To want the "Peru Two" to stay in Peru?

[QueenOfConeyIsland]

I honestly don't know if IABU to want them to serve the whole of their sentence in Peru and not part of the UK?

They knew what they were doing and knew the risks. It would deter some people from doing in the future too.

But on the other hand they are young girls just starting to live their life and are going to have pretty much all of their 20s taken away from them.

I'm quite conflicted.

[VivaLeBeaver]

The punishment needs to be a deterrent. If they were let off because they're daft 20yo girls (adults actually) who made a mistake then every daft 20yo would be queuing up to have a go at smuggling drugs out of Peru and make some money. Why not if they know they're unlikely to go to prison?

I'm not bothered whether they do the prison sentence here or in Peru. I do think they ought to serve the six years though and not be let out after half the time for good behaviour, etc.

[WildThong]

It's a horrible business. In my opinion they knew exactly what they were doing so should pay the appropriate penalty. I had more sympathy before I read about the exclusive deal with a tabloid, which means they and their families are making money from other peoples misery.

[Swanbridge]

According to the Metro this morning, they might only have to serve 27 months of their sentences because of time already spent in prison and if they behave themselves.

[friday16]

They are criminals (because WE decided they are)

Actually, they are criminals because the Peruvian government decided they are. A sort of "their house, their rules" applied to coke rather than slippers on the new carpet. See also "the British government might smile indulgently at Trustafarians pissing about in dinghies, but the Russian government give them ten years". In neither case can the UK government do anything other than extend consular facilities.

Now I couldn't care less about drugs, and I'd legalise them all tomorrow morning and make them available free on street corners out of little vending machines. It would massively reduce acquisitive crime, massively reduce street crime, boost the economy by moving young entrepreneurs out of the drug trade and into something else and generally give the country a boost. The war on drugs has failed, and in general terms the collateral damage from legalisation would be low. Most overdoses are caused by the uncertain quality and strength of illegal drugs, and heroin, to cite the number OMG drug of "Just say no!", is a very safe drug which is why it's used so heavily in the NHS.

I've never taken any street drugs and have no interest in doing so (I have had intravenous Ketamine, as emergency anaesthesia, and it frightened me more than the injury did) but I presume that the complete legalisation of everything would cause some fuckwits to harm themselves. But the same's true of other addictive drugs like alcohol or tobacco, and yet the world still turns. The harm would certainly be less than the collateral damage from an entirely bogus and discredited attempt to criminalise them.

[angelos02]

Allowing them to serve their sentence in the UK would diminish the severity of their crime. The destruction that drugs cause is immense. Lets not forget that. I'd not have given them such a low sentence as 7 years either.

[Bettercallsaul1]

I certainly wouldn't make the argument that the girls haven't done much wrong compared with others ie. that the bosses controlling the industry were worse, or that somehow drug smuggling is no worse than manufacturing clothes or chocolate. One crime can't be excused simply because others exist too.

I think the girls' defenders should just stick to humanitarian grounds, which are perfectly valid. People are sent to prison as a punishment, not for punishment. The sanction being meted out is loss of liberty, not exposure to illness, violence etc. If the two women are returned to Britain, then they will not be subject to these "extra" punishments which is how it should be in a civilised system of justice. - to want anyone to endure brutal conditions in addition to loss of liberty, when we are in a position to prevent it by returning the person to Britain is unnecessarily harsh and punitive.

[QueenOfConeyIsland]

People have free will, if you decide to drink yourself to death why is it everyone elses fault but your own?

So why isn't it acceptable to apply the same logic to other drugs? Is it purely because they're prohibited? Because I would argue that alcohol is a very dangerous drug, legal or not.



I never said it wasn't acceptable.

Alcoholics and drug abusers all have free will and take it knowing the risk. Of course there are exceptions to this.

If that's the route you want to go down then do it, just don't latch the blame on to anyone else but yourself.

[MillyONaire]

Oh god I did so many stupid stupid things (though admitedly not drug smuggling) when I was young - I thought I was invincible. At the ripe old age of 40 it has recently occured to me that I matured very late (mid 20's I would say).
And this is why I feel sorry for these girls. They will serve their time but why not let them be closer to their families? And for their parents to have their daughters nearby?

[mewmeow]

I agree with Zippey really. It was stupid, but they're so young. We are constantly being socialised to desire material things, and idolize rich celebrities. With unequal distribution and oppurtunities to actually fulfil these desires, it is no wonder some people turn to crime, it is a completely contradictory culture.

Im sure they've got a sentence to serve but i would be lenient with them. To the people who say it is not long enough, i wonder if you have ever been to prison? Im sure time moves at a ridiculously slow rate when inside. Think about how long the sentence actually is in reality and then imgaine spending that time in confines.

