Monday, 2nd August 2010
Crime and punishment
Criminals, courts, and the prison system mesmerise me. I would hate to be somehow involved with any of the three, but at the same time I am lured into reading about criminal cases like flies are to politicians.
Last week I was shocked to read about a black belt Kung-Fu fighter, who, during a road rage incident in Bahar Ic-Caghaq, got out of his car and grievously injured not one, but two, 60-year-old men. The court sentenced him to four years in prison, but upon appeal, the 41-year-old-black belt managed to get his prison sentence reduced by one year.
Not only did this guy have the gall to physically attack two men who are 20 years his elder, but he did this in full view of two disabled women who were still in the car. Keep in mind that athletes trained in any form of martial arts, especially Kung Fu are (or rather should be), governed by a strict code of ethics. Just like a policeman who is duty-bound to prevent crimes, this guy was duty-bound to avoid violence at all costs. Rumour has it, that when his (already ridiculous) prison sentence was reduced even further, Shaolin monks all over the world lost consciousness with embarrassment.
The main reason behind the decision to reduce his sentence (by no less than 25%), was that the victims had made a full recovery. Excuse me, but the guy was accused, convicted, and then sentenced for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm. He was not accused nor punished for causing permanent disability or death. This means that the fact that the victims were most likely to recover from their injuries had already been taken into consideration by the first court, which had condemned him to four years not three.
But before I could sigh, roll my eyeballs into my forehead, and console myself with the thought of ‘Only in Malta', I came across the story of Ian Huntley, a 36 year old Briton who is currently serving a minimum 40-year jail term for murdering two 10 year old girls in 2003.
Last March, after 7 years in prison, Huntley was attacked by another inmate who slashed his throat. Upon recovering, Huntley decided to sue the prison service for failing to care for him properly. The court proceedings and legal fees alone could cost British tax payers more than one million Euro, and if successful Huntley could claim up to €120,000 in damages, not to mention, the thousands of Euro that it's already costing the state to keep him alive in prison. (In Malta the total cost of keeping a man in prison for forty years would be €730,000)
Cases like Huntley's, and mostly where the victims are innocent children, make me re-question my stand against Capital Punishment. But then, when I hear about cases like that of Michael Anthony Green I go back to square one, and categorically oppose it.
Back in 1983, in Houston, Texas, Green was only 18 years old, when he was accused and found guilty of the abduction and rape of a woman. He was sentenced to 75 years behind bars only to be released last month after new DNA tests found that he was not guilty after all!
In 2008, a new district attorney was elected. She (yes shock horror ‘she') formed the Post-Conviction Review Section which chose Green's case as one of the first to review. They re-tested the victim's clothing and the results excluded Green. They were also able to identify the four men who had actually abducted the women but are unable to prosecute them because the statute of limitations on the rape has now run out! Lovely turn of events isn't it? Who could blame Green if he went after these men for some personal justice?
Just for good measure I went on to read about Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, a 43 year old Iranian mother of two who stands accused of having an ‘illicit relationship' with two men. For this crime, she was publically lashed 99 times in full view of her son, and then, during the trial of the man who stands accused of killing her husband, she was also accused of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning.
The sentence caused an outcry in Western countries, and has been temporarily halted, however Ashtiani remains in prison awaiting her destiny and pleading to see her children.
Then, last week, in some altruistic and perverted claim to fame, the Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Luca da Silva, offered to provide refuge to the woman. During a campaign rally for his party he appealed to Iran's president to allow Brazil to grant political asylum to this woman.
As much as I can see that this could save Ashtiani's life, politically the plea is simply opportunistic. The world's aim should be to convince, or even force Iran to abolish the unjust and discriminatory laws against women once and for all and not concentrate solely on this one who has hit the headlines. In his ‘plea', da Silva added "If she's causing problems there, we will welcome here!"
I don't know about you but this sent me reaching straight for the sick bag!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by GeneChing
