Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

420

Holsten wrote: »

They didn't harm anyone.

This is a fact.

but if they did smuggle the drugs successfully sure those drugs do harm to people . Drugs are bad and harmful! No?

tomwaterford

Holsten wrote: »

To be honest with you I'm not too sure. Massive fine perhaps? Have them do some community service in Peru, put them to work helping out where ever needed, banned from Peru? I don't have the answers but jailing them certainly isn't it in my view.

I don't think it would make much of a difference at all, currently there is a risk a very high one yet people are queuing up to smuggle drugs. People don't think they'll get caught just like these two girls.

people do think they'll get caught...that's why so few do it!!!...ive never seen the drug smuggling que in any airport yet:rolleyes:

if you have no punishment...I would think nearly everyone would risk it...it would be like bringing fags home from holiday...why would you not risk it??

they should be allowed serve their sentances at home (using perus remission guidelines)IMO
keeping them out there is doing no one any benefit tbh

_Kaiser_

I think part of the problem here is the age group posting - I'm guessing mostly under 35 so drugs is seen as fun and acceptable and sure what harm etc. Then you have stuff like Love/Hate which makes it cool and edgy too.

Some of the stuff posted in this thread about these "poor innocent naive girls" (:rolleyes:) is unbelievable. As I said it's no wonder we have such a problem with antisocial behaviour and crime here at home with attitudes like that.

I'm only late 30s myself but it seems like things like personal responsibility, respect for the laws and other people are outdated concepts in "modern" Ireland if this thread is anything to go by.

Freddie Dodge

I wondered where all the "no punishment atall atall" gang had emigrated to when they all scurried off from the Larry Murphy thread.
Obviously they were needed here to help those two poor misunderstood girleens.

May all drug smugglers rot.

GenieOz

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

I wondered where all the "no punishment atall atall" gang had emigrated to when they all scurried off from the Larry Murphy thread.
Obviously they were needed here to help those two poor misunderstood girleens.

May all drug smugglers rot.

Lol, are you actually comparing drug smugglers to Larry Murphy? Oh deary me.

constance tench

GenieOz wrote: »

Lol, are you actually comparing drug smugglers to Larry Murphy? Oh deary me.

:rolleyes:

jobeenfitz

GenieOz wrote: »

So you missed the part where I said no harm to anyone then? Strange as it was part of the same sentence..
And you talk about me going off topic when you're talking about paedophiles? Good God!


Nah I'd like to stay far away from you because you're wishing hardship on people who haven't done harm to anyone.


To be fair stealing sweets from a sweet shop would do more damage to the shopkeepers takings than this would have done to anyone.

Sorry for coming late to this conversation. The last sentence here is a bit mad. Please confirm your name is Dougal?

Freddie Dodge

GenieOz wrote: »

Lol, are you actually comparing drug smugglers to Larry Murphy? Oh deary me.

Both destroy lives. Drug smugglers go for slower means and higher numbers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

I wondered where all the "no punishment atall atall" gang had emigrated to when they all scurried off from the Larry Murphy thread.

The were last seen riding unicorns with Santa heading back towards Narnia.

GenieOz

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Sorry for coming late to this conversation. The last sentence here is a bit mad. Please confirm your name is Dougal?

People who buy drugs want drugs. Supply and demand. Shopkeeper could do without his stock beings robbed.

GenieOz

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

Both destroy lives. Drug smugglers go for slower means and higher numbers.

Yeah you're dead right. Drug smugglers might as well be raping and attempting to murder thousands!

Lol, I can't even argue this point..it's too out there

fussyonion

nm wrote: »

Would you like to hear they were raped in there? Killed? Tortured?

No, just like I wouldn't like to hear of ANY human being treated like that.
How hard do you want them to suffer? Be honest now, remember they are 'young girls' as you keep going on, not fellas, so let's set an example here.
I want them to serve their sentence in the Peruvian jail, exactly the term set out to them.

You actually sound like you want them to suffer more because they don't fit the usual typecast drug mules. Irrespective of the circumstances, cheer-leading their suffering is sick in the head in my opinion.