[olidusUrsus]

If that's the route you want to go down then do it, just don't latch the blame on to anyone else but yourself.

So why are the Peru two (smugglers) hated but Nigella (user) loved?

There are always going to be illegal or legal substances people use to get high or pissed or for escapism. The detaining of two stupid, greedy girls is not a big catch in the drug industry (whatever the DM would have us think) - how likely were they to become long term mules and dealers with an established supply once they got home?

I think this has all been really cleverly handled by the media tbh.

[aciddrops]

I think this has all been really cleverly handled by the media tbh. Forgive my ignorance, but although I realise that the media has made money out of this story by selling papers, I don't think that it has affected the women's trial.
Also, I don't see much hatred on this thread towards the women. People expressing a view that they are being punished appropriately, does not equate to hatred.

[IHeardMummyDissingParcelforce]

Is this those two young girls who were all over the news a while back - one of them has an Irish name, Melissa Reid and someone else?

If so then I am glad if they are coming back. We have all made mistakes at that age, and I'm glad I didn't forfeit the next 10 years of my life for something so stupid.

At least prisons here are a bit more moderate I think. And their families can visit more easily.

Many 20yo people are very stupid and ignorant, and many get away with it, and I think what they did (knowing very little about it) was wrong but I don't think they should become some sort of example.

[olidusUrsus]

Sorry acid I don't understand. I meant it is interesting how cleverly the media can manipulate our opinions - particularly as we only hear information through them. I think it's a bit backward that lots of people still accept news as gospel without thinking about things like bias and sensationalism. Didn't insinuate or mean to insinuate that the media had any influence with the outcome of the trial.

[aciddrops]

Olidus OK - I wasn't sure what you meant. I've only seen this on the news and I've not noticed any bias. I'm sure the papers are different.

[Mishmashofstyles]

Great opportunity to learn Spanish though, eh?

[RibbonsInMyHair]

So why are the Peru two (smugglers) hated but Nigella (user) loved?

I don't see the connection. It is different.

Why not compare to another celebrity like Tulisa? She is to be charged "with being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs" as a supplier.

I don't think there is hatred for the Peru two. I just don't think people have sympathy for them, it's extremely true of the saying don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Everyones actions have consequences and they are not an exception to that rule and will have to face theirs.

[formerbabe]

I actually feel quite sorry for them...they did a dam stupid thing and whilst they both looked well in the recent pictures I can't imagine a Peruvian jail is a barrel of laughs. I hope they get to serve their sentence in the UK, at the very least so their families can visit them regularly.

[RibbonsInMyHair]

Their families shouldn't be a factor in it.

Sorry to come across as harsh. But the punishment should fit the crime.

If it was my daughter or sister then of course I'd want her back in the UK and I of course feel sympathy for the family but they chose to break the law in a different country.

What if it was a UK citizen who had murdered someone? Would you still feel the same that they should come home to be near their family?

[oscarwilde]

YANBU. Leave them there to serve their sentence.

[Pixel]

That's right, believe it or not murderers and rapists have families too. Should the judges have to consider them before passing sentence? Of course not. Any suffering of the family has been caused by the girls/women themselves. What selfish, greedy individuals they are, with not a thought for the suffering caused by drugs or the effects on their own families if they were caught and convicted. Now we are supposed to think of them as the victims.
Hopefully any others hoping to make some 'easy' money by smuggling drugs might think twice if it means they don't see Mummy and Daddy for a few years.

[formerbabe]

They didn't murder someone though, so the decision wouldnt be based on what they didn't do, rather what they did do...that is how the law works. They don't seem evil to me...just a bit stupid and naive.

[roadwalker]

One of them should be kept in Peru for crimes against hair

[formerbabe]

Ha ha ha...the bun ring cracks me up!!!

[wannaBe]

I don't get the "they're so young," argument either. They're adults. so maybe they're immature, or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing, certainly enough to make up a story of being abducted in Ibizza to try and get away with it. At what age should people be expected to take responsibility for their actions then? Given that the age of sexual consent is sixteen, the age at which someone can vote/drive/get a mortgage is eighteen, at what age should people be held criminally responsible for smuggling drugs? 21? 25? 30? if you're an adult you're an adult. there aren't levels of adulthood, and if you commit a crime as an adult then you are responsible, as an adult.

[RibbonsInMyHair]

They didn't murder someone though



Who said they did?

I'm making the point that if they had committed murder then you probably wouldn't get people feeling sorry for them or their family.

Do you think drug smuggling is a victim less crime? That what they did was ok?

The crime that committed is serious. You don't have to have a vast knowledge of law to know this.