Post by MXB on Jun 10, 2007 6:40:11 GMT -5
30 May 2007
THREE Australians on Indonesia's death row perjured themselves by claiming they were unaware they would be carrying heroin to Australia, but were easily led and ignored the consequences of being caught, a forensic psychologist says.
The director of Monash University's Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, James Ogloff, yesterday gave evidence at the appeal of Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen, Matthew Norman and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali nine.
The three young men were not a danger to society and should not be executed, Professor Ogloff told the Supreme Court appeal.
His appearance was funded by the Australian Government after a last-minute plea by the men's lawyer, Erwin Siregar, to the Prime Minister, John Howard.
Following the hearing, Professor Ogloff detailed an emotional session when the trio had broken down inside Kerobokan prison on Monday.
They cried when talking to him about how they told their families of their death sentences.
The reality of facing firing squads has yet to fully sink in, he said. "They certainly haven't resigned themselves they may be executed and when that topic was discussed that's when we saw tears from at least two of them."
All three were most distressed about the impact on their families, he said. "They do share a number of characteristics; not having a serious criminal background, a couple of them were very easily led. One in particular is very immature and unsophisticated." Norman, 20, was "very simple". Chan was smarter but "also very impressionistic and easily fooled by the others", Professor Ogloff said.
"The allure of money, a free trip, seemed pretty good and the consequences weren't given attention", he said.
Professor Ogloff said he was "taken aback" by the trio's open admissions of their knowledge of the smuggling plot. "They are very remorseful, admitted being in possession of some of the drugs and they admitted they were being asked to transport."
All three said they were very anxious and "even were discussing abandoning the whole thing. They were getting very cold feet and would have potentially withdrawn from the plan."
The trio were arrested at Bali's Melasti Hotel soon after four other couriers were apprehended at the local airport in April 2005 with more than eight kilograms of heroin strapped to their bodies.
At their initial trials the trio denied any knowledge of a plan to import heroin into Australia, claiming they had simply accepted a free holiday to Bali.
They had been given poor legal advice, Professor Ogloff said. "While they didn't make admissions at that time, they were instructed not to do so," he said.
Professor Ogloff said it would be inhumane, futile and ineffective to execute the three men. Research indicated longer sentences were a better deterrent to crime than capital punishment.
The appeal continues next month, alongside a constitutional challenge to Indonesia's death penalty by the other three Bali nine members also on death row
THREE Australians on Indonesia's death row perjured themselves by claiming they were unaware they would be carrying heroin to Australia, but were easily led and ignored the consequences of being caught, a forensic psychologist says.
The director of Monash University's Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, James Ogloff, yesterday gave evidence at the appeal of Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen, Matthew Norman and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali nine.
The three young men were not a danger to society and should not be executed, Professor Ogloff told the Supreme Court appeal.
His appearance was funded by the Australian Government after a last-minute plea by the men's lawyer, Erwin Siregar, to the Prime Minister, John Howard.
Following the hearing, Professor Ogloff detailed an emotional session when the trio had broken down inside Kerobokan prison on Monday.
They cried when talking to him about how they told their families of their death sentences.
The reality of facing firing squads has yet to fully sink in, he said. "They certainly haven't resigned themselves they may be executed and when that topic was discussed that's when we saw tears from at least two of them."
All three were most distressed about the impact on their families, he said. "They do share a number of characteristics; not having a serious criminal background, a couple of them were very easily led. One in particular is very immature and unsophisticated." Norman, 20, was "very simple". Chan was smarter but "also very impressionistic and easily fooled by the others", Professor Ogloff said.
"The allure of money, a free trip, seemed pretty good and the consequences weren't given attention", he said.
Professor Ogloff said he was "taken aback" by the trio's open admissions of their knowledge of the smuggling plot. "They are very remorseful, admitted being in possession of some of the drugs and they admitted they were being asked to transport."
All three said they were very anxious and "even were discussing abandoning the whole thing. They were getting very cold feet and would have potentially withdrawn from the plan."
The trio were arrested at Bali's Melasti Hotel soon after four other couriers were apprehended at the local airport in April 2005 with more than eight kilograms of heroin strapped to their bodies.
At their initial trials the trio denied any knowledge of a plan to import heroin into Australia, claiming they had simply accepted a free holiday to Bali.
They had been given poor legal advice, Professor Ogloff said. "While they didn't make admissions at that time, they were instructed not to do so," he said.
Professor Ogloff said it would be inhumane, futile and ineffective to execute the three men. Research indicated longer sentences were a better deterrent to crime than capital punishment.
The appeal continues next month, alongside a constitutional challenge to Indonesia's death penalty by the other three Bali nine members also on death row