Mexico: Unjust and Unfair with Horrid Treatment for All.

This is an excerpt from a longer column in the Washington Post




But in Veracruz, Mexico, you don't rely on the police to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. “The last thing the system of justice provides is justice. I just didn’t trust the authorities,” Fernández said. He worried that the police would humiliate his daughter and then delay her case endlessly. “I knew they would fail us,” he said in an interview.

Instead, Fernández decided to meet with the men — the three alleged perpetrators and the purported driver of the car — and their well-to-do parents. In those sit-downs, which he taped, he demanded apologies. The young men complied.
“I regret what happened,” one said, his words captured on video. “I did great harm.”
“I don’t doubt it happened and we made a mistake,” another said. “We were wrong.”

Fernández hoped the expressions of contrition would help his daughter. Instead, things got worse. Rumors of Daphne's “promiscuity” began to spread on social media. In a note on Facebook, she described those days as a “kick in the stomach.” “If I’ve gone out drinking, if I have worn short skirts, like the great majority of girls my age, that’s why they’re going to judge me?” she asked. “For that reason, I deserved it?”

Out of options, the father and daughter filed a police report against some of the families, among the city's wealthiest. The case languished for months, until Fernández released the men's taped words to the news media, sparking national outrage. Finally, arrest warrants were issued. The first trial began a couple of months ago, after Diego Cruz, 21, was extradited to Mexico from Spain. (In a statement, the four accused deny ever admitting to the rape. They say Daphne got inside the Mercedes voluntarily because “she wanted the party to go on.")

It seemed as if Daphne might finally get something like justice. Instead, her father's prediction came true. A judge found that Cruz had touched the victim’s breasts and penetrated her with his fingers. But, the judge said, that didn't make Cruz guilty of assault, because he'd acted without “carnal intent.” The judge also found that while Daphne was forced into the car, she was never “helpless.” Cruz was deemed innocent.

Daphne's story — its horrible beginning and unjust end — has rippled across Mexico. Perhaps that's because the tale is so familiar. “To many citizens” in Veracruz, “there is little difference between the rich and the government, and between the government and the criminals,” according to the New Yorker piece. The ferocious Zeta drug cartel has a near-monopoly over the state. Eight out of 10 people there say they live in fear. Since 2011, at least 15 journalists have been killed and hundreds of people have vanished. (One human rights advocate, Father Alejandro Solalinde, called the city “a factory of forced disappearances.”)
Unsurprisingly, few trust the justice system and fewer come forward after an attack. In 2014, only 1 in 10 was reported to local authorities, according to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography. The Mexican government’s National Institute for Women says more than 80 percent of sexual assaults are not reported, and barely 4.5 percent of criminals face sentencing in Mexico. A majority of victims told researchers that they didn't report because they didn't want to “waste their time,” the New Yorker piece said, citing a study.



There are two issues here - 1) the abuse/rape treatment of women and how rampant, and 2) how the trust in government/law/justice system is not just low, it is near non-existent due to corruption.

Loss

When a parent loses a child, it is, from all I have ever read or heard, something one cannot ever overcome or get through, or feel better after any period of time.  The loss is deep.  I knew someone once who lost her son.  He wasn't lost, he was murdered at an ATM.  15 years later I met her, and the loss was as deep and painful.  It was evident on her face.

I don't think it matters why or how one loses a child.  Whether the child is 7 and dies from cancer or dies from a stray bullet intended for some gang banger ... loss is loss.  Whether your child is 20 or 40, if murdered, the loss is the same.

Whether it is losing a mother, father, son, daughter ... loss is unimaginable - even if they aren't a good mother or son or daughter or father ... they could very well be an asshole.  It is still a loss and it is immeasurable.

The loss isn't measured by whether the parent, child is or was a valuable member of society - it is family and as family we feel the loss.  We want a response, we want justice.  When 3000 people, many Americans were killed in New York, we wanted justice.  When 1 person is killed, we want justice.  It is the same feeling or need - justice.

Sometimes the person is a worthless parent and we wonder how they could have a child or children.  Sometimes we wonder and marvel that anyone could love them, but ... that isn't the point.  It is about our loss and our need for justice.

And we have a right to justice.  Not as Americans, but a basic human right - justice.

Fiat justitia ruat cælum

But there are times when our behavior contributes to what happens.

We are drinking, get in a car, driving along on freeway and another car swerves beside us and we go over the edge.  Did their action cause it, yes.  Did our being intoxicated play a roll - I believe it did.  Should they be punished in the pursuit of justice?  Yes, no matter who they may be.  But our responsibility cannot be ignored.

However, when a police officer tells you to stop - stop.  When they tell you to raise your hands - raise your hands.  Not raise them and then put them into your pockets.  Don't raise one while the other slides into your coat.  When told to stand still, raise your hands above your head - the physics of that seem simple.  STOP as in no further movement in any direction; raise your hands above your head means ... the hands must both be visible above the head.  Not at the shoulders, but above the head.  You should not be yelling at the police officer while he is instructing you to stop.  Your wife or girlfriend should not be adding her $3.00 to the conversation, nor should she be giving orders.

When you are told to stop.  Stop.  Do not move forward.  Do not lean into your car, do not put your hands into your coat .... just don't do that.  If you do, please be aware, whoever you are - you will be shot.  Why?  Because police officers want to go home.  They don't want to die because some fool reached for a gun and shot them, and they didn't act more quickly.  And why the hell should I listen to your wife/girlfriend about you not having a gun.  What retard am I suppose to be playing.  I will go home.  The question is, will you go to jail, or the morgue, or if a mistake, be on your way in a few minutes.

If I ask you to stop and you just walk away from me yelling epithets and telling me you ain't got time for my bullshit ... well, what should I do?  Pretend nothing happened.  It doesn't work that way and it never will.  It hasn't worked that way for the last couple years when black men get shot ... you think somehow you will get to just walk away and no one will notice? It can't work like that.  Not if you want justice. 

What I want if I am the cop is to have you stop, raise your hands above your head, NOT move, not twitch, not shuffle, not move as in IMMOBILE.  Stop.  Let me come up, handcuff you, check you for weapons or objects of any danger ... and at that point if you were to walk off, I would not feel a threat.  Nor would I be able to argue such.

When a police officer shoots someone, anyone without just cause, they should be terminated from the police department and prosecuted as anyone would be for negligence / manslaughter, or whatever the facts warrant.  We cannot know, but if everyone would have just stopped, raised their hands above their heads ... I don't believe most would have been shot.  Don't go rummaging around for weapons in the glove box.  Don't reach into a car and try to take the police officer's weapon.  Don't reach into your car rummaging around for a weapon.  In fact, if you are so law abiding and peaceful - why are you carrying a weapon in your car?  And yes, if a white guy had a gun in his car, he would be shot as well.  And when the police handcuff you, don't punch, spit, bite or resist ... deal with the discriminatory pattern after they are satisfied you are not a threat and you don't get to tell me the police officer you aren't a threat.  You don't decide that, neither does your wife or girlfriend.

Once all that occurs, let justice be done.  If it was racially discriminatory, the lawyers are available ... but you will live to see your children or parents again.  That's what we all want.  No one goes to work with the intention of shooting an innocent black man with children.  I can't say the same for the individuals who riot.

Interesting story.  2 brothers apparently (I cannot accept as fact that they did, simply because a court in Pakistan said so ...) killed someone.  They were arrested and tried and found guilty and will receive the death penalty.  Yippeee.  Ok, but what about the next part - a fine???  Whats up with that.  How can you fine me and then kill me????  And you must wait until I am done paying the fine before you kill me, correct?  So ... how fast do I have to pay the fine?   Ahhhhhhhh maybe that is justice, and ... that is exactly why the case was decided as it was, and as many like it are -

- was justice done:  yes, they are sentenced to die for their crime

But the judge, the community are not ready to kill them quite yet so when they pay off their fine (10 yrs, 30 years ...) then their sentence will be carried out.  Justice.

Two birds, one stone: Brothers issued death penalty

By PPI

August 5, 2011

Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2011.







KHAIRPUR: The court of the third additional district and sessions judge of Khairpur issued the death penalty to two men, Sajjan and his brother Nazar Hussain Thebo, on Thursday. They were also fined Rs0.1 million each for killing two villagers, Naimatullah Thebo and Anwar Kahtoon Thebo, in Laung Thebo village in the jurisdiction of Kotdiji police station in 2005 over a karo-kari dispute.
















pakistan

Norway: The Value of Life

In the United States, we execute people - minorities, poor, anyone and everyone, in large numbers.  The Europeans are far more civilized.  They do not execute, the punish and rehabilitate.  They embrace those who have done wrong, and show them the correct path in life. 

In Norway, the man who murdered more than 70 human beings, will get at most 21 years in prison - and he will find new friends in prison who believe what he believes about the government and the threats to Europe.

The article below suggests the years in prison divided by the total number of dead and he will spend about 80+ days in prison, per life taken. 

The Value of Life.  The Europeans understand it.  Americans believe if you take a life, you lose your life.

Norwegians protest shooter's lax penalty

9:42 AM Monday Jul 25, 2011
AFP



A wounded woman is brought ashore after being rescued. Photo / APThe fact that Norway's maximum penalty for any crime is 21 years in prison is facing rising criticism in the wake of the twin attacks that killed 93 people, with many deeming the penalty too lax.

Ever since Norwegian media named 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik as the prime suspect, calls have been growing for the maximum penalty under the Norwegian penal code to be extended.

If found guilty, Behring Breivik's 21 years in prison would equal a penalty of 82 days per killing.

"So many innocent people have been killed that I think he doesn't have the right to live," Mari Kaugerud says on her Facebook group "Yes to the death penalty for Anders Behring Breivik" that already has 1783 members.

Dozens of similar groups have sprung up since Friday's killings, some calling for the death penalty, others for natural life in prison.

"People like that shouldn't be able to get out among normal people," says 31-year-old Mustafa. "If he gets 21 years, how old will he be? 53! No, he's ruined too much to ever get out," says the Iranian-born shopkeeper.

Like most people that AFP spoke to on Sunday, Mustafa is against the death penalty, but he wants the suspect, who has admitted responsibility, to spend his natural life in prison.



