The woman who killed her husband by running him over in Texas, her name escapes me right now, could have received probation upon her conviction. Texas allows passion or “the heat of the moment” to be taken into consideration in a murder trial.
As for the OP, the judge gave exactly the sentence that America asked for. The maximum.
Reeder, the “heat of passion” defense is the reason she only got 20 years. If it weren’t for that, most likely here, she would have gotten life in prison or possibly the death penelty if it was proven premeditated. 20 years was the max for “crime of passion/temporary insanity” in this case, and that’s what she got.
DDG, every case you posted about makes me sick. I’m sick of every instance where a person commits murder and is given a simple slap on the wrist for stupid fucking made up excuses and shit. A spouse abused by another finally snaps one day and kills the assailant…that, I have no qualms with. An abusive spouse is killed by abusing spouse and the assailant goes free…that’s just sick. There are a lot of shitty cases in the US that have results I do not agree with.
Many people who bitch about the US use the fact our legal system is shitty as a point of argument, and it’s a good one. But, obviously, we are not the only ones that have our heads up our asses. Whether this trial was here, or in France, or Brazil, or Mars, I don’t care…the verdict just sickens me, and I find it amazing that any “justice system” ANYWHERE can chalk the lives of more than 3,000 people up with fifteen years of incarceration for thier murder.
IANAL, and I’m hoping that a real one will correct me if I’m wrong, but if memory serves most U.S. jurisdictions no longer allow someone to be charged as an accessory before the fact. If you aid or abet in any way in the comletion of the crime you are fully guilty of the completed crime, and can be sentenced accordingly. So Motassadeq, if charged in the U.S., would be guilty of mass murder and could be sentenced accordingly.
Could he be extradited to the U.S., and tried here?
Again with the caveat that IANAL, you can, however, be charged as an accessory after the fact, which I think is basically hiding the perpetrator, or the evidence.
Well, me, too, Elvis, but what the German judge has to go by is what “The Law” says. And what “The Law” says in Germany is that the maximum penalty for “accessory to murder” is 15 years. Period. The judge can’t decide to slap some extra time on there just because the crime was extra-heinous. “The Law” doesn’t work like that.
He also can’t decide to change the way the sentence is carried out, like having the guy serve 3,045 consecutive sentences of 15 years each, because that’s not the way The Law reads.
If you want this guy to get a bigger sentence, you’d have to change The Law.
The woman in Texas was Clara Harris, and the jury rejected the “heat of the moment” defense since she deliberately backed the car up and ran over him twice more, there in the parking lot, making three times in all. If she’d just run him down the one time, she might have gotten off with the “crime of passion” defense. But reversing and going over him twice more just to make sure (and while his 17-year-old daughter was in the car with her, begging her to “stop killing my dad!”) got her 20 years.
I think you mean consecutive sentences. As far as I know, every multiple sentence in the Commonwealth are served concurrently (which is why Reyat is getting 5 years for 329 counts), and it looks like Germany does the same thing.
The only western country I’ve heard of that sentences people consecutively is the United States, which is why people get sentenced to hundreds of years in prison.
If you can correct me, please do; I’m no expert in international law.
DDG, reread the story, or at least the line you posted:
They found she acted with “sudden passion”. Due to that, the sentencing she could receive due to this was probation to up to 20 years in prison. That’s “the sentencing guidlines for the special circumstances”. That’s why she got a cap on her sentence of 20 years and not life in prison. I work at a news station here in Austin, and that’s how we presented it, anyway.
Right, they agreed that she acted with “sudden passion”, but they still convicted her of the murder.
If they had accepted the “heat of the moment” defense, they wouldn’t have convicted her in the first place.
That’s completely irrelevant and hypocritical; you can’t defend this absurd verdict by saying both ‘it’s the maximum sentence the German legal system can give out’ and ‘well, some people in the German legal system think it’s fine.’
Yeah, because it would be completely impossible for there to ever be a conviction for mass murder in Germany of all countries! I mean, when has there ever been any instance of mass murder by Germans?
Huh ? What can’t you understand ? :dubious:
A law in parliament doesn’t require ALL people to support it. But, once a majority vote for it, it applies to ALL citizens. More than half the American voters didn’t vote for Bush as President but he’s EVERYONE’s president now. His policy applies to all Americans, not just those voted for him. What can’t you understand about this ?
If you’re outraged by German law, fly over and go lobby at the Bundestag.
