I’m confused how this guy escaped execution, and I’m an active duty officer. I don’t understand how he was able to walk through a village and slaughter civilians like he did and still achieve a plea deal like he did. If this doesn’t qualify someone for the death penalty what does? This was a war crime plain and simple.
I don’t see how we can possibly sentence Nadal Hassan to death for killing 13 at Ft. Hood.
Very confusing message, even for those of us in uniform.
Well, the death penalty IS wrong, always and everywhere, so there’s that.
On top of that, once it’s been carried out, even on a verifiably guilty evildoer, that evildoer’s troubles are OVER. Don’t see how that’s supposed to be acceptable to me.
As far as Dr. Hassan is concerned, the LAST thing I want him to get is evidence to support the idea that he’s a martyr.
I think the general rule is that if you confess and plead guilty, you avoid the death penalty.
Isn’t that what he did?
Nassn is that rare case of actual treason. His “defense” is that he now supports the other side in our war.
OK, that’s not really correct. He’s not being tried for treason. He probably could be, but isn’t.
The difference is that, although he doesn’t deny killing people, he is not pleading guilty and showing remorse. He is saying his killing is justified because he’s now on the side of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
In fact, the following rule of thumb covers the cases where the death penalty is presently used in the U.S. Please note that I’m saying that this is the rule of thumb that can be observed. I AM NOT DEFENDING IT OR CRITICIZING IT. This is the way it actually works is what I’m saying.
First of all, the death penalty isn’t actually that commonly applied. There were 43 people executed in both 2011 and 2012. Judging by how many have been executed so far this year, there will be less this year.
Second, there are only about a third of the 52 U.S. political divisions (the states, D.C., and the federal government) in which the death penalty is used except very rarely. Except for those (approximately) 17 states, the rest of the divisions either have no death penalty, haven’t used the death penalty for some years, or very rarely use it. Those remaining (approximately) 17 states are the only ones that normally use it. Thus it would be very surprising for the death penalty to be applied by the remaining 33 states, the District of Columbia, or the federal government. So what happened to Bales is exactly what could be expected. Since he wasn’t on trial in those (approximately) 17 states, it would have been surprising if he had gotten the death penalty.
The military has started using the death penalty, and currently has six people on death row, none of whom had a body count in the double digits. And I’d argue Bales crime is worse even then sixteen murders, since brutally murdering civilians damages the US mission in Afghanistan as a whole as well.
I imagine the reason he escaped death is that the witness reports were confused and some reported multiple shooters. As such, gov’t wasn’t sure they could get a conviction even with Bales confession and video footage of his leaving the base, and so offered a plea deal.
The federal government has only executed three people since 1963, which I think counts as rare.
Well, happily, so are people that commit sixteen homicides at a go.
But the number of people executed post-Gregg is misleading. There are something like 70 people on Federal Death row, and six military personal on the same. The reason there have been so few actual executions is because it takes several decades for appeals to finish, and the Feds didn’t start using the death penalty after it was re-legalized by SCOTUS until 1988 (and that mainly for drug-related murders, it didn’t come into use for other federal crimes till '96).
So the lack of executions isn’t really a good measure of the federal gov’ts willingness to use the death sentence. In reality, the Feds have been willing to use the death sentence in crimes far less horrible then the one we’re discussing.
On the contrary, that’s exactly why he escaped the death penalty. The death penalty is applied according to who you are and who your victims are, not what crime you commit. He was a White American Soldier, who massacred Afghan (probably) Muslims; so of course they wouldn’t give him the death penalty. He’s a member of our near-worshiped military, of the “proper” race, killing people that many Americans look upon as a cross between demons and vermin.
A black civilian who killed white Christian Americans on the other hand would be far more likely to get the death penalty; not because the severity of the crime is different, but because he’d be someone our society regards as deserving of death simply for being alive, killing people our society regards as genuine human beings instead of vermin.
Because it’s a plea deal. Spares the prosecution the trouble of collecting forensic evidence in an occupied and hostile country.
This is no mystery:
Contrary to what Der Trihs says, this has nothing to do with skin color, military or religion. Plea deals ensue in > 90% of federal cases in the US.