Norwegian law does allow for a convict to spend more than 21 years locked up, as experts can keep him or her behind bars up for additional five-year stretches if the prisoner is deemed dangerous.



"But how many times will that happen?" says Daniel de Francisco, a 25-year-old chef.

"European governments go too soft on this. Let's put them away for life," he says, drawing bitterly on his cigarette.

Helen Arvesen, a 21-year-old student, agrees that the sentence would be too lenient, but "I don't like the death penalty".

Even if he is released "he'll be facing a lot of angry people so he'll not be safe any more", she says, her mother standing next to her nodded in agreement.

As soon as Behring Breivik was arrested, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg tried to rally the famous spirit of tolerance in Norway, where prisons are comfortable and crime and repeat offending rates are low.

Stoltenberg said on Sunday that the response to the carnage was "more democracy, more openness, more humanity, but without naivety". He did not mention any eventual punishment.

Norway abolished the death penalty for most crimes in 1902, and for all crimes including war crimes in 1979.

The last execution dates from 1948, three years after that of Nazi collaborator leader Vidkun Quisling, who was shot for high treason.













norway

German Justice

Without a subscription (and no desire to crawl through the internet pathways that would allow me access) to the WSJ, I do not have the article to post, but I will include the best bits -



WSJ
Eastern Edition
A14
February 5, 2003

Germany Will Soften Terror Charges

Hamburg, Germany - making an about face, prosecutors no longer plan to pursue charges of accessory to murder against Muslim extremists with known ties to the hijackers responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

With the trial of a man accused of aiding the hijackers winding down, prosecutors have learned how hard it is to link Muslim extremists to the September 11 cell that was based in Hamburg.  That was highlighted yesterday, when presiding judge Albrecht Ment said hamburg's Upper Hanseatic Court might not convict Mounir el Motassadeq of more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder.

******************************


When they did finally sort this individual out, he received about 15 years for his assistance in murdering 3,000 human beings.  That works out to nearly 22 days per life taken.

And Germany believes it values human life because it does not impose a death penalty versus the barbaric United States that still imposes the ultimate sanction in a rare few cases.

My question - which position actually respects life.











germany

Air Marshals Arrested for Arresting Woman Who Bit Them

Two U.S. air marshals flee Brazil after being charged with assault


By Mike M. Ahlers
CNN
October 22, 2010




Washington (CNN) -- Two U.S. air marshals who arrested the wife of a Brazilian judge on a flight to Rio de Janeiro -- and were themselves arrested and had their passports confiscated by Brazilian authorities -- fled the country using alternate travel documents rather than face what they believed to be trumped-up charges, sources said.


The incident has impacted air marshal operations on flights to Brazil, officials said, and air marshals contacted by CNN said the case raises questions about Brazil's willingness to support future law enforcement actions by U.S. officials on international flights.

The incident occurred on October 1 on Continental Flight 128 from Houston, Texas, to Rio de Janeiro. During the flight, a female passenger who appeared to be intoxicated tried to serve herself drinks by going to the plane's galley, one source said. The plane's crew asked air marshals to intervene, and two marshals approached the woman, who began struggling with them.

Two sources said the woman bit one of the air marshals, and she was handcuffed and placed under arrest.

At the Rio airport, the air marshals went to turn over the woman to local authorities but were themselves brought before a federal judge and charged with misdemeanor counts of assault, sources said. Brazilian authorities took the air marshals' passports, so they could not leave the country and set a court hearing for the following week, sources said.

"They (Brazilian officials) did not want them to leave. They were not free to go," one U.S. law enforcement source said.

But the air marshals used alternate travel documents and quietly departed the country on a commercial flight that same day without the knowledge of the Brazilian court officials who had sought their detention.

One source said the air marshals believed the charges against them were retaliatory because the passenger they arrested is the wife of a prominent Brazilian judge. The air marshals believed it was to their benefit to leave the country and let the U.S. and Brazilian governments resolve the dispute, the source said.

The air marshals had not recovered their passports when they left, the sources said.

A Transportation Security Administration official, contacted by CNN on the day of the incident, confirmed that air marshals had confronted a "disruptive passenger" on Flight 128, and said that U.S. officials were working with their Brazilian counterparts to resolve "an issue," which the official declined to discuss.

Shortly before midnight the day of the incident, the TSA official said the air marshal team had left Brazil, but the official did not elaborate on the circumstances.

U.S. officials on October 1 and again this week declined to discuss the circumstances in which the air marshals left Brazil. But, commenting about the incident on board the aircraft, an official said, "We believe our federal air marshals acted appropriately within the provisions of the Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention)."

Air marshals and union representatives contacted by CNN say it is important that Brazil and other nations recognize law enforcement actions taken by air marshals during international flights.

"In theory we're all working together to combat the threat of terrorism and we should not let egos or marital relations impact proper procedure and legal protocols," said Jon Adler, national president for the union that represents air marshals.

Numerous sources said the issue is still unresolved. According to court documents in Brazil, after the air marshals missed a scheduled court appointment on October 6, the court contacted the U.S. Embassy in an attempt to get the air marshals' addresses.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with Brazilian Minister of Defense Nelson Job to discuss strengthening the global aviation system. The United States and Brazil signed a "joint statement of intent on aviation security." A Department of Homeland Security official said the parties did not discuss the Continental Flight 128 incident or its aftermath.

