Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:32 PM
Mon Nov 23
43 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/13/09
10/13/09
As for how the participants feel, I doubt it's betrayed. His death probably showed them that addiction really is a difficult thing to overcome. I bet it gave them more of a reason to continue their battle.
10/13/09
10/13/09
I really respect AM for making this series. It makes me so sad to think that his coming back into contact with the world of addiction may have been the trigger that prompted his own relapse.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Even Jeff, my favorite interventionist from "Intervention" relapsed recently after YEARS of sobriety.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Yeah, I really like him, though I think the show is pretty good with putting the right interventionist with the right addict/family. I like Jeff because he’s usually placed with the addicts who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re smarter than all other addicts, they’re not an addict, or they don’t need help and are more hostile than most. I remember one particular episode (Chad, I believe) who said "I love living on the streets" to which Jeff goes "You are so full of shit."
Candy goes with the tragic cases/cases wherein the family is super-duper involved. Ken goes with people who usually have an accompanying mental illness (usually drug related). At least this is the pattern I’ve noticed.
10/13/09
10/13/09
05/05/09
Really, when it comes to situations like this, crimes committed in a foreign country, I really think that the person should be exchanged and punished in their country of origin. There are just too may vaguities and idiosyncracies when it comes to dealing with the legal and social mores of other countries. Plus, I highly doubt that her defense will put up much of a fight for her.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
@heatherwritesstuff: How about getting your hand chopped off for stealing...they do that in some countries too. How would you like to come back handless because you couldn't keep you hands off of a cowry shell necklace? Some places judge certain crimes too extremely. And that "if you can't do the time don't do the crime" mess is pure basura. Paticularly in this case in which the woman says that she was forced to be a mule.
My personal opinion is that if I am not allowed to own property, pay taxes or partake in the benefits of being a citizen of your country, then why should I be punished by your laws as though I am a citizen of your country? Send their asses back home and let them be punished there; in their land of origin where they understand the laws and are not subject to social and legal customs that they do not understand.
05/05/09
To which my husband said "Oh, well NOW I'll try not to kill us all. See I wasn't concerned about my wife or my friends or myself: but now that I've remembered you've got a little blob baby somewhere in there I'll be really careful."
So totally called for.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
It is somewhat perplexing the way western commentors have had healines screaming "pregnant woman facing execution" when the idea that she would face execution WHILST pregnant was never ever the issue. Likewise, if Amnesty International says no one has been executed since 1990 (a record the US for example cannot match) why the hysteria that she might be sentenced to death? British officials will be working quietly behind the scenes to do what they can for her. However we have no historical ties with Laos nor particular trade links to my knowledge. Hystercial westerners denouncing Laos for executing pregnant women is unlikely to have helped Ms Orobator's case within Laos itself.
Whatever Ms Orobator's fate, you will still get foolish westerners travelling to other countries, breaking their laws and then being horrified that they are subject to the laws of that foreign land. Even the actual execution of westerners for drug smuggling does not seem to deter them.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
05/05/09
I couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly. The law may seem to us ridiculous and unfair, but the fact is, that is their law, and you better believe they'll hold you to it. Otherwise, it sends the wrong message that Westerners can break the law with impunity because their governments get them off.
05/05/09
The idea that you might not get a lawyer, might not get a fair trial, might not get a speedy trial, etc. are just beyond the realm of comprehension to a lot of people. This kind of incident, where citizens of countries that stand for those elements of justice are at the mercy of other countries' systems, is a good opportunity to intervene in the interest of "justice" for that person and for that country. Not that we shouldn't be doing that all the time, in an ideal world, but it makes sense especially to do it when it happens to apply to one of your citizens.
05/05/09
This reasoning seems utterly flawed in so many ways.
05/05/09
Assuming that's the case (which they may well not be, but for the interest of this particular discussion on pregnant women on death row), then the logic, I assume, is that she broke the law, she must pay the consequences. However, given that her unborn fetus did NOT break the law, it should not be terminated or put to death.
I can kinda see that.
Of course, it raises all kinds of other really sticky issues like, y'know, who's gonna raise the kid? What are they going to do with a newborn once they execute it's mother? Are they going to send it home? Put it in Laotian foster care? This clearly is not a simple issue.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Oh, lord, I have no idea.
They said they were investigating the pregnancy, hopefully if it turns out that a guard or prisoner that raped her then he'll get what's coming to him.
Of course, it's also possible that she did her absolute best to get pregnant specifically because she knew that they wouldn't execute her.
I don't know, I think they're both possible.
It's not really the specifics of the case that I was wondering about and chewing on. It was simply the ethical question that this case asks, it's not your typical procreation issue.
05/05/09