Tag Archives: law

Law[less] and [Dis]order

Standard

I love watching Law&Order. Husband, not so much — but really, I am the one with the remote control in the house so he has to deal with whatever crap he thinks he’s watching. I’ve been watching Law&Order since I was in high school and old enough to understand the awesomeness of the program.

Of course I understand, that for some people it is not more than usual crime drama. For me it is more than that. It is more than CSI where a group of people are sweeping the crime scene, trying to solve the puzzle. With Law&Order, the puzzle is usually not difficult, nor unique. It is usually just a common crime done by common people. But that’s not all it is about.

The original Law and Order has this very famouse narration in the beginning of the show:

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

Got it? That’s at least the idea of how the criminal justice system works in the US.

How about Indonesia?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot since the trial for Jessica started weeks ago. The official trial, that is. Months ago, I have talked about this, and I have sensed how scarily flawed our criminal justice system — that is, if we based our judgement on this trial. How even the judge seems to “nudge nudge wink wink” with the persecutor, ignoring the fact that this case has not got enough evidence to go on a trial.

Yes. Of course… I have watched enough Law&Order to understand that there is something called “Circumstantial Evidence”. Unlike CSI who are working with hard evidence such as DNA, fingerprint, fibres, and blood spatters, the detectives in L&O also works with circumstantial evidences. What are they? Motives, opportunities, and alibi, and the like.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:L%26OUK_poster.jpg - I was going to post Jessica's photo, but really... if she's proven innocent, I don't want to be responsible to be one of those people who immortalise this trauma for her. So... How about Law and Order UK instead? -

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:L%26OUK_poster.jpg – I was going to post Jessica’s photo, but really… if she’s proven innocent, I don’t want to be responsible to be one of those people who immortalise this trauma for her. So… How about Law and Order UK instead? –

However… “She looks dodgy” is not a circumstantial evidence, it is an opinion. “Her attitude is unusal” is not a circumstantial evidence either. It might lead the investigation to find evidence, but opinion is opinion and SHOULD NEVER EVER be used as an evidence. Circumstantial evidence could be: “oh she’s got a connection to someone who can get her cyanide”, or “this is the evidence that she will gain something from the death of the other girl”, or “this is the evidence of the relationship in the past, and here are some witnesses who heard her said something about killing this woman”. Strong circumstantial evidence.

What I saw in the trial of Jessica was criminalisation. The fact that the case is so high profile, and the eyes of the media are all on it, it would be embarrassing for the persecutor to ditch the case and admit that there’s no case against this woman. It reminds me of the trial of the former KPK director Antasari Azhar.

At that time there were NO evidence linking him to the case. It was clear that the evidences were planted, and even the circumstantial evidence were made up. The witnesses disappeared after the trial, so that nobody could prove that they have committed perjury. Even the family of the victim begged the court to continue the investigation and release Antasari as they KNOW that it wasn’t him who killed their beloved one.

But in the end, they brought him down anyway.

And, hey! If it worked for a high profile individual like Antasari Azhar — a man with such a status, well known as someone who’s always in the right side of the law, why can’t it work to Jessica? She’s just a young woman, visiting home to see family and friends — maybe for Chinese New Year — oh and minority too. Should be easy, isn’t it?

But if it worked to Antasari Azhar and Jessica, two high profile cases in the country, how do you know that there are no cases like them that is not covered by the media? How do you know that if one day you are so unfortunate being caught up in a criminal case, and you’re innocent… How do you know that you could get a fair trial? How do you know that you can rely on your evidences, alibis, and innocence? How do you know that things would be alright if you do everything right?

You don’t.

http://www.metrotvnews.com/embed/0k8gEPob

To close my entry today, I will give you a video… The video is a fragment from Metro TV’s program NSI (News Story Insight) presented by Aviani Malik about the victims of wrong persecution that you might have never heard before.

Prost

Pro Life? Pro Choice? (pt. 2)

Standard

Part 2? Where’s the part 1?

It’s been years since I wrote this. Almost half a decade ago, I stated that I support the legalisation of abortion, although I wasn’t sure that I should be categorised as a Pro Choice supporter. Of course since then things have shifted a bit, and now I am a full fledged Pro Choice supporter, and don’t care as much what people would think about me as I was when I was younger.

It is wonderful knowing that in many countries abortion is now legalised. It is wonderful to know that in many parts of the world, women could make decision for themselves, and their own bodies. I know that there are still many oppositions, especially from religious bigots, and so called Pro Life supporter, but at least the government has acknowledge the importance of legalising abortion. That’s halfway done.

Now the fight is for the right for ALL people to have control of their lives. Not only women, but all people, to have a say about what they want to do with their OWN lives? You still don’t know what I am talking about?

Okay. I say it.

Euthanasia.

For some people it is as touchy of a subject as abortion. How do we talk about people helping other people to commit suicide is -for some people – unthinkable. Pro Life supporter, like usual would be against anything ending a life, but it is not their lives they’re talking about, is it? It is someone else’s lives, and… you know what? I don’t think Pro Life supporter actually knows what pro life actually means.

I think Pro Choice supporter is a true pro life. For them, what is important is not about prolonging the life, or keeping people alive. Yes life is important, and you should definitely respect it. But more than that, it is also important to acknowledge the quality of life.

What drives Pro Choice people like me to support both abortion and euthanasia is not hate, nor disrespect of human life. It is mercy, and compassion.

Did you watch “The Wolverine” film (bear with me)? In the first few minutes of the film Wolverine found a heavily wounded – but alive – bear. After being shot by an irresponsible hunter, the bear couldn’t barely move, and was in immense pain — death is imminent, but it would be slow. He did what Wolverine would do, claw and all… end it quickly, and with dignity. That’s mercy, that’s compassion.

If you are a veterinarian, or have a veterinarian friend, you might have seen or hear stories where your friend might have to put a dog to sleep because of an incurable illness. Knowing than keeping the dog alive is a torture, you would have to bear that tough face, and inject that liquid to the dog’s body, and see it slowly drift away in peace. That’s mercy, that’s compassion.

How can you see that in animal and can’t see that in human? That is beyond me.

Animals can’t beg you to get this over with, humans could. And they do.

It is not desperation, nor depression that bring them to do this. Some people do want to have a peaceful, painless, and dignify death. Some people want to die surrounded by people they care about. Some people just don’t want to die in pain, or be remembered in their worst condition. Whatever it is, it is their wish — probably even, their LAST wish.

And how could you say no to that? Because you think keeping them alive is more important than HOW they would live that prolonged one or two years of their lives? And why is that? Is allowing them to choose to die is against YOUR moral belief? Well tough then. It is not what they believe.

That’s why I think Pro Life supporters are not a true pro life. They are not celebrating nor supporting life, they’re a bunch of bigots, wanting to feel good about themselves by playing god with someone else’s lives.

Prost!

Burkini, Duterte’s Middle Finger, and Indonesia

Standard

The video of the Philippines’s president dropping the F-bomb to the EU has — unsurprisingly — gone viral. I have never noticed this new president until his conversation with Indonesian president — about the Philippine’s citizen who were convicted for smuggling drugs and now in death row in Indonesian’s prison — went viral too few weeks ago.

How refreshing.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone what he does. However I do believe that every country has a right, and sovereignty to make their own internal law. In Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, for example, drug smuggling means capital punishment. It is beyond me that so many people couldn’t just let them be.

President Duterte called them a bunch of hypocrites. I can see why he does.

In France you are not allowed to wear burkini in the beach, because French has A LAW against it. When people around the world criticise this law, and condemn this too, one of my French friends would get very offended and tell other non-French people off for failing to understand what this religious symbols mean for the French people.

In America, you can carry guns. When some people got killed, lots of people around the world would criticise their gun laws. But a friend from America said to me once, people who are non-American don’t understand that it is their law, and their rights to carry a gun, and what those rights and law mean for the American people.

Why don’t the same rules applied to third world countries like Indonesia or the Philippines?

Indonesia was under a massive scrutiny when we were about to execute nine Australian drug smugglers. People said that the death penalty for drug smuggler is inhumane and barbaric. Now the Philippines has to endure the same thing, because the president is doing a so called “bloody war against drug” in his country.

People who are not Indonesian and not Filipino don’t understand how drug, and drug cartel has undermined the very core of the country. They deliberately introduced drugs to underages, and school children. And, these people won’t back down just by threats of prison time, unlike most criminals in first world countries like the UK, US, or some European countries.

Drug is different in first world country, and third world country. People in the UK called it recreational drug, but it is no recreation at all in Indonesia. When I showed my objection towards drugs to my ex, he felt heavily offended — as for him recreational drug is a part of… you know, youth freedom, the trial and error of life, hippy kind of thing… For me? Coming from Indonesia, it is the reflection of either rich people gone bad, or poor people trying to run away from life, by ruining it even worse.

Do I know someone who died from drugs? I do. But I am not going to speak for him or his family. I leave it at that.

