CuPillar
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,544
im watching the judgement (coz its interesting, and im a law student and they dont televise judgements in aust, so its good knowledge) and it seems that shapelles 'prior experiance with drugs' is a major point at the moment.
the justices keep refering that schapelle has no prior experiance with drugs...
why is this such a contentious point. i dont believe that her prior usage should play any role in this case.
it seems that the way they are speaking that if she did have prior useage of illicit substances, then teh outcome may be different, or the way they look at it...
i dont htink this is a fair way of looking at it...
discuss?
the justices keep refering that schapelle has no prior experiance with drugs...
why is this such a contentious point. i dont believe that her prior usage should play any role in this case.
it seems that the way they are speaking that if she did have prior useage of illicit substances, then teh outcome may be different, or the way they look at it...
i dont htink this is a fair way of looking at it...
discuss?