If they were caught in Singapore would you be as happy to see them be put to death?
What a ridiculous question. If my Auntie had a willy she'd be my Uncle.


Similarly, if they were caught somewhere more rational like Portugal or the Czech Republic would you be just as happy to see them receive and serve much lighter sentences?
I would want to see them serve the sentence they were handed!

Does your version of 'deserving it' vary from country to country or are you happy with the Peru standard?
How many times do I need to say this...They were given a six-year jail term in PERU. They should serve the sentence in PERU.
Why change the goalpoasts now?
Who's that going to suit?
Melissa and Michaella?
Why would things be changed to suit them?
You can't commit a crime and expect the circumstances to change just to make feel better!
And with that in mind, what difference does it make to you where they serve their sentence.

Right, so let's get all the British and Irish prisoners out of foreign prisons and just bring them all home to serve their time here, shall we?
Get real.


EDIT: I edited this post incorrectly. I highlighted your text and replied to you in blue.

Guy:Incognito

GenieOz wrote: »

I believe that if you do no harm to another human being then you shouldn't be punished.
Especially when it comes to massively hypocritical drug laws.

What counts as doing no harm? Some junkie robbing your house. Is no harm done if you only realise after they are long gone?

Martina82

tomwaterford wrote: »

fairly certain being caught with a couple of kilos of cocaine in Ireland they would have been convicted and sent down aswel

I would like to think so too tom. Although having "no previous convictions", coming from a good/dysfunctional family(both equally valid defenses in this fine country) and entering an early plea and/or "cooperating with the investigation" would all be taken into account culminating at worst, to a suspended sentence I would imagine.

In saying that I know there are minimum sentences for drug offences over a certain value, but how long is a life sentence for murder these days? 7 years?

tomwaterford

fussyonion wrote: »

Right, so let's get all the British and Irish prisoners out of foreign prisons and just bring them all home to serve their time here, shall we?
Get real.

I actually don't see the problem with this (so long as following countries they were convicted ins remission rules etc)
be nearer their families etc
I fail to see how it serves anyone having these two at far side of the world??

nxbyveromdwjpg

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Some of the stuff posted in this thread about these "poor innocent naive girls" (:rolleyes:) is unbelievable.

Who is saying that?

The only ones I've seen saying it the last few pages are you and some other posters that want to see them suffer. It's being used as the reverse to what you're implying. It's been followed by references then to pedophiles, Larry Murphy and all sorts of other ludicrously useless hysteria.

Some people show the ability for rational thinking, common sense and morality. You then blame this on a tv show and 'the youth of today' (yes that aul chestnut) :rolleyes:

Get a grip.

GenieOz

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What counts as doing no harm? Some junkie robbing your house. Is no harm done if you only realise after they are long gone?

Well no because the harm would be my items being missing and me losing out on money.
You're not good at this no harm thing..

fussyonion

tomwaterford wrote: »

I actually don't see the problem with this (so long as following countries they were convicted ins remission rules etc)
be nearer their families etc
I fail to see how it serves anyone having these two at far side of the world??

But the point is, jail terms are not handed out to "serve" anyone.
You can't commit a crime in one country and just because it doesn't suit your family, be transferred to your home turf.
I know this CAN be done but it's the sense of entitlement that grinds my gears.

tomwaterford

Martina82 wrote: »

I would like to think so too tom. Although having "no previous convictions", coming from a good/dysfunctional family(both equally valid defenses in this fine country) and entering an early plea and/or "cooperating with the investigation" would all be taken into account culminating at worst, to a suspended sentence I would imagine.

In saying that I know there are minimum sentences for drug offences over a certain value, but how long is a life sentence for murder these days? 7 years?

AFAIK sentence for murder is life and your released on licence of sorts by minister of justice

jobeenfitz

GenieOz wrote: »

People who buy drugs want drugs. Supply and demand. Shopkeeper could do without his stock beings robbed.

"people who buy drugs want drugs" Your right there.

Shopkeepers could do without his stock being robbed. Right again.

"To be fair stealing sweets from a sweet shop would do more damage to the shopkeepers takings than this would have done to anyone". Wrong!

