Reforming Judicial System

 

A Typical Episode of Current American History

This man, Brian Banks, was a high school football star. His life fell apart after he was accused of rape by a sixteen year old girl.
She later admitted that it was a lie. He had spent six years in prison at that point. This is him when he found out the case was dismissed.
At the time, he’d been offered a full scholarship to USC to play football. But at the time he got out, he was too out of form and unable to get back up to speed.
It is but one of many huge costs this man paid for this.
He was exonerated after his release, when he recorded a conversation with the woman who had accused him of the crime, where she admitted it never happened, but she was scared to go back on her claim for fear of losing the settlements money she’d received.
The woman was ordered to repay $2.6 million to the Unified School District (she’d sued the school for inadequate security).
Banks only received a measly sum of $150,000 for his time in prison.
Sadly, many people sit in prison right now for crimes they never committed. And they may never be released.
Our justice system needs serious reform.

كان هذا الرجل، برايان بانكس، نجم كرة قدم في المدرسة الثانوية. انهارت حياته بعد اتهامه بالاغتصاب من قبل فتاة في السادسة عشرة من عمرها.

اعترفت لاحقًا بأنها كذبة. كان قد أمضى ست سنوات في السجