I have a question and a debate about the recent trials in Spain of suspected terrorists in the March 11th bombings of commuter trains that killed 191 and injured 1,800.
My question is this…what is the point of handing down sentences of 30,000-40,000 years since Spain has a maximum sentence of no more than 40 years? Even if they had life sentences, what would the point of such a ridiculously large period of time be? I’m sure there is a legal explanation that our legal-beagle 'dopers know (I know this is a GQ question but it goes with a GD debate…hopefully). Anyway, I was curious.
From AP (on Yahoo!):
Anyway, the debate is again for our legal dopers. The question is…under Spanish law was this a good verdict? I don’t really understand everything going on here. According too the article circumstantial evidence is allowed (but cases can still be overturned because it was…or something). One of the prime ‘ringleaders’ was acquitted even though he seemed to confess in a taped phone conversation…but translations differed on exactly what he was saying.
Also, if I’m reading the article right Rabei Osman (the supposed ‘ringleader’) was already in jail in Italy and I assume extradited too Spain for this trial. Since he’s been acquitted in Spain does that mean he has too go back to Italy too serve a sentence there…or is he free too go?
The main question for debate though is about the trial in general. What are your thoughts on the rulings wrt Spanish law? From my very un-legal perspective it SEEMS like they didn’t have much in the way of evidence at all too convict anyone. But then I may not be understanding a lot here. Thoughts?
-XT