Sources said they believe the two agents remain charged in Brazilian courts. They did not know if the agents' passports had been returned to them or the U.S. government.

State Department officials have declined to comment on the incident, but said it is not affecting relations with Brazil.

"We've got broad, deep relations with Brazil," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "We have many, many areas of cooperation with Brazil. And on those areas where we have had disagreements, or rather issues to address, and challenges, we've worked through them quite effectively."

A call to the Brazilian Embassy in Washington on Thursday was not immediately returned.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
brazil

Justice? Human Rights? Let them wear their own clothing.

What would you figure from a country about to pay a convicted (and admitted) child killer.  Not much.  Now this insanity will make its way to the US.





Police banned from putting suspects in blue boiler suits - because of their human rights


By James Tozer
The Daily Mail
2nd August 2010




Police officers have been banned from ordering suspects held in cells to change into blue boiler suits in case it infringes their human rights.

Instead, they are being encouraged to fetch clean clothes from the suspected criminal's own home so that they can feel more comfortable.

The new rules, introduced by Greater Manchester Police after fears that the garments could be deemed 'oppressive', were exposed by a whistle-blowing chief inspector.

Normally when a suspect is taken into custody, their clothing may be taken away if it is needed for forensic examination, and they are given a blue paper boiler suit instead.

However the force's custody sergeants have been told that detainees must be given the opportunity to wear their own clothes while they await questioning.

If a relative of the suspect cannot bring in an outfit, an officer can be dispatched to pick one up. Failing that, the alleged offender can be given a white tracksuit.

'The blue boiler suits have been banned for some time because of human rights,' said the unnamed chief inspector. ' Giving a detainee the traditional outfit could be deemed offensive, apparently.'

He added: 'It's one thing to treat a suspect appropriately and with dignity but it's another to go out on a limb to give them a cushy experience in custody. It's almost worth being a criminal.'

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 all suspects have to be dealt with quickly, fairly and 'without oppression' while in custody.

However, individual forces are free to introduce their own 'best practice' rules of procedure.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: 'The blue boiler suits are no longer used by the force and, where possible, arrangements will be made to collect clothes from the homes of suspects.

'This may be family members bringing them in or they may be collected. We are also able to issue white tracksuits. The force is following best practice guidelines.'












stupid

When Killers Sue: Mocking Justice and their Victims

The Death Penalty should have been brought back and shame on England for not doing so.


This man should have been dead long ago.






Ian Huntley sues for £100,000: Soham killer claims compensation for being attacked in prison... and final bill to taxpayer could be £1m

By Paul Sims
The Daily Mail
31st July 2010

Soham murderer Ian Huntley should drop his claim for £100,000 compensation after he had his throat slashed by another inmate and be grateful the death penalty was no longer in force, a leading victims' campaigner said today.

Huntley has launched legal proceedings against the prison service for failing in their duty of care towards him after the attack in March this year.

The double child-murderer is almost certain to receive legal aid to fight his case, which could cost the taxpayer over £1million.

He is believed to be seeking £20,000 for his injuries and a further £60,000 in punitive damages as he believes the authorities should have done more to protect him.

Separately to suing the prison, he is expected to claim compensation – thought to be up to £15,000 – through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Norman Brennan, the founder of the Victims of Crime Trust, said: 'If Huntley had the slightest remorse for the terrible murder of these two girls he would drop the case immediately and get on with serving his sentence, and just be thankful it's not pre-1967 when he may well have been sentenced to the hangman's noose.'

Mr Brennan, 51 and now retired from the police, said inmates convicted of such heinous crimes should forfeit their right to sue.

'Yet again, the true victims in this - the parents of Holly and Jessica - are reminded of their tragic loss as a result of an offender attempting to seek compensation.'

The prison service said today it was ‘vigorously defending’ the claim.

But there is a growing belief that Huntley – serving life for the murders of ten-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002 – will be paid off.

Under the previous government, the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he had ‘absolutely no intention of paying Huntley compensation.'

But legal sources estimate that any potential court case could be hugely embarrassing to the authorities.

A source told the Mail: ‘They will try to settle this out of court if they can. They won’t want to fight this out in a public arena with the interest there is in Huntley.

‘For starters it will be incredibly costly to the public purse and a logistical nightmare. Worse still, having endured a public hearing, what happens if they lose? It would be far cheaper to simply pay him off.’

If successful, Huntley could receive a total of £95,000 – nearly ten times the amount paid out to the parents of the former school caretaker’s victims after the murders in Soham, Cambridgeshire.

The families received just £11,000 each from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority because the financial impact of the death of a child is not considered as serious as an injury to an adult.

Huntley was left scarred for life after the attack at high-security Frankland prison in Durham.

He was apparently ambushed by convicted robber Damien Fowkes, who is alleged to have slashed his throat with a razor blade melted into a toothbrush.

The blade missed Huntley’s jugular by only an inch and is believed to have left significant scarring.

Fowkes, 34, a crack addict serving life for a knifepoint robbery, is believed to have pretended to be suicidal in order to get closer to the hospital kitchens – where Huntley was working – in a bid to kill the Soham murderer.

