I beg to differ, SF. 1.5 pounds is certainly enough for possession with intent to distribute. From an unpublished appellate court decision "the jury could rationally infer that anyone possessing 250 grams of heroin of 65 to 72% purity possessed it with the intent to distribute." In the United States, at least, amount alone is sufficient to establish intent to distribute. I don't know what the requirement for trafficking are.

I would believe you if you'd said "a couple of grams." Did you read my previous post about dosage? I guess the question remains whether it was pure heroin or if it was already mixed. With that amount, I might assume she got it from the source to be mixed back home.

I doubt 20,000 doses (or even half that) was for personal use.

* * * * *

Nice post, Cyn.

So Iran should be allowed execute women for the crime of being rape victims?

You disagree with the current prosecution of Charles Taylor?

We should not have interfered with Serbs and Croats murdering each other? Or mass slaughter in Rwanda?

Surely if a national law is in breach of international human rights conventions then it is invalid?

And Alderon should not have been punished by Lord Vader for the rebel Princess Leia's insolence!

Slow down, this isn't the genocide in Rwanda.

I think many would agree there is a human rights issue concerning the abuse and pregnancy. But outside of that, the use of capital punishment happens right here in North America. I don't agree with it, but this is hardly like the dark days in Rwanda.

Just so that you can read again what I wrote... protect BORDERS and PEOPLE.

civil war is a different matter all together.

Taking imperialism a little far are we? While I don't agree with the human rights violations in prison, subjecting a foreign national to local laws is fully within the ambit of a sovereign nation.

I am not saying that this is as bad as Rwanda, but I am establishing the principle that the international community does have the right to interfere in the business of a soveriegn state in some circumstances.

I think we all accept that this is true (in some circumstances)

The treatment of this girl for a (if people are hung up on the term "minor" let me say) non violent crime is a clear violation of international human rights law, and we do not have to hide behind the fact we do not want to be seen as imperialist when we say that we will not stand for it.

The British nation used to have the most powerful empire in the world, and I say that we still stand for something and we are not in a position yet where we are to be pushed around by Laos and tremble before them. We should defend our rights and the rights of our people if Laos aggressively interferes with them. I am not saying that I seek to prevent them executing their own citizens for ridiculous reasons, but I do say that I seel to prevent them executing British female citizens.

pushed around????? really? pushed around?

If the person is a DRUG TRAFFICKER you mean you can flout rules and laws of other nations that you go visit or get expatriated? Really?

So then why should I drive on the left side of the road when I visit the UK?

Again, I am not saying she shouldnt face legal sanction.

I am saying she shouldnt be shot.

Okay...so don't stand for it. I'll say it again: extradite her (only on the basis of abuse and the pregnancy) and lock her up for life in Britain.

If the laws are stated on the entry to the country like DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS, I'm sorry, she should be SHOT.

She likely knew the risk. If she were only carrying even two-thirds of what she had (which is still a heck of a lot...enough for trafficking), she wouldn't be facing death right now. Assuming it's pure heroin (why wouldn't it be?), she was carrying a shitload of it.

As much as I dislike the "war on drugs" and all that, this is FAR from being a violation of international human rights law.

And I fail to see where the gender of the person is relevant.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

By the way, if she is guilty, in all likelihood she knew the penalty in Laos. So many Westerners try to traffic to that region precisely because the heavy penalties mean extra high profits.

You believe that shooting a pregnant 20 year old woman who has mental health issues is not a violation of human rights standards?

We'll see how this goes down. Now that this is broken in the UK media the Laos government know what they are up against and I doubt they will run the risk of our likely response.

Remember the case of the British nanny Louise Woodward? Even a super power like America has to take into account the heightened feelings in a case involving a foriegn national.

You're also saying that if she had a cock you wouldn't care about this.

This is bullshit. Look, I hate the death penalty. I don't think it should ever be applied and I hope that someday the US (and the rest of the world) can eliminate it. However, this is 2009 and the reality is that in Laos you face execution for drug smuggling. It sucks to be her.

