Soldier sentenced to 110 years in rape and murder of Iraqi girl - CNN.com
Quote:
FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- A soldier convicted of rape and murder in the death of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the slayings of her family was sentenced Saturday to 110 years in prison.
The military says Pfc. Jesse Spielman will also be reduced in rank and be dishonorably discharged.
The sentence was part of a plea agreement attorneys for Pfc. Jesse Spielman had made with prosecutors that limited the number of years he could serve in prison, regardless of the jury's recommendation.
Spielman was convicted late Friday of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape and four counts of felony murder.
Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders but alleged that he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout.
Spielman, 23, of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, received the longest sentence of four soldiers who have been convicted. Three other soldiers pleaded guilty under agreements with prosecutors for their roles in the assault and were given sentences ranging from five to 100 years.
|
I've always thought that the principle of giving lighter sentences to people who plead guilty was complete bullshit. In this case, we've got a guy who did not commit either rape or murder, but who gets a worst sentence than those who did.
What's the moral of the story? Firstly, if there's a rape going on, you'd better take part in it, because not participating will get you a bigger sentence. Secondly, even if you are innocent (which is arguably the case here, regarding
some of the accusations), you sometimes should rather plead guilty,
just in case. This system encourages what can be called "judiciary racket": innocents getting sentenced in order to avoid a worst sentence in case they lose.
Aside from this example, what is your opinion on such agreements?
08-04-2007
Linear Mode
