Soldier gets 110 years in prison for taking part in rape and murder

[TB666]

Got this from TWC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20116405/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. - A soldier convicted of rape and murder in an attack on an Iraqi teenager and her family was sentenced Saturday to 110 years in prison.

The sentence was part of a plea agreement attorneys for Pfc. Jesse Spielman had made with prosecutors that set the number of years he could serve in prison, regardless of the jury's recommendation.

The jury had recommended life with parole, a sentence under which he would have to wait longer for the possibility of parole. He will be eligible for parole after 10 years.

Spielman was convicted late Friday of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape and four counts of felony murder.

Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders but alleged that he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout.

Spielman, 23, of Chambersburg, Pa., received the longest sentence of four soldiers who have been convicted. Three other soldiers pleaded guilty under agreements with prosecutors for their roles in the assault and were given sentences ranging from five to 100 years.

Spielman's grandmother, Nancy Hess, collapsed outside the courtroom after the verdict was read; prosecutor Maj. William Fischbach ran to her side and called 911. Soldiers in Spielman's unit fanned the woman with napkins.

Spielman's sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: "I hate the government. You people put him (in Iraq) and now, this happened."

Defense attorneys left immediately after the verdict was returned and could not be reached for comment.

Spielman had pleaded guilty on Monday to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking. The 110-year sentence encompasses those crimes, too.

The case stemmed from the March 12, 2006, rape and slaying of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, 14, and the killings of her parents and sister. The attack took place in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

One soldier recants story
Prosecutors rested their case Thursday amid struggles to overcome a fellow soldier's recanting of a story that Spielman acted as a lookout.

Spc. James Barker said in earlier testimony that he had allowed investigators to draft sworn statements for him that implicated Spielman.

Barker testified Wednesday that several portions of the document were untrue, including references to Spielman's role in the conspiracy to attack the family and his knowledge of plans to rape the girl.

But Sgt. Paul E. Cortez testified that Spielman stood guard. Cortez said Spielman was within a few feet of the others as they held down the screaming girl and did nothing to stop them.

Barker, Cortez and another soldier, Pfc. Bryan L. Howard, pleaded guilty for their roles.

Steven D. Green, who was discharged from the Army before being charged, faces a possible death sentence when he is tried in federal court in Kentucky. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that include murder and sexual assault.

Barker and Cortez gave investigators conflicting statements about whether Spielman knew of the plan to rape the girl and whether he was present when they discussed it over whiskey and gin, according to testimony.

During their courts-martial, Barker and Cortez testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said.

The girl's body was set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

While a absolutly disgusting crime for which he deserve harsh punishment indeed, some questions pop up.
So people argeed that he did not take part in the rape or murder but was only a lookout and then took part in the destruction of the evidence(in this case burning the girl and her family's bodies).
Why is he getting 110 years in prison while someone got 5 years ??
What on earth did that guy do that caused him to get a lower sentance then someone who was merely a lookout ??

[Sir Moody]

the guy who got 5 years either helped plan it but wasnt there to take part or cut a deal to testify against the others for pleading guilty and a lesser sentence.

oh and by US law if you take part in a felony and someone is killed all members of the criminals no matter the role they played can be charged with murder (whether it will stick or not is another matter) so the full sentence is a back to back for all parts of the crime.

Really nasty crime tho... really nasty...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Interesting, good news that those who act unprofessionally and undisciplined are dealt with. Although 110 years in prison isn't the common sentence where I live, it seems like a reasonable punishment because it is what he would have received in the US. If this way of dealing with low discipline becomes a trend, then the Iraq war may even stand a fair chance to be won.

[naut]

It's good to see somebody used as an example to demonstrate that such behaviour won't be tolerated.

Wait he was the lookout and those who partook got lighter sentences?

[FactionHeir]

I think all those plea deals seem to make it much easier for military members to get away with crime than civilians.
I have no doubts that a civilian commiting said crimes would end up with life in jail without parole or the death penalty (see the reference to one of the members who left the military and is now prosecuted in civilian court and likely faces death)
Also, while 110 years sounds like a lot, he can get parole after 10. Kind of a light sentence.

[Fragony]

Sounds about right.

[Husar]

So next time someone asks me to be the lookout for his crime I better tell him that I want to rape and murder someone as well because then I will get a lighter sentence?

Very interesting indeed...

[Bijo]

The crime has been nasty. The outcome has been nasty. The results of the trial have been foolishly unexpected. He was only a lookout on his own against a few fellow soldiers -- what can you do? Article reminds me of that movie... what's it called again...? The one with Michael J. Fox and Sean Penn (or Chris Penn?) the Sergeant who went crazy after his buddy died. Casualties of War or something (in which Fox plays a terrible role... he doesn't fit a soldier's character).

