Maybe we ought to look at thier system of justice!

[Redtail1949]

Lets see murder in August then arrested then convicted in January will be hung in February cost not much.

as we see they are efficent with getting on with it compared to us. years and years go by millions upon millions spent and still nothing...

Iraq Sentences 11 to Death for Government Bombings
Thursday, January 14, 2010 


Print ShareThisBAGHDAD  —  A Baghdad court on Thursday sentenced 11 Iraqis to death for their roles in a series of deadly attacks that rocked the country's capital last August.

The attacks were a major blow to Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is seeking to reassure Iraqis his government has security under control ahead of crucial March elections.

Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council spokesman Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar said a criminal court in Baghdad's eastern Risafa district found the 11 defendants guilty of financing, planning and participating in the Aug. 19 bombings that devastated the foreign and finance ministries.

The blasts killed more than 100 people.

There have since been two other massive attacks in Baghdad primarily targeting government buildings, in October and December. Those attacks together killed more than 280 people and injured hundreds more.

Bayrkdar said the defendants have a month to appeal the death sentences, which were handed down with the ruling. He declined to provide details about those convicted.

Shortly after the August attacks, the Iraqi military released what it said was the confession of a Sunni man identified as a senior member of Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath Party. The military said the man admitted to supervising the attack against the finance ministry.

In the televised confession, the 57-year-old suspect identified himself as Wisam Ali Khazim Ibrahim and said he was a Baath Party member and former police officer before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Ibrahim said the operation was ordered by a Baath Party operative in Syria in a bid "to destabilize the regime." Iraqi authorities said at the time more than 10 people comprising the whole network involved in the attacks had been arrested.

[powderman]

Thats terrible, putting murderers to death, what a shame. Sure save a lot of money, not to mention cleansing the gene pool. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

I'm against the 'death penalty' because I don't trust the state.

I am, however, okay with me shooting someone who needs it.

[Dee]

Have you ever shot any one that needed it before?

[Black Eagle]

I'm against the 'death penalty' because I don't trust the state.

In the last 35 years, 139 people have been taken off death row and freed because newly discovered evidence established their innocense. Hundreds of others have been freed from life sentences and long-term rape sentences because DNA evidence has established their innocense. We have a terrible record when it comes to convicting the right person for a crime.

[yellowtail3]

Have you ever shot any one that needed it before?

No, and I wouldn't want to. Understand that my criteria for someone who needs it is pretty stringent; immediate threat to me, or my daughters. Well... perhaps not even immediate threat, when it comes to my daughters, but then I'd have to live with the consequences, either way.

My point is... in a moment of extremis, I've a better moral compass than our utterly corrupt legal system.

[mirage1988]

I'm against the 'death penalty' because I don't trust the state.

In the last 35 years, 139 people have been taken off death row and freed because newly discovered evidence established their innocense. Hundreds of others have been freed from life sentences and long-term rape sentences because DNA evidence has established their innocense. We have a terrible record when it comes to convicting the right person for a crime.

How is our record for the guilty going free? About the same huh? Maybe the OP is right.

[Black Eagle]

John Adams told us that in a free society it is better to set one hundred guilty men free than to convict one innocent man. But, we no longer have a free society and nobody cares what those "foundling" fathers thought. The loss of John Adam's belief is what makes us defense lawyers rich. 

[yellowtail3]

Defense lawyers? Those I can live with, though I resent that one must be wealthy to have a chance against the unlimited resources of the state.

But if I'm ever dictator, I will see that every divorce lawyer is shot during the first two weeks. At least, that's how I feel about it right now.

[mirage1988]

John Adams told us that in a free society it is better to set one hundred guilty men free than to convict one innocent man. But, we no longer have a free society and nobody cares what those "foundling" fathers thought. The loss of John Adam's belief is what makes us defense lawyers rich. 

I think john adams would have thrown up in his mouth watching OJ trying on the bloody glove (as did most of america). As long as your conscience is clean blackeagle- sleep well.

