To not feel any sympathy for drug-smuggling women?

[DarceyBissell]

Just that really. Two young women facing 25 years in a Peruvian jail for trying to smuggle 11kg of cocaine. Saw they described as 'vulnerable' in one paper. Hardly. Greedy and stupid though.

Oh and the names listed in the news reports are just a list of fairly standard first names... Which I'm sure were made up by any men the girls happened to have met (if their story of having been coerced by a group of men is true). So I don't think publishing them has any significance whatsoever

I suspect it's also common practice that someone persuading someone else to carry drugs will tell them that in the event of being stopped at security, they plead that they were threatened. They are probably told this will make the authorities take a more sympathetic view

It really isn't rocket science to work all this out, which is why it's hard to believe that these women are poor vulnerable beings who had no control over their actions

I used to write guide books, Janey. You would be amazed at what independent adults do while travelling. I think they underestimate culture shock; it throws their social 'rules' off balance. It also makes them accept really daft lies as truth - as if, now they can't be sure what the fruit on their table is, they're no longer sure of anything.

janey, but they have to be told that, and to remember that.

My kids used to say that I gave them so many rules, that they could only remember about half of them.

It's hard to believe anyone old enough and independent enough to travel abroad doesn't get that

Not for me it isn't. I emigrated to Thailand at 21 and it didn't take me long to be one of a group of similarly aged young women, most of whom would have been described at "sensible" back home.

But the normalisation of non sensible things can erode decades of common sense having been drummed in from toddlerhood. Most managed to avoid the odd bout of recreational drug use developing into a full blown herion habit. And in the main we evaded the seedy types looking for low hanging fruit. But we all did stupid, stupid, stupid things from time to time that could have had awful consequences. Escaping a price to be paid by dumb luck rather than judgement.

Cherry on the cake being during Black May.

I doubt any of our parents had considered the need to tell us to stay far away from tanks and a hail of machine gun fire.

And yet....

Oh I agree people can do stupid things.. but when they do. They need to accept the consequences, not just on themselves but on their families and other people who their crime impacts on. Ignorance is no defence, neither is culture shock, forgetting what the law says, normalisation of things which are illegal and harmful etc.
I do feel huge sympathy for the women's families, and it's a waste of these years for the women themselves and will impact on their future lives too.
But I really don't see them as innocent victims

Doing something stupid is getting drunk falling asleep on the train and ending up stranded miles away from home at 2 o'clock in the morning. It is not smuggling £1.5 million would of drugs in Peru.

I hope they get a very stiff sentence as only that way maybe another 19 year old will think before they pack their cases with drugs and head for the airport.

Ignorance may be no defence[dont know law wise], but should that stop any sympathy?

Sympathy is easy. So is lack of sympathy. Poor girls. Silly girls. Naive girls. Greedy girls. Easy. I find the question of sympathy self-centred. Does it much matter whether we feel sympathy or not? The real issue is what should be done about the problem of drug carrying. How they should be charged, how punished etc.

OK, I've just read the whole story - their statements, the statement from the third girl, the Mail's discovery of the Ibiza taxi driver's identity and the two CCTV films the Mail has found (why the fuck didn't the Ibizan & Peruvian police find the man & the films??)

And I believe them. People have asked why the Nottingham girl's spoken to the press, if she's so scared, but I think she's done the best thing to keep herself safe. If any mysterious accident should happen to her now, it'll serve to support the girls' story.

If there is public sympathy for them, from the people and/or at a higher level, laws can change, sentences can change, a case is more talked about, younger people may be better educated, lots of things really.
And for them, they may spend some of their sentence in prisons over here?

As I say, I am still on the fence about it all.
But if what they are saying is 100% true, then yes I definitely have sympathy.

I really object to trial by Daily Mail, but that's another story.

The real issue is what should be done about the problem of drug carrying.

I remember a real clarity descending when I called the embassy with concerns that a prisoner had deteriorated considerably between visits. I have no idea why I had this odd idea that British justice was applicable (and rightly so) on all, no matter passport colour, who committed crimes in Britain... but when it happened to one of us where the jails were seriously scary the embassy could "just do something".

But I did.

The lady on the phone was dispassionate and crystal clear. If you are arrested in Thailand you will be processed via the Thai justice system. Just like it happens back home. And while the embassy could help with legal representation, supplies etc they should not be confused with White Knights sweeping in to save the day. That just like back home, resolving the question of guilt takes time. The time required can be measured in years, and often is. That physical and mental deterioration is to be expected.

So in terms of what can be done to wise up young Britons and make sure they operate on the basis of cold, hard facts rather than supposition, perhaps we could wheel out somebody from the FO when cases like this dominate the headlines.

And get them to make similarly fact heavy, crystal clear "bucket of cold water in the face style reality check" public announcement. Maybe that would do something reduce the number who would otherwise fail to connect the dots on their own.

Actually, maybe not just when cases happen. Perhaps we could wheel them out at the key times when youngsters flock to exotic destinations for holidays and the start of travelling adventures.