Bales plead guilty, few people that do that are sentenced to death. Additionally Bales had things on his side that probably could have helped his case in terms of swaying the officers that would hear the case and the judge and later higher ranking officers who would have to sign off on his sentence. Namely he had I believe one maybe two traumatic brain injuries (TBI), injuries of that type (concussions & etc) are related to ongoing problems later down the road which suggests he never should have been redeployed at all, with a military court I don’t see them acquitting him or anything but maybe they do take that into consideration after a full trial and still give him life in prison instead of the death penalty.
We’re learning more and more than any type of concussion injuries, especially when repeated, can cause serious problems down the road. Suicides, homicidal behavior etc. That’s the worst case, even in the better cases you hear of life long problems with depression and other psychiatric ills. I don’t know if Bales had a mild TBI which might mean a normal concussion, or if his was even more serious, but either way it would have definitely come up at trial to unknown results. That gives the prosecution a lot of incentive to agree to a plea deal.
No one who pleads guilty in a military court is sentenced to death, since its impossible to plead guilty when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. Had he not been offered a plea-deal, the prosecution would’ve almost certainly sought the death penalty and he would’ve had to plea not-guilty.
That would’ve saved him from the death penalty, but he still would’ve gotten life in prison. I don’t think the prosecution really risks anything by seeking the death penalty in that scenario. At worst the jury takes it as an extenuating circumstance and he ends up with the same penalty as he got automatically with the plea deal.
Offering the plea deal only really makes sense if the Prosecution thought there was a chance he might be found not guilty of the murder charges and gotten a less then life-in-prison sentence.
The criminal justice system has a lot of built in human biases. A US soldier is worth more to our society than an Afghan civilian, the same way a white person is worth more than a black person, or the way an attractive white teenage girl is worth more than a middle aged hispanic male (when was the last time the news made a missing middle aged obese male a national crisis the way they do that everytime an attractive white woman goes missing). Hence blacks who kill whites get the death penalty far more often than whites to kill blacks.
There are no rich people on death row either.
Suffice it to say, in this case the defendant was worth far more than the victim to our society. Plus as mitigating factors he was a soldier in an unpopular war, and he probably had PTSD as a result.
So then based on your logic, since Charles Manson wasn’t executed the State of California can’t execute anyone unless they prove that whatever crimes a person is convicted of, they have to be worse than what Manson did?:dubious:
That strikes me as a bit silly, and I personally disagree, though not all that strongly, with the death penalty.
Beyond that, you’re shocked that Bales wasn’t executed?:dubious:
The US military hasn’t executed anyone since IIRC, 1961.
See my previous posts. The military has sentenced to death several people since the penalty became legal again (none of whom commited crimes as severe as Bales). None have been executed because of the length of the appeals process, not because the military is philosophically averse to executions.
So, was correct or incorrect that the US military has not executed anyone since 1961?
I ask, because I think, though I’m not sure if that’s the case and your post says nothing about it.
Beyond that, one of the good arguments against the death penalty is that it’s always unevenly applied even ignoring stuff like the race and/or gender of the victims/killers.
For example, in infamous case that Dead Man Walking was based on, two men were convicted of killing and raping two people, but only one of them(played by Sean Penn) was executed for it.
Considering how many murders we have in the US, something like 10,000 a year and how comparably fewer executions, it can’t help but be haphazardly applied.
Not meaningfully distinctive, really. The Aurora shooter wanted to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, the prosecution refused. There is nothing AIUI under Colorado law preventing Holmes from still pleading guilty–but he has zero incentive to do so. It makes no sense to want to plead guilty if the prosecution doesn’t guarantee no death penalty in a case like this, so the fact that it’s in military court with slightly different rules is irrelevant. Bales would not have plead guilty in a civilian jurisdiction without a guarantee of no death penalty, regardless of whether procedural rules would have allowed him to plead guilty even without said guarantee.
Of course they do, if they don’t accept the deal and seek the death penalty and instead get life in prison (which he was willing to accept) they’ve wasted time and money on a trial. That’s a relevant part of the calculus even in the military system, not to mention the negative publicity involved and the potential harm it would cause their future legal career as the decision would make them look stupid.
It also makes sense if they think Bales is agreeing to the sentence the already believe the court would impose anyway, because it means they get the same sentence without having to actually prosecute a case.
For black people. And for poor people. But especially for poor black people.