[yellowtail3]

John Adams told us that in a free society it is better to set one hundred guilty men free than to convict one innocent man. But, we no longer have a free society and nobody cares what those "foundling" fathers thought. The loss of John Adam's belief is what makes us defense lawyers rich.  

I think john adams would have thrown up in his mouth watching OJ trying on the bloody glove (as did most of america). As long as your conscience is clean blackeagle- sleep well.

I think you'll feel better about defense lawyer, should you find yourself in the maw of the beast... up against the state, which has unlimited resources and doesn't give a crap about right/wrong, justice/injustice... but about winning.

[mirage1988]

Or just don't chop off your wifes head with a shovel?  It's not really that hard of an impulse to repress!

[yellowtail3]

Or just don't chop off your wifes head with a shovel?  It's not really that hard of an impulse to repress!

most peeps prosecuted by the gov't didn't kill anybody.

I had a nasty experience with them a few year ago... I pissed off a flight attendant, unintentionally. It was a life-changing experience; I'll never say the pledge of allegiance again.

[INresponse]

I'm against the 'death penalty' because I don't trust the state.

In the last 35 years, 139 people have been taken off death row and freed because newly discovered evidence established their innocense. Hundreds of others have been freed from life sentences and long-term rape sentences because DNA evidence has established their innocense. We have a terrible record when it comes to convicting the right person for a crime.

I understand your point, but that does not mean they are all truly innocent.  After 10 or 20 or 30 years people remember things different, witnesses pass on, evidence may not have been stored properly or may not have been kept at all.  I hear the stories and understand the arguments, but I have difficulty in believing they are all innocent.  For the few who are innocent I am pleased that they finally found freedom.

But, there are plenty of guilty scumbags who are never arrested, never tried, or never make it before a jury and it would be nice of they could be introduced to such swift justice, even if it is only once.   

[Redtail1949]

got no problem with dna evidence setting men free. should be a requirement in every death sentence trial if possible. i firmly believe in the death penalty and so does most of our society. thats who sets the rules the people in the society. once proven guilty it should not take years to execute someone. there are many living now that should be put to death tonight in a non stop cycle until the death rows are cleaned out.

[nw_hunter]

I'm against the 'death penalty' because I don't trust the state.

I am, however, okay with me shooting someone who needs it.

You sound like a Judge Roy Bean type of fella!

[Dee]

I'm not against the death penalty, but I am against what many of our courts have become. In the beginning the court system was designed and set up, to deal with the facts. I don't believe for an instant that it was ever intended for a lawyer to intentionally get someone that is guilty OFF. I believe it was intended for that man's lawyer, to get him the best deal given the circumstances of the offense, and getting him off is not one of those options.
Our court system has become a competition, for both reputation and money. If the prosecutor gets a lot of convictions he get a better job down the road, and many times justice be damned.
If a defense lawyer can get guilty men off, he reputation grows, and his fees go up, and he becomes rich, and once again "justice be damned".
I believe that if a prosecutor INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY convicts an innocent man, then HE SHOULD SERVE THAT MAN'S SENTENCE if found out, and YES, EVEN THE DEATH PENALTY.
I also believe that if a defense lawyer INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY gets and guilty man off, then HE TOO SHOULD SERVE THAT MAN'S SENTENCE if found out, and YES, EVEN THE DEATH PENALTY.
MONEY AND COMPETITION HAVE CORRUPTED THE SYSTEM, AND THE LAWYERS ARE THE RECIPIENTS OF IT'S REWARDS OF CORRUPTION.

[alsaqr]

We have a terrible record when it comes to convicting the right person for a crime.

Black Eagle is right on.  The state of OK in particular has a horrible record in this regard.  Former Oklahoma county prosecutor Bob Macy got on TV years ago and bragged that he had put more people on death row than any other prosecutor in the US.  Then it all fell apart when Oklahoma City crime lab "forensic chemist" Joyce Gilchrist got caught up in a whole bunch of lies.  I know folks who are close to this one and they all say that Gilchrist lied to please Bob Macy.  