"standards," whatever they mean =/= law

And again, it is not a violation of international human rights law. If she is denied consultation with British consular representatives, that would be a violation of international treaty, but still not a violation of international human rights law.

since there's no legal institutions to enforce human rights law or agreements that operate at a transnational level, this is a political question not an ethical or procedural one. it sucks, but that's reality. and it appears in this case that there's some movement happening that at least in principle may open onto an outcome that is not the one which appears inevitable. but if that works out, it'll happen because the laotian government gets embarrassed into it, and the centre of that embarrassment is the impression--if not the fact--that she was raped in prison. but the information is spotty-to-fucked up, and if you've tried to piece much together that goes past the wire service articles, you'd know this.


the problem with the thread is that it's premise is basically colonialist---it's not that the situation is happening to this woman really--it's that its happening where it's happening, and in that there's some strange sense of violation of a hierarchy (who the hell are the laotians to do this to a uk citizen)...

i oppose capital punishment and think that its usage in a drug case is absurd...


at the same time, 1.5 pounds is A LOT of heroin.

This. As much as I oppose the death penalty, it is hard to say that someone smuggling that much heroin doesn't deserve it. I'd be willing to bet that more than one life will be ruined by the heroin that POS chick got caught with.

Do you really think they would shoot her before she had the child?

You are making poor arguments here.


You stated in this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...earms-use.html That a person who was robbed at gun point (and shot) should not have defended himself by killing his attacker. Yet, when Laos catches someone who was breaking the law and may potentially execute her for drug trafficking, you suggest the British government bomb Laotian Government buildings.


In this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...execution.html

So you feel the death penalty should exist--for the crimes which society finds most horrible, as defined by the general will of the population. Why do you object now to Laos doing exactly what you supported...executing a person who is heavily involved in the international drug trade... The amount of Heroin she had could kill a lot of people and ruin a lot of lives.

Why do your standards not apply when there is an emotional factor (pregnant woman)?



Should the United States 'strategically bomb' the UK next time some American gets locked up for being a jackass?


What about the dozens of foreigners who are executed around the world every year for lesser offenses? Why does 'traveler beware' apply to them but not this drug trafficker?

a DRUG TRAFFICKING pregnant 20 year old woman...

seems like a great candidate for whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com Why not, right?

ScienceDirect - Drug and Alcohol Dependence : Fluctuations in heroin purity and the incidence of fatal heroin overdose

i dont have time at the moment to read the paper, but i decided to go on the abstract to provide a sense of what we're talking about in terms of what 1.5 pounds of pure heroin is. the study tracked a population of 332 people in the context of which there were 61 overdoses over a 3 week period. the purity level for the overdose cases averaged about 40%.

if you think about it, there's something a bit strange about this whole trial, but leaving that aside because i'm doing this quick-like before i have to leave...let's say the doses were standard and what accounts for the overdosing is fluctuation in quality. 40% seems problematic--so let's assume that the average street-level dose of heroin is about 33% pure. so multiply 1.5 lb by 3.

here

Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Morphine (and Heroin)

the doses reported range from 5-1500 mg but maintenance is apparently in the 3-500 mg/day range.
so let's assume that a third of that is actually heroin.

1.5 pounds is A LOT of heroin.

You're fucking kidding, right? That's not even remotely close. She's being executed for being drug trafficker not for being a rape victim. She committed a crime to get where she is, she didn't get where she is unwillingly.

I'm at a loss on this one. This is more weak arguing. You're trying to equate what's been said above to supporting war criminals and the slaughter of innocents. These aren't even remotely close to what's going on here.

Yes, their prison system is atrocious and execution is overly harsh, but she is by no means an innocent victim.

This works on an intellectual level, but again, good luck getting this to work in the international community.

Certainly I do support the death penalty. But I have very clearly stated even in the thread that you quote that I do not support the execution of women; and nor does any civilised human being in my opinion. Executing a woman is a very different thing to executing a violent murderer.

Also I stated that this was in regard to the worst crimes as defined by the general will of the people, not the mad idea's of a dictatorship. In no sane society is any non violent crime considered a capital crime.

ummm...helloooooooooo.... Singapore was a British colony and supports capital punishment for nonviolent crimes, even a young american lad was caned for vandalizing a car.

Women can and are murderers. I don't know why you believe otherwise, when there are jails full of women who have murdered and maimed people.

Ok, in terms of American law... you have first and second degree murder. I basically would only support capital punishment in the worst cases of 1st degree murder. I expect someone might find an example from 1840 of a "woman" committing such a crime, but in general women do not ever commit first degree murder - all cases of women committing murder are basically either involving very strong aggrivating factors, or diminished responsibility by reason of insanity.