I just want to tell people who complained about this drug war, and burkini. If you want to go to a beach and wearing burkini, don’t go to Nice. There are plenty other places where you can wear your unique looking – sharia approved – beachwear — try Tunisia, their tourism has been suffering after the gunman attack to British tourists few years ago. If you want to go to the beach, and at the same time wanting to be able to get high on drugs, don’t go to Bali. There are plenty other beaches where you can kill yourself slowly, without the government having to help you with the means of firing squad.

Prost!

Law and Justice

Standard

Mirna’s Case is now elevated to the next level as the Police Investigator has decided to change the status of one of the witnesses to ‘suspect’. J, the woman who has been under scrutiny for her so called suspicious attitude in front of the media was arrested and now detained.

J is now charge for a first degree murder — pembunuhan berencana or “planned murder” if it’s freely translated to Bahasa Indonesia. So, according to the police, J is responsible for (1) plan, and intention to murder, (2) execute the murder — successfully.

Many people are happy with this arrest, which is totally understandable as it is very much unsettling to have a murderer roaming around the city. However, there are many people believes that this arrest is premature, or some might say that it is unlawful. There is no physical evidence which link this woman to the murder itself — apart from her being in the crime scene.

There are at least three experts who disagreed with this arrest. No. None of them said that they think J is innocent, but they disagreed with how the police and the media has drive the public opinion into believing that she is guilty. Even with big media such as our national tv station, inviting the “body language experts”, saying in front of the audience that J’s smile means she’s lying and so on and so forth.

As a linguist, and a communication academia, I can say that what these experts said was totally and utterly rubbish.

These are other experts, which according my own opinion are worth listening. Listen to the logic, and if you have it, use your brain too…

1. Asep Iwan Iriawan
Asep Iwan Iriawan is a former judge and now an expert in judicial system. He believed that there is no link between J and the murder. Yes it is true that J was there when Mirna drank the coffee, and J was the first one who arrived at the scee. J threw away the trousers she wore that day, and she seemed so calm and smile in front of media. She is definitely suspicious.
But none of the think mentioned above — according to Asep, showed that J was the one who put cyanide in Mirna’s coffee. Even the CCTV — which is supposed to be the strongest evidence didn’t show that.
Asep even said as far as: “If I was the judge… with those [so-called] evidence, I’ll let her go”.
http://www.jpnn.com/read/2016/01/31/353935/Seribu-Alat-Bukti-juga-Percuma-
http://www.suara.com/news/2016/01/30/181024/ketika-dua-pakar-dan-mantan-hakim-berdebat-soal-kasus-mirna

2. Reza Indragiri Amriel
I haven’t heard about him before this case, but apparently he is a Forensic Psychologist. So, I trust him better than a hypnotherapist in this particular case. What does a hypnotherapist know about a murder case anyway… sigh. This country is sick.
As an expert Reza didn’t think that J is the murderer. He argued that cyanide is not a kind of poison anyone could acquire easily in Indonesia. Metro TV tried to do it on NSI programme, by sending some investigative journalist to buy cyanide from chemist and chemical store, with no avail. It is almost impossible for J, a girl who lives in australia to know her way in the city to get cyanide.
And, he’s also believes that any “body language experts” who jumped into a conclusion that when someone blinks it means that they’re lying, or if someone smiles it means that they’re hiding something… are bulshitting the public. I agree with him in this.
http://www.suara.com/news/2016/01/30/132934/psikolog-forensik-kasus-mirna-pembunuhan-berencana-salah-sasaran

3. Heru Susetyo
This is also the first time I heard about him, so I am not sure about his credibility. Apparently he is a Victimology Experts from Universitas Indonesia. Still a better credibility than a hypnotherapist in this particular murder case.
He said that the police investigators are reckless in confirming J as the suspect. He believed that as this case became big and that the media has blow this up to the surface, the police felt more and more pressure. The drama of this murder case has driven the police to a rush conclusion, while indeed in fact there’s no physical evidence linking J to anything.
He believes that J has been victimised both by the media and police officer because the society pushed them to solve this quickly.
http://www.suara.com/news/2016/01/30/145519/pakar-viktimologi-polisi-terlalu-buru-buru-tetapkan-tersangka

Mirna’s father, was the loudest to fight for justice for her daughter. It is completely understandable for a father to do that when his daughter died in such a way. But it has to be understood that he is emotional too — he might not be able to see this case rationally. That is why in any criminal investigation, there should never be any personal relationship between the investigator and the case they’re working on. It will be bias.

Like Mirna’s father, I’d like the justice to be served too. Definitely. But as a citizen of Indonesia, I would be wary if this is how the “justice” should be served. I would like the law to be upheld, so that everyone would be protected by it. It scares me that the public opinion could pressure the police officers to take whoever they have in hand as the suspect just to calm down the mob, and give fake closure to the family of the victim. It sounds like desperation for me.

