What's more productive for the country where they committed the crime 1) Serving the local community in a variety of needs that it desperately needs, as this country is a prime example of the third world or 2) Rotting in a local overcrowded jail stitching knickers?

The crime they committed was non-violent, they didn't attempt theft of a person's assets etc. they were basically just carrying a product that people desire and want, but it just so happens that this product is highly illegal and for that reason it carries a ridiculous street value. If it were legal and in decent supply, then it probably wouldn't cost that much more the cigarettes and booze.

Not directly anyway.

lol at community service, trafficking 1.5m of a class A drug (which carries a life sentence here) but you're suggesting community service. If it's anything like it is in England it'll be a barrel of laughs. I can't imagine many young mules thinking about trafficking for large amounts of cash being deterred by the prospect of 5 years living in Peru and learning new skills ffs :D.

5 years living abroad and learning sounds like a dream to me.

The 1.5m is a price created by the market, in reality it's just 11 kilos of white powder that is potent and not worth anywhere near that, but people are willing to pay inflated prices for it because it's illegal.

I wasn't comparing it to community service here, which is a joke I agree but the community service there would be anything but a holiday, we're not talking about sticking them on Copacabana beach for 5 years.

Five years living abroad for some would be a dream but how much of a dream would five years be when you work an 8 hour day 5 days a week for no or little pay, with no family or friends around. Also Your days off wandering around a picturesque shanty town or a back of the beyond village in an alien environment, does this sound great to you? This is a working punishment and hardly the stuff of dreams and it makes far more sense than just chucking people into jail to rot.

Can't be arsed to get into a discussion about the legality of drugs, the market and so on.

Doesn't intimidate me, no. My mom's family come from Belize (not too far from Peru), they live in a shanty town, I have actually considered living there myself.

Spending years in prison would intimidate me far more. Even a British prison would make me sh1t myself.

If I were to consider smuggling drugs and I knew my punishment would be community service abroad then I'd be far less worried about being caught and more likely to go for it.

See, this is the same argument that people spew when others get locked up for drugs that would be used for recreational purposes. It's usually a small amount but they get locked away regardless. The amount alone warrants them to rot in an overcrowded jail stitching knickers because the crime may be non-violent but it's funding violent crimes. When you are carrying that much product it usually has different means that it is going for like paying off weapons etc.

They're about as close as the UK is to Mali.

That's a minority opinion in every sense, some people might see living in a shanty town as romantic notion, personally I don't.

Good luck if you choose to live somewhere like this. Does the one in Belize that you thought about living in look like this?
http://images.travelpod.com/users/da...th-of-lima.jpg

I think if you asked the two girls which option they prefer, I reckon there's a good chance they choose doing their time in British prison over the community service far from home. At least in a British prison, they'd be on home soil and would have visits from family and friends. Also it's ludicrous to compare the British penal system to a Peruvian one, there's no comparison.

You might, but a lot wouldn't

That might be true concerning the dealers and drug barons, but the mule carriers who we are concerned with here, by and large would have no notion of the bigger picture that you're painting.

Mali is further away and the two countries are closer in terms of culture than the UK is to Mali.

Yep I accept this to be fair but you asked me the question so I answered it. And plenty of students volunteer to work in these shitholes. Never seen any who'd volunteer to serve a prison sentence.

No because it's not on a hill.

I didn't say that, I just pointed out prison would intimidate me more, even somewhere as cushty as Britain.

I would much rather do community service abroad than spend time in a British prison.

No way of proving this so could only answer from my own perspective. But yes I think if these mules knew beforehand they'd only be getting 5 years community service as opposed to 20 in prison if they get caught you'd see an increase in people attempting to smuggle illegal drugs.

I purposefully put that example in, as I knew you'd answer like so. It wouldn't overly phase you out because you are from or have a knowledge of the culture of Belize and therefore could adapt more easily to a Peruvian culture (language aside unless you have Spanish knowledge) For the girls concerned though, Peruvian culture is about as far from the UK as you can get.

Yes they volunteer for a set period of time and they are free to leave it any time they want, that's why they volunteer to do it. Volunteering for something with freedom of liberties, is non-comparable with stringent coercion for a set time period.

That picture looks on a hill to me and also what has a shanty town on a hill got to do with it anyway, unless you're into panoramic views.

That's because you're basing this on an easy British community service system, which would not be comparable to a lot of countries. Just take the example of the old Soviet work camps, which could be deemed as community service in hindsight. I'm just suggesting something similar, but with more dignity for the inmates and a greater benefit to the local community. And it would also tackle the atrocious overcrowding that exist in these places that pass for prisons.

