In a story, posted by Yahoo News, an Army Pfc was sentenced to (get this) 110-years for taking part in the raping of an Iraqi teenage girl and then murdering her and her family. What caught me off guard was the little side-note immediately following this pronouncement: Pfc Spielman would be up for parole in (get this) 10 years. Three other soldiers took part in this heinous act, and they were sentenced to anywhere from 5-100 years in prison; but nothing was said about the possibility of parole for them.
My uneasiness with this is multi-layered. Here are the two main ones:
- There is the issue that Pfc Spielman is sentenced to 110-years with the possibility of parole in 10 years. This, according to the article, was part of the plea-deal "regardless of the jury's recommendation". The jury did offer life with parole; but, (again) according to the article, this would have caused Pfc Spielman "to wait longer for the possibility of freedom."
- The other soldiers, who apparently took a more active role in this crime, got a lesser sentence. (The article even states that Pfc Spielman "received the longest sentence of the four soldiers"). Granted, they were still charged with a number of crimes and convicted of such crimes; yet, the duration of their punishment was not as long Spielman's. (But the bottom-end of the range [i.e., 5-years] seems to contradict this statement).
What strikes me about the second point is that Pfc. Spielman is charged more severely for--per the testimony given--standing guard, acting "as a lookout". I understand that there is a moral and ethical imperative that says: if something wrong is taking place, and it is within your power to stop it, then do what you can to stop it. Now, in this case, Spielman ignored this imperative and he should be charged accordingly; but to charge him more seems to suggest that his actions were more severe than what he watched.
I leave these two points up to those who know more about this sort of thing, and I earnestly seek counsel in this regard. My concern is that (at least) these two points imply a mixed message about justice and how it is upheld.
A brief side-note:
The sister of Pfc Spielman, after the sentence was given, cried out: "I hate the government. You people put him [in Iraq] and now, this happened." What intrigues me about this twofold comment is the shear lunacy of it--the second part more than the first.
The government did not necessarily put her brother in Iraq; he put himself in Iraq. When he enlisted in the Army, he agreed to protect the freedom and livelihood of this nation if it was being attacked. If that attack was taking place in Iraq, then he must fight in Iraq; if that attack was taking place in Siberia, then he must fight in Siberia. Granted, he may not want to fight in such places; but he must fulfill his duty as a soldier in the US Army.
She then blamed the government for putting her brother in jail. (I would feel safe in assuming that she was also blaming the government for her brother's actions--i.e., because they put Pfc. Spielman in Iraq, they caused him to commit such actions). She failed to see/hear that Pfc. Spielman admitted his culpability in what happened and that he accepted the weight of his punishment. But she would probably retort with: "He admitted to it because they made him admit to it".
2 comments:
I'll leave commentary on the legal aspects of the case to someone else - it does seem strange though. Especially being eligible for parole so soon - you do have to question what the point of such a long sentence is.
I do want to comment on this paragraph, though:
The government did not necessarily put her brother in Iraq; he put himself in Iraq. When he enlisted in the Army, he agreed to protect the freedom and livelihood of this nation if it was being attacked. If that attack was taking place in Iraq, then he must fight in Iraq; if that attack was taking place in Siberia, then he must fight in Siberia. Granted, he may not want to fight in such places; but he must fulfill his duty as a soldier in the US Army.
I can agree that it is true, in a sense, that he put himself there - he did choose to join the army. But stating this the way you do, it seems to me, seeks to absolve the government of any culpability because he's "fighting for freedom" in Iraq, since that's where freedom needed to be fought for.
My problem with this is that it seems to exhibit undue confidence (in my oh so humble opinion) in our government. There are very real questions about our "fight for freedom" in Iraq, and if one believes that we're not actually there for the right reasons, I think they could question your characterization of the war, and whether this soldier is actually doing what he signed up for.
I'm hesitant to absolve the government for all culpability in a situation like this - maybe not for the same reasons though. The military demonizes and dehumanizes their opponents - some would argue this is necessary to allow soldiers to do their work, which often involves killing their opponents. But it can also lead to situations like this one. If you don't believe an Iraqi is really a human being, and have been taught to dehumanize them, then situations like this one happen that much more easily.
I'm not sure there's an easy solution here, but there are very undesirable side effects to the way the military sometimes conditions its soldiers that shouldn't be ignored. Having said all this, I wouldn't for a second claim that it is the military or the government's fault that this guy was involved in this heinous crime. He made his choice, and no one made it for him. Still, I can understand the sister's frustration, even if I don't think she's necessarily dead on. Plus, it's probably important to remember that her remarks were an emotional outburst - hardly the place to look for logical thinking.
As for Jake's comments on military culture, I will leave that to others who, hopefully, can speak from personal experience on military life, as I am not such a person.
As for the legal issues addressed in the main post, it appears that this soldier was the only one not to accept a plea agreement. First it is important to address the role of the plea agreement: a great deal of effort goes into prosecuting crimes and the burden placed on the prosecution is quite high. As a result, it is often advantageous to have the guilty party admit guilt (thereby avoiding the need to prove guilt) and, in exchange, offer to drop some of the charges. While it should be noted that military jurisprudence is different from the laws of any state (and it is states which prosecute most crimes, not the federal government), if they follow the system used in most states, then sentencing is almost always at the discretion of the judge. The judge can often sentence according to the plea agreement's recommendation, or follow set guidelines, or can go outside the range of the guidelines. That is why a plea agreement drops some of the charges, as opposed to agrees to a specific sentence.
Since there are advantages to making plea agreements for the prosecution, they must offer something to the defendant or the defendant would have no reason to accept. In the present case, some of the charges were obviously dropped for the soldiers who pled guilty, thereby making the maximum penalty lower than for the soldier who claimed innocence. His higher sentence is a result of being found guilty of more of the charges (by a jury of his peers) then he would have pled guilty to had he accepted an agreement.
As for the unusually high number of years possible, this is a result of compounding multiple crimes, for which the sentences must be served consecutively. Each count of guilty comes with its own sentence. These sentences are then combined either to be served consecutively or concurrently. If found guilty of multiple crimes and ordered to served them in sequence, it is possible to end up with sentences spanning hundreds of years. Note that this is actually a good thing, since criminals often have the right to appeal a guilty judgment. This way, if one of his judgments is overturned, the others remain in effect and keep him in jail.
As for the parole issue, I have little to say. Each state makes it own parole laws... some have done away with it altogether. I would need to ask a military JAG about how parole works in military justice.
Post a Comment