Flawed logic

[SEZ213]

I usually try to stay away from watching or reading the news, my own world is more friendly (well, most of the time anyway), I went searching for some information last night, and had to troll through hundreds of news articles, and I came across the following:

- A man who murders a two year old, gets life imprisonment with 33 year minimum.
- A man who has done awful things (and 16 counts of), gets 12 years - his victims are still alive...
- A boy who breaks into someone's house and gets beaten by the 16 year old occupant, has the option to press charges against the occupant of the house, despite being there unlawfully to begin with.
- A boy who was egging a house, and subsequently stabs a mother of three killing her, gets released on bail, as he's 'not a threat'.

Now I didn't put this up to go into the nitty gritty of each individual case, but it would appear that we have some seriously flawed legislation and logic floating about our society.

I raised it because somewhere, somehow - the perspective has shifted from looking out for your neighbour and being a caring citizen, and has slipped by the wayside.

I'm disappointed that a legal system can hand out 'just' sentences on one hand, and those that make absolutely no sense on the other hand.

I understand that the legal system is based on how strong your case is, but surely there needs to be some kind of 'fairness' for the victims of crime? After the fact, we are given the option to request compensation through VOCAT, and there's a limit ($70,000 I'm led to believe), but compensation doesn't change your life, it might make it easier...but it doesn't make the event go away.

If it gets rough, I will ask a mod to close this thread (if they don't choose to close it anyway)...so please, keep it civil.

[|||]

humans aren't 100% logical or 100% rational at all times. the legal system is run by humans.

[Bud Bud]

I hear you. The funny thing is that it is still relatively safe in this Country overall, but the chances of something happening to you like being stabbed for confronting an egger are ever increasing for some reason.

The fact that a couple of teenage boys could taunt an old woman with stones in the wee hours of the night in her own home before they returned to murder her is astounding. The fact that she called the police but the operator did not pass this on to them is as equally amazing. All this in a small district where everybody knows everyone on the edge of the Adelaide city limits.

Also for another male teenager to murder an entire family minus the brother who was out of town at the time (I think), over a misguided romance with a 16 yo girl is just as baffling. Again this happened in a quiet community in the Barossa Valley.

I think that you nailed it with the lack of community sprit or sense of neighbourly love that is so lost on so many communities in Australia today.

It is no wonder that the law just does not know how to handle them now.

Bud Bud

[SEZ213]

I can understand that as humans, it's not always rational - I get that 100%, everyone does stupid things.

I think these sorts of crimes surpass the 'stupid things' that we did as kids/young adults, etc., but the disparity between the sentences is what really gets me - one gets 33 year minimum for one count, another only gets 12 years, for sixteen counts - I know the charged crime was different in each case, however the difference between 33 years in prison and 12 years is a long time. The crimes themselves are heinous enough, but I'm a little concerned that the victims are the ones that end up getting the short end of the stick in these cases, and that really bothers me... :(

[DBourne]

Legal system is a joke. It's run by old slobs who are so far removed from reality.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

- A man who murders a two year old, gets life imprisonment with 33 year minimum.
- A man who has done awful things (and 16 counts of), gets 12 years - his victims are still alive...
- A boy who breaks into someone's house and gets beaten by the 16 year old occupant, has the option to press charges against the occupant of the house, despite being there unlawfully to begin with.
- A boy who was egging a house, and subsequently stabs a mother of three killing her, gets released on bail, as he's 'not a threat'.

Your post is a little misguided

Point 3 has the option to press charges, that does not mean that the charges will stick or the occupant will be prosecuted or tyat the perpetrator will not be charged with any crime.
Point 4 is not a sentence at all, he still needs to go to court be found guilty then sentenced.

The legal system is not perfect by a long shot, but the media certainly skew how they report as the rarely publish all the facts a contraversial case sells more papers.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Your post is a little misguided

Point 3 has the option to press charges, that does not mean that the charges will stick or the occupant will be prosecuted or tyat the perpetrator will not be charged with any crime.
Point 4 is not a sentence at all, he still needs to go to court be found guilty then sentenced.