I think you are making a twisted kind of point here and if you actually believe it then my question again is, is you name Dougal?

tomwaterford

fussyonion wrote: »

But the point is, jail terms are not handed out to "serve" anyone.
You can't commit a crime in one country and just because it doesn't suit your family, be transferred to your home turf.
I know this CAN be done but it's the sense of entitlement that grinds my gears.

but its not doing anyone any benefit where they serve their sentences...thousands of miles from there families who they will do well to have visits twice a year from

jail sentences are handed out as punishment for the crime...why punish them and there familys further by keeping them thousands of miles away???

Guy:Incognito

GenieOz wrote: »

Well no because the harm would be my items being missing and me losing out on money.
You're not good at this no harm thing..

Well I did ask you what your counting as harm. Does the guy waiting down the road to buy you tv off the junkies count as harm?I'd imagine the lads they were smuggling for have done a bit of harm in their time, but sure as long as your only helping their organisation and not swinging hammers yourself your doing no harm. So presumably the lads selling heroin to kids is harm?

fussyonion

tomwaterford wrote: »

but its not doing anyone any benefit where they serve their sentences...thousands of miles from there families who they will do well to have visits twice a year from

jail sentences are handed out as punishment for the crime...why punish them and there familys further by keeping them thousands of miles away???

Of course the families will suffer, but that's one downside to committing a crime, isn't it?

Guy:Incognito

tomwaterford wrote: »

but its not doing anyone any benefit where they serve their sentences...thousands of miles from there families who they will do well to have visits twice a year from

jail sentences are handed out as punishment for the crime...why punish them and there familys further by keeping them thousands of miles away???

It's benefiting us not having to pay to jail them. They were already living fairly far away from their families when they decided to go on their sightseeing tour.

nxbyveromdwjpg

fussyonion wrote: »

You can't commit a crime in one country and just because it doesn't suit your family, be transferred to your home turf.
I know this CAN be done

Right.. so you can't, but you can.
Gotcha.

fussyonion wrote: »

but it's the sense of entitlement that grinds my gears.

Whos sense of entitlement, the two girls in this case? So if it was an African man without the sense of entitlement, that would be okay?

Why is it exactly you are so keen to see these two in particular suffer for not being the typecast definition of a drugmule?

GenieOz

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well I did ask you what your counting as harm. Does the guy waiting down the road to buy you tv off the junkies count as harm?I'd imagine the lads they were smuggling for have done a bit of harm in their time, but sure as long as your only helping their organisation and not swinging hammers yourself your doing no harm. So presumably the lads selling heroin to kids is harm?

No, he does no harm. Sure he didn't rob the TV, the junkie did.

Do ya think so? Kind of impossible to know.

You presume correct!

Guy:Incognito

nm wrote: »

Why is it exactly you are so keen to see these two in particular suffer for not being the typecast definition of a drugmule?

I think they are doing relatively well out of it tbh. How many male drug mules have threads about them still running 6 months later. Hell how many get thread in the first place, let alone any sort of news coverage.

tomwaterford

fussyonion wrote: »

Of course the families will suffer, but that's one downside to committing a crime, isn't it?

yes...but why punish them by keeping them at far side of world....its just seems vindictive and serves no one IMO
there in prision,why punish there families further??

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's benefiting us not having to pay to jail them. They were already living fairly far away from their families when they decided to go on their sightseeing tour.

to be fair all the billions wasted in this country every year and peopled complain on having to bring prisioners home to be near families???

I don't think they were intending on there extended stay:pac::pac:

there in jail...in all reality what harm will it do to let them home to prision here??

wp_rathead

Find it bizarre people saying no harm comes from smuggling drugs... it is all part of same network which enables gangs in Dublin and Limerick to profit - at the expense of human life with shootings. Look at the mayhem drug wars have caused in Mexico. These two people were involved in all that when they agreed to smuggle drugs - so excuse me if my sympathy is limited..

Guy:Incognito

tomwaterford wrote: »

to be fair all the billions wasted in this country every year and peopled complain on having to bring prisioners home to be near families???

I don't think they were intending on there extended stay:pac::pac:

there in jail...in all reality what harm will it do??