I am not saying that J is not the murderer. But if it is her, I would like the investigation to be lawful, and not based on bogus experts opinion, and circumstantial evidences… not a strong ones either. I wish everybody the best… the justice’s served and the law upheld.

good luck.

When In Rome…

Standard

My friends and I were talking about the woman who got arrested in Belgium for attacking a police officer when she was asked by the officer to take the full face veil off. It was not a recent news, but it was still a good topic for a deep conversation with your fellows. The premise is: Belgium bans any head gear which cover one’s face, and in this case it is called burqa (burka) in public spaces. And, that most of us in the conversation group believe that what Belgium (and France) has done by banning burqa in public space is a good preventative step to protect other citizen.

I said most, because… One of the fellow in the conversation group argues that the banning of burka is against the universal declaration of human rights. He quoted UDHR, articles 18 about the freedom of religion.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I have to admit that I quite like the fact that he cited the UDHR. I mean, there are a lot of people who would utter their opinion while completely dismissing facts, evidence, or any supporting documents. What this guy did was basically trying to challenge my belief that banning burqa is actually a good thing.

So, is it true then? Is it true that France and Belgium has violate the universal declaration of human rights for banning burqa in public spaces? Because what he said is true, that the government has basically limit someone’s right to practice, and manifest her religion or believe in public. Well… partially true.

There’s one thing about RIGHTS that someone forgets. RIGHTS always come together with RESPONSIBILITIES. There is no such thing as the unlimited rights. It is limited, to a certain degree. And if you go a little bit further, you would be able to see the explanation of UDHR article 18 about the right to freedom of thought and religion:

Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. respect the exclusive character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.

http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/thought_religion_definition.html

There you go. The guy in our discussion group only mentioned the first part of the article. He probably forgot that the third part of the article explained about how the rights could be limited, when it is needed to protect public safety, order, bla bla… and the fundamental rights and freedom of others.

In Belgium in particular, it is necessary for the police officer to ask the said woman to take her face veil off. Brussels had been in so much pressure lately. The city got locked down after the Paris attack, and almost every day you could see on the news that there are more and more radicalised group being arrested for planning terrorism. It is important for people in the country to be able to feel safe, and feel that the government is doing something.

The fact that so many terrorists were identified through CCTV makes it just sensible to ask people to show their face if they’re out in public. Isn’t it?

Isn’t it?

Right. I am not going to make you agreeing with me, because that’s not what I am trying to do in here. I understand that some people has their very idea of what freedom is. I believe that there is no such thing as the unlimited freedom, even when you live alone in the jungle — you are still limited by the space of the jungle. All I say is that if you can’t live by the rule, you still have the freedom to move somewhere else where you can do what you want to do without breaking the law.

Isn’t that what many Indonesian has been doing all these time? Going abroad to get married because in Indonesia inter-religion marriage is not accepted? Isn’t that what many Irish people has been doing all these time? Going to England to get an abortion for the unwanted pregnancies? Isn’t that what many British people has been doing all these time? Going to Switzerland to get an assisted dignified death?

Isn’t it?

Prost.

To Be Or Not To Be… Married… That Is The Question

Standard

I have been thinking about posting this article few weeks ago, but I thought it would be a brilliant idea to post it on the celebration of Kartini Day.

It has been awhile since I posted anything about Kartini or anything related to Kartini Day as it coincided with Chika’s and also Superbyq’s birthday. But anyway…*moving swiftly on* marriage. Yes…

Growing up, I did not have many female friends. I did not have enough social skill to put up with their gossips and whines, and their constant reminder that every teenage girls need make up and diet. It was not easy sometimes, but then I began to have some female friends. Of course, it was never easy to have female friends, I still do not have the extra patience to the gossips and whines, and their constant reminder that every adult women need marriage and children. But I got better at ignoring these remarks.

Up until few weeks ago, when two of my female friends, who seemed to be coming from two different planets, talked about one same thing. Marriage.

One of them, was my childhood friends. It was one rare occasion that I maintained friendship for so long. Just call her Minnie Mouse, not because of her having a squeaky voice, and definitely not because she looks like a rat, but because of her disney crush to Mickey Mouse. Minnie Mouse, was about to get engaged when she told me that she finally broke up with her boyfriend. Well, he was a tw*t, so I did not feel sorry that she broke up with him. I felt sorry because she was sad and broken hearted as she did not want to break up with the dickhead.

