What is the deal with German law?

1. Death penalty indeed is abolished in Europe. Only Muslim countries and some American states (Texas?) still have the death penalty (maybe in some cases death penalty is justified, but those particular cases do not outnumber the cases in which a death-penalty has been extracted injustfully).

2. He got 15 years. In German law, he shouldn't have gotten 15 years. 15 years is for accomplice to murder. Most civilized countries still go by the 'innocent untill proven guilty'-principle; sorry to say so, but there is no real proof he was guilty: he's been accused of supplying money to the 'suicide-team' - if proven guilty, he'd have gotten 15 years. He wasn't proven guilty (he denied he knew what the money was being used for - and frankly I believe him...), so why the 15 years?
My opinion: he might be guilty, so let's sew him? Piss off. Germany is a democracy (and a good one - they've learned from their mistakes), the subject is innocent untill proven guilty, and he hasn't been proven guilty (he's been proven guilty of supplying money to the suicide-pilots, but did he know about it? No, he didnt... untill someone proves otherwise). That's an answer to your 'What is the deal with German law?'-question, I guess...
Innocent untill proven guilty. He's never been proven guilty, yet he got the maximum sentence... and you still complain?
The law is the law... A weak law?... maybe... better a 'weak' law than a law that kills innocents.

So like Negative says, the criminals have more rights than the victims.

In my book, ignorance is no excuse. It seems the burden of proof is on the dead? Nice escape for your conscience. No reality in that, at all.

I'm sorry Negative, I don't mean to be hard on you or anyone else, but this is plain insanity. The onus of proof is on the guilty, not the victims or the dead. That's my feeling and if you want to neg me into submission, that's fine. I'll just start up another nick and gain points to say the same thing over and over again. I have no problem working hard so that my opinion is heard. I've done it throughout my life and I'll continue to do so until I'm gone.

Better a weak law? Then what? He'll get out at a prime age to do more damage and be able to cry "plausable deniability". Just cause you can't prove he knew, doesn't mean he didn't know.

Maybe I'm jaded, I'll admit that, but the ties to the terrorists are undeniable. To claim ignorance at this point is ludicrous. Too many people have died directly due to his diligence. So don't cry me a river about people being put to death wrongfully when it comes to this scum.

My country is not the only one that still alows the death penalty, and, yes, we are learning that it can be misused. You can read the news and see that. The moritorium in a few states has proven that. At least we don't cut off people's hands for stealijng, like some Arab nations still do. And we don't disallow unwed mothers to teach religion like some EU nations do. We aren't controlled by shame or guilt.

Like I've said before, there is a huge area between 15 years in a country club and the death penalty, don't you think it's time we've found it? Maybe a few life sentences, so the people related to the dead can have some peace of mind that this guy won't help any others to kill more innocents? No, I guess that would be asking too much.

Negative,

I wasnt complaining, I was asking for some input from some more knowledgeable of german law, like yourself.

Having said that, I do take issue with your statement, having not followed the case closely there may be somethings I do not know about it, but, he was found guilty by a court of law, which is why he was sentenced at all.

Is this not the case? Did the court not find him guilty, and then sentence him?

He says he is not guilty, therefore it is true?

AFAIK there was a guilty verdict, in which case whatever sentence passed is fine(although, I still think the sentence is too light for someone CONVICTED of ~ 3000 counts of accessory to murder.)

If he was sentenced without being found guilty by a court of law, then I have to take exception to your point that germany is a good democracy which has learned from its mistakes.

EDITED.....

hmm, I guess there was nothing strange about the first german court decision, as they only give out a sentence of 12 years to folks attempting to bomb someplace inside germany.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ans/index.html

My post indeed was a little confusing :eek:
If I'm correct, he's been proven guilty of transferring money to terrorists. Money that has been used to fund the 911 attacks (proven guilty meaning here there is hard proof he transferred money to their bank-accounts). There is no hard proof he knew what the money was going to be used for, yet he got sentenced for -deliberate- accomplice to murder, which cost him 15 years, the maximum for that kind of criminal activity. That's why I said he shouldn't have gotten 15 years (by German law, that is.. not my personal opinion).
So... he's been sentenced to 15 years for a crime he has been found guilty of (by a court of law), but that hasn't been proven. Innocent untill proven guilty, but not in this case. My point is that a court deciding you're guilty of something without having hard proof, is a dangerous situation.
Hope that made a little more sense...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IchNiSan
He says he is not guilty, therefore it is true?

---

No, not at all. He says he is not guilty, therefore he is not guilty untill proven guilty. That's how a democratic court of law should reason (and most of them do). A court of law reasoning the other way around (where the suspect has to prove he is not guilty of the crime's he's been charged for) can usually be found in countries where speaking about 'democracy' will cost you your head.

OK, gotcha Negative.

I prolly should have thought a bit deeper on your post.