It's one thing when your travel book or your parents tell you, but when the very people you sort of half suppose will be your "Knight in Shining Armour" should things go bent are on telly saying "you'll be on your own sunshine, we are a horse, joust and tin foil suit free zone" .... maybe it'll penetrate deep enough to stick. For some.

There may be some mileage in using shock tactics at peak times such as start of summer holidays, end of exam seasons Etc

But in all honesty overall I think the balance is about right. With the power of the media as it is now, the message is so clear. And when this happens as it periodically does, we always see a high profile media story about the poor British citizens who are at the mercy of some third world justice system.... Usually with some salacious photos of prison cells and distraught relatives.

It's really hard to believe that someone capable of travelling independently around the world has let that message pass them by. Maybe in the heat of the moment they do step outside their social norms and act recklessly.. But isn't that what many crimes are like? How many people set off at the start of an evening thinking they'll drink too much and drive recklessly? Probably none. Just as most people don't set off to work abroad thinking they'll be a drugs mule. But the point is, if you end up doing those things, whatever the social pressure, excitement Etc of the situation, you have to accept the consequences.

While I certainly feel something for these two....not sure it can be called sympathy!
Saying we are to be innocent until proved guilty in this case is way off the mark as they were actually caught red handed with the drugs therefore unless they had entered the airport and alerted the authorities they must in this case be classed as guilty!
Ibiza is full of all nationalities there for "a good time" the pay is basic the accommodation is basic and the way of life hugely different from what many are used too therefore finding willing "mules" will be easy and therefore find their story difficult to believe!
The evidence we are being drip fed from the media shows the girls in different locations after their supposed capture on their own, looking relaxed and happy and while a photograph can hide true feelings there is clearly many missed opportunities in which they could have asked for help. While fear may have prevented them asking for help as we are led to believe their families were threatened. Fear of being arrested at a foreign airport where horrific stories over the years of British drug mules imprisoned in foreign countries certainly would have been made me alert the nearest official or even just "dump" the cases and run!
In time we may learn the truth and of course they are not considered the king pins in any of this but! we must abide by due process of the country and follow their legal procedures or the other choice is stay at home!!

I agree suzi

We have to remember that the vast, vast majority of criminals would be likely to believe they had some mitigating circumstances. They were coerced, provoked... They were relaxed and off guard and didn't see where that extra drink would lead... They were lonely and far from home ... They'd been having a really hard time and just 'snapped'... They didn't think they'd be the one to get caught...

True psychopaths and sociopaths- people who set out to knowingly commit a crime in a black and white way, are really rare. For Most people who end up committing a crime it's a far greyer area, and they will probably feel (even if they admit to the crime) that there is a whole backdrop of circumstances which 'explain' how it came about.

I don't see why this particular case is deserving of sympathy any more than others tbh

But in all honesty overall I think the balance is about right. With the power of the media as it is now, the message is so clear. And when this happens as it periodically does, we always see a high profile media story about the poor British citizens who are at the mercy of some third world justice system

But that's kind of what I mean. That contrast between the reality and the response. It's not unusual for a case to reveal that national expectations are unrealistic, and that may play a role in the degree of caution some people employ.

The message is muddied, not by the reality of how things generally play out once the media has lost sustained interest, but by the media/public response which forgets that were the situation reversed they'd go cross eyed at the thought of British justice not being applicable to visitors in the way it is to nationals.

The reason why the Embassy's message penetrated for me I think is because it wasn't of a shock horror tactic tone. It was entirely dispassionate, factual and above all...realistic. Undeniable realistic. Which was a real contrast in the midst of a more emotive brouhaha from all other sources. And I think that made it easier to hear.

I don't believe overly optimistic expectations of the British embassy are unusual or limited to drug arrests. I think a lot of people come in for a disappointment when they ask the embassy for help, truly believing that it's their job to get Britons out of sticky situations and scraps of all flavours.

Maybe people across the board would be slightly more cautious in their choices when abroad (recreational drug use, tipping vats of alcohol down their necks) if they had a more realistic understanding that all legal and civil concerns go through the judicial system of where they are, not where they came from.

Maybe, but I thought there was greater evidence that shock tactics tend to work more effectively in terms of getting the message across?
I certainly think that when you're talking about 'the masses' (for want of a better term) it's the hard hitting daily mail photos of prison cells and the stories of life sentences which have an impact. The more logical, reasoned, dispassionate approach you describe is probably going to be preaching to the converted : ie those capable of joining the dots themselves and realising that 'yeap, I'm on holiday, I'm chilling out, but hey, if I commit a crime in this country I'm going to be fucked because I'll be tried by their judicial system not the one back home'.
I don't know, maybe I'm being over optimistic but I like to believe a significant number of people aren't compete numpteys who need daily mail type shock stories to remind them they are in a foreign country where different rules apply.

How many youngsters read the daily mail, or any newspaper for that matter.
Read Mumsnet? Virtually none.

