A former US soldier convicted of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family, has been jailed for life, after a jury failed to agree on a death sentence.
Steven Dale Green, 24, was convicted two weeks ago of the crimes near Baghdad, where he and his unit were serving in 2006.
The jury of nine women and three men could not decide after two days of deliberations if Green should be executed or given life without parole, so the life sentence prevailed.
Judge Thomas Russell of the Kentucky district court said on Thursday that he would formally sentence Green on September 4.
Prosecutors said Green was the ringleader of a group of five soldiers who plotted to invade the home of the family of four to rape the girl.
They said he later bragged about the crime, saying what he had done was "awesome".
'Trigger-happy'
Green, 19 at the time of the crime, was described as the trigger-man in the group who donned black "ninja" outfits and raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and shot her, her father, mother and six-year-old sister.
"I do think it will allow him
to have some semblance of a
life and I'm very grateful for that"
Doug Green, brother
of convicted soldier
The soldiers later set fire to the girl's body to try to cover up the crime.
The rape-murders took place after the soldiers drank whiskey, played cards, and plotted the attack in Mahmudiya, 30km south of the Iraqi capital, the court heard.
Three of the four other soldiers pleaded guilty in the attack and the fourth was convicted, all in military courts martial.
They were sentenced to between five and 100 years, but could be paroled much sooner.
Green was tried in federal court as a civilian on murder, rape and obstruction of justice charges because his arrest came after he was discharged from the army for a "personality disorder".
The defence team acknowledged that he took part in the killings but argued that he should be spared the death penalty.
Defence
During the trial Green was depicted as a victim of a bad childhood and combat stress after the death of close colleagues in the combat zone south of Baghdad.
"Steven Green was responsible [for the rape and murders] but the United States of America failed Steven Green," Scott Wendelsdorf, a defence lawyer, told the jury in his final submission.
"And it failed a lot of soldiers in Iraq. And that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it were not the United States of America now seeking to put Steven Green to death."
As representatives of the Iraqi family openly wept in court, Green smiled slightly when the jury gave its decision.
His father, John Green, said the result was "the better of two bad choices, but the better one by far".
The ex-soldier's brother, Doug, added that "it's the only appropriate verdict" given the choices.
"I have mixed emotions about it, but I do think it will allow him to have some semblance of a life and I'm very grateful for that.
I know where I would place that "hill of beans". Dont understand how law works in these cases, but would have liked him to be dealt with in Iraq. This sort of thing makes me wish he could be dealt with by sharia law. Failing that release him, in town centre with a sign attached that tells all he is a paedo.
If someone touched my kids or familly I would not be happy with this outcome
"O ye who belive! Endure, outdo all others in endurance, be ready, and observe your duty to Allah, in order that you may succeed"
Why do you think atheists would be morally opposed to the death sentence? Can you think of no non-religious reason to support it?
I didn't generalize, but anyway what is your opinion, what does he deserve.
For example in sharia law this guy would have his ass whipped off his head.
I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.
Do you actually have a useful point to make? If so, please try and do so.
Yes, I consider the death sentence immoral, here as in any other case. A great many theists are also opposed to the death sentence. Indeed, I find your implication remarkable; I would have thought that those who believe there is a God would actually be far less likely to think they have some sort of right to decide who lives and who dies, particularly in the interests of revenge (which is, in a modern society, the only purpose that the death penalty serves). After all, what's the significance of debating death vs. life without parole in the context of the eternal torment God can supposedly dish up?
Moral opposition to the death penalty has to be consistent, otherwise it is just a conceited hypocrisy. Sure, this guy 'deserves' to die as much as anyone, but many who die for a multitude of reasons deserve to live, and we have no say in that (does God?) You can't cross the line if you never draw it, but once you do you lose control of where it is drawn and sooner or later somebody dies who should not, even in the absence of any miscarriage of justice (and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk). Many of us, theist and atheist alike, think that's too high a price to pay.
Actually those who believe in God like to implement his commands and carry out justice, the penalty for murder is to be put to death. Everything is about cause and consequence.. Just like the adage 'Extremis malis, extrema remedia' / Serious diseases require serious treatment- like wise dangerous criminals require serious punishment..
No one takes pleasure in seeing anyone put to death, it isn't about the satisfaction of seeing someone dead, it is about getting justice for the people wronged and removing a serious malignancy from the midst of society as well making an example for others who think this is some sort of an easy joke, kill a few ragheads and get three square meals!..
No one ever says.. oh I have cancer, pls give me the so so medication.. everyone wants serious medication given that it is their survival or the cancer's survival.. try to apply that analogy to criminals as even where some diseases can be symbiotic in your body a criminal only practices criminality. I'd personally not have my tax money to put a roof over his head and three square meals a day for the rest of his life not to mention health care that a few millions in America alone can't afford and not because they are leeching off, but because they actually can't afford it. While these animals eat, drink, get treated even with transplants as they are put on lists like everyone else and the occasional pat on the back for killing a few Muslims!
Also if a person is sincerely repentant the punishment of death is an expiation of sin.. there is no hypocrisy there, there is common sense!
The only high price incurred is that of maintaining a murderous criminal behind bars instead of a 39c bullet through the head!
Last edited by جوري; 05-24-2009 at 02:23 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I wonder where are all the athiests who are "morally opposed" to the death sentence.
I'm opposed to the death sentence, including in this case. Though I'm not sure if my opposition is based on 'moral' grounds really. I oppose it because there will inevitably be too many miscarriages of justice, which we simply aren't in a position to correct if we chop someones head off.
Can't really see what that has to do with atheism though.
atheism to most minds has to do with a subjective brand of justice rather than an agreed upon moral code.. that is why those who bring atheism up, do so in such contexts!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
atheism to most minds has to do with a subjective brand of justice rather than an agreed upon moral code.. that is why those who bring atheism up, do so in such contexts!
all the best
But I think to most people opposition to the death penalty is based exactly on this argument that too many mistakes are made when handing out justice. This isn't an moral argument IMHO, rooted in a different 'subjective' moral code, it is a very practical argument based on an understanding of how humans systems can fail. Obviously all of us agree that someone who rapes a 14 year old and kills her family has committed a morally reprehensible crime and needs to be punished.
Surely Muslims don't believe that, say, Sha'ria judges or Muslim investigators are infallible?
But I think to most people opposition to the death penalty is based exactly on this argument that too many mistakes are made when handing out justice. This isn't an moral argument IMHO, rooted in a different 'subjective' moral code, it is a very practical argument based on an understanding of how humans systems can fail. Obviously all of us agree that someone who rapes a 14 year old and kills her family has committed a morally reprehensible crime and needs to be punished.
Surely Muslims don't believe that, say, Sha'ria judges or Muslim investigators are infallible?
Perhaps if the system weren't set up to 'fail' then there wouldn't be mistakes? The system should be made to tighten the confidence interval in justice, the law and fairness. Those that leave you with a shadow of a doubt are the ones where you can contemplate alternatives, but not the other way around.. This is nothing but mere laxity and stupidity and a carte blanche for other criminals to carry out similar brand actions, after all what is a deterrent?
People thought once or twice about murder when they saw a town square execution. The death penalty is supposed to amongst others establish two things:
1- A remembrance of those whose life was lost, most folks dwell on handling the criminal with kid glove to remember the victims.. in his case he has multiple crimes to pay for including rape, for which he should be cut off from limb to limb before a death penalty is imposed!
2- Appreciating the sanctity of life, that taking a life is a grave action and merits a hefty payment.. not three square meals, a pet friend named bubbah to take care of frequent urges and health care for thousands upon thousands of dollars every year from the hard earned money of hard working individuals.. is this some sort of a joke?
if you had a margin of doubt why put him in jail to begin with? what brand of hypocrisy is this?
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Do you actually have a useful point to make? If so, please try and do so.
Yes, I consider the death sentence immoral, here as in any other case. A great many theists are also opposed to the death sentence. Indeed, I find your implication remarkable; I would have thought that those who believe there is a God would actually be far less likely to think they have some sort of right to decide who lives and who dies, particularly in the interests of revenge (which is, in a modern society, the only purpose that the death penalty serves). After all, what's the significance of debating death vs. life without parole in the context of the eternal torment God can supposedly dish up?
Moral opposition to the death penalty has to be consistent, otherwise it is just a conceited hypocrisy. Sure, this guy 'deserves' to die as much as anyone, but many who die for a multitude of reasons deserve to live, and we have no say in that (does God?) You can't cross the line if you never draw it, but once you do you lose control of where it is drawn and sooner or later somebody dies who should not, even in the absence of any miscarriage of justice (and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk). Many of us, theist and atheist alike, think that's too high a price to pay.
heh..
The reason I said this is because I knew that this thread would attract a lot of athiests, and most of them on this forum usually criticize how sharia Law is unjust and extreme and that the death sentence is an immoral one.
