Soldier receives death sentence

[Morgeruat]

link
I've actually been paying attention to this case for several months. A few snippets from the article

The 15-person military jury, which last week took just two and a half hours to convict Akbar of premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder, deliberated for about seven hours in the sentencing phase. After jurors reached a verdict, they voted on whether to reconsider the decision after one juror asked that they do so. The sentence will be reviewed by a commanding officer and automatically appealed. If Akbar is executed, it would be by lethal injection.

While the defense contends Akbar was too mentally ill to plan the attack, they have never disputed that he threw grenades into troop tents in the early morning darkness and then fired on soldiers in the ensuing chaos. Army Capt. Chris Seifert, 27, and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, were killed. Prosecutors say Akbar launched the attack at his camp - days before the soldiers were to move into Iraq - because he was concerned about U.S. troops killing fellow Muslims in the Iraq war. "He is a hate-filled, ideologically driven murderer," chief prosecutor Lt. Col. Michael Mulligan said. He added that Akbar wrote in his diary in 1997, "My life will not be complete unless America is destroyed." Akbar is the first American since the Vietnam era to be prosecuted on charges of murdering a fellow soldier during wartime.

A defense psychiatrist testified that although Akbar was legally sane and understood the consequences of his attack, he suffered from forms of paranoia and schizophrenia.

also known as militant islam, or islamofascism.

[Morgeruat]

link

PFC Lynndie England is pleading guilty to several charges of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. She could get up to 11 years in prison.

[Djinn Raffo]

It's a TRAP!

[shamrock_uk]

Hope you don't mind me tagging this on, but Lynndie England has just had her guilty plea rejected because the judge has decided she "didn't know that what she was doing was wrong".

Heh, I'll never get the American legal system sometimes. The guilty plea allows her to have a lower sentence. By refusing it, the judge has ensured she will get a higher sentence. Yet his reason is that she didn't realise that she was doing something 'wrong' which implies she should have a lower sentence, no?

And what kind of a court won't let you say you are guilty??

[ 05-04-2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean a longer sentence, just that a longer one is possible.

[Timber Loftis]

Shamrock, don't make the foregone conclusion that she will be found guilty. Any judge that rejects a plea on those grounds may very well be willing to hold her not guilty, even if it goes against what the jury determines.

I'd say we have a judge who is wanting to make a political statement, which further complicates the issue.

[shamrock_uk]

The judge can go against the jury? Doesn't that defeat the point of trial by jury in the first place?

And how can she be not guilty given we have photographs of her?

I wish law was simpler! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, and thanks for your insights here Timber, I'm a complete layman when it comes to law [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit:

This site has more info on the circumstances.

I know see the judges reason for stopping the trial, but is England being refused her guilty plea just on the testimony of Gramer? What if he's lying? Isn't it just her version against his?

And even if somehow she didn't realise it was wrong (presumably she's socially undeveloped or something) surely the evidence is incontrovertible - she committed those crimes. Motive shouldn't affect whether a person is guilty or not (although I do accept a differing of sentences) IMO...

[ 05-04-2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Agreed Shamrock, ignorance of the law (except in a very few rare circumstances) is no excuse for breaking said law, although it should be considered during sentencing. Not sure what all is going on in this case, and UCMJ is handled differently than civilian law.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The judge can go against the jury? Doesn't that defeat the point of trial by jury in the first place?

I don't think the judge can go against the juries decision but I believe he does decide the punishment if the jury says guilty and that punishment could vary drasticlly.

[ 05-04-2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by pritchke: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The judge can go against the jury? Doesn't that defeat the point of trial by jury in the first place?

I don't think the judge can go against the juries decision but I believe he does decide the punishment if the jury says guilty and that punishment could vary drasticlly. [/QUOTE]http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/t...19E3CF4F23F3EF