NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7237498.stm)

A US army sniper has been sentenced to 10 years in jail for murder without premeditation after he killed an Iraqi civilian and planted evidence on him.

In May 2007, Sgt Evan Vela shot Genei Nasir al-Janabi, after the man saw him and other US snipers hiding near the town of Iskandariya, south of Baghdad.

After the killing Vela planted an AK-47 on the Iraqi's body.

Vela had admitted to killing Mr Janabi, but tried to say it was an accident, blaming sleep deprivation.

His defence argued that Vela had shot the man because he was acutely sleep deprived, having slept for less than five hours in three days whilst out in hostile terrain.

And that he had lied about the incident afterwards partly because he had been suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

Vela had been initially been charged with premeditated murder, but that was changed in the course of his court martial in Baghdad.

Thoughts? Anyone buy his story of sleep deprivation and post traumatic stress disorder? Is 10 years in jail a satisfactory punishment? too much? Too Little?

Thoughts?
Fair enough.
Anyone buy his story of sleep deprivation and post traumatic stress disorder?
Quite plausible, still doesn't really exenorate him from his crimes.
Is 10 years in jail a satisfactory punishment? too much? Too Little?
10 years is fine.

I think there should be an additional charge for the attempted cover-up, maybe an extra few years. Otherwise there's no deterrent to attempting it.

Fair enough.

Quite plausible, still doesn't really exenorate him from his crimes.

10 years is fine.

What Yoot said.

Well thanks for making another, "Let's bash America!" thread.And? It's not our fault that America keeps invading other countries.

Gee, I wonder where all the death penalty advocates are now....

Well thanks for making another, "Let's bash America!" thread.

Well thanks for making another, "Let's bash America!" thread.

how exactly is this a "let's bash america" thread? Is discussing any crime committed by an american suddenly an attack on america?

This thread isn't intended to be a Bash America Thread, but it will turn into that knowing NSG.

I dont suppose the US Army would be willing to take a page from the ol' Red Army manual and form penal battalions for use as cannon fodder?
It'd solve quite a few problems. I mean, the army always needs units to storm heavily entrenched areas where air support isnt an option for whatever reason.

This is a credit to America. It shows willingness to police our own and treat Iraqis as civilians to be protected under law.

I think there should be an additional charge for the attempted cover-up, maybe an extra few years. Otherwise there's no deterrent to attempting it.

That's what the ten years is for. If he had owned up to his mistake in the first place, he'd probably be evaluated by a psychiatrist and maybe put in an auxiliary unit for a while. You don't jail soldiers for making mistakes in combat. You jail them for covering it up. *nod*

This is a credit to America. It shows willingness to police our own and treat Iraqis as civilians to be protected under law.

True, but knowing the people on here, it will turn into a "LULZ Amirikka SuKz!!1" thread.

Lulz!!11 Amirikkka sukz!!1111!! AmirkkKa id deh EBIl pplz!!!!1

If the 10 years was for the attempted cover up then the charge would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or the US military equivalent. The charge was murder and as such I think the sentence is much too short and shows how little regard the US military has for Iraqi life.

He was charged with premeditated murder. It was the court's decision to reduce it to murder without premeditation. I'm sure that if he had come clean with his mistake from the beginning, the charges against him would probably have not even made it to a court martial. Assuming he really was disturbed and sleep deprived, that is.

That's what the ten years is for. If he had owned up to his mistake in the first place, he'd probably be evaluated by a psychiatrist and maybe put in an auxiliary unit for a while. You don't jail soldiers for making mistakes in combat. You jail them for covering it up. *nod*

If the 10 years was for the attempted cover up then the charge would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or the US military equivalent. The charge was murder and as such I think the sentence is much too short and shows how little regard the US military has for Iraqi life.

And what would the penalty for such a crime be in the US for someone not in the military?

About the same.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7237498.stm)



Thoughts? Anyone buy his story of sleep deprivation and post traumatic stress disorder? Is 10 years in jail a satisfactory punishment? too much? Too Little?

And what would the penalty for such a crime be in the US for someone not in the military?

And? It's not our fault that America keeps invading other countries.