Unsubstantiated, simply because the 15 to 25 years in most Latin American countries has been in force for a long time now and there has been no real increase or decrease in the amount of trafficking that goes on. Empirical evidence would suggest that lengthy prison terms are really no real deterrent at all.

They are a link in the chain though and if they can't get the big drug barons at the top they might as well make examples out of the mules to discourage other people from doing it especially if with your idea they wouldn't be punished as harshly.

You know how many people would get into muling with your punishment if they knew that there wasn't any real risk to it? Woohoo if we get caught then all we have to do is community service.

That's right, just because you can't get the really big fish there due to corruption, let's hang the little fish out to dry and make a good and proper example of them.

As I said before, empirical evidence suggests that regardless of whether there are 25 years punishment if caught, people will still knowingly smuggle and the drugs will still arrive in Europe to meet the demand. So without tackling the root cause here, which are the drug barons, corrupt customs officials and police officers who enable certain mules to get through, it seems hardly ethical to slap a 25 year prison term on a mule, when the judiciary system there is fully aware of what is really going on.

You don't think that decreasing the punishment for smuggling would make it easier for the barons to traffic larger quantities and make more money? I understand you saying the sentences in themselves aren't stopping trafficking, but we would need to implement lax sentences for mules in order to compare the quantity trafficked under those conditions with the current conditions before we could rule that the sentences have no impact on trafficking.

In theory it would but in practice I doubt it. The same amount would flow through to meet the demand in say Europe but even more would be seized by officials to get more money from the barons. To drastically change the supply and demand of the drug, a much larger amount of new users would be needed. Most of these new users would probably be the users of cheaper drugs, that would be attracted to use cocaine as its price would've gone down, due to more of it in the market place. On the flip side of the coin, greater cocaine use would see the usage of other drugs decrease, thus affecting their trade in turn. It then raises the question, is it better to have more cocaine users and less users of other drugs or vice versa, again that's a different debate.

I'd just like to say that every time I see the title of this thread, I think it says "2 British girls one cup" for about half a second.

I'm not following you here. How do you figure?
I don't think there's any shortage on the demand side. If cartels could increase the supply they'd have no trouble finding customers.

In that if more cocaine was being smuggled out and customs officials and police officers were aware of this, they would probably demand an even bigger pay-off.

You think bribes would absorb any possible increase in their profit margin?

I think dying is a good reason not to be a drug mule. It's common for the bags to open and poison the mule.

I recommend that everyone see this movie:

I guess from a business point of view the drug baron would make more of a profit, but then I'm hesitant to suggest that as I don't believe lighter sentences on mules would actually increase the amount of traffickers. If the existing penalty of 25 years is not deterring them, it means that hefty prison sentences are not the solution here and the tinkering with jail time a waste of time. What would make a huge difference though, are the chances of knowing that you'll most likely be caught.

At the end of the day, if they really wanted to (the local authorities) they could actually get most of the cocaine that leaves the continent. Non-corrupt airport officials would snag most of it, leaving only ships to really try and smuggle it. Smuggling controls are actually very effective, when the officials are capable of doing the job properly.

There's no real point in inflicting punitive punishments on mules, when the root cause the barons and production facilities for the drug are right there in the country. Their production is illegal and I can't believe with modern technology that they can't be brought to justice, but we know why they're not brought to justice.

I once knew of a guy in Spain who was a drug user, his girlfriend was Colombian who was aged around 23-25 and from the looks of her she had been extremely pretty. When I saw here she looked pale, drawn and ghastly thin like she was seriously ill. Much later somebody else that knew of them had said that she had been smuggling drugs for a number of years and she was now suffering from stomach cancer. I then thought how unlucky she'd been to get such a serious illness despite the smuggling, until somebody explained to me what body packing was and its risks to the body.

It sounds to me like you favor an amoral system of laws that demands obedience through fear rather than any kind of moral obligation.

I don't know how you can claim such empathy for the victims but then turn around and feel nothing for the accused. It would be one thing if these were hardened, violent criminals, but your contempt for people who are really just idiots shows more callousness than it does respect for justice.

I know that all sounds like personal attacks, but the problem I have with the modern criminal justice system is that it seems more like vengeance than any kind of justice and I think that needs to be pointed out. If all you want is to punish them then put their eyes out and be done with it, but if you want justice then start thinking about rehabilitation rather than throwing non-violent morons into a dungeon for two decades to rot.