At most, the only valid argument one can make in this case is that the charges pressed should have been one with harsher sentences. That’s the prosecutor’s fault at best, not the judge’s or the justice system’s. So get over it.
Before we get our shorts in too big a bind here, the guy was convicted as an accessory to a conspiracy to commit murder. That is a fair remove for the crime of murder. For purposes of comparison, in Iowa, under State law, murder one carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Conspiracy, that is the agreement with others to facilitate or do a felony offense when any one party to the agreement actually does something that advances the conspiracy, carries a maximum sentence of 25 years with eligibility for parole. Aiding and abetting, the same thing as accomplice before the fact, is punished the same as the offense aided or abetted—in the case of aiding and abetting a conspiracy to do a felony -or 25 years. Being an accessory after the fact by concealing the crime, preventing apprehension and the like is a serious misdemeanor when the offense is a felony and is punishable by up to two years imprisonment. If this guy had gone up in Iowa the max would have been 25 years, or maybe 12 years before parole.
According to the NPR report the case wasn’t all that strong. The most damaging evidence was that the defendant took care of one of the high-jackers’ banking and once introduced the high-jacker as “our pilot.” There was no direct evidence that the defendant had any knowledge of what was going on or was involved in planning in any way. According to one German commenter the court, which was panel of professional judges not a lay jury, could convict, not upon proof beyond reasonable doubt, but based on a preponderance of the evidence showing that the defendant likely knew that something criminal was afoot and that the defendant somehow helped the bad guys despite that knowledge. None the less, the guy was convicted and received the max, which is some indication that the court recognized the seriousness of the situation.
Mounir el Motassadeq deserved the max. sentence.
But, there´s absolutely no need to tighten the German penal code! It makes Germany a fairly safe country, without incarcerating an unnecessary amount of its citizens. Why change it?
Deterrence can hardly be seen as an argument in this case.
Kalimero
How do you figure?
The real question is “what can’t you understand?”. Less than two days per murder is simply screwed up, the German justice system says that’s fine, hell, it’s the max, therefore the German justice system is screwed up.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what percentage of people voted for it, it’s screwed up.
What I don’t understand is how it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. If you were to say ‘the American justice system is screwed up because it would give this guy something worse than 2 days in jail per victim’, I would either disagree with your determination of what sentence is appropriate or agree that things were screwed up and needed to change. I would not argue “well, not everyone voted for the law, therefore you can’t say that it’s screwed up” like your bunch is doing.
Just how much of a moron are you? Whether German law is fucked up has nothing to do with whether I’m concerned enough about it to screw up my own life by flying across the ocean and lobbying the Bundestag to change it.
The justice system produced the result, I don’t care which person in the justice system is responsible for it. Still, it’s good to know that our “allies” think that the murder of Americans warrants less than two days per victim, to give the murderer a second chance at life.
Nope. Multiply that by 3000 and you’ve got the correct answer, but thanks for playing.
I think you should stick to the Pit.
Intelligent Argument is an oxymoron to you. (A link since you’ll need to look it up anyway)
Of the hijackers only the leaders knew they were going to crash the planes into the WTC. The others did not know they were going to die. So how could a guy in Germany know more than some of the hijackers themselves? I don’t think so.
I think some people here are passing judgment without knowing the facts of the case.
In any case, it is laughable for Americans to deride the German judicial system when the examples of ridiculous judgments in the USA are legendary.
3000 deaths, more or less, one conspiracy, one aiding and abetting, one count of aiding and abetting a single conspiracy to murder 3000 people. 25 years in Iowa.
There’s the problem. You’re effectively accusing them of doing this specifically out of scorn for “Americans”. And you know that is not true.
Now, if you phrase it as “a Justice system that does not allow a court to ever put away someone forever no matter what, is screwed up”, you DO have a point.
You believe the only true justice is 3 thousand consecutive life sentences (or, who knows, hanging him 3,000 times?),and anyone saying otherwise is “wrong, but thanks for playing”. Fine. That is YHO. Duly noted. Sanrkiness allowed,this being The Pit.
In the jurisdiction we’re bitching about the decision was taken years, maybe decades ago, that their society is not well-served by such draconian sentencing… MAYBE, just maybe, precisely because they had bad experiences with systems of harsh merciless “justice”?
This is disingenuous.
From the site:
"Although Mr. Reyat acquired materials for [the bombing], he did not make or arm an explosive device, nor did he place an explosive device on an airplane, nor does he know who did or did not do so.
At no time did Mr. Reyat intend by his actions to cause death to any person or believe that such consequences were likely to occur. "