:rolleyes:

If the 10 years was for the attempted cover up then the charge would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or the US military equivalent. The charge was murder and as such I think the sentence is much too short and shows how little regard the US military has for Iraqi life.

The U.S. military has little regard for like, period (my experience indicates its the same in other countries' militaries as well.)

He's getting off a bit light then, no?

So you have come to the conclusion that he automatically deserves the maximum sentence?

And what would the penalty for such a crime be in the US for someone not in the military?

The maximum penalty for 2nd degree murder in the United States is typically life without parole.

If the 10 years was for the attempted cover up then the charge would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or the US military equivalent. The charge was murder and as such I think the sentence is much too short and shows how little regard the US military has for Iraqi life.

no it shows how far modern psychology has gotten us, monkeys under stress mess up

if anything 10 years is excessive but this is a military court

And what would the penalty for such a crime be in the US for someone not in the military?

moneys on scot free for a civilian considering the situation but then some questions would be asked as to what they where doing with a sniper rifle in Iraq :p

I didn't say that.

But if the maxium sentence is life without parole, and he gets 10 years, then there's a massive difference.

just like there's a massive difference between minimum and maximum sentences for civilians.

The maximum penalty for 2nd degree murder in the United States is typically life without parole.

He's getting off a bit light then, no?

So you have come to the conclusion that he automatically deserves the maximum sentence?

I didn't say that.

But if the maxium sentence is life without parole, and he gets 10 years, then there's a massive difference.

But thats only used for extreme cases, like say mike gets shoved in a bar, takes out his knife and stabs Joe in the chest 77 times. He didn't know when he went in that he was going to kill joe. It just sort of happened.

He's getting off a bit light then, no?

Very much.

Very much.

No, he was just inventing his OWN morality, we have no right to judge him, it is inhuhane. I thought you of all people would understand this. You hold all Americans and millitary personel to a double standard. It is like you an evil Amerikkkan racist scumbag. *may they all die*

Timewarp hurting head. :(

*swoon*

No, he was just inventing his OWN morality, we have no right to judge him, it is inhuhane. I thought you of all people would understand this. You hold all Americans and millitary personel to a double standard. It is like you an evil Amerikkkan racist scumbag. *may they all die*

First of all, learn to write coherently before addressing me. I am answering a post that's beneath my person to answer.

Second of all, why would I "understand" that a person has the right to invent a morality that's harmful to others?

I didn't say that.

But if the maxium sentence is life without parole, and he gets 10 years, then there's a massive difference.

Not really, considering that anything over twenty years is considered life, I believe.

Not really, considering that anything over twenty years is considered life, I believe.

I'm thinking it means life in jail, till one dies.

I'm thinking it means life in jail, till one dies.

One would think, but usually it means twenty-five years, and then parole. That's why sometimes you hear about sentences where people get 300 years, or "consecutive life sentences." Since few courts will arrest someone for crimes they committed in a past life, it means that it's someone that they want to literally keep in jail for life, instead of simply serve a life sentence.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7237498.stm)



Thoughts? Anyone buy his story of sleep deprivation and post traumatic stress disorder? Is 10 years in jail a satisfactory punishment? too much? Too Little?

My personal view is that this is the wrong way to deal with this situation. Obviously something is wrong psychologically if he killed a man and then covered it up, and instead of simply locking him behind bars and letting him build up anger and hatred we ought to do something to help him.

That's not to say he shouldn't be punished, but the punishment should go along with the rehabilitation and done in a way that makes him recognize what he did was wrong without making him angry. This is actually possible, by the way. We just--as far as I am aware--simply haven't tried something like this yet.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7237498.stm)



Thoughts? Anyone buy his story of sleep deprivation and post traumatic stress disorder? Is 10 years in jail a satisfactory punishment? too much? Too Little?

Unfortunate all around, but yes, a sentence was appropriate for 1) the murder and 2) the cover up.

how exactly is this a "let's bash america" thread? Is discussing any crime committed by an american suddenly an attack on america?

I didn't get the sense it was; I get the sense it was more about whether we think the sentence is too lenient, just right, or too harsh.