The social media used by young people is full of shock horror links to the daily mail and such like! I doubt many people sit and read the daily mail cover to cover any more (apart From my MIL maybe!). Youngsters in particular pick up messages in soundbites these days

As I understand it shock tactics raise anxiety levels in the "not most in need of hearing message" group, but it doesn't translate into changes of personal behavoir.

But I could be well out of date. I read it a good while ago.

And it's a good point that the younger generation communicate in soundbites and via different channels so perhaps TV wouldn't be the best medium.

because they have an inbuilt "that won't happen to me" belief

Which in the case of drug smuggling probably isn't entirely unfounded with a "probably" stuck in front of it.

More goes through than gets stopped. And I guess if they are seeing and talking to numbers of people flush with money, or having freed themselves of a tight spot and made all the scary go away .... their own sense of invincibility plus confirmation from several people who have BTDT and come through scott free, overrides any serious twinges.

If that is the reality they are seeing, for those inclined to be further along the scale of feeling invincible and highly optimistic, whether the motivation is it for easy money or getting out of a fix, it's going to be quite persuasive.

I just don't know what, if anything, could combat that element in the more susceptable. I don't know how you get through to the overly optimistic minded that their role is that of a pawn, not a player, and as a pawn they are inherantly vulnerable to being deliberatly sacrificed. Which is a risk factor on top of being the one caught when routine searches hit paydirt.

I've been thinking a lot about this case. They were caught with such an enormous amount of drugs on them, I wonder if they had successfully smuggled before, and that it why they were trusted with such a valuable quantity. Woukd you really risk £1.5m (or whatever it was) worth of cocaine on two women with no track record? I guess you need visas to visit Peru or woukd at least have a stamp in your passport, so possibly not if they'd not been before.

Anyway, there are so many poor, desperate and gullible people willing to drug smuggle, I find it hard to believe that an international crime ring would target and kidnap these two, fly them through two international airports, threaten family who are thousands of miles away (where their cartel is at best weaker if not wholly non existent) and march them around forcing them to pose for happy photos before loading them up with 11kg of cocaine. Even drug barons like an easy life. They coukd have got a local to do it, probably for less than the cost of the flights to Peru for the pair of them.

Anyway, there are so many poor, desperate and gullible people willing to drug smuggle, I find it hard to believe that an international crime ring would target and kidnap these two, fly them through two international airports, threaten family who are thousands of miles away (where their cartel is at best weaker if not wholly non existent) and march them around forcing them to pose for happy photos before loading them up with 11kg of cocaine. Even drug barons like an easy life. They coukd have got a local to do it, probably for less than the cost of the flights to Peru for the pair of them.

That's why I don't find it hard to believe they were first timers.

It's always a risk that even an originally willing mule will back out at some stage, even with threats that it's too late now and there will be pay back if they don't follow through.

Two terrified, wholly unwilling and utterly unprepared mentally young women chosen at random via kidnap pose a much bigger risk of calling attention to their plight. Either deliberately or by accident by visibly falling apart at the seams under the noses of the authorities, due to extreme stress and trauma caused by the various crimes being committed against them for an extended period of time.

Wouldn't practiced (or even better prepared first timers) have a less "please suspend all logic" explanation as to why they had kilos of drugs in their bags?

Reviewing how messages are conveyed to the susceptible is valid- and indeed, necessary, periodically. But a balance needs to be maintained, and excessive hand wringing and scrutinising of why oh why did these two women agree to carry drugs is IMO misplaced.

Unfortunately there will always be some people who won't take on board the message- and this applies to other crimes such as drink driving too. Whether its a feeling of invincibility, an inability to connect the dots and see the consequences for other people, not coping well with being outside their usual social context or just being plain thick.. or more likely a combination of all these factors and more... The reality is that these women won't be the last to be in this situation. It happens with depressing regularity, and is often high profile in the media. That last point is pertinent: it often strikes me that the accessibility of the media for young people today means that can never be any 'excuse' of not having heard the message. (Not that it would be an excuse: I knew when I traveled as a teenager many years ago in pre-Internet days that you don't carry unknown luggage for anyone.)

Maybe some people think that sounds harsh, but I think it's realistic. It doesn't matter how you convey the message, or how often you do it, there will always be some people who ignore it- whether that's because they're gullible, or idiots or anything else. It brings to mind the various campaigns against drink driving over the years... Some have been more successful than others- which is why reviewing how information is conveyed is important- but no campaign has completely eradicated drink driving because unfortunately there is a minority who for whatever reason choose to ignore the message

Actually the parallel with drink driving is one which makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, these women have severely fucked up their futures, but my sympathy lies more with their parents and with others who may be impacted by it. For all we know their extended families could be fearful for themselves and their children right this minute. All that stuff about the families being threatened... Whatever the truth of it, it's a shit situation for everyone connected to those two women. And that's quite aside from the whole despicable drugs industry and the damage it causes both directly and indirectly.