of risk.

I am pie

Ps...how is sentencing for deterrent proven to be ineffective in South America? Back that up with something more generic than "all around the world"

That statement without context is a miserably inadequate defence for letting these 2 jokers loose.

end of the road

I am pie wrote: »

Peru is getting a bad reputation as the smuggling capital of the world, until the US, EU and UK stop shovelling it up their rather well off snouts it's South & Central America that gets to suffer. Peru has very little say in any war on drugs, they do however get to try and protect themselves from becoming a failed narco state by imposing sentences strong enough to put off anyone else from coming over and trying to get out of their country with suitcases full of coke.

Will they do it again if released today, no, but someone else might think that 5 months was an acceptable risk for 1.5m profit. However, change that to 8 yrs and the risk to reward equation starts to change.

It's very simplistic to say "end the war on drugs" but that does absolutely nothing for those countries of origin. Uruguay legalising internal use of weed is a far cry from legalising the production and export of coke, any country trying that unilaterally would be a. soon for a change of govt as it would be very unpopular, b. suffer sanctions and severe pressure from the UN.

Imagine, a bunch of countries south of the US basically saying they give up, the problem is now the problem of the next transit country or final destination country. Childishly naive.

I'm afraid some time served here is the correct sentence for Peru, that's what matters here. A country which previously did not have a smuggling problem trying to get a grip on an issue before it seriously damages the fabric of society and the rule of law. Not two greedy halfwits who tried to make a quick buck to extend their vacuous party lifestyle.

its a waste of time money and energy, its only coke, when nobody drinks alcohol or smokes cigarettes anymore then we can make an issue but at the moment we keep wasting money on a hypocritical waste of time money and energy war that was never winnable, it doesn't matter how long the sentence is it won't stop it, those who won't smuggle would be deterred by a day in jail never mind 8 years, those who want to smuggle will take the risk whether its a day or 8 years, all this nonsense about getting to grip with the issue before it damages the fabric of society or the rule of law is laughable as it has all ready done that, best to let them go home and forget about it and stop wasting money and time on this, the war has been lost and was never winnable, the UN will eventually see that or maybe they all ready have and are just keeping things the way they are to keep the US happy.

end of the road

I am pie wrote: »

in their shoes I would make a statement with these 2. It might not have a great effect, but it's a lot better than sending them home after 5 months, there'd be a queue at the airport for people willing to try again with that low level of risk.

lol, delusianel nonsense, why would somebody who doesn't want to smuggle drugs in the first place decide to do it because the sentence is 5 months? its just not true, those who smuggle will do so, 8 years or 8 weeks is irrelevant

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

They have been in jail for about 5 months. Do you really think that that is a fair sentence for smuggling ST£1.5m of drugs and lying to the police?

yes, you want to criminalize these drugs and their users don't be surprised when they end up being sold and smuggled around the world by criminals and mules.

bruschi

end of the road wrote: »

lol, delusianel nonsense, why would somebody who doesn't want to smuggle drugs in the first place decide to do it because the sentence is 5 months? its just not true, those who smuggle will do so, 8 years or 8 weeks is irrelevant

absolutely it is not. If I was offered €5,000 and told the punishment if caught would be 8 weeks, I'd consider it. If it was 8 years there would be no way at all I'd even think about it. If the punishment is minimal, it would mean even more smugglers.

Grandpa Hassan

end of the road wrote: »

....it doesn't matter how long the sentence is it won't stop it, those who won't smuggle would be deterred by a day in jail never mind 8 years, those who want to smuggle will take the risk whether its a day or 8 years.....

You think no-one weighs up the risk against the reward when committing a crime? Come on....

J K

Holsten wrote: »

Do you not see how silly your argument is?

If what you are saying was true, it would have been true for these girls and they wouldn't have done it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But it's not true, it wasn't for them and it won't be for anyone else.

To know the difference you would first have to instigate an experiment where there was no prison and no deterrent. Then measure the level of transportation, supply and use in those circumstances. Then compare that to current levels. The difference between the two if there was a difference would be the benefit of a deterrent.

There would never under any system be a situation where nobody moved any drugs as per your strawman.

Toto Wolfcastle

Sentenced to 6 years and 8 months.

http://news.sky.com/story/1183734/peru-two-jailed-for-six-years-and-eight-months

Menas

6 yrs 8 months is about right in my book. RTE say they will 'be in prison in peru for 2 years'.
Does that mean they could be free in two or transferred to a uk prison in 2?

Any news on bun watch?

Allyall

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

Sentenced to 6 years and 8 months.

http://news.sky.com/story/1183734/peru-two-jailed-for-six-years-and-eight-months

They must have sorted out their plea bargaining problems.

Yeah, so a third of that sentence will be served (according to media). But part of their plea bargaining was also that they serve their sentence on this side of the Atlantic. No mention of that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

About right, I thought. This idea of time served and a slap on the wrist is bull****.

You break the law, you pay the consequences. These are the consequences.

Holsten

Harsh.

dundalkfc10

Holsten wrote: »

Harsh.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-drug-smugglers-nabbed-in-Spain---sentenced-to-30-years-in-prison-168659626.html

Irish man caught smuggling cannabis into Ireland from Spain was jailed for 30 years last year.

Should he not have been released and let home to his family?

Wattle

The Peruvian authorities couldn't really be seen to give them any less. It didn't help that they flat out lied. Anyway sometimes these sentences are commuted. They could well be out in three.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Holsten wrote: »

Harsh.

How so? In line with most other sentences foreigners have been getting for this kind of thing.

fussyonion

So I gather they won't serve the full six years?
Shame. They deserve everything they get. Delighted they're being banged up abroad.