The legal system is not perfect by a long shot, but the media certainly skew how they report as the rarely publish all the facts a contraversial case sells more papers.

The media portrayal is not what I'm concerned about. I'm aware of their underhanded ways of selling papers, and I don't particularly like that either. My problem is the 'flawed logic' in the way they (the legal system that is) interpret laws and sentencing (when/if it comes to that).

Point three - The problem lies in that the criminal actually has the potential to press charges on someone who was 'legally' there, whereas they were not. We can't protect ourselves from this at all - we will always be in the wrong, despite us actually being in the 'right', if you get what I mean. That's what I mean by flawed logic...you can have your name and your families name dragged through the mud, for simply being in your own home.

Point four -I know he hasn't been sentenced yet, but he's been released on bail...after killing someone. How someone can stab someone but be seen as 'no threat' to society? He has already proved he's a threat to society by stabbing someone hasn't he?

[Stefan]

Cool,

Particularly on point 4 the release on bail is generally conditional and the judge saying that he is "no threat" may not be in context, additionally and we don't know what evidence was presented in the bail hearing, it may be very circumstantial.

I remember a friend who is a lawyer in a opersonal injury case were a 64 year old man was compensated for an industrial accident, he got $500K. One of his "injuries" was impotence. The local paper reported how the legal system is beaking down as a 64 year old man got $500K compo for becoming impotent.

Paper forgot to mention that was only one of his injury and that the bloke actually lost the use of his legs and the money that he got was to modify his house to help him with his new found handicap.

Hence I take the reporting on legal cases with a big grain of salt.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Point four -I know he hasn't been sentenced yet, but he's been released on bail...after killing someone. How someone can stab someone but be seen as 'no threat' to society? He has already proved he's a threat to society by stabbing someone hasn't he?

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. At times, that sucks. But it protects you and yours at the same time. Most things in the legal system that protect us, also work against us at times, they are nearly all double edged swords.

You have to factor in why the legal system exists in the first place, and I can assure you it didnt come about to punish criminals (thats an extension), it was to protect you from tyranny of kings etc. Protection of the individuals rights. The legal system we have comes from the Magna Carta originally (theres canon law and other forms of rules etc that existed but essentially you were at the mercy of the absolute monarch), and it was simply an arrangement between landed gentry and the king, ensuring the gentry had rights, and the king obligations in return for loyalty and support when the king needed it (in times of war, and the provision by the landed gentry of knights and armies to the kings service for example).

We always had rules, even tribes will dish out punishments for social wrongs, but a formal legal system it wasnt.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I usually try to stay away from watching or reading the news, my own world is more friendly (well, most of the time anyway), I went searching for some information last night, and had to troll through hundreds of news articles, and I came across the following:

- A man who murders a two year old, gets life imprisonment with 33 year minimum.
- A man who has done awful things (and 16 counts of), gets 12 years - his victims are still alive...
- A boy who breaks into someone's house and gets beaten by the 16 year old occupant, has the option to press charges against the occupant of the house, despite being there unlawfully to begin with.
- A boy who was egging a house, and subsequently stabs a mother of three killing her, gets released on bail, as he's 'not a threat'.

Now I didn't put this up to go into the nitty gritty of each individual case, but it would appear that we have some seriously flawed legislation and logic floating about our society.

I raised it because somewhere, somehow - the perspective has shifted from looking out for your neighbour and being a caring citizen, and has slipped by the wayside.

I'm disappointed that a legal system can hand out 'just' sentences on one hand, and those that make absolutely no sense on the other hand.

I understand that the legal system is based on how strong your case is, but surely there needs to be some kind of 'fairness' for the victims of crime? After the fact, we are given the option to request compensation through VOCAT, and there's a limit ($70,000 I'm led to believe), but compensation doesn't change your life, it might make it easier...but it doesn't make the event go away.

If it gets rough, I will ask a mod to close this thread (if they don't choose to close it anyway)...so please, keep it civil.

