Proceeds Of Crime

[LeMansAid]

Convicted criminals profiting from books, tv shows, films etc. after fulfilling what the court hands down to them. Is it always ok, never ok, sometimes ok?

Australian Shapelle Corby stands to make millions of dollars for her story after recently being released from prison in Indonesia. If she was imprisoned in Australia, she would not have been able to profit from anything related to her crime of smuggling marijuana. That said, she also probably would have just got a comparative slap on the wrist, rather than a 20 year jail term.

 

[ell470]

Supply & demand. If the interest weren't there they wouldn't make any money. So, even if it's a greyzone in morality, I think it's ok!

I think convicts getting a huge bunch of lovesick followers is way worse!

 

[Pupik]

If you're truly disgusted by someone making a profit off their misdeeds, then don't support it. Boycott the firm that does business with those who you vehemently disagree with. That's totally understandable, and even for me; embodied with a slightly haphazardly aligned set of values, it's generally the way I do things...although the larger the company, the more forgiving of the rare sin you have to be, unless you're going to make and service everything on your own out of disgust.*

It's up to the firm in question, which takes on "the story" and decides whether the press is good or bad for them; they can weigh it out for themselves if Bad Press (or, failing that...Vastly Over-Hyped Press, et cetera) is better in the long run or not. Personally, it's not my thing; but crime and murder sells.

I highly doubt there's going to be much of a payment advance to a former criminal for their side of the story, so the "stands to make millions" is on the verge of hyperbole, on par for journalistic sensationalism. And in this particular case, it's about "drug smuggling", which is just a step above speeding, but just below street racing.

* Fancy-Clumsy way of saying Judge Knot.

 

[Grayfox]

Issue is.

People mainly women sad to say fall for this.

This is how all these women mags stay in business.
Even if all the celebs are airbrushed and the stories real or not which can be read on the internet they rather get the mag.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I highly doubt there's going to be much of a payment advance to a former criminal for their side of the story, so the "stands to make millions" is on the verge of hyperbole, on par for journalistic sensationalism. And in this particular case, it's about "drug smuggling", which is just a step above speeding, but just below street racing.

Given the coverage that the Corby case has received here, I don't doubt that she would be offered millions from the chequebook journalists.

It's more than just drug smuggling - Corby was one of the first Australians to fall afoul of Indonesia's notoriously harsh drug laws in the age of the internet. She was caught with 4.2 kilograms of marijuana hidden in her luggage, and her defence at her trial was that it had been placed there by a baggage handler in Australia and was supposed to have been removed by another baggage handler in Indonesia, but they missed it. She also claimed that this was part of a global conspiracy among baggage handlers moonlighting as drug traffickers, and that she had a witness willing to testify to it, but they never showed.

And, of course, her family is completely dysfunctional, and our equivalent of "News of the World" and "The Daily Mail" thoroughly enjoyed watching them fall apart, fuelling their bickering, and even going to war with one another over it. It was the kind of fodder the tabloids love; they leeched off it for weeks. And our tabloids like to believe that they are Serious Journalists and the only thing standing between society and total anarchy by reporting on Serious Issues (usually dodgy contractors, local governments rorting pensioners and parking fines, neighbourhood feuds gone bad and foreigners).

So given their history with the Corby family, it would not surprise me if "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" got their chequebooks out.

 

[Pupik]

Did you guys get A Current Affair from the US? That was Maury Povich's classier gig...

It sounds like one of the flimsiest defences I've ever heard. I've heard of one that tops it, but not it's Not Safe For Anywhere.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Did you guys get A Current Affair from the US? That was Maury Povich's classier gig...

I don't know. But if we did, it has morphed into its own monster.

It sounds like one of the flimsiest defences I've ever heard. I've heard of one that tops it, but not it's Not Safe For Anywhere.

She was a twenty-seven year old hairdresser from the Gold Coast. Everything about her screamed bogan. And her father had a ton of drug-related offences to his name from the 1970s and 1980s, but it never occurred to anyone to take a closer look at him until Corby was in prison.

 

[LeMansAid]

Corby is reportedly receiving 2 million for an exclusive tv interview.

Supply & demand. If the interest weren't there they wouldn't make any money. So, even if it's a greyzone in morality, I think it's ok!

The example case is a pretty light matter as @Pupik pointed out (though as noted the punishment was anything but). I think for a lot of people her suffering might nullify any potential outrage over money received. But what about heavy and serious cases?

If someone convicted of raping and murdering people profited due to the fame and infamy created by their crimes, would it still be ok? A twist can also come in that people may not always know that the criminal is receiving money at all, and therefore may not have the information necessary to make a boycotting decision.

I'm still not sure where I stand on it exactly. There are some cases where I'd certainly have no issue with money changing hands, but not yet sure if I'd be au fait with a "free for all".

 

[terminator363]

Reminds me of "Wolf of Wallstreet"

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Corby is reportedly receiving 2 million for an exclusive tv interview.

Chequebook journalism at its finest.

(though as noted the punishment was anything but)

Not under Indonesian law.

If someone convicted of raping and murdering people profited due to the fame and infamy created by their crimes, would it still be ok?

Ask Chopper Read (yes, I know he is dead).

Mind you, he is the exception to the rule. It's not like anybody is going to pay Simon Gittany or Bilal Skaf for their stories any time soon. Though I am surprised the tabloids did not go after Gittany on any level.

 

[Imari]

I think for a lot of people her suffering might nullify any potential outrage over money received.

I dunno. The best you can say about her is that she's stupid. She took part in a crime in which the potential rewards were not that great and the potential penalties if caught were known to be enormous.

Even if locking someone up for nine years for drug trafficking is harsh, she made her own bed. I'm not exactly a fan of someone getting a huge payout for being an idiot with poor judgement. That sort of seems like the opposite of what society generally tends to reward.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, the Indonesians have weighed in, going so far as to say that if Corby gives an interview, then depending on what she says, he bail may be revoked.

And Campbell Newman wants to use Queensland's proceeds of crime laws to seize any payment she receives. Because of course he does - he's Campbell Newman.

 

[Grayfox]

I want her to go back to jail.

She should not have been given bail.
There are many others in there that have been in longer that have done less that should have it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeah there should be controls on profiteering from crime.

 

[LeMansAid]

Freedom = better. Always.

Does this fit here as well? Genuinely interested.

 

[Azuremen]

I want her to go back to jail.

She should not have been given bail.
There are many others in there that have been in longer that have done less that should have it.

So two wrongs make a right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You have to bear in mind the political situation as well. Refusing bail in the grounds of something as subjective as "showing genuine demise" would not go down well in certain circles. Given that our government has practically destroyed relations with Indonesia, releasing Corby on parole lets Jakarta take the high road for now.

 

[Grayfox]

So two wrongs make a right?

How is it two wrongs?

 

[FoolKiller]

Does this fit here as well? Genuinely interested.

Does it affect others? I have a feeling this would be a case by case basis.

Do keep in mind, that a criminal should be someone who had disregard for the human rights of others and thus forfeited his own human rights.

I do find it funny you thought an innocent man wishing to protect his property even remotely compares to something like a serial killer or rapist selling his story, with disregard for the victims and their families.

Apples to steaks.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Corby's innocence or guilt is not the issue here. While the penalty would have been considered extremely harsh in Australia, the UK or America, Indonesia's stance on drug trafficking is well documented. Corby's case might have been the episode that brought Indonesia's laws to the national consciousness, but that is no excuse. Shortly after Corby was arrested, and entire group - the so-called Bali Nine - were caught with hard drugs. Most were sentenced to death, which was later communted to life sentences when it was revealed that most of them were forced into it.

The case against Corby was pretty clear-cut. Her bag had the drugs in it, and the witness to the conspiracy never materialised. The entire family was detestable, and the whole saga was played out on the national stage. At one point, Mercedes Corby was probably the most-hated person in the country. Not through any character flaw - though she is not too bright; she just criticised Campbell Newman for not supporting her sister, oblivious to the way Newman's one-man war against outlaw biker gangs made him the last person likely to support her - but because the media exaggerated every aspect of her for the sake of ratings.

 

[Grayfox]

Shame other countries don't do what Indonesia does when it comes to drug users/sellers and importers.

Lock them up for 20 years and watch as the use of these drugs goes down.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We do. Didn't you see the story the other day about the AFP thwarting a plan to bring methylamphetamine into the country from China, with the drugs packed into kayaks? If convicted, everyone involved faces at least fifteen years in prison. It is a significant haul; the AFP has seized a tonne of ice in the past year.

The difference in this case is that while marijuana is an illegal drug, it is not regarded as a hard drug like methylamphetamine, heroin or cocaine. On top of that, Kerobokan prison in Denpasar closer to Christmas Island than Silverwater in terms of the quality of the facility. Corby got hit with a tough sentence in a tough prison, but if she has met the conditions for parole, then she is entitled to be granted it. To keep her incarcerated without justification is not something that you can just *do* because you feel like it.

I suppose you think that Queensland's anti-association laws are justified as well. They are currently facing a High Court challenge on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, which is what keeping someone in prison without cause equals.

 

[Grayfox]

Was thinking was corby behind the crystal meth in the kayaks as a joke.

The anti biker laws are stupid.
The WA bait hooks are stupid as well.


My issue with corby is she didn't even serve 50% of her sentence.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

My issue with corby is she didn't even serve 50% of her sentence.

But she did meet her minimum sentence and all of her parole conditions.

 

[LeMansAid]

Does it affect others? I have a feeling this would be a case by case basis.

Do keep in mind, that a criminal should be someone who had disregard for the human rights of others and thus forfeited his own human rights.

I do find it funny you thought an innocent man wishing to protect his property even remotely compares to something like a serial killer or rapist selling his story, with disregard for the victims and their families.

Apples to steaks.

So for some people, once they're free, they're not actually free. Meaning, the freedom bravado doesn't extend this far?

I'm ok with authorities defining/deciding what is appropriate and what is not, but I thought you riled against that sort of thing. Baring in mind that this is outside of court sentencing.

You may have a response that leaves me with egg all over my face, but to me it seems at odds with your general rationale.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So for some people, once they're free, they're not actually free. Meaning, the freedom bravado doesn't extend this far?

How many times has a sex offender served out their sentence, been released accordingly, and struggled to reintegrate into the community because of their criminal history? In the eyes of the law, they have repaid their debt to society, and are free on their own recognizance. In the eyes of society, though, they are a NIMBY, social pariahs, and perhaps justifiably so, given the severity of their crimes. But it does not help when you have people like Derren Hinch, who attract attention to them and think they are doing a public service.

Campbell Newman (perhaps the worst premier ever - and given what Napthine, Barnett and O'Farrell have been doing lately, that says a lot) now wants to pass legislation giving the state the power to keep sex offenders imprisoned indefinitely regardless of the original sentence handed down by the courts. While there are some people, like Bilal Skaf, who deserve to never see the light of day again, there are others who will suffer for it. The guy who lived across the street from me was a registered sex offender - he got caught soliciting two underage girls for prostitution. He was released on strict bail conditions because the girls were known to police and had lied about their age, and no assault had been committed. That is by no means a defence of him; he was an absolute creep and everyone in the street repeatedly tried to get rid of him even before we found out he was an RSO. But under Newman's proposed laws, he would have been remanded to custody indefinitely. The same punishment as Skaf for a crime nowhere near as heinous.

 

[FoolKiller]

So for some people, once they're free, they're not actually free. Meaning, the freedom bravado doesn't extend this far?

I'm ok with authorities defining/deciding what is appropriate and what is not, but I thought you riled against that sort of thing. Baring in mind that this is outside of court sentencing.

You may have a response that leaves me with egg all over my face, but to me it seems at odds with your general rationale.

Since you ignored the conditional part of my post, let me try again.

Does it affect others? I have a feeling this would be a case by case basis.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The Indonesians have come out and strongly recommended that Corby refrain from giving an interview, as it would almost certainly violate the conditions of her parole.

 

[Grayfox]

She has also been ordered out of the villa she is in as "she" is causing a disturbance due to the media being there.

 

[LeMansAid]

Since you ignored the conditional part of my post, let me try again.

Does it affect others? I have a feeling this would be a case by case basis.

Ignored? No, it was pivotal actually.

It's fair to surmise then that you are ok with authorities subjectively deciding who out of the free population is actually free, and who has their freedoms limited? And yes, I'm quite aware that you'd be quite aware of the broader implications of the question.

It could be argued that no-one else is ever affected, because each person has a choice on how they choose to react. Nothing is actually forcibly being done to them.