Then there is the case of a phoney "forensics expert"  named Fred Zain who put folks in prison in WV by lying.  The state of WV refused to prosecute Zain and he went off to TX, got hired as a "forensics expert"
and did it all over again.  

Read Innocent Man by John Grisham.  Two guys in Ada, OK were rail-roaded onto death row based on lies.  One of those guys was a scumbag but he was not guilty of murder.  The county had to pass two bond issues to pay off the lawsuit on this one.  

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109568,00.html

A state judge ordered a man named Jeffrey Pierce released after serving 15 years of a 65-year sentence for rape. Gilchrist placed him at the scene of the crime, but DNA evidence proved he was not the rapist. In response, Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating launched a review of every one of the thousands of cases Gilchrist touched between 1980 and 1993, starting with 12 in which death sentences were handed down. But in another 11 of her cases, the defendants have already been put to death. The state is giving the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System $725,000 to hire two attorneys and conduct DNA testing of any evidence analyzed by Gilchrist that led to a conviction. A preliminary FBI study of eight cases found that in at least five, she had made outright errors or overstepped "the acceptable limits of forensic science." Gilchrist got convictions by matching hair samples with a certainty other forensic scientists found impossible to achieve. She also appears to have withheld evidence from the defense and failed to perform tests that could have cleared defendants.

[Black Eagle]

The system doesn't work but I don't know how to fix it and neither does anybody else. There isn't a day in this country that some prosecutor doesn't get in trouble for hiding exculpatory evidence.  They usually pass the blame on to the cops.  Most of the time, they never get caught for hiding evidence. Defense lawyers sometimes hide evidence too but that is rare.  The evidence we get almost always comes from the police who are the first ones on a crime scene. Once in a while a defense investigator uncovers evidence, which may point either to guilt or innocense, but that doesn't happen often because by the time a defense lawyer gets into a case, all of the evidence has been screened and seized by the police.

Fingerprint evidence, ballistics evidence, polygraph evidence [in those few jurisdictions where polygraph evidence is even admissible], is frequently wrong but jurors believe it because TV cop shows have conditioned them to believe it. Innocent men are convicted of domestic violence every day because jurors tend to believe women over men even if there are no bruises or evidence other than the wife's word for it. No matter how much jurors profess to believe in proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocense, they all come into the courtroom believing the defendant is guilty only because the cops arrested him.  Effectively, the defendant has to prove his innocense. And, God help you if you were home alone watching TV without an independent alibi witness or even if your wife was there with you at the time a crime was committed because every juror knows a wife will lie to protect her husband. Even worse, shoot someone in self defense outside your home with no independent witnesses to verify that the shooting was righteous.

Get wrongfully accused of a crime and your life will turn into a living hell no matter how innocent you are.  But, people have the system they want and that system is prone to convicting people, on very little evidence, because nobody likes loose ends.  

[Dee]