[Duke of Gloucester]

So next time someone asks me to be the lookout for his crime I better tell him that I want to rape and murder someone as well because then I will get a lighter sentence?

Very interesting indeed...

Or perhaps you should take action to make sure the rape and murder don't happen. I am sure that the victims would prefer that. I am very happy with the idea that those who assist others to commit crimes should get the same punishment as those who carry them out.

The lesser sentences are probably as the result of plea-bargains. This does undermine the relaibility of the evidence, but presumably the court was happy. They did not need this guy as a scapegoat as they had already got some convicitions for this crime.

[Husar]

Or perhaps you should take action to make sure the rape and murder don't happen. I am sure that the victims would prefer that. I am very happy with the idea that those who assist others to commit crimes should get the same punishment as those who carry them out.

I thought you're supposed to be a comrade...
Well, actually my point was that it doesn't seem fair that someone who took no part in the action gets 22 times as many years as someone who actually did the cruel deeds. Yes, he should be punished, but should someone who actually took part in the killing really get a sentence so much lower just because he talked a bit more about it? If the other guy got 55 years with possible parole after 8 or something like that, I'd be more willing to say it's fair.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I do see what you mean but if you assist someone in rape and murder by acting as look-out you are just as guilty as they are. If they admit it and you don't, you are going to get a longer sentence. Of course the fact that the evidence against him came from his fellow offenders might mean that the conviction is unsafe, but the sentence seems ok to me. As others have said it was a horrible crime so a horrible sentence is appropriate.

[Bijo]

[...]

Of course the fact that the evidence against him came from his fellow offenders might mean that the conviction is unsafe, but the sentence seems ok to me. As others have said it was a horrible crime so a horrible sentence is appropriate.

But because it seems okay to you does not mean it is okay. It is a lousy excuse. If the fact is that his fellow offenders who performed the actual deeds and he was merely a lookout.... are you aware of what you are saying?

The punishment must fit the crime. His crime was more or less being a lookout, that of others were the actual deeds that created the most damage. What weighs more? Being a lookout or raping and killing people? For all you know he was forced into the position by them and had no way of dealing with them.

Bargains or no bargains..... the punishment must fit the crime and his crime is little compared to the actual damaging ones.

[Husar]

As others have said it was a horrible crime so a horrible sentence is appropriate.

A horrible crime he didn't commit himself, he probably didn't even see it since he was outside. We don't know enough details to judge this to full extent, it just seems a bit harsh to punish the lookout for what his buddies did and let his buddies out first just because they said who was the lookout. Maybe if they gave some more information we could let them go free, I mean yes, they killed and raped people, but hey, they told us who stood outside.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Husar:

I think it is a sound principle that those who actively aid/abet a crime should be held as fully accountable as those who commit that crime -- they make it possible.

As to this lookout getting 110 possible while those who committed the crime receiving less, it's a flaw in the "plea bargaining" system we use. I agree with you that it does create inequities.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Bargains or no bargains..... the punishment must fit the crime and his crime is little compared to the actual damaging ones.

No his crime is just as serious as those who did the actual rape and depending on the details, the murder too. He is a soldier in Iraq there to protect civillains. He has been convicted of going out with the intent of harming a family. They raped an underage girl and killed her and her parents to hide evidence of their terrible crime. He may not have raped the girl or attacked the parents but he shares the same guilt as those he was with. He had a chance to save this family but chose to aid in there violation.

Seamus is right. The unfairnes of the situation lies in the reduced sentences his co-defendents got by pleading guilty. Therefore he gets a longer sentence even though the guilt is equal (and I am not backing down from the idea that he is equally guilty as the others) he gets a longer sentences. On one level this is unfair, but he had the chance to plead guilty and chose not to. If he had pleaded guilty and got a longer sentence then he might have grounds for complaint.

Remember he did not just stand by and allow this to happen (which for a soldier would be disgusting). He helped them to do it.

A horrible crime he didn't commit himself, he probably didn't even see it since he was outside. We don't know enough details to judge this to full extent, it just seems a bit harsh to punish the lookout for what his buddies did and let his buddies out first just because they said who was the lookout. Maybe if they gave some more information we could let them go free, I mean yes, they killed and raped people, but hey, they told us who stood outside.

If the others got reduced sentences because they admitted what they had done then fair enough. If they got reduced sentences because they ratted out the lookout then it is unfair. However it is not as unfair as being raped at 14 and then shot in the head, so I can't feel outraged on his behalf at all.

