2 British girls arrested for drug smuggling in Peru

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 08-23-2013, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

This is not a simple solution but neither is handing out ridiculous sentences either. To keep this short and sweet. I'd sentence the girls to about 5 years community service in Peru, where they'd need to work an 8 hour day 5 days a week, aiding some of the local communities either urban or rural, as both are quite distinct there. They would work in the capacity of labouring, caring and teaching in these communities, basically doing voluntary work for 5 years and would have to stay in Peru for this time period. In that time they would've learnt a lot of new skills and given a hell of a lot to the local population and really do some good. Sentencing somebody for a crime should be a remedial exercise where possible and in this case it could be so and they could pay for their crime this way. Because just chucking them in a Peruvian prison for years on end, achieves nothing, other than satisfying sadists who like to see human suffering. These prisons should be for violent and dangerous offenders and not for a couple of easily led girls.

I really like this idea. At the end of the day the police will keep their papers and they could report every week to a probation officer. I think this would really teach them some great life skills and that life isn't always about drugs and parties.

Unknown Soldier · 08-24-2013, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

I really like this idea. At the end of the day the police will keep their papers and they could report every week to a probation officer. I think this would really teach them some great life skills and that life isn't always about drugs and parties.

It's a great solution for non-violent offenders and a solution where so many people benefit long term. Especially in a country like Peru where prison capacity is running at 200%.

djchameleon · 08-24-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

This is not a simple solution but neither is handing out ridiculous sentences either. To keep this short and sweet. I'd sentence the girls to about 5 years community service in Peru, where they'd need to work an 8 hour day 5 days a week, aiding some of the local communities either urban or rural, as both are quite distinct there. They would work in the capacity of labouring, caring and teaching in these communities, basically doing voluntary work for 5 years and would have to stay in Peru for this time period. In that time they would've learnt a lot of new skills and given a hell of a lot to the local population and really do some good. Sentencing somebody for a crime should be a remedial exercise where possible and in this case it could be so and they could pay for their crime this way. Because just chucking them in a Peruvian prison for years on end, achieves nothing, other than satisfying sadists who like to see human suffering. These prisons should be for violent and dangerous offenders and not for a couple of easily led girls.

Community service for trafficing? come on now. You are acting like they were caught with just a little bit that they were using for recreational purposes. Horrible idea!

Unknown Soldier · 08-25-2013, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Community service for trafficing? come on now. You are acting like they were caught with just a little bit that they were using for recreational purposes. Horrible idea!

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.

Guybrush · 08-25-2013, 12:30 AM

The policy in regards to punishment down there is so that punishment should be so tough that it discourages people from being drug mules. If a case gets international attention, I would think that Peruvian authorities would generally think of it as a good thing and a chance to make an example. I personally think lighter punishment like Unknown Soldier mentions, or them serving some sentence in the UK instead, makes more sense, morally speaking, but I doubt that will happen.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 08-25-2013, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The policy in regards to punishment down there is so that punishment should be so tough that it discourages people from being drug mules. If a case gets international attention, I would think that Peruvian authorities would generally think of it as a good thing and a chance to make an example. I personally think lighter punishment like Unknown Soldier mentions, or them serving some sentence in the UK instead, makes more sense, morally speaking, but I doubt that will happen.

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:

Unknown Soldier · 08-26-2013, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

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 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.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-26-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

hip hop bunny hop · 08-27-2013, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

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 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.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-25-2013, 09:01 AM

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.

08-25-2013, 12:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	The policy in regards to punishment down there is so that punishment should be so tough that it discourages people from being drug mules. If a case gets international attention, I would think that Peruvian authorities would generally think of it as a good thing and a chance to make an example. I personally think lighter punishment like Unknown Soldier mentions, or them serving some sentence in the UK instead, makes more sense, morally speaking, but I doubt that will happen. __________________ Something Completely Different

08-25-2013, 09:01 AM	#10 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	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.