I have personally seen MANY defense lawyers sit on crucial evidence and knowledge, and later release it AFTER A SUCCESSFUL PLEA BARGIN TO THE CLIENT'S BENEFIT, INCLUDING EVIDENCE IN A MURDER. So Eagle your statement to the contrary is not surprisingly FALSE. RARE? NOT HARDLY!
The prosecutors blame it on the the defense lawyers, and the defense lawyers blame it on the prosecutors. The FACT IS, it is like I said it was. It is a competition within the lawyer profession on BOTH SIDES, for both power, and MONEY.
I "PERSONALLY" was told "AFTER THE PLEA BARGIN" OF TEN YEARS FOR "CAPTIAL MURDER" where to find personal items of the victim, taken BY THE MURDERER. The defense attorney sat on that evidence until after he got a sweetheart deal for a ruthless murderer, whom was also on probation for "aggravated armed robbery (with a weapon).
Some of the guys here may fall for your BS blame shifting but not I.
I have PERSONALLY seen voluntary confessions taken and then defense lawyer coming in, would try to it thrown out BLAMING THE OFFICER, ON SOME CONJURED UP TECHNICALITY.
If you are indeed a defense lawyer, your rhetoric is false "and you know it". But also if you are indeed a defense lawyer I am not in the least surprised.
I've never yet seen a defense lawyer or a prosecuting lawyer WILLINGLY take responsibility for injustice, or volunteer to take the punishment. They will however take the MONEY.
Like I said before. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT WHEN THE "LAWYER" INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY" CONVICTS AN INNOCENT MAN, OR THE "LAWYER" INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY GETS A GUILTY MAN OFF. THE LAWYER SHOULD SERVE THE TIME, OR WHAT EVER PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING THE DEATH PENALITY.
THEN, AND ONLY THEN WILL THE SYSTEM BEGIN TO CLEAN ITSELF UP. AT THE PRESENT DEFENSE LAWYER ARE ALMOST "TOTALLY" IMMUNE FROM SUCH. THEY ARE IN FACT LAUDED FOR GETTING GUILTY MEN OFF.
O.J. IS BUT ONE WHERE THE GUILTY PLAYS GOLF, THE VICTIM ROTTS IN THE GRAVE, AND THE DEFENSE LAWYERS GOT MORE PUBLIC NOTORIETY, AND RICHER.
Black Eagle says the system is broken and doesn't know how to fix it while he places most of the blame on the prosecution. HOW ABOUT HONESTY IN THE COURT ROOM "FROM BOTH SIDES", INSTEAD OF LAW TWISTING? FROM BOTH SIDES.

Your comment concerning the loss of John Adams' belief in the purpose of the court system making the defense lawyer rich is pretty much SPOT ON.
Your citing of stats concerning innocents being convicted and later released reads very well, but there are not stats concerning lawyers withholding evidence, and getting HARD EVIDENCE thrown out no technicalities, thereby INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY causing guilty folks to get off. For that you usually have to check their bank accounts.

[yellowtail3]

I think it was Dickens who said - roughly - "the business of the law, is to make more business for the law"

He was right about that one.

[beerbelly]

For the first time I agree with Black Eagle. Most people think they are guilty or they would not have been arrested! I have set on a few juries and all I can say is god help you if you ever have to be judged by one!
   I no longer get called for jury duty. I wonder if it is because I did not always vote the way the prosecutor wanted and they judge told me to vote. Yes the judge will let you know what he wants, no demands you do, after you tell him you have a hung jury.
   Far to many people are convected on so called  evidence, witch is nothing more than a story the  prosecutor tells of what could have happened. No hard evidence what so ever.
                                    Beerbelly

[Dee]

Once again I have foolishly, and voluntarily stepped into the mire of the reason for the  problems in the legal system. It is a foolish endeavor to do so, but I have. I regret the last time, and already regret this one. Not for what I said because I believe it to be true from experience.
What it actually is however, is an exercise in futility. Neither the defense, nor the prosecution will change. Neither will give up what they have willingly, and worldly, in this realm.
The system is rotten to the core, and the confusion in juries, that beerbelly speaks of is not intentional on the juries' part, but the "intentional confusion injected into the process of justice" BY BOTH SIDES, to the point that there is no justice.
It is like the Republican vs the Democrat. Neither cares about the people. Only the power, and the profit gleaned from winning, and doing what ever it takes to win, and justifying it. And just as in the case of the Democrat vs the Republican, there are supporters of both for usually selfish reasons.  
That is all I have to say on this one, and I hope that I am able to, forever refrain from these discussions again. They are trully, an exercise in futility. At least for me.

[Black Eagle]

It is almost never wise to waive a jury.  Judges see more real criminals than anyone else and their prejudices are often stronger than a juror's.