Loads of money being wasted is no excuse for wasting more.

Why not give me the 70 grand a year or whatever it costs to house an inmate that we are saving by not bringing a criminal home that broke the law abroad? I'd end up spending the majority of it back in to the economy too and I'm not a criminal to boot. Sure theres billions being wasted so maybe boost me up to an even 100k , drop in the ocean. I've been a hard working taxpayer since I was 16 so between the tax I've paid and the 100k I'll be spending that's a massive gain to the taxpayer Vs housing criminals that we don't have to just to be nice to them.

Holsten

wprathead wrote: »

Find it bizarre people saying no harm comes from smuggling drugs... it is all part of same network which enables gangs in Dublin and Limerick to profit - at the expense of human life with shootings. Look at the mayhem drug wars have caused in Mexico. These two people were involved in all that when they agreed to smuggle drugs - so excuse me if my sympathy is limited..

They brought drugs in their bags that's it. That's what they were charged with and what they are serving a prison sentence for.

They were not charged with what might happen due to the drugs. These problems are created by the prohibition of the drugs in the first place!

People choose to take drugs, it's as simple as that. Yes they were stupid, yes they were wrong and broke the law and should be punished, but excessive punishment really helps no one. If the UK has them back then whats the problem... it doesn't affect anyone but their families... needless vindictive punishment to leave them there if both Peru and the UK say fine.

jobeenfitz

I do have sympathy for these two girls. I believe it was stupidity that got them into their predicament. On the other hand the fact that they got caught and being in prison on the other side of the world should be a lesson to other stupid girls. The publicity should be a very good deterrent.

I have three daughters, and some of them (ok all of them) can be stupid at times. So for this reason I would like to see them be allowed serve their time out, closer to their family.

tomwaterford

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Loads of money being wasted is no excuse for wasting more.

Why not give me the 70 grand a year or whatever it costs to house an inmate that we are saving by not bringing a criminal home that broke the law abroad? I'd end up spending the majority of it back in to the economy too and I'm not a criminal to boot. Sure theres billions being wasted so maybe boost me up to an even 100k , drop in the ocean. I've been a hard working taxpayer since I was 16 so between the tax I've paid and the 100k I'll be spending that's a massive gain to the taxpayer Vs housing criminals that we don't have to just to be nice to them.

sure your right 70K is a drop in the ocean in the billions being wasted....how much is being wasted having the president flaking around London for the weekend...and how many millions wasted every year in state visits into the country ''protecting'' visiting heads of state

it is a prue vindictive not to let them back...one of them is irish why would the country not look out for her??

Guy:Incognito

Holsten wrote: »

People choose to take drugs, it's as simple as that. Yes they were stupid, yes they were wrong and broke the law and should be punished, but excessive punishment really helps no one. If the UK has them back then whats the problem... it doesn't affect anyone but their families... needless vindictive punishment to leave them there if both Peru and the UK say fine.

Yep, all those lovely heroin addicts roaming around Dublin not harming a soul, just going about their business as functioning and contributing members of society. Sure they don't cause hassle to anyone but their own families.

wp_rathead

Holsten wrote: »

They brought drugs in their bags that's it. That's what they were charged with and what they are serving a prison sentence for.

They were not charged with what might happen due to the drugs. These problems are created by the prohibition of the drugs in the first place!

People choose to take drugs, it's as simple as that. Yes they were stupid, yes they were wrong and broke the law and should be punished, but excessive punishment really helps no one. If the UK has them back then whats the problem... it doesn't affect anyone but their families... needless vindictive punishment to leave them there if both Peru and the UK say fine.

I agree - if both juristictions say it is fine- but i don't believe they are "entitled" to do their time in UK - it would be down to "goodwill" (cant think of another work) of both nations..

---

I agree prohibition of drugs is a farce- but these girls by smuggling were attemptin to profit

nxbyveromdwjpg

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I think they are doing relatively well out of it tbh. How many male drug mules have threads about them still running 6 months later. Hell how many get thread in the first place, let alone any sort of news coverage.