[Husar]

If the others got reduced sentences because they admitted what they had done then fair enough. If they got reduced sentences because they ratted out the lookout then it is unfair. However it is not as unfair as being raped at 14 and then shot in the head, so I can't feel outraged on his behalf at all.

Agreed.

[Major Robert Dump]

I hope they hang the guy who hasn't gone to trial yet.

[Bijo]

No his crime is just as serious as those who did the actual rape and depending on the details, the murder too. He is a soldier in Iraq there to protect civillains. He has been convicted of going out with the intent of harming a family. They raped an underage girl and killed her and her parents to hide evidence of their terrible crime. He may not have raped the girl or attacked the parents but he shares the same guilt as those he was with. He had a chance to save this family but chose to aid in there violation.

Seamus is right. The unfairnes of the situation lies in the reduced sentences his co-defendents got by pleading guilty. Therefore he gets a longer sentence even though the guilt is equal (and I am not backing down from the idea that he is equally guilty as the others) he gets a longer sentences. On one level this is unfair, but he had the chance to plead guilty and chose not to. If he had pleaded guilty and got a longer sentence then he might have grounds for complaint.

In my fatigue let me communicate what follows.

I am addressing the weight of them. If one would place the weights of 'being a lookout' and 'raping and killing' on a scale, 'raping and killing' would simply outweigh 'being a lookout' by... what, a hundred times? A thousand times? A million? This is what is to be recognized.

Equally guilty is simply a wrong statement. He is guilty of being a lookout and aiding them in what they did while they are guilty of rape and murder. They were in the same group working with coordination, but they are not equally guilty.

The value of sanction must be "equal" to the crime. Even if he performed no admission of his crime it must be recognized that its nature is far lower than that of the others. Even with bargains he was to receive less punishment than the others. As for such dirty bargains in general: well, they are simply dirty and regard the outcome. Unacceptable. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In any case, the sanction that is unto the lookout must be significantly lower than the ones unto the others, if it is true he was merely a lookout and they were the rapers and killers.

[ajaxfetish]

I am addressing the weight of them. If one would place the weights of 'being a lookout' and 'raping and killing' on a scale, 'raping and killing' would simply outweigh 'being a lookout' by... what, a hundred times? A thousand times? A million? This is what is to be recognized.

It's not a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout.' It's a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout in order to enable raping and killing.' They are equal.

Ajax

[barocca]

It's not a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout.'

It's a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout in order to enable raping and killing.'

They are equal.

Ajax

i agree,
but i think they should all hang.

[Bijo]

It's not a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout.' It's a comparison of 'rape and kill' vs. 'be a lookout in order to enable raping and killing.' They are equal.

Ajax

That does not demonstrate nor prove how they are equal. They cannot be equal for they are different, and you stated yourself -- and with it performed a contradiction -- the comparison is 'rape and murder' and 'being a lookout to enable rape and murder'. If they are equal, then perhaps I am a multi-billion dollar android constructed by the secret ghost of Einstein (Einstein who may rest in peace) and I have a thousand cyborg limbs and a super processor that would ably defeat the grouped juxtaposition of NASA super computers and US military and economy think tanks in any sort of contest.

And if this is the comparison to be made, the question then is how are you so sure his act of being a lookout enabled them to rape and murder? Was it a requirement to ensure their acts could be executed? You don't know, nor do I, but we do know he was a lookout at best.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

That does not demonstrate nor prove how they are equal. They cannot be equal for they are different, and you stated yourself -- and with it performed a contradiction -- the comparison is 'rape and murder' and 'being a lookout to enable rape and murder'. If they are equal, then perhaps I am a multi-billion dollar android constructed by the secret ghost of Einstein (Einstein who may rest in peace) and I have a thousand cyborg limbs and a super processor that would ably defeat the grouped juxtaposition of NASA super computers and US military and economy think tanks in any sort of contest.

And if this is the comparison to be made, the question then is how are you so sure his act of being a lookout enabled them to rape and murder? Was it a requirement to ensure their acts could be executed? You don't know, nor do I, but we do know he was a lookout at best.

Bijo if you see someone being raped you should step in and do something about it. In the case of a civilian this may be as simple as trying to call the police, in the case of a soldier he can work a bit more directly to stop the rape. If a soldier doesn't step in and do the right thing, and especially if he is being used as a lookout by the criminals he is just as responsible for the rape occurring as those who committed the crime. His crime is slightly different in nature, but equal in gravity and must be punished by exactly the same measures because the lookout has proven himself to be just as much a threat to society, the people, and the common good as the rapists themselves. It is unfortunate that the rapists and murderers got off with a lighter sentence in this case, but that is an aberration of the plea system and not a problem related to the laws focused on punishing lookouts that enable these crimes to take place.