Tragic as it is, the lady who was stabbed and her husband werent defending themselves, they went after the youths in their car (according to the media) who egged their home. We dont know the rest of the details of the case, so we cant say why for example the youth is only (or was last I heard) charged with manslaughter and not murder. A trial will hopefully bring out the details. Senseless, but there is more to that one than meets the eye.

The other cases Im unaware of so cant comment why they might be the way they are. But generally, someone trying to steal your stuff or do damage to it is not the same as someone trying to harm you. You can injure someone, but only in self defence. If you go after them, and I understand why some people might, you have to expect the law interprets that as vigilante or anger and that is not a defence. You will probably find in the case you mentioned where the kid who broke in to a house, that kid will also be charged with his crimes.

2ndly, the police or DPP lay charges because on the face of it there is a case to answer, as to whether that turns out to be true (ie: found guilty) is another matter. The trial decides guilt or innocence, the charge does not. Legally anyway, public opinion is another matter. Yeah there are aberrations in the system at times, but most that are reported are media beat ups and misrepresentations in the name of headlines. Or a publics myopic focus on the victims (understandably) without thinking about what protects your rights to be protected from malicious or dubious prosecutions and yes, by you I mean you who have done no wrong.

Dont forget, a legal system isnt exclusively aimed at representing victims of crime, and the punishment of criminals, it also is designed to protect you from wrongful conviction, your liberty and life etc, and as such that extends to the accused too. Otherwise anyone could accuse another of a crime, have them locked up without bail until a hearing can find they are not guilty. Again, the trial decides that. The police or DPP only see if their is enough evidence to lay the charge.

What youre really asking for, is pre-judging by police/DPP beyond what is reasonable given the protection of all citizens from malicious prosecutions.

I know it sounds stupid, and if you focus on individual cases and the victim then it will seem anti-social, but when you also consider the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the reasons why we have that philosophy as a nation, its really all they can do. It truly is one of things that makes this country great, its not for example, Iran.


Your other question and it is another question is why people do the things they do. Postulate that all night, the reasons are as varied as why people choose a car.

[Franco Cozzo]

Because magistrates live in ivory towers.

Some of the crap that goes down in this country's legal system makes you wonder.

I don't particularily like our "equal and opposite" force laws, or not being able to defend yourself with a weapon if someone breaks into your house, its all fine and dandy for a magistrate to make a judgement 6 months after the event happened, from the safety of his bench and stupid hat, which 95% of the time ends up the house owner cops it.

[GTP owner]

Top post fmc351

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. At times, that sucks. But it protects you and yours at the same time. Most things in the legal system that protect us, also work against us at times, they are nearly all double edged swords.

You have to factor in why the legal system exists in the first place, and I can assure you it didnt come about to punish criminals (thats an extension), it was to protect you from tyranny of kings etc. Protection of the individuals rights. The legal system we have comes from the Magna Carta originally (theres canon law and other forms of rules etc that existed but essentially you were at the mercy of the absolute monarch), and it was simply an arrangement between landed gentry and the king, ensuring the gentry had rights, and the king obligations in return for loyalty and support when the king needed it (in times of war, and the provision by the landed gentry of knights and armies to the kings service for example).

We always had rules, even tribes will dish out punishments for social wrongs, but a formal legal system it wasnt.


Tragic as it is, the lady who was stabbed and her husband werent defending themselves, they went after the youths in their car (according to the media) who egged their home. We dont know the rest of the details of the case, so we cant say why for example the youth is only (or was last I heard) charged with manslaughter and not murder. A trial will hopefully bring out the details. Senseless, but there is more to that one than meets the eye.

The other cases Im unaware of so cant comment why they might be the way they are. But generally, someone trying to steal your stuff or do damage to it is not the same as someone trying to harm you. You can injure someone, but only in self defence. If you go after them, and I understand why some people might, you have to expect the law interprets that as vigilante or anger and that is not a defence. You will probably find in the case you mentioned where the kid who broke in to a house, that kid will also be charged with his crimes.