Yeah but you seem to be going the other way, like "it's not their fault, let them go, they knew no better". I mean, come on, wtf? This from a man whose tagline says "children should die"? I know it's a joke but you've never come across to me as someone who would advocate going easy on criminals. It's not like they were forced to do it (despite their swiss cheese story)!

Next you'll be saying that hit men shouldn't be jailed as they're just carrying out the orders of a higher-up! The whole "I was only following orders" or "I'm a small cog in a larger wheel" argument doesn't wash with me. US's community service thing might or might not work, but what do you say the solution should be? How would you discourage people from doing this? Would you discourage them, or do you just think it's me getting my knickers in a twist over something small?

(I like the idea of putting out their eyes, though...) ;)

Seriously, I'd like to know: what solution/sentence do or would you propose for this sort of crime? Never mind who's ultimately responsible; those who take the risks and want to share in the spoils should be prepared to share in the punishment, so please don't tell me they're unwitting pawns or something...

im more on the side of batlord and unknown solider here but this is a good discussion


i think the sentences should be lighter across the board with drugs. if they are first time, non violent offenders, 5 year maximum.

imo there are ppl who will take the risks regardless it they know the penalties are a 5 yr sentence or a life sentence. there are some ppl who are just never goin to be deterred and thats obvious because look at the thousands of crimes that happen yearly where the criminal knows that being caught results in life in prison

i dont know much about this specific case or these chicks. but if they are first time offenders and non violent in their crime, it sounds like an excessiv epunishment. i dunno i see my country's crime rate and rate of imprisonment at astronomical numbers and i dont think thats doing anyone any good

Using a hitman as an example is not a very good one. A hitman is normally an ex-military or espionage agent that has decided to use their skills as an assassin. They're professionals that are normally well remunerated and fully aware of the environment that they're working in. The average drug mule is normally somebody that is easy and vulnerable prey for the drug cartels and is on the promise of easy money, which they may or may not even get.

The community service concept would work, it the Peruvian authorities were remotely interested in the rehabilitation of the offender and what the offender could offer the local community. But they're not and seem to view making examples with punitive punishments their top priority here. But then again should anything else be expected from them, they have no real concept of democracy and fairness in justice is simply an alien concept to them.

Yeah but I want to know what HIS solution or suggestion is...

On a slightly non-related subject, 216 your avatar is giving me a headache.
:banghead:

Sorry if I was trying to wear the bat cape again, I go back to being the riddler again.

Also your last 'quote' wasn't done properly and it looks like I've written it.

I disagree. The fact that the existing penalty doesn't eliminate smuggling simply means there is some subset of the population that is willing to take on the risk for the money involved. If that risk were reduced, not only would more people be willing to take it on, but the cartels could pay them less to do so, thus smuggling more contraband for the same amount of money.

I don't know the situation that well, but wouldn't the airport officials on both sides (source country and destination country) need to be corrupt for that idea to be true? How would corrupt Peruvian officials help get smugglers through US customs, for example?

You might be right. I was just doubting the idea that lightening their sentences wouldn't be good for business from the cartel's POV.

I'm not arguing that at all. They certainly did the crime and should be dealt with accordingly. I'm saying that they're idiots, not violent criminals. People who need to be removed from society should get long-term sentences (well, I have opinions on that, but for the purposes of the current justice system we'll say that) not naive morons who are probably just entertaining romantic Scar Face fantasies. They may know about the consequences of drug smuggling, both on themselves and on the people who will buy the drugs, but I doubt they have any real, visceral appreciation for them on the perceptual level, just like a teen drunk driver likely knows they might kill themselves, but the possibility isn't really "real" to them.

P.S. I don't really care about these people, I just have an issue with your line of reasoning in general and feel it to be irrational and harmful.

Hitmen are violent criminals. See above.

Well, for starters, a five years sentence is about as fair as we're going to get I imagine. In a perfect world though this whole concept of justice as punishment should be done away with. I don't believe in free will, at least not in some magical, religious form. I think our actions are as predetermined by mathematics as a bouncing ball or any other inanimate object. If that's true then the concept of responsibility is based on faulty logic, and punishing people for something because they are "responsible" is as irrational as punishing an asteroid for killing the dinosaurs. The justice system, rather than worrying about punishment, should treat a crime as evidence of some kind of social dysfunction that needs to be "fixed".

If this particular argument goes much farther then it might make sense to split it into its own thread.