Maybe so.
Is this the reason fussyonion or whoever wants maximum suffering and punishment from now then?
Genuine question.

pablo128

tomwaterford wrote: »

sure your right 70K is a drop in the ocean in the billions being wasted....how much is being wasted having the president flaking around London for the weekend...and how many millions wasted every year in state visits into the country ''protecting'' visiting heads of state

it is a prue vindictive not to let them back...one of them is irish why would the country not look out for her??

Good news. Both of them are Brits. Ok one of them is from Northern Ireland, but the fact remains, if both of them are repatriated to be closer to their families it will be the british prison system paying.
Do I think they should be moved to a prison closer to their families? I don't really care TBH. There are pro's and con's both ways.

Guy:Incognito

tomwaterford wrote: »

sure your right 70K is a drop in the ocean in the billions being wasted....how much is being wasted having the president flaking around London for the weekend...and how many millions wasted every year in state visits into the country ''protecting'' visiting heads of state

it is a prue vindictive not to let them back...one of them is irish why would the country not look out for her??

How many 70k's is it before it becomes more than a drop? Cos if you bring the pretty blonde girl home , its only fair to bring the dirty old pedos and junkies too.

She chose to go live abroad and then chose to break the law even further away again.

Looking after your citizens is getting them an emergency passport when they get mugged, airlifting them home after serious accident etc. Bringing home and paying to house criminals is taking the piss.

Giving me 70k a year would be a much better way to help a citizen tbh.

Holsten

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yep, all those lovely heroin addicts roaming around Dublin not harming a soul, just going about their business as functioning and contributing members of society. Sure they don't cause hassle to anyone but their own families.

In my opinion the smuggler cannot be held responsible for what people choose to do after getting themselves involved with the drugs. You can be an addict and not be a total scumbag.

Again these problems on a whole are caused by the illegality of the drugs in the first place.

Holsten

wprathead wrote: »

I agree - if both juristictions say it is fine- but i don't believe they are "entitled" to do their time in UK - it would be down to "goodwill" (cant think of another work) of both nations..

---

I agree prohibition of drugs is a farce- but these girls by smuggling were attemptin to profit

I don't think they are entitled to it either, but if it's an option then why not?

The problem I have is people who have the opinion that even if it is allowed they shouldn't get to do it.

Guy:Incognito

pablo128 wrote: »

There are pro's and con's both ways.

There aren't really any pros for the taxpayer or governments at home tbh. Only cons for them (in both senses of the word) and only pros for the cons (:-) )

wp_rathead

Holsten wrote: »

I don't think they are entitled to it either, but if it's an option then why not?

The problem I have is people who have the opinion that even if it is allowed they shouldn't get to do it.

Ha again i agree - i wouldn't campaign for them to get transfered to UK but I wouldn't picket them if they did..

tomwaterford

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many 70k's is it before it becomes more than a drop? Cos if you bring the pretty blonde girl home , its only fair to bring the dirty old pedos and junkies too.

She chose to go live abroad and then chose to break the law even further away again.

Looking after your citizens is getting them an emergency passport when they get mugged, airlifting them home after serious accident etc. Bringing home and paying to house criminals is taking the piss.

Giving me 70k a year would be a much better way to help a citizen tbh.

well she was only on holidays abroad on a working holiday AFAIK

actually yes I would bring home all them other criminals (definitely anyone sentenanced to over 12 months)... so as to be nearer to there families....think there are roughly 800-1000 irish in this situation worldwide....

why would you not??
money aside (considering whats wasted every year is only drop in ocean)
I cant think of one reasonable excuse not to!!

jobeenfitz

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many 70k's is it before it becomes more than a drop? Cos if you bring the pretty blonde girl home , its only fair to bring the dirty old pedos and junkies too.

She chose to go live abroad and then chose to break the law even further away again.

Looking after your citizens is getting them an emergency passport when they get mugged, airlifting them home after serious accident etc. Bringing home and paying to house criminals is taking the piss.

Giving me 70k a year would be a much better way to help a citizen tbh.

I agree with you on the 70k, if that is the figure but it works both ways, we save that amount on the ones we send back to their country. They are not entitled to be repatriated but why object?
I know we shouldn't show favouritism because we are talking about young women. I think each case should be decided on merit and I know for a fact that young women can easily be manipulated. I would guess that is what happened here. It is a guess though.