I spent 18 years as a criminal defense lawyer and for the last 15 years I have defended lawyers in disciplinary actions. I defend at least 6 prosecutors for Brady violations [hiding evidence -- Brady vs. Maryland] for every defense lawyer I defend for concealing evidence. I can assure you that no defense lawyer with more than a room temperature IQ would ever disclose hidden evidence after a successful plea bargain. That would be automatic disbarment in almost every jurisdiction and no lawyer is going to tear up his license for any client. Besides, in most states, it would be grounds for revoking the plea bargain or declaring a mistrial and starting the case over.

[guzzijohn]

Will there be no more bombing after this group is executed? Wouldn't hold my breath, so much for a deterrent.
GuzziJohn

[Redtail1949]

Dee:

i do agree on the wisdom of anyone that deliberately lies  or conceals evidence of innocence just to obtain a conviction should be forced to take the sentence that the accused got including the death penalty. if the quy was guilty they should serve side by side.

we all know that many an innocent man has been put in the pen or worse. once it is discoverd they should be released and those that lied or concealed the truth should be mandantory they serve the sentence he had. I would even consider the death penalty for them for they are among the worst of the human species.

[powderman]

got no problem with dna evidence setting men free. should be a requirement in every death sentence trial if possible. i firmly believe in the death penalty and so does most of our society. thats who sets the rules the people in the society. once proven guilty it should not take years to execute someone. there are many living now that should be put to death tonight in a non stop cycle until the death rows are cleaned out.

YEP. Agreed Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[bobg]

    When i was driving school bus i took some kids in a criminal law class to the Attica correctional facility. They had a black inmate on the stage that was answering any questions these kids had. He said 80% of the inmates were innocent. I ask him if he was innocent. He said hell no. I held up a little mom and pop store and shot the old guy running the place. He told the kids most of the inmates were black because the were discriminated against. I ask if it had anything to do with more blacks committing crimes. The guard that was in there told me i should either shut up or leave. I told the guard i just didn't believe the BS he was feeding these kids and walked out. That was a man that should have seen the electric chair.

[mirage1988]

got no problem with dna evidence setting men free. should be a requirement in every death sentence trial if possible. i firmly believe in the death penalty and so does most of our society. thats who sets the rules the people in the society. once proven guilty it should not take years to execute someone. there are many living now that should be put to death tonight in a non stop cycle until the death rows are cleaned out.

What is to say the nerd looking in the microscope in a lab somewhere even knows what he is looking at? Does anyone know what kind of security and accountability DNA testing labs have? It seems that DNA testing is held as the gospel truth in some cases, but is there a margin of error?

[billy_56081]

DEE is exactly correct, justice is being corrupted by the egos of lawyers on both sides. I recently had a freind who was arrested for altering a prescription. She got herself a small town lawyer, he was basically a deal maker. The prosecutions eveidence was basically the Dr. said that he did not recall circleing refills on her prescription. The Dr. also stated that when he did put refills on the prescription he also wrote the number. She always maintained to her lawyer that she did not alter the prescription. He was constantly trying to get her to make a plea bargain. The prosecuting attorney offered misedemenor level on this felony if she pleaded guilty. She still maintained her innocense, her lawyer kept trying to get her to plea bargen. I asked her if her attorny had subpenaed other prescriptions from this Dr. he had not and actually put up a fuss that he didnt want to. After she threatened to fire her lawyer, he relented, and asked and was givin a subpena. Upon recieving about 100 copies of the Drs. prescriptions they found that over 20% had only the number circled. Her lawyer still was advising her to take a plea deal, she refused. I told her I felt that when thye went to trial she would be found not guilty or the prosecution would ask for a dismissal.  Well at trial time the prosecution asked for charges to be dismissed. He left her sweat and was hoping to salvage a win in this case even though he knew he could not prove the case beyond a resonable doubt. Her defense lawyer was trying to make deals up until the last minute even though she professed her innocence. Well this is $50,000 later and she is free, well almost, she works in the medical field and being she was charged they will not let her work.

Hopefully she can find another Lawyer now for the civil suit.