2ndly, the police or DPP lay charges because on the face of it there is a case to answer, as to whether that turns out to be true (ie: found guilty) is another matter. The trial decides guilt or innocence, the charge does not. Legally anyway, public opinion is another matter. Yeah there are aberrations in the system at times, but most that are reported are media beat ups and misrepresentations in the name of headlines. Or a publics myopic focus on the victims (understandably) without thinking about what protects your rights to be protected from malicious or dubious prosecutions and yes, by you I mean you who have done no wrong.

Dont forget, a legal system isnt exclusively aimed at representing victims of crime, and the punishment of criminals, it also is designed to protect you from wrongful conviction, your liberty and life etc, and as such that extends to the accused too. Otherwise anyone could accuse another of a crime, have them locked up without bail until a hearing can find they are not guilty. Again, the trial decides that. The police or DPP only see if their is enough evidence to lay the charge.

What youre really asking for, is pre-judging by police/DPP beyond what is reasonable given the protection of all citizens from malicious prosecutions.

I know it sounds stupid, and if you focus on individual cases and the victim then it will seem anti-social, but when you also consider the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the reasons why we have that philosophy as a nation, its really all they can do. It truly is one of things that makes this country great, its not for example, Iran.


Your other question and it is another question is why people do the things they do. Postulate that all night, the reasons are as varied as why people choose a car.

Thank you for your informed response, it highlights some areas that I hadn't actually thought of. I gather from quite a few of your posts you have some dealings within the legal system...?

I think I'll go back to not reading the news anymore...as my postulating generally lasts a lot longer than one night...

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Tragic as it is, the lady who was stabbed and her husband werent defending themselves, they went after the youths in their car (according to the media) who egged their home. We dont know the rest of the details of the case, so we cant say why for example the youth is only (or was last I heard) charged with manslaughter and not murder. A trial will hopefully bring out the details. Senseless, but there is more to that one than meets the eye.

How did I know there was more to the story...

Great post by the way, very informatrive. I have real passion for the legal system. I should do a law degree....maybe one day if time permits.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Stefan

How did I know there was more to the story...

Great post by the way, very informatrive. I have real passion for the legal system. I should do a law degree....maybe one day if time permits.

Its never too late to educate

You can do courses online, should look into it.

[Stefan]

You're right my wife tells me if I spent the time studying instead of on the forums I'd do it easy...

You know what..I'll look into it!

[BHDOGS]

nothing wrong with the law its what wrong with the sentences rehabilitation doesnt work hard justice does hang em from the highest yard arm

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

nothing wrong with the law its what wrong with the sentences rehabilitation doesnt work hard justice does hang em from the highest yard arm

Is this based on any examples?

My example to the contrary. There is a death penalty for drug trafficking in Indonesia but lots of people still do it?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Stefan

How did I know there was more to the story...

Great post by the way, very informatrive. I have real passion for the legal system. I should do a law degree....maybe one day if time permits.

I dont know for certain there is more as such, there are questions that arise as a result of the charge laid (manslaughter and not murder) and the granting of bail. Time will tell.



If you have a passion for the law, a law degree is very enjoyable. Lots of reading though. And I do mean lots.

With any degree like the various business degrees you will get weekly reading set for each subject you take. It may consist of one or two chapters (maybe 100 pages in total) plus a little extra reading (thats a heavy subject, many are just 30-60 pages total). Its heavy enough considering FT youre doing 4 subjects per semester, and generally have assignments due which require you to research them too, and weekly tutorial work. With a law degree, you'll get one or two chapters from one or two textbooks on each subject, plus cases, and then theres the 'recommended reading' (read not required, but damn well helps if you have) cases too. Plus assignments and weekly tute work. It depends on the subject, and what year they are, but there is so much reading in law. I assume science degrees are similar to law in that.

The reading is one thing, rereading is the worst part for time. Some of it is just so long winded so makes little sense first time round, and not much more second time round, and its written as it was spoken, and a lot of it is 400 years old so old English (no, not Shakespeare, but close), and a lot is in Latin. You have to be committed. But truly, I recommend it to anyone who has an interest.