Guy:Incognito

tomwaterford wrote: »

well she was only on holidays abroad on a working holiday AFAIK

actually yes I would bring home all them other criminals (definitely anyone sentenanced to over 12 months)... so as to be nearer to there families....think there are roughly 800-1000 irish in this situation worldwide....

why would you not??
money aside (considering whats wasted every year is only drop in ocean)
I cant think of one reasonable excuse not to!!

You cant just say to put aside the single biggest reason not to bring them home . Oscar Pistorious could probably make use of you at the minute.

pablo128

tomwaterford wrote: »

well she was only on holidays abroad on a working holiday AFAIK

actually yes I would bring home all them other criminals (definitely anyone sentenanced to over 12 months)... so as to be nearer to there families....think there are roughly 800-1000 irish in this situation worldwide....

why would you not??
money aside (considering whats wasted every year is only drop in ocean)
I cant think of one reasonable excuse not to!!

On one condition - we get to sling all the forign prisoners in Irish prisons back to their home countries. I'd call that a fair deal.
Another thing to ponder, if it was an Irish lass coming back to an Irish prison. Here in Ireland we have a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for drug offences worth over 12k. Do you think in the above circumstance that an irish prisoner coming back should recieve this sentence if she was sentenced to less time abroad?

jobeenfitz

pablo128 wrote: »

On one condition - we get to sling all the forign prisoners in Irish prisons back to their home countries. I'd call that a fair deal.
Another thing to ponder, if it was an Irish lass coming back to an Irish prison. Here in Ireland we have a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for drug offences worth over 12k. Do you think in the above circumstance that an irish prisoner coming back should recieve this sentence if she was sentenced to less time abroad?

Jaysus I don't want to be the lawyer for the accused but what percentage of people convicted of possession of drugs worth more than 12k (or thereabouts) do you think get ten years or more? Very small percentage I would think. Some of them get "no time".

Gringo180

Hopefully they stay in Peru and do the time they were sentenced to.

tomwaterford

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You cant just say to put aside the single biggest reason not to bring them home . Oscar Pistorious could probably make use of you at the minute.

what has Oscar pistorious do to do with Ireland and irish prisioners

I never said they shouldn't have been in jail...just they should be let serve near there families...surly not an unreasonable request...
like has been said the savings will be got by deporting other forgien prisioners!!

pablo128 wrote: »

On one condition - we get to sling all the forign prisoners in Irish prisons back to their home countries. I'd call that a fair deal.
Another thing to ponder, if it was an Irish lass coming back to an Irish prison. Here in Ireland we have a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for drug offences worth over 12k. Do you think in the above circumstance that an irish prisoner coming back should recieve this sentence if she was sentenced to less time abroad?

I agree 100% with deporting forgien prisioners

no...I think she should serve her peru sentence (along with perus remission guidelines being applied)


on a side note very few irish prisioners are sentenced to the mandatory sentence of ten years...I am not one bit argueing for lighter sentences for these two - I taught they would have got worse sentances TBH

they are 100% guilty...not like there made up kidnap story-that was worth an extra 3 years on its own...not a bit believable

El Horseboxo

It's funny to see such views of drug smuggling not being harmful. Such a naive view. While nobody would have been directly harmed in the act of moving drugs from one location to another. There was certainly harm from the overall machine which is the drug trade. And drug smugglers are an important cog in that machine. From the forced labor in the coca fields to narco killings and narco terrorism there have been plenty lives destroyed from the production of cocaine to the distribution and use of it in communities. Fighting the drug trade also costs millions in treatment of addicts and incidents arising from drug use. Not to mention valuable police resources used on combating it and untaxable money that could be important to an economy. I think to say drug smugglers do no harm is just plain wrong. They're part of a violent game no matter how non violent their act is. It all contributes. Harsh sentences are needed to act as a deterrent. Won't work for everyone but I guarantee there's a lot more people that won't take the risk due to possible tough prison sentences than there are those that will risk smuggling.