Only God Can Judge me now

"If I got locked up and sentenced to a quarter century/
Could I count on you to be there to support me mentally?"
- 50 cent on "21 questions"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prisoner 52559: Schappelle Corby. Sentence 20 years. Crime: Importing 4.2 Kilos of sticky green (Marijuna).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its hard not to know the name Schappelle Corby. Yesterday, Schappelle was convicted and sentenced to 20 years, for a crime she may never have committed. I will never know and neither will anyone else what ever truly transpired except for Schappelle and God.

When I heard the sentence, I was in a state of shock. If she is innocent then it is a travesty. An injustice. If she was guilty, the sentence was harsh and perhaps unjustified. But then again, you have to respect the Indonesian law and the right to govern itself and foreigners that break their laws.

The problem I have (and I'll put a disclaimer here as I only followed the trial here and there) is that I never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. From what i've read, the Indonesian legal system is similar to ours in terms of:

1.burden of proof
2. idea that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the burden
3. once they have proven a prima facie (on the face of it) case, the onus then shifts to the defence to rebut.

There is still doubt in my mind and in the mind of a lot of people that I have spoken to whether she is guilty. This is because to be convicted of a crime you have to certain, no.......make that absolutely certain that a person committed that crime. Even more so when the crime and punishment is so serious. This is because taking away someone's liberty is so precious and fundamental to our human rights. That is why the Indonesian prosecutor had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - that was no room to think otherwise than she had committed the crime.

From what I have gathered, I am just simply not convinced that it was beyond reasonable doubt she had imported the drugs. There are too many questions that are unanswered and too many issues out there. For example, the fact that a major drug smuggling ring in the Australian airport system was busted just a few weeks ago. Or the fact that her bag was unlocked and could have easily been tampered with. Where is the forsenic evidence with any fingerprint evidence on the drugs?. What solid evidence do they have to prove that she committed the crime - other than finding the drugs in her boogie board bag.

I must admit though, the evidence submitted by her defence team was weak. Hearsay evidence from a convicted prisoner - i can't remember all my Evidence law stuff but that's just weak. Testimony from her brother & friend - could be biased/tainted. Evidence from Professor of law who visited her and said after speaking to her, he was not convinced she was not guilty - that would not hold up in any court. An aussie airport worker saying how the airport system was corrupt but was just talking about the airport system in general and could not relate it to the Schappelle case. To me, none of the key evidence presented means jack but even so I go back to what I have argued b4 - I don't believe that a prima facie case was ever established in the first case.

20 years though. That's harsh. She'll be 47 when she gets out. And if the prosecution gets its way in an appeal, it could be life. For a crime she may never have committed. Even if you don't believe she was innocent, you still have to feel for her. I don't ever quote the Prime Minister but he sums up the thoughts of a nation:

"I recognise that, I say at the outset, that guilty or innocent, I feel for this young woman. If she is guilty, I feel for her, that a tragic mistake and tragic act has done so much damage to her young life. If she is innocent, my feelings are redoubled."

A life lost - Schappelle Corby.