Prison officers smashed their way in to the barricaded room after hearing Huntley’s screams and discovered the killer lying on the floor in a pool of blood.

Fowkes is said to have shouted: ‘He had it coming. I want everybody to know me as the guy who killed Ian Huntley.’

Huntley was immediately taken to hospital and after three hours was released for further treatment in the jail’s medical wing. He has suffered a string of serious assaults from other inmates since his conviction in 2003, despite spending much of his sentence in solitary confinement.

In one incident he was left with serious burns after boiling water was tipped over him.

In another he narrowly escaped being stabbed and was badly beaten. He will claim that because of his high-profile status in prison and previous attacks on him by other inmates he should have been better protected.

Mark Leach, editor of the Prisons Handbook, explained: ‘The court can impose these damages on the basis that this has happened to Huntley before and for whatever reason the prison service hasn’t learnt from it. It becomes punitive, not compensatory.’

Mr Leach said it would be harder for Huntley to succeed in his claim for compensation through the CICA because of a clause that enables them to withhold any pay-out on the basis of the applicant’s character and past crimes.

If Huntley is awarded damages, it is likely he will ask for it to be paid into his prison bank account. From that he will be allowed to draw an extra £50 a month on top of his prison wages to spend as he sees fit.


Huntley arrived at Frankland from Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire in 2008 after a suicide attempt and was immediately assigned a two-man guard whenever he ventured out of his cell.

Just a week before Fowkes’s attack, three prison officers there were stabbed by an inmate wielding a shard of glass and last night, campaigners compared their likely treatment to Huntley’s.

Colin Moses, president of the Prison Officers Association, said: ‘It’s regrettable when anyone is attacked in prison but let’s remember what our soldiers are receiving when they are injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘The prison officers attacked in Frankland a week before will have to fight tooth and nail for any sort of compensation, yet it will almost certainly be served up on a plate for Ian Huntley.’

Juliet Lyon, of the Prison Reform Trust, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'The duty of care that prison staff have is a difficult one, but it is to hold people safely and securely, regardless of what they have done.

'The issue of compensation is a much more complicated one, but the issue of safety and security is a bedrock one... If a court sentences someone to custody, they are not sentencing them to be attacked.

'We have to expect that our prisons are going to be safe, secure places.

'If that breaks down, if the staff aren't able to hold that line, it is then up to the individual to pursue any means they are able to.'

Ms Lyon said that notorious inmates often had to be kept separate from other prisoners for their own safety.

'With very high-profile cases, quite often people are held separately,' she said. 'They require a lot of extra supervision, with high numbers of staff if there is any locking or unlocking to be done.

'Undoubtedly, it's a very difficult thing to manage for staff working in an overcrowded system who get eight weeks' basic training. It's a very tall order.

'We have to look to ministers to be absolutely clear with the staff that they expect nothing less than a safe, secure system.'

Last night, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘Ian Huntley is bringing a claim against the Ministry of Justice following an assault by another prisoner.

'The claim is currently being vigorously defended.’












killers

Strangle your daughter because she wasn't a good student? Not typically unless you are Muslim.

Although not technically an honor killing by the usual statndards of such, there are many bits left out of the story, from what I have been told by someone who lives in that city and has heard and read other bits to the story.



Outrage over ruling that mom who strangled daughter won’t be jailed




By Daryl Slade, Postmedia News
July 15, 2010
Canada.com



Aset Magomadova leaves the Calgary courthouse last week at the end of the first day of her sentencing hearing in connection with the killing of her 14-year-old daughter, Aminat, whom she strangled with a scarf.Photograph by: Ted Rhodes, Calgary Herald, Calgary HeraldCALGARY — A Calgary mother won’t spend a day in jail for killing her teenage daughter with a head scarf — a decision that has prompted outrage.

A national victims’ group, based in Toronto, is stunned by the suspended sentence given to Aset Magomadova by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio on Thursday.

“I really strongly disagree. It sends a massively huge message to the rest of the country and the world that her daughter’s life was valueless,” said Joe Wamback, co-founder and chairman of the Canadian Crime Victims Foundation.

“Even though this girl may have been a handful and trouble, that’s not the issue. The issue is human life. Sentencing is not just about the criminal, but has to speak for the victim and to denunciation.”

In October, LoVecchio acquitted Magomadova, 40, of second-degree murder and found her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Aminat, 14. He placed her on probation for three years with several conditions, including taking counselling for grief, depression and anger management.

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or, to use the word of the statute, suspended judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further.”

Magomadova was charged after the deadly incident at their home the morning of Feb. 26, 2007, after Aminat refused to go to court to be sentenced for assaulting a female teacher at her school.

The devout Muslim mother claimed Aminat came at her with a knife in her sewing room, where she prayed several times a day. She said she reacted by wrapping the scarf around her daughter’s neck and twice told the girl to put the knife down before the teen lost consciousness.

A knife was found in the room, but the daughter’s fingerprints were not on it.

LoVecchio, who rejected a defence of self-defence, deemed the woman did not intend to kill the teen, even though medical examiner Dr. Sam Andrews testified that death as a result of such an act would have taken at least 2 1/2 minutes.

Jennifer Koshan, an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law who researches family violence, said the vast majority of fatal family violence cases involve husbands killing their wives.