When we talk about the worst criminals, wicked murderers who society cannot bare to allow free - these are ALWAYS male. These are the people that I support capital punishment in regard to. And I would hardly hold Singapore up as an example of a free society.

Women happen to be abusive child molesters as well.

I don't support capital punishment, and I can't understand why one would support it just for males. That's a bit misandrous, no? Is it this very same line of thinking that believes men are disposable and are therefore perfect as pawns of war? You know, the war being suggested here in this thread. Just as long as you save the auto-innocent pregnant lady.

Ugh, this makes me a bit sick to my stomach. Are you implying that violence is only "natural" in males? Do you not read the news?

Male murderers are also subject to strong aggravating factors or diminished responsibly by reason of insanity.

Yes there are some female criminals. But the judicial murder of someone is a very very serious thing.

Although I dont want to change the direction of this thread, as my thoughts on capital punishment is being discussed:

1 - I would only support capital punishment by the method of hanging by the neck. Something like a firing squad is the same treatment that might be meted out to a sick dog. The perverted and inverted medical execution of the inection or gas chamber is revolting to human dignity, the electric chair a hideous instrument of torture. If the state is to kill people - it must do so with gravitas and seriousness, and I believe hanging in the only appropriate method

2 - I do not support the execution of women. Capital punishment does not exist as a deterrent (all evidence show that it doesnt work), nor do I believe in any kind of eye for an eye frontier justice. Capital punishment to me is a cleansing ritual, by which the criminals who commit the worst crimes must be sacrificed to cleanse society of the evil of their crimes It is simply not appropriate to execute women. Society becomes warped and blood thirsty when it stoops to this level. Men and woman DO have different roles in the relationships that they have, and in society. The male role is to protect the female from physical harm, when the state (male) violates this to assault society (female) we are in a state of open madness and the state has failed.

__

Now, to get back to this case

1 -The law in Laos in this case is invalid (it is against international human rights standards acknowledged by the civilised world to execute people who have committed non violent crimes

2 - The woman has not even be given the legal rights which should be afforded in Laos (she has not been allowed access to a lawyer)

3 - The woman has been abused in prison

4 - She is 20 years old and pregnant Even in the the most barbaric of medieval societies a female criminal could "plead her belly" and be allowed to be free if pregnant. It is abhorent to human decency to educate a pregnan women

5 - Whether people like it or not, Laos is a weak country and the UK is a relatively strong one. The Laos govt must be informed that they are running a very havy risk here. The British people will demand retlation if one of our citizens is shot down like a stray dog in this way.. the govt may well not be able to contain the people's feelings. Certainly all aid will be cut to Laos, and a trade embargo placed on them. The Govt of Laos will be defined as a criminal body and any assets held in the UK will be siezed immediately. Going to war probably isnt an option, but there are many other penalties which are possible.

well you better hop to it because the once British Colony isn't following your trends, and I believe that Hong Kong will follow the same suit.

Samantha Orobator Won't Face Death, Due To Pregnancy: Laos

according to this report, it may well be that the death penalty is off the table already--this because of a law that bans execution of expectant women who are convicted of a capital crime.
there's apparently been some contact, including consular contact.
according to this same piece, she's to be presented with a list of lawyers--the problem i suppose is that the lawyer she chooses must be lao---but it's in keeping with the law there.

so the ground appears to be shifting out from under that which informed the thread up to this point.

and remember there's to be some sort of meeting in london on the 7th concerning this case.

Im not surprised the "ground is shifting" Laos realise the strength of feeling of the British people and they realise what they are up against!

i don't think it works like that, sf--not even an unreconstructed hegelian would argue that point. fact is that there's been considerable pressure diplomatically and from human rights groups with actually existing contacts in the area. were it not for these groups--and the uk working through australia's consulate, folk could have huffed and puffed all day, waxing as colonial as they let themselves, and it wouldn't have meant anything.

its the diplomatic pressure we have been applying behind closed doors which I believe will pay off I am more than happy that Laos save face in anyway hey want, but this girl must be returned to the UK. The strength of feeling alone and the "huffing and puffing" might not mean much - but economic sanctions, all foriegn aid being withdrawn, seizure of all foriegn assets... these sort of things make them sit up and take notice. And the UK govt has been driven to do this because of the strength of feeling of the British people... so indirectly perhaps "huffing and puffing" is what does the job after all.

AFP: Pregnancy may help Briton avoid firing squad: Laos

Apparently, Laos hasn't executed anyone since 1989. It looks like the practice isn't implemented as advertised.

I'm guessing this means she still faces life imprisonment in Laos.

SF, what about the hundreds of other Britons jailed overseas?

SF, to flat-out deny that women can even commit murder... To say that there's criminals, and then there's women... Where I come from, that'd be called "a world-view that is inconsistent with reality". This thread has nothing to do with the facts of the case and everything to do with your White Knight syndrome.

so if she gets off lightly by not getting the death sentence, what makes you think that she MUST get returned to the UK?

your concern was that she not get 'shot like a dog' wasnt it?

so if she gets off lightly, i think she still deserves to bear the brunt of he actions. repatriating her back to the uK gives others the wrong idea....

"drug smuggle to laos and get and extended holiday and the flight home for free - all expenses paid for..as long as you're pregnant"

dlish, if she is charged in the U.K., she faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

If Laos has exceptions for women with child, it likely means imprisonment instead of the firing squad. As I mentioned above, there are people now in Laos prisons sentenced to death, but they haven't shot anyone since '89.

Looks like she'll do her time in the UK
The messages coming out of Laos are very different now to a week ago.

OK, my turn to throw in my 2 cents worth...hang on while I put on my fire-retardant suit....Now I will be playing Devil's Advocate here for this post, trying to look at things from an outside perspective.

Why should she be extradited to GB and tried? Does GB have the market cornered for the laws regarding drug trafficking in Laos? By what you stated above, you indicate that you believe that a person traveling into another country should be held only to the laws of their home country, and not the laws of where they travel to. While I agree that their punishment is extreme, it IS their law, and we do not have the right to go in and tell them that we don't have to follow them, because we disagree with them.

I would honestly like to see evidence proving it is not a deterrent. While I agree that even in places where capital punishment is used, and crimes are still committed, there is no way to tell for sure it does not deter it. For example, Country "A" has a capital punishment law, but 500 capital offenses are still committed each year. How can we know that if you took capital punishment away, that that number wouldn't increase to 5000 offenses a day? There is no way to prove it, without actually doing it, and you are going to be hard pressed to find a country that would take such a big risk.

So just because the rest of the world says it is wrong means that every country cant make their own laws? they just have to follow what "civilized" people do? Sorry, but I feel that is a weak argument.

Have you checked the laws in Laos? It may be that in their country, those accused of a crime are not given the opportunity to have a lawyer. While I disagree with Laotian law if that is the case, again, this is in Laos, NOT G.B.

Agreed, this IS a horrible situation at best.

And in a case such as this, one could argue that there could e a stay of execution, until after the baby is born. (remember, I said I am playind Devil's Advocate here.

I got the biggest laugh here on this one. GB is one of the biggest countries out there that chastize the US when we get involved in other countries affairs, yet you say it is OK for GB to do this to a smaller country because they are bigger than them? Kinda a pot calling the kettle black I think.

All strong countries exert pressure on those weaker than them to further their own national interest. This is the reality of how nations have all interacted, it works the same for America or the UK or France or Ethiopia, or anybody else.

Furthermore, there are international human rights laws, and if some court in Laos passes a local ruling that disobeys international human rights laws then it is illegal and invalid. It is not legal to lock up an 20 year woman, allow her to be raped in prison, not give her any legal counsel, and then shoot her. Whether Laos claims it is legal or not, it is not.

Now, a week ago the talk coming out of Laos is that the death penalty was mandatory if she was found guilty.

Now the talk coming out is that the death penalty wouldnt be applied and that she could serve her time in the UK

_

Now, whatever obtuse points people want to make, the realpolitik situation is playing out as I said it should... I well believe the UK govt might have left this woman to die... but once the media got hold of it and the strength of the the British people's feelings was helf, the govt (which is under siege over their disgraceful treatment of the Gurkha's and the current crisis with regards to expenses claims (ie trough guzzling MPs)) has gone to Laos and told them basically in laymens terms "your running a risk here boys, our people will not allow a disgusting execution like this to be carried out on a young British girl without demanding very heavy retaliation... we will have no choice but to address these concerns, very rough like..." and the Laos govt have seen common sense.

Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it okay.

The international human rights laws are intended as courts to prosecute war crimes and human rights abuses, not an excuse to go war to save people from punishment for their crimes.