This is all well and good, but the fundamental question remains: where is my list of poseur metal bands? ;)

Quit sweatin' me, woman. Alterations must be made. You shall have your list, just keep your knickers on.

You don't have to go through U.S. Customs. If we're using the example of planes, if you own or are renting one, you can simply land at any one of the bazillion private strips in this country. Yeah, there's a chance they could _make_ you land to check your cargo.... but it's about as remote as you can get.

Sure, but since he was pointing to corrupt airport officials I got the impression we were talking about a commercial jet and not a private plane.

How do you know I wear knickers? Who's been talking? :yikes: :shycouch:

Firstly, this is not as straight-forward as you're implying. For example, if a prison sentence of 25 years for murder is dropped to say 15 years, I wouldn't say that the murder rate of a country would go up, for the simple reason that the mindset of a murderer isn't focused on getting caught. On the other hand, if we're talking about shoplifters who were getting reduced sentences for stealing, then I'd agree lower sentences would encourage greater stealing as it's a casual crime. Now if we look at drug trafficking, again a person that does this is of a particular mindset that has to often travel halfway around the world to commit the crime and take a huge personal risk in an often alien environment and is often aware that on completion of the crime, they may not even get fully paid for their services, along with having nerves of steel (the two accused girls excepted here) For these reasons alone, a rigid 5 year community programme in the country where the crime is committed is as good a deterrent as 25 years in prison, because if people are willing to risk 25 years, it shows that the penalty is ineffective.

To be honest I'm punching in the dark here with you, as I don't know how you actually feel about the crime that has been committed (innocent til proven guilty of course) as you've questioned certain aspects of what I've said, without actually stating your own personal opinion (if you have then excuse me)

I'm not sure if you've understood what I was implying here. Firstly in this case, Peruvian officials are only responsible for what goes on in their own country, and by and large here in Europe customs officials to a degree rely on the efficiency of the Peruvian system. I've flown in and out of a number of Latin American countries over the years and one thing is certain, they are stringent on both locals and foreigners when leaving the country on long haul flights, but when the passengers reach European soil, all EU citizens basically walk through, with the chances of being stopped very slim, but that is not the case say for a Peruvian, who as a non-EU citizen will then face another lot of stringent checks for a second time, for this reason alone, the drug barons prefer European mules. So you see, the Peruvian officials have created a bottleneck at the airport, which should be able to nab nearly all kinds of smuggling if they weren't so corrupt.

I've not even thought about private planes, but then again I don't much know about custom controls for them.

It seems like with a for-profit crime like drug smuggling, risk assessment would be a pretty significant part of deciding whether or not one is willing to do it. They would most certainly be thinking about getting caught, so I don't think the murder vs theft analogy really works here.
I don't care that much about the crime. I've only questioned practical aspects of what you've said, as that's more interesting to me than what happens to these two women. If anything I'd say the worst part of the crime is providing bread and butter for the cartels.
That makes sense. I did understand what you were implying, but I didn't know how the European customs worked.

The analogy was just used, to demonstrate the mindsets of the perpetrators involved here. Sure one is for economic profit and the other usually for selfish emotional profit (depending on the circumstances). But both are more or less treated equally in Peru. Drug mules getting upto 25 years and murderers upto 28 years, that's around 3 years difference. These are two crimes that I see as being world's apart in terms of seriousness and scope, and therefore I think they should be treated distinctly.

Fair enough.

Reading yesterday that these two girls if they were to plead guilty, would have their sentences more than halved to 6-7 years each. One of the girl's fathers has even suggested to his daughter that pleading guilty is the best option here. Again this shows the callousness of the Peruvian system, because even if you aren't guilty, it's probably still the best option if caught to actually plead guilty anyway, as the chances of justice inside the courtroom are not great and then the accused is left with the burden of a 15 to 25 year sentence.

I think getting the sentences reduced is a great idea. It's still a decent punishment but they have 5-7 years to grow up, get educated and end up better people for it. This may not be the case but I think they have mixed themselves in the wrong situation and by pleaing guilty they might put off other European young adults from repeating the same mistakes.

Their credibility gets even more damning with this article from an ex-boyfriend, who accuses them as well (basically just echoing most other people's belief in the matter) He's the brute with the tattoos:laughing:

Peru Two 'knew what they were involved in' and I told them not to do it, says fraudster ex-boyfriend who dated one of them in Ibiza | Mail Online

Lol, I can't believe people are still smuggling drugs.

If nothing else this case might draw some attention to the plight of drug mules who don't enjoy the benefit of mass media coverage.