My personal view is that this is the wrong way to deal with this situation. Obviously something is wrong psychologically if he killed a man and then covered it up, and instead of simply locking him behind bars and letting him build up anger and hatred we ought to do something to help him.

That's not to say he shouldn't be punished, but the punishment should go along with the rehabilitation and done in a way that makes him recognize what he did was wrong without making him angry. This is actually possible, by the way. We just--as far as I am aware--simply haven't tried something like this yet.

I would think -- though of course I could be quite wrong -- that if he is believed to actually be suffering from PTSS, he will get treatment.

Not really, considering that anything over twenty years is considered life, I believe.

...no not really...25 years is 25 years. Life is life. A life sentence may have the possibility of parole in 25 years, but a sentence of life, without parole, does not. Life without parole means you die in jail.

It seems you're saying that if a court wants to keep someon in jail FOR LIFE, the court will sentence him to multiple life sentences because "life" really means 25 years, and so by sentencing him to multiple life sentences he won't get out in 25?

Um...no. No that's not right at all. Life without parole is life without parole. Life with the possibility of parole is life with the possibilty of parole. Courts don't sentence people for consecutive sentences for a single crime because they want to keep them longer.

If I am correct, consecutive life sentences are handed down if a person has been found guilty of several murders.

One would think, but usually it means twenty-five years, and then parole. That's why sometimes you hear about sentences where people get 300 years, or "consecutive life sentences." Since few courts will arrest someone for crimes they committed in a past life, it means that it's someone that they want to literally keep in jail for life, instead of simply serve a life sentence.

It seems you're saying that if a court wants to keep someon in jail FOR LIFE, the court will sentence him to multiple life sentences because "life" really means 25 years, and so by sentencing him to multiple life sentences he won't get out in 25?

Um...no. No that's not right at all. Life without parole is life without parole. Life with the possibility of parole is life with the possibilty of parole. Courts don't sentence people for consecutive sentences for a single crime because they want to keep them longer.

...no not really...25 years is 25 years. Life is life. A life sentence may have the possibility of parole in 25 years, but a sentence of life, without parole, does not. Life without parole means you die in jail.

What I meant was that sentences above twenty years for a single crime other than a life sentence don't get handed out, although I'm probably wrong on that.

If I am correct, consecutive life sentences are handed down if a person has been found guilty of several murders.

murders, or other crimes that carry life imprisonment. Aggrevated rape of a child in Massachusetts is, for example, a crime that carries life sentence.

So if a man rapes a child then murders her, it's possible for him to get two consecutive life sentences.

One would think, but usually it means twenty-five years, and then parole. That's why sometimes you hear about sentences where people get 300 years, or "consecutive life sentences." Since few courts will arrest someone for crimes they committed in a past life, it means that it's someone that they want to literally keep in jail for life, instead of simply serve a life sentence.

Hence the word "without parole".

First of all, learn to write coherently before addressing me. I am answering a post that's beneath my person to answer.

Second of all, why would I "understand" that a person has the right to invent a morality that's harmful to others?

It's the new age craze thing or something. Hippy garbage, but hey, whatever duuuuuude.

My personal view is that this is the wrong way to deal with this situation. Obviously something is wrong psychologically if he killed a man and then covered it up, and instead of simply locking him behind bars and letting him build up anger and hatred we ought to do something to help him.

That's not to say he shouldn't be punished, but the punishment should go along with the rehabilitation and done in a way that makes him recognize what he did was wrong without making him angry. This is actually possible, by the way. We just--as far as I am aware--simply haven't tried something like this yet.

So explain, how would it work.

So explain, how would it work.

How would it work? I am honestly not quite certain. I don't know the specific details.

What I do know is that it hasn't really been tried and that it IS possible. We simply need to actually try this sort of thing and figure out the best methods. We haven't done so yet, and we need to.

murders, or other crimes that carry life imprisonment. Aggrevated rape of a child in Massachusetts is, for example, a crime that carries life sentence.

So if a man rapes a child then murders her, it's possible for him to get two consecutive life sentences.

That makes sense.