“It’s relatively unusual to see a mother killing a child, especially an older child,” said Koshan. “So it’s rare for the court to be faced with this situation. Maybe that influenced the judge in his decision.”

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.

“There were lots of tears and emotion,” she said. “If you’ve lived through it and you’ve gotten to know these people, it’s all in the context. It’s a lot different than reading a little bit about it. It’s a very different situation.”

Millions also said it was the wish of the family that “people would know mental-health services for young people and help for their families will be improved, and changes made to the system, so that others who have to go through similar situations do not fall through the cracks.”

Hepner said his client was crying after she learned she’d be free to go home and agreed it was an appropriate sentence.

“The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision,” said Hepner, who had sought either a conditional jail sentence to be served in the community or the suspended sentence. “He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?”

LoVecchio said he wrestled with the dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.

He noted that the woman came to Canada for a better life for herself and her children from Chechnya, where her husband had been killed by Russian invaders and she had part of her foot blown off.

“This was a family in crisis with events spiralling out of control,” he said, alluding to the friction between Aset and Aminat leading up to the deadly confrontation that morning.

“It cannot be reduced to simply a case of mom choosing to kill her daughter as a form of discipline because she misbehaved. Quite simply, the events of that morning cannot be seen as a single isolated event.”

The Crown appealed the conviction long ago and is almost certain to take the sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but Vomberg said he could not comment about such a possible situation at this time.

Both sides are allowed under law to have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
islam

Limitations on Constitutional Protections? So says Obama administration

AMAZING.  Welcome to the real world.


Now, we should hear the left attack Obama like they did Bush.





Holder: Miranda may need changes for terrorists




Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer
Sun May 9, 2:22 pm ET



.WASHINGTON – In the wake of the Times Square bombing plot, the Obama administration said on Sunday it wants to work with Congress on possible limitations of the constitutional rights afforded terrorism suspects — even for American citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder said changes may be needed to allow law enforcement more time to question suspected terrorists before they are told about their Miranda rights to a lawyer and to remain silent under interrogation.

As the nation debates how to proceed against terrorist attacks, particularly as they have become the work of individuals who are difficult to detect in advance, the administration has been heavily criticized for reading Miranda rights to suspects in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a plane heading for Detroit and the May 1 Times Square plot.

Terrorism has presented all sides in the debate with a delicate balancing act, protecting the rights of the individuals accused of terrorism while also attending to public safety.

Holder said the White House wanted to work with Congress to examine the 1966 Supreme Court Miranda ruling to ensure that law enforcement agents have "necessary flexibility" to gather information from suspects in terror cases.

The Miranda warning — a bedrock guarantee of a suspect's constitutional rights — has come under more intense study because accused Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad is a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin. The administration declared on Sunday that he was working under the direction of the Pakistani Taliban.

There also was a foreign link in the case with Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused in the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas. Authorities claim he has ties to radical Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents.

Al-Awlaki, who lives in Yemen, also has been alleged to have ties to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to explode a bomb concealed in his underwear as his plane approached Detroit.

While asking for an examination of Miranda rights in terrorism cases, the administration contends that Abdulmutallab and Shahzad continued talking to investigators and providing evidence after the Miranda admonition.

At issue specifically is a 1984 modification to the law under which police were given leeway for more extensive pre-Miranda questioning under the "public safety exemption." But it remains unclear if evidence gathered from terrorism suspects under that exemption and before Miranda rights are outlined to the suspect can be used in court.

"And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress to do," Holder said, "to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face."

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, said that Shahzad was questioned for about four hours before he was read his rights. Shahzad waived his right to having a lawyer present in subsequent interrogation.

Even while suggesting the possible need to limit the rights of terrorism suspects, Holder raised questions about bipartisan legislation introduced in both houses of Congress last week that would strip terrorism suspects of U.S. citizenship.

"There are potential constitutional issues with it," Holder said, acknowledging he had not reviewed "it in any great detail."

He added, however, "I think what people have to understand is that the system we presently have in place takes terrorists and can put them in jail for extended periods of time."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., defended the citizenship legislation, saying terrorist organizations were showing a pattern of using American citizens.

"Al-Qaida and the other terrorist groups are changing their mode of operating," Lieberman said. "And increasingly, they're looking for American citizens to carry out these plots, and one of the reasons is the passport that lets them — like Shahzad — come in and out of the country."

In appearances on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press," Holder also said the Obama White House remained determined to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba while it struggled to decide how and where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The administration originally vowed to close the prison by the end of last year.

Holder said the White House had asked Congress for funding in the next fiscal year to transfer the Guantanamo terrorism prisoners to a little used federal lockup in Illinois.

As to Mohammed, Holder said the administration had not settled on a place for the trial after New York City officials rejected holding it there. He also said it remained possible that Mohammed would be tried before a military tribunal. Holder had wanted a civilian trial in federal court.

Brennan appeared on CNN's "State of the Union," CBS's "Face the Nation" and "Fox News Sunday." Lieberman also spoke on Fox.









obama

Obama and Bush: Two Peas in a Pod?