She has been in the quest, of finding a husband, because she believes her clock is ticking and she wanted to have a family, and children. She is a typical traditional Asian woman, whose — despite her bright future in her career, her financial stability, her high profile family background, and also her promising degree in engineering– sole lifetime objective is to get married and breed. She has told me again and again that she is not getting younger, and all of our friends have already had kids (she forgot about me), and some of them has even had their third. And she wants it.

https://i1.wp.com/cbs-academic-housing.dk/sites/default/files/family-planning.jpg

traditional family ideal

Too bad she ended up with wrong guys every time.

While the other friend, is someone coming from a closer planet than mine. I have known her for few years, never actually met her in person. She is a blogger too, and if she read this she will know that I am talking about her (or so I hope). Like me, she left Indonesia for study — but while I went north, my friend went down south. Let’s call her the Aussie Badass Chick.

Yes, she might be a couple of years younger than I am, and she kind of reminded me of what I wanted to be when I was her age. Independent, tough, badass. And she posted about marriage too, but from a completely different point of view: she said she does not want to get married. And I believe her.

This is the thing.

I did not want to get married either. I never thought that marriage institution is as important as what is perceived by many people. It is probably promoted in the first place as a population control, and helped with the gene pool. But when people are more educated like now, it is not more than tradition. If you just want to live with the person that you love for the rest of your life, just do it… you can live together in a house, sign the house certificate together if you want to protect yourself from being screwed around, and so on and so forth.

Well, logically speaking, there are some benefits of being married; and they are totally unromantic. First one is social standings. Especially in Asian family, being married means you are given so much more trust as a person, and finally considered as an adult by your parents. You are no longer the child — the lower rank member of the family, but you are the queen of your own sovereign. Your parents would be seen as successful for being able to marry you off, not only congratulated for being able to get rid of you. Your opinion would started to be considered in the family meetings, and you suddenly have the rights, and even encouraged to be a bitch.

The next one is the more important one for me: the legal status. Not for your children, but for you. It does not only mean that you can sue the shit of them if they are cheating on you. It is not only about the financial security either. It is about how the law in the country see you as a family. If one of you are in the hospital, they cannot visit, or take decision for you if they are not legally registered as your family/partner. If you adopt children together, only one of you can be their parent, because you are not legally a family, and a child cannot legally registered to two guardian family (and if you split up, one of you will definitely lose the custody).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2962449/Star-Trek-actor-George-Takei-weds.html

George Takei (Sulu) and Brad Altman wedding… After 20+ years in relationship

And this is why the LGBT group wants the gay marriage to be legalised — just to answer people who insisted that if gay people wants to live together they could just… do.

And the third one… is freedom.

Majority of people would not see marriage as freedom. Instead, they believe that being married means you are being chained to a rigid institution and shit. I agree with them too, but I must point out the other side that they failed to see.

Women from eastern culture are tied down to her parents (her parents’ house, her parents’ family, etc.) until they are married, and have her own family. For some people, marriage is a way out from their parents’ house. Like Kartini (now you see why I chose this topic to be posted today, yes?) who agreed to marry a man who was way older than she was, just so that she could get out from her father — who denied her education because she was a girl. And use her new social standing as a married woman to do what she wanted to do — build friendships with foreign correspondence (hence her letters were made as a book), and got educated.

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Raden_Adjeng_Kartini.jpg/640px-Raden_Adjeng_Kartini.jpg

Kartini with Djojodiningrat “Raden Adjeng Kartini” by Original uploader was Meursault2004 at id.wikipedia. Later version(s) were uploaded by Ennio morricone at id.wikipedia. – Transferred from id.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Manuguf using CommonsHelper.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raden_Adjeng_Kartini.jpg#/media/File:Raden_Adjeng_Kartini.jpg

If anyone ask me if they have to get married, my answer is “definitely not”. No one can tell you to or not to marry anyone, if you want or do not want. The pressure, the thought of you are getting into the age you would no longer marriageable, would make you jump to the first person come to you, which lead you to the date wrong person… again and again. Have you not learn anything from How I Met Your Mother?

If anyone asked me if they need to get married, I would ask them why. Why do you want to get married? Do you think you cannot have sex if you are not married? Well, you can. If you feel guilty, ask forgiveness. If god is so forgiving he would absolve whatever sin you did or will do in the future.

If you think you cannot have children without being married, you are wrong. In fact you can have children any time you want: pick one from the foster houses.

Basically, the traditional justification of marriage is not applicable for me. But, if you want the benefits of marriage I just mentioned above, go for it. It came with responsibilities too: means they can sue the shit out of you if you cheated, means you might have to face the custody battle if you split up, means you would no longer receive red envelopes full of money from your parents during the Chinese New Year *broken inside*.

So,

Happy Kartini Day, my dear friends.

Cheers…