It helps if you like history too because its so steeped in history. I remember (it was a distraction really, I had to control it a bit) that things Id seen on old movies for example, or movies of say Robin Hood that made you think, 'why would anyone do that' or 'what, that makes no sense', become clear and actually make some sense in the context of the laws of the time. Google 'gleaning laws' and you'll get an idea of what Im talking about. If youve had a religious upbringing you might be aware of it already (you might be aware of it without that... I dont know), I didnt have a religious upbringing so had no idea about it. The Magna Carta helps put the fiefdoms and feudal ways of England in Medieval times into some perspective too.


On the plus side, the exams are mostly open book. But dont let that fool ya, it isnt easy if you havent prep'ed properly and understood what youve learned anyway.

But yeah, give it a go.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Thank you for your informed response, it highlights some areas that I hadn't actually thought of. I gather from quite a few of your posts you have some dealings within the legal system...?

I think I'll go back to not reading the news anymore...as my postulating generally lasts a lot longer than one night...

Mine too, the mind boggles when you try to understand the incomprehensible. Its worse when its real life, and sociopathic, or psychopathic. You just will never understand them. Probably because they make it up as they go, and have little of the humanity in their soul that most of us take for granted. And pretty much thats about all I can make of them, the rest is just random.

I dont think even the medical professionals can understand them much better. Its like trying to accurately predict an infinitely sided die. Maybe over time you can predict, within a ball park of options, one persons behaviour, but the next one you have to start all over again.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by fmc351

the mind boggles when you try to understand the incomprehensible. Its worse when its real life, and sociopathic, or psychopathic. You just will never understand them. Probably because they make it up as they go, and have little of the humanity in their soul that most of us take for granted. And pretty much thats about all I can make of them, the rest is just random.

I dont think even the medical professionals can understand them much better. Its like trying to accurately predict an infinitely sided die. Maybe over time you can predict, within a ball park of options, one persons behaviour, but the next one you have to start all over again.

We can predict some things... such as they will always look out for number one. That is one of the characteristics of these disorders. They have no "conscience" as such, and so the thought of harming someone else for their own gain in not a problem. Therefore rehabilitation does not work. In fact it can make them worse at times because they then understand how not to get caught in the future!

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I dont know for certain there is more as such, there are questions that arise as a result of the charge laid (manslaughter and not murder) and the granting of bail. Time will tell.


.

The reason the boy was charged with manslaughter was that there was no intent to kill someone (as strange as it sounds). You can only be charged with murder when you set out (plan) to kill someone (premiditated) or when you go armed into a robbery for instance and shoot/ stab someone.

If you get into a fight and kill someone in the process then its a manslaughter charge.

A while back the son of one Australia's "rich" elite (cant recal his name but he was a twat) had gone to a guys house and shot someone. His legal defence was that he only went there to hurt him, not kill him and therefor the charge of murder should be dropped and it should be manslaughter. That didnt work as he went there armed with a gun and it was premeditated.
His intent was to shoot him.

Manslaughter gets used in motor vehicle accidents all the time, unless someone deliberately runs down someone etc...

If it can be shown the boy came back to the woman (who was waiting at her car apparently) with the intent of stabbing her then the charge will probably be changed to murder. If the boy went there to appollogise and then got into an arguement with the woman and stabbed her, then it will stay as manslaughter charge.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

- A boy who breaks into someone's house and gets beaten by the 16 year old occupant, has the option to press charges against the occupant of the house, despite being there unlawfully to begin with.

I find this one ridiculous.

If someone is breaking into your house then that means they are a threat. You should be able to take action against them to stop them, within reason.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I find this one ridiculous.

If someone is breaking into your house then that means they are a threat. You should be able to take action against them to stop them, within reason.

Absolutely but even your statement there is ambiguous.

Ask 10 people what it means to take action "within reason" I bet you get 10 different answers.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The reason the boy was charged with manslaughter was that there was no intent to kill someone (as strange as it sounds). You can only be charged with murder when you set out (plan) to kill someone (premiditated) or when you go armed into a robbery for instance and shoot/ stab someone.
Or a reckless indifference to human life.

If you get into a fight and kill someone in the process then its a manslaughter charge.
Not if you intend to do grievous bodily harm. The use of a knife may in of itself infer the necessary intent.

A while back the son of one Australia's "rich" elite (cant recal his name but he was a twat) had gone to a guys house and shot someone. His legal defence was that he only went there to hurt him, not kill him and therefor the charge of murder should be dropped and it should be manslaughter. That didnt work as he went there armed with a gun and it was premeditated.
His intent was to shoot him.
He also intended to do GBH at least, so he'd be gone there anyway. It also indicates a reckless indifference to human life.

Manslaughter gets used in motor vehicle accidents all the time, unless someone deliberately runs down someone etc...
Depends on state, maybe. Qld, only if you leave the scene. Otherwise its dangerous driving causing death.

If it can be shown the boy came back to the woman (who was waiting at her car apparently) with the intent of stabbing her then the charge will probably be changed to murder. If the boy went there to appollogise and then got into an arguement with the woman and stabbed her, then it will stay as manslaughter charge.

Youre half right. Intent is an element, but you dont have to set out to kill someone, nor do you have to be committing a crime when the act took place. The use of a weapon itself may be enough to infer intent.

Intent aspect of Common Law murder.

with malice aforethought—originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice".

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
- Intent to kill,
- Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
- Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
- Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

We'll see.

Originally Posted by Ben73

I find this one ridiculous.

If someone is breaking into your house then that means they are a threat. You should be able to take action against them to stop them, within reason.

You answered your own question. OK, it wasnt really a question. Without more detail its hard to know what was done, and if it was within reason.

Dont get me wrong, I get it. Someone breaks into your house at 2am, your kids are in the house and your wife, waiting it out might not be your first choice, nor mine. I'll deal with the courts later, and shoot now.

[MO]

Sezzy,what a mind blowing subject,the myriad of implications for each case is huge.
Will come back later today when I've had time to digest comments.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by Stefan

How did I know there was more to the story...

Great post by the way, very informatrive. I have real passion for the legal system. I should do a law degree....maybe one day if time permits.

One day? Sorry to rain on your parade. If you do it part time whilst holding another job and feeding your family it will take you around 10 years to get past the bar exam, and to being a practicing solicitor (as well as many thousands of dollars in tuition fees).

I thought about it too.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Ask 10 people what it means to take action "within reason" I bet you get 10 different answers.

Quoted for truth. Also known as "reasonable force".

For example:

- Said person breaking into house armed, if you could disarm them and keep them down.
- Same as above but you get hit, should be able to hit back as far as I'm concerned.
- Same as first but unarmed, put them in a hold to stop them from hurting you/anyone else and get another person to call police.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Dont get me wrong, I get it. Someone breaks into your house at 2am, your kids are in the house and your wife, waiting it out might not be your first choice, nor mine. I'll deal with the courts later, and shoot now.

Several Police officers i know and other people in legal profession have always said... its usually best to make sure he (the intruder) is dead.
So if you shoot... shoot twice... shoot to kill, then fire the warning shot.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

One day? Sorry to rain on your parade. If you do it part time whilst holding another job and feeding your family it will take you around 10 years to get past the bar exam, and to being a practicing solicitor (as well as many thousands of dollars in tuition fees).

I thought about it too.

Not raining on my parade at all. I know a few lawyers, I already have one degree (and a nice HECS debt) and my ex GF while I was at uni was doing a Buisness Law degree at the same uni. So I know it is not a something you do in a few weekends at the local community college.

[MAD]

I say if you break in to someones house you are exposing yourself to the risk of what might lie behind the closed door. If you happen to break in to the house of a very capable fighter, so your consequences will reflect your neglect to consider the possible implications.

I say have at them, without causing death.

My house is a private sanctum, a place of security for me and my family, if entrance is forced and the doors/windows are no longer secure, I am the next defence in line.

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Is this based on any examples?

My example to the contrary. There is a death penalty for drug trafficking in Indonesia but lots of people still do it?

Yes...........but they only do it once!!