Surprise, surprise.  Isn't it amazing.  A year on the campaign trail, the attacks and viscerally hateful comments made by Obama and his minions in attacking Bush as violating civil liberties and trampling on your rights ... as if he would do better.  Once again, he has failed.  Of course, defenders will say - but Bush did it first.  True, but we have finished with Bush haven't we and Bush never said he would ignore violations to National Security, never said it was a matter of a reporter's civil liberties ... he just marched forward doing what he believed best.  Obama came along and said nothing Bush did was for the best, it was all wrong, all bad, all messed up, and he was going to fix it.  Obama has doubled up on scouring our civil liberties, and maintained the same programs, enhanced others - all the while extolling the virtues of his enlightened policies, and how he is not Bush.  Yet, he seems to be, only worse.  I preferred the guy who actually believed what he was doing and did so with conviction, to benefit the country's long-term welfare, not for short-term political gain. 

Not by a long-shot.  Bush cared about America and our future as a world leader.  Obama cares about our future as an associate power.  BIG difference.



After reporter's subpoena, critics call Obama's leak-plugging efforts Bush-like



By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 30, 2010; C01



The Justice Department's decision to subpoena a New York Times reporter this week has convinced some press advocates that President Obama's team is pursuing leaks with the same fervor as the Bush administration.

James Risen, who shared a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing President George W. Bush's domestic surveillance program, has refused to testify about the confidential sources he used for his 2006 book "State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration."

"The message they are sending to everyone is, 'You leak to the media, we will get you,' " said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. In the wake of the Bush administration's aggressive stance toward the press, she said, "as far as I can tell there is absolutely no difference, and the Obama administration seems to be paying more attention to it. This is going to get nasty."

Kurt Wimmer, a Washington lawyer who helped win White House approval for a proposed federal shield law, called the move against Risen "disappointing" after "we had positive discussions with the Obama administration" on the need to give journalists a legal foundation for protecting their sources in most cases.

In the Risen case, Attorney General Eric Holder had to approve the subpoena under Justice Department procedures. The subpoena, disclosed Thursday by the Times, comes two weeks after the administration obtained an indictment of a former top National Security Agency official, Thomas Drake, for allegedly providing classified information to a Baltimore Sun reporter.

Law enforcement officials, who declined to be identified discussing pending investigations, said the close timing of the two cases was coincidental and that the administration is not mounting an intensified effort to crack down on leakers. "As a general matter, we have consistently said that leaks of classified information are something we take extremely seriously,'' said Matthew Miller, chief Justice spokesman, who declined further comment.

Joel Kurtzberg, Risen's lawyer, said the subpoena focuses on his reporting on covert CIA attempts to combat alleged nuclear weapons research by Iran. In one book chapter, Risen wrote that the CIA sent a Russian defector to Vienna in 2000 to provide an Iranian official with plans for a nuclear-bomb-triggering device -- one with a deliberate technical flaw -- along with a solicitation for payment. Risen depicted the operation as giving Iran valuable information.

"We will be fighting to quash the subpoena," Kurtzman said. "Jim is the highest caliber of reporter and adhered to the highest standards of his profession in writing Chapter 9 of his book. And he intends to honor the promise of confidentiality he made to the source or sources."

The Times said in a statement that Risen and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, are handling the matter because the subpoena does not involve material published by the paper. "Our view, however, is that confidential sources are vital in getting information to the public, and a subpoena issued more than four years after the book was published hardly seems to be important enough to outweigh the protection an author needs to have," the newspaper said.

Dalglish described the subpoena as "troublesome" and said defense attorneys have told her that several similar cases against alleged leakers are in the pipeline. The subpoena was first brought under Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, but the grand jury in the case expired without resolving the matter, prompting Holder's department to empanel a new grand jury. The Bush administration also launched a leak probe involving the Times story but no charges were brought.

If Risen is unable to quash the subpoena, he could face a contempt citation similar to the one that landed then-Times reporter Judith Miller in jail for 85 days during the prosecution of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House last fall reached a compromise with key senators on drafting a shield law, a version of which has passed the House, but the measure would have limited application in national security cases. Even if the bill were law, Dalglish said, the Risen case "is a tough one for a journalist to get quashed."





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Justice: UK Style

Interesting view on justice.  Naturally states that do not have the death penalty are more civilized than the US with its death penalty.  Naturally.



Bulger Killer Venables 'Faces Year In Jail'



10:54am UK, Friday April 02, 2010
Andy Winter, Sky News Online



James Bulger's killer Jon Venables could stay in jail for up to a year - even if he is not convicted of any alleged new offences, it has been claimed.

Venables, who was found guilty along with Robert Thompson of murdering the toddler on Merseyside in 1993, was recalled to prison last month.

The Parole Board confirmed it has received papers relating to the recall from the Ministry of Justice and will decide whether the killer, now 27, should remain behind bars.

But that decision - which will be made by a three-person panel - could take as long as a year.

Sky News' Jane Dougall said: "The panel needs to be convened, the police need to finish their investigation and Venables may need a further identity because his cover has been compromised.

"Under new rules, the parents of James Bulger could also read a victim impact statement to the Parole Board.

"Denise Fergus (James' mother) has been adamant that neither of her son's killers should ever have been released."

Legal expert Ian Caplin told Sky News the Parole Board was "sitting as a kind of court".