That makes sense.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Giving consecutive sentences for related crimes is inane and creates excessive burden for prison system and thus the rest of the society: Let's say stealing a candy is worth 1 day in jail, I steal 3650 candies - at a rate say a 5-10 per day - eventually get caught, confess and get 10 years in teh bin for stealing candy. Instead of grouping them together intelligently - ok, serial crime, no other harm done, a week in jail and 500$ for damages - I get slapped with inane sentence which in no way correlates with the damage done.

I also oppose giving multiple life sentences, especially if they a) are terminal (resurrect and imprison again?) b) have a fixed duration regardless of the amount of sentences (eg. in Spain it's 30 years). Though, in latter case actually surviving multiple life sentences would be really bad ass feat. :D


Heck, in my opinion the whole common law system of USA doesn't make any sense.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Giving consecutive sentences for related crimes is inane and creates excessive burden for prison system and thus the rest of the society: Let's say stealing a candy is worth 1 day in jail, I steal 3650 candies - at a rate say a 5-10 per day - eventually get caught, confess and get 10 years in teh bin for stealing candy. Instead of grouping them together intelligently - ok, serial crime, no other harm done, a week in jail and 500$ for damages - I get slapped with inane sentence which in no way correlates with the damage done.

Nonsense. If society has come to the opinion that stealing a candy creates a harm worth a day's punishment in jail, than stealing 365 candies creates enough harm to be worth 365 days in jail.

Likewise the application of multiple life sentences, or sentences in excess of 100 years, are to ensure that each person gets their day in court, and each punishment is given accordance with his actions. A serial killer kills 10 people, he should be sentences for each crime.

Nonsense. If society has come to the opinion that stealing a candy creates a harm worth a day's punishment in jail, than stealing 365 candies creates enough harm to be worth 365 days in jail.

So, stealing roughly 4000 candies would be equal to murdering someone?

So, stealing roughly 4000 candies would be equal to murdering someone?

Given that example, yes.

So, stealing roughly 4000 candies would be equal to murdering someone?

if the punishment for stealing a candy was one day and the punishment for murder was 4,000 days, then as a matter of law yes, the would be deserving of equal punishments.

Given that example, yes.

if the punishment for stealing a candy was one day and the punishment for murder was 4,000 days, then as a matter of law yes, the would be deserving of equal punishments.

So neither of you wouldn't have anything against getting the same sentence as a brutal murderer for STEALING CANDY? It's hilarious how cheap murder would be in that system (for real life example use, eg., stolen cars instead of candy).

I do agree that it would be according to law but that doesn't make it just or rational by any meter: Many minor crimes do not equate to a major crime in terms of suffering or the length of corrective punishment necessary.

So neither of you wouldn't have anything against getting the same sentence as a brutal murderer for STEALING CANDY? It's hilarious how cheap murder would be in that system (for real life example use, eg., stolen cars instead of candy).

I do agree that it would be according to law but that doesn't make it just or rational by any meter: Many minor crimes do not equate to a major crime in terms of suffering or the length of corrective punishment necessary.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

So neither of you wouldn't have anything against getting the same sentence as a brutal murderer for STEALING CANDY? It's hilarious how cheap murder would be in that system (for real life example use, eg., stolen cars instead of candy).

Of course I would dislike it. But you didn't ask if it was right, or if it was ethical, or if it was moral, or if we agreed with it. You asked whether in that example they were equivalent.

They would be.

I do agree that it would be according to law but that doesn't make it just or rational by any meter

And that's not what you asked.

It's the new age craze thing or something. Hippy garbage, but hey, whatever duuuuuude.

Again: Learn to articulate your thoughts before addressing me. Your text is beneath me.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I might have to work on my sleep deprivation first :P

I do apologize to you and Neo Art for I completely missed my own point - Now that's an achievement :D

Let's just pretend last few posts didn't happen, m'kay? :)

Nonsense. If society has come to the opinion that stealing a candy creates a harm worth a day's punishment in jail, than stealing 365 candies creates enough harm to be worth 365 days in jail.

Many minor crimes do not equate to a major crime in terms of suffering or the length of corrective punishment necessary.

For real world example use cars: Is losing 50 cars worth a life (~1 year/car)? Which would you rather lose 50 cars or your life?