I was just making a point that this case is an example of how just the sharia Law would be in dealing with the crime. Punishments in sharia are mainly to serve justice in this life for the people and not to satisfy "god's anger".
We don't decide who lives or who dies, it is GOD who does, and according to us muslims we believe the Qur'an is the rule.
and, where human beings are making the decisions, that is always a risk
so... who do you suggest should make the decisions?
Should we leave everything just hanging and take no action?
No one takes pleasure in seeing anyone put to death, it isn't about the satisfaction of seeing someone dead, it is about getting justice for the people wronged and removing a serious malignancy from the midst of society as well making an example for others who think this is some sort of an easy joke, kill a few ragheads and get three square meals!..
It's exactly about "the satisfaction of seeing someone dead", or at least a particular person dead; it just requires some self-honesty to admit it. I don't mean to imply that satisfaction is the same as any sort of sadistic pleasure in seeing someone die, clearly it is not. There is no evidence the death penalty functions as a significant deterrent, and of course it wouldn't matter to my and KAding's arguments if it did unless you choose to adopt a 100% utilitarian approach that would be as inconsistent with my beliefs as it would be with yours.
I'd personally not have my tax money to put a roof over his head and three square meals a day for the rest of his life not to mention health care that a few millions in America alone can't afford and not because they are leeching off, but because they actually can't afford it.
Maybe not. I cannot, however, take any argument for capital punishment based on the idea that it saves money (even if it might) as worthy of serious moral consideration.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
if you had a margin of doubt why put him in jail to begin with? what brand of hypocrisy is this?
It's not hypocrisy at all. There is always a 'margin of doubt'. In the English legal system, and I assume yours, it is (beyond) reasonable doubt. What constitutes 'reasonable doubt'? Opinion will vary, although perhaps not that widely, but nevertheless even within a legal system that is reliable as we can make it 'mistakes' (insofar as the wrong conclusion is reached - it may have been reached quite correctly) can, and will occur. When capital punishment exists, sooner or later an innocent will die... as many already have. But, 'reasonable doubt' is a practicality. 'No doubt' is an unreasonable aspiration, and a legal system based upon it could not function at all. No criminals would ever be convicted - but at least if they are still alive any mistake can at least be partially rectified.
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
We don't decide who lives or who dies, it is GOD who does, and according to us muslims we believe the Qur'an is the rule.
so... who do you suggest should make the decisions?
Should we leave everything just hanging and take no action?
I have seen nothing so far that suggests God has done any more than set down the circumstances in which the death penalty can be applied. The decisions are made by the only entities that can, people. And as always, people are subject to making mistakes.
Nobody is advocating 'taking no action', the soldier was sentenced to life without parole, not given a pat on his head and sent on his way. In the 21st century judicial systems admitting capital punishment are the exception rather than the rule, but I am not aware of a shred of evidence suggesting that the system in, say, the UK, France or Germany is any less efficient - particularly with regard to preventing murder - than that in the US or China.
My heart says kill him and display his head on a pole, he murdered a 6 yr old girl, raped a girl and murdered her and familly.
My sense of injustice is outraged that this "man" is alive to breath Gods air.
My fear of Allah says, he is in Allahs books and the hellfire will be awaiting his death, this is enough and more.
My soul says Allah you know best, forgive us for the deeds our hearts would have us commit but for your saving grace. And enter this familly straight to Jannah. Ameen
"O ye who belive! Endure, outdo all others in endurance, be ready, and observe your duty to Allah, in order that you may succeed"
As a Chrisitan I am oppossed to death penalty as I believe only God can give or take life. I base this on a verse in Romans that says avenge not yourselfs vengence is the Lords. However this guy will not have a good life, it is over. Life in Fort Levenworth is a hellhole and he should be locked in a cell and all over the wall should be pictures of what he done and that should be all he is allowed to look at. No books, no mail, no visitors, nothing. He will go to Hell unless he repents and I do not think he will to be honest.
As a Chrisitan I am oppossed to death penalty as I believe only God can give or take life. I base this on a verse in Romans that says avenge not yourselfs vengence is the Lords. However this guy will not have a good life, it is over. Life in Fort Levenworth is a hellhole and he should be locked in a cell and all over the wall should be pictures of what he done and that should be all he is allowed to look at. No books, no mail, no visitors, nothing. He will go to Hell unless he repents and I do not think he will to be honest.
wow that would be worse than dying
"O ye who belive! Endure, outdo all others in endurance, be ready, and observe your duty to Allah, in order that you may succeed"
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
US soldier gets life for Iraq rape
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks