Crime and punishment

I refer to The Jakarta Post May 28 edition where, according to your table on the front page, possession of 8,175 ecstasy pills and 5.26 kilograms of cocaine are viewed, respectively, as crimes of a lesser severity than the alleged "smuggling" of 4.1 kg of marijuana by Australian Schapelle Corby.

None of the sentences handed down to any of the individuals listed in that table are relevant to the severity of their reported offenses or the quantity of narcotics in question.

Where exactly in this country does the line get drawn between possession with intent to supply and the charge of smuggling? It surely cannot be relative to the amounts in question, if it was then Corby should, by rule, be facing a sentence approximately one third of the seven years Mexican Clara Erlene Umana received for possession of 15.22 kg of hashish in December 2001.

Must we presume that neither substance nor amount is of concern to the Indonesian legal system in their pursuit of prosecution for the possession of narcotics and instead their only concern is the motive surrounding the possession?

If this "motive over substance type and amount" theory is to be believed then the authorities here are making matters more than a little confusing for themselves and anyone else who may happen to be paying any attention, such as the international community.

Surely being arrested in possession of 8,000 plus ecstasy tablets and over five kg of coke qualifies not only as possession but also as intent to supply as it does in many other countries worldwide and should carry a penalty more in line with that handed down to Corby.

How does the Indonesian judicial system explain why the convicted Italian Juri Angione was sentenced to 15 years for possession of 5.26 kg of cocaine whilst the Frenchman Michael Loic Blanc received a ruling of life imprisonment for possession of only 3.85 kg of the same drug?

It is inconsistencies in rulings such as these that leave the Indonesian government, its legal system and its international reputation wide open to criticism. The Australian people have every right to be outraged at the verdict delivered as I'm sure would any self-respecting Indonesian citizen if the situation was reversed.

JAMES CARYS, Jakarta