By the way it is irrelevant whether or not the lookout was needed in this particular case or not, the point is he was at the scene of the crime, aware of the crime taking place, and did nothing to prevent, stop or report it. His necessity or irrelevance is itself irrelevant, he was there all the same.

[Bijo]

Bijo if you see someone being raped you should step in and do something about it. In the case of a civilian this may be as simple as trying to call the police, in the case of a soldier he can work a bit more directly to stop the rape. If a soldier doesn't step in and do the right thing, and especially if he is being used as a lookout by the criminals he is just as responsible for the rape occurring as those who committed the crime. His crime is slightly different in nature, but equal in gravity and must be punished by exactly the same measures because the lookout has proven himself to be just as much a threat to society, the people, and the common good as the rapists themselves. It is unfortunate that the rapists and murderers got off with a lighter sentence in this case, but that is an aberration of the plea system and not a problem related to the laws focused on punishing lookouts that enable these crimes to take place.

We do not know the exact details. As mentioned before, it might be that he was pressured by his peers, he might have been threatened by them. He might have sensed to be endangered if he opposed them. It is the military: they have weapons at their disposal and they are generally tougher and bolder than civilians; they could've simply murdered him in his sleep, or slip a death pill into his drink.

If this is the case, which we do not know, the moral question is then also: would one risk his life (and whatever else he has) to save a few victims from evil? The "correct" moral answer would be 'yes'; the logical (but probably more emotional/self-preserving (regarding the possible consequences and possibilities)) answer would be 'no' for their force would probably simply outweigh his -- he would probably be crushed beneath their power. How can one man who is a Private First Class oppose peers of greater strength and number and rank? If he would remain alive (by their decision) how do you think his life would be?

By the way it is irrelevant whether or not the lookout was needed in this particular case or not, the point is he was at the scene of the crime, aware of the crime taking place, and did nothing to prevent, stop or report it. His necessity or irrelevance is itself irrelevant, he was there all the same.

It is relevant to doc's response, which was the case in question.

What is mentioned in the quote here sounds more as if he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and being greatly in shock (possibly) and totally outnumbered, outranked, etc. I have mentioned possible reasons for not intervening already.

It is easy for one to say one must intervene and help those in need, but when it comes down to it... I would eagerly be interested in your movement and action when you are the one in question and not somebody else whom you can easily speak of.

[Duke of Gloucester]

We do not know the exact details. As mentioned before, it might be that he was pressured by his peers, he might have been threatened by them. He might have sensed to be endangered if he opposed them. It is the military: they have weapons at their disposal and they are generally tougher and bolder than civilians; they could've simply murdered him in his sleep, or slip a death pill into his drink.

All these are things he could have used in his defence. He did not, so I think we can assume they do not apply.

If this is the case, which we do not know, the moral question is then also: would one risk his life (and whatever else he has) to save a few victims from evil? The "correct" moral answer would be 'yes'; the logical (but probably more emotional/self-preserving (regarding the possible consequences and possibilities)) answer would be 'no' for their force would probably simply outweigh his -- he would probably be crushed beneath their power. How can one man who is a Private First Class oppose peers of greater strength and number and rank? If he would remain alive (by their decision) how do you think his life would be?

Being forced to take part in a crime is not the same as voluntarily taking part. Succumbing to peer pressure is not the same and, quite rightly, is not a defence (otherwise you could apply it to the actual rape and murder). The fact that he is a soldier gives him a greater responsibility to protect civilians. As for the"rank" part, it is long established that being ordered to comit attrocities is not a defence and that, further, illegal orders do not need to be obeyed.

It is easy for one to say one must intervene and help those in need, but when it comes down to it... I would eagerly be interested in your movement and action when you are the one in question and not somebody else whom you can easily speak of.

Who really knows? Of course we all want to hope we would step in and protect the girl and her family. Two things I do know though: If I did act as lookout the screams of the family would haunt me forever and I would rather be dead than live with the guilt of being involved.

I think it is a modern falacy to believe that if you can forsee yourself doing something it is not really a crime. I can see situations where I might kill someone. (The ***** who acted a lookout whilst he mates raped my 14-year-old daughter would be high on my list of possible victims.) However it is still wrong.

[Bijo]

All these are things he could have used in his defence. He did not, so I think we can assume they do not apply.

Perhaps he was... under pressure, threatened, in fear? Perhaps there was much confusion? We don´t know. We are merely following an article here that stinks.

Being forced to take part in a crime is not the same as voluntarily taking part. Succumbing to peer pressure is not the same and, quite rightly, is not a defence (otherwise you could apply it to the actual rape and murder).

What are you exactly meaning by 'succumbing to peer pressure is not the same' and the first phrase? It looks unclear and tricky. I hope it is not trickery, 'cause I don't like trickery.

Fact is: the possibilities are that he might have been forced, threatened with terror, etc., etc. We are still uncertain what the whole exact story is, and we are reasonably certain he did not rape nor kill the victims in question while the others did. And we are certain the nature of his act of crime weighs less than that of the other offenders.

Who really knows? Of course we all want to hope we would step in and protect the girl and her family. Two things I do know though: If I did act as lookout the screams of the family would haunt me forever and I would rather be dead than live with the guilt of being involved.

What about your own wife/girlgriend/family/etc. who would have to live without you? Would you simply exclude them from your thought?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps he was... under pressure, threatened, in fear? Perhaps there was much confusion? We don´t know. We are merely following an article here that stinks.

We can be reasonably sure that his defence team would have made the most of any extenuating circumstances like that, and that the jury therefore rejected those excuses.

Fact is: the possibilities are that he might have been forced, threatened with terror, etc., etc. We are still uncertain what the whole exact story is, and we are reasonably certain he did not rape nor kill the victims in question while the others did. And we are certain the nature of his act of crime weighs less than that of the other offenders.

No - the only fact we can address is that he was convicted in a court of law with representation for his defence. This indicates to me that the jury did not accept any mitigating factors.

It has long been a tenet of law that conspiracy to commit and/or being an accessory to the fact can be as serious as the actual commission of a crime.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Perhaps he was... under pressure, threatened, in fear? Perhaps there was much confusion? We don´t know. We are merely following an article here that stinks.

I think this is moving your argument slightly, but I will accept that if he took part out of fear for his safety he is not as guilty as the others. As the article is the only source of information on this matter I think we need to find other sources or stick to what the article says. Speculation without evidence adds nothing.

What are you exactly meaning by 'succumbing to peer pressure is not the same' and the first phrase? It looks unclear and tricky. I hope it is not trickery, 'cause I don't like trickery.

Example of threat: "Be the lookout or we will break your legs."
Example of peer pressure: "Be the lookout or we won't speak to you again." although peer pressure might just be your own feeling that you won't be accepted unless you copy those you are with.

What about your own wife/girlgriend/family/etc. who would have to live without you? Would you simply exclude them from your thought?

Probably, yes and I would expect her to do the same in the same circumstances (and she certainly would).

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I think this is moving your argument slightly, but I will accept that if he took part out of fear for his safety he is not as guilty as the others. As the article is the only source of information on this matter I think we need to find other sources or stick to what the article says. Speculation without evidence adds nothing.



Example of threat: "Be the lookout or we will break your legs."
Example of peer pressure: "Be the lookout or we won't speak to you again." although peer pressure might just be your own feeling that you won't be accepted unless you copy those you are with.



Probably, yes and I would expect her to do the same in the same circumstances (and she certainly would).

I second Duke here, I'd much rather be dead than let someone be raped and murdered in my presence. I can't say what I would do in that situation because I haven't been in this situation that the soldier who acted as a lookout got himself into, but I highly doubt that I'd stand idly by.

He could have also made a deal with the prosecution to rat on the others in exchange for some immunity from his part in the crime, it doesn't look like he did that, and I believe the prosecution would have been much more willing to deal with the lookout than the rapists.

If his life had been threatened that would be an mitigating circumstance, peer pressure is not.

[Bijo]

I think this is moving your argument slightly, but I will accept that if he took part out of fear for his safety he is not as guilty as the others. As the article is the only source of information on this matter I think we need to find other sources or stick to what the article says. Speculation without evidence adds nothing.

If it is done, it still adds. What it adds are possibilities. As long as we detect these possibilities we could continue for a long time until it is narrowed down sufficiently.

Example of threat: "Be the lookout or we will break your legs."
Example of peer pressure: "Be the lookout or we won't speak to you again." although peer pressure might just be your own feeling that you won't be accepted unless you copy those you are with.

Hmmm... I see a hierarchy. 'Threat' is the basic word/act/etc. From 'threat' many words can spring like a tree of values and 'peer pressure' is one of them.

From 'Peer Pressure' many different values can spring as well. In either case (that (could) appear very much alike) his life would/could be hellish to many possible different degrees, natures, intensities, etc., and this would undeniably create other events which could influence situations negatively.