"Given the history of Venables, the Parole Board will look very carefully at the medical evidence of the risk of re-releasing him to the public," he said.

"Venables will be able to make written and oral representations during the proceedings - it won't just be decided in the normal course of a few weeks."

In a statement, the Parole Board said it "will now start the process of reviewing this case".

It added: "We are not able to set a timescale on the review - but will confirm when it has been concluded."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has refused to elaborate on Venables' alleged new offences except to confirm they were "extremely serious allegations".

According to reports, Venables - who was 10 when he beat toddler James to death in Bootle - was being investigated by police over claims he viewed child pornography.

The Parole Board hearing is separate to the police probe.

Venables and Thompson were released with secret identities in 2001 having served eight years.

They are on life licence, meaning they can be brought back to prison at any time if they re-offend or if they are thought to pose a threat to the public.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
justice

Obama Attorney General

According to the current Attorney General, Osama bin Laden has the same rights as Charles Manson.


Hear him say this at this link.



Mr. Holder.  There is a difference between Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden.  A vast difference and apparently these differences are lost on you.

I think it would be appropriate for you to resign instead of further proving why you are a hack appointed to a job you are unqualified for.








osama

Transparency, Honesty, Integrity: They have none.

It is only a problem if it is a Republican who had forgotten to remember about six cases.  If it is a Democrat, and a Democrat who opposes military tribunals, then forgotten a few cases is fine.

How can a man who opposed the use of military hearings, military detention, and Bush's larger policy of holding detainees without trial, become the man charged with enforcing policies that, each day appear a little more like Bush's - Guantanamo is still open, new people are held there, Obama has decided (rightly) to not hold civilian trials for Mohammad and his cohorts, they are still being detained, without trial as yet ... amazing Holder can work as an agent for the government on this issue.

And before we dismiss this as a case of oversight, I would have to ask - if Joe was applying for the position of Attorney General in 2009, what few sets of questions (themeatic only) would you ask him?  Assuming the guy you would work for has promised to close Guantanamo and give the terrorists civilian trials.  And yes, those were biggies - mentioned every chance he got on the campaign trail.  Wouldn't Guantanamo be a big one.  Wouldn't trials for terrorists be a big one and if you wrote a brief for one of the only cases to go mto civilian trial, wouldn't that get found and mentioned???  I think so, nay, I am certain it would if they were being open and transparent, rather than being swamp monsters.

Holder is sitting in an office, perhaps he is at a park, walking with someone and as they walk they discuss the Padilla brief and one thought mentioned is to simply forget the Padilla brief, simply forget to give it to the Senate.  Perhaps one of the two people walking is a Senator.  And further, the Senator, holding a complete list of briefs and cases Holder has beenn involved, checks off a couple other cases and hands it back to the other man - maybe leave off a few others, so as to ensure no one believes we did it on purpose, if that was the only brief, it would be evident, but if it is one of six or seven ... it was an oversight. 

I wonder how close I might be.  Oh wait, Democrats did this with the secret meetings Cheney had - they imagined all sorts of subjects and theories and conspiracies, and attributed all sorts of malfeasance to the Vice President, knowing nothing, other than a meeting occured.  Sort of like the several secret meetings between Obama and Soros at the White House - no transcript or record of their conversation was demanded.  No Moveon.org people creating fictitious copnspiracy theories of Obama and Soros. 

Interesting how 'truth' works.  Interesting what 'transparency' really means. 




Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate




WASHINGTON
Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:38pm EST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday.

Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."

Padilla was held in a military brig for three years before his case was moved to a criminal court in Miami, where he was convicted on charges of offering his services to militants.

The Justice Department sent the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets presidential nominees, a list of briefs that were omitted on Friday. "We regret the omission," Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to the panel.

Holder has been facing intense scrutiny as the Obama administration tries to decide whether to prosecute terrorism suspects like the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in military or criminal courts.

The attorney general had been spearheading that effort but concerns about holding those trials in criminal court forced the White House to intervene and officials are now weighing whether to prosecute Mohammed and four of his alleged co-conspirators in a military court.

Previously, Holder has disclosed to the Senate five briefs he submitted to the Supreme Court during his law practice. From July 2001 until being confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, Holder worked at Covington & Burling in Washington.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department said Holder failed to tell the Senate about one brief he signed related to the Padilla case, prompting outcries from Republicans who said it offered more details about Holder's views on key policies.

The other six briefs related to issues such as race discrimination and a challenge to a prison sentence.

 
And dear Retardicans, lest we feel left out - all the members of Congress in the Republican party (the Retardicans) do not have the brains to comprehend the level of complexity of the lies and cover-up that Losercrats do daily.   It is very sad to watch.  You stack a Retardican against a Losercrat and the poor Retardican needs the Losercrat handicapped, bound, tied, gagged, drugged, and thrown into a sack, to even the odds, and they still lose.  And it is not because of the values held by Retardicans - their core values are far closer to the values of this country and our shared history than anything on the other side, rather it is simply the intellectual disparity between the two.  However, I know with certainty there are intellectual heavyweights on the Republican side, but for whatever reason (perhaps because the Retardicans keep hogging the news / spotlight) their arguments and cases are not as well known.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama