Given we have such a useless method of dealing out representative punishments in the Uk, restricted by EU human rights Act.    When most of us here would like to see life mean life, where child molesters should do life,

 

Are we now going to send an envoy to Bali to plead this womans human rights, when she must have know the penalties she could expect if she was caught,   She claims she was pressured into doing it to save her sons who were involved in the drugs trade.     If they were involved in this particular venture, could we bargain for the womans life by sending them there for trial on the basis of a 3 for one exchange 3 life sentances instead of one death by firing squad?

 

Lots of people will answer on the grounds the end never justifies the means,.yes we have had all that..the question is should we get invovled contesting another countries laws.

 

This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at May 29, 2012 10:49 PM BST

Nothing has actually been mentioned about the sons being involved in drugs,    seems one did time for a spate of roberies and was sentanced to six year. appaently less than a year for each of the robberies he committed, a lot less after parole was given.   Got no sympathy for the stupid.

 

And NO we should not go down the road of ''but she is english its inhumnan to execute English people, we don't mind you shooting yours, just do not shoot ours''.

This post was edited by Former Member at May 30, 2012 1:46 AM BST

I'm of course not UK but I would hope as an american our state department would do everything in its power to help citizens caught up in foreign law,especially if it does not involve murder. This story makes me think of Billy Hayes who was convicted of trafficing hashish in Turkey in the 70's and given life. He was tortured and sodomized and nearly went insane in their prison system. He had to save himself by escaping prison and swimming to greece. This is a drug charge so I have much more sympathy for this woman then some child molesting serial rapist killer or a mass murderer.

Recent news in America concerns TOM BOWMAN an american marine who went on a shooting rampage recently and slaughtered 16 afgan men, women and children. In his case, the Afgans requested to have him tried in Afganistan under their laws. The State Department flew him home which in my opinion was improper considering the charges, the many witnesses and overwhelming evidence against him.

I just wanted to use these two examples as extreme cases with different outcomes. The drug dealer was abandoned by the state department yet the marine mass murderer was flown home.

My opinion on things like this is life or execution for any crime other then murder is a quite absurd and much to extreme a sentence. I personally don't even support the death penalty in any case. I'd hope any moral and decent civilized country should intervene on behalf of their citizens when they face such a harsh sentence over any non lethal crime.

I know ...easier said then done though when they have you locked up somewhere under their jurisdiction. She sounds in a world of trouble!

Whatever people say regarding this type of situation... consistency should rule. If you interfere in another Countries laws for one person (or crime type) but not for another - then an inconsistency occurs. Even worse....who gets to decide which is more worthy of intervention?
How can we expect our Governments to try and help every person who gets into a jam in another country?
In this "age of information", how can a person honestly say "I didn't know it was illegal in that country when I committed that crime" or, "I didn't know what their punishment would be"
If you don't agree with the punishment that is customary in a certain country...you have options
1) don't commit a crime there, or
2) don't visit that country

Perhaps the UK (for example only) should prohibit it's Citizens from entering any country that has laws (and punishments) that are considered unreasonable to the UK.

In Canada, we do not have the Death Penalty.
There is a Canadian who murdered two people in Montana many years ago. This person is on "Death Row" (in Montana) and will soon be executed... providing the Governor does not commute the death penalty. Some people in Canada think he should not be executed but many people here believe he deserves whatever the Governor decides.
Personally, I think the laws (and punishments) of the place where the crime was committed should be respected... I may disagree with those punishments for crimes committed in this country - but then, the murderer had a choice... and he made that choice to murder those two people in Montana where they have a death penalty.

The Bali bombers were executed but I don't know why Bali is holding 150 others on death row instead of just carrying out the sentence - to ' as the French say ' encourage the others not to' .
I think it devalues us every time our bleeding heart politicos drag some smirking villain back home instead of letting them die abroad.

Rose, by default I don't agree with the death penalty. For some its too quick and easy get out. Oyr givernment will be shouting human rights, but do they tell Saudi arabi to stuff their oil, when they are stoning women to death, publc beheadings and not to mention chopping hands off. Its the Hypocricy of it all that infuriates, me. Not to mention how many deaths are caused by gang turf wars, eg, the poor young grl of 7 confined to a wheel chair for the rest of her life, Her grandfather killed. Totally innocent people, now we have a mother and father, charged with killing 5 of their children. Where does it all end. I cannot say definately, but sure I have read it somewhere, the death penalty is still in existence in this country for certain acts of high treason, the assasination of the Monach being one, rape of a royal Princess another. Not to mention MI6 bumping people off putting them in a tote bag, zipping it up padlocking and then sayng the guy did it himself he is a sexual deviant????

This post was edited by Cristine Jennifer Shye. BL at May 31, 2012 4:06 PM BST

Should The EU legal commission rule UK laws regarding life terms are a contravention of human rights, and sentances must be regularly reviewed,  surely once a person has been convicted and given life, the emphasis on being locked up until they die.

 

If a Judge rules that. is'nt that inhuman, giving someone false, hope, over pointless reviews?

 

Sounds silly, but its like murdering a family or a child and saying I only killed them for 10 years, then they will be ok.

 

I actually don't think we should get involved. It's fine to do everything in our countries power to prove their innocence, if in fact they are, but if their guilt is proven, then they should be prepared to pay the consequences. I'm sure that if one of the taliban entered our country, blew up a primary school, killing several, and then fled to his own country, would we not want him to pay for the crime committed? Of course we would. We would want him prosecuted under our laws as that is where the crime was commited. That is an extreme example but is it okay to commit less serious offences then in the knowledge that your country will intervene and get you off?

 

Would you feel the same if a drug smuggler had been found to have made a fortune on their trade and were now pleading their innocence because they had finally been caught? 

 

What if you had a child who had become addicted, would you still feel lenient towards that person?

 

No easy answer really is there?

 

 I guess it comes down to common sense. If you are going to another country...at least understand the laws and penalties of that country!!

 With the internet and all the information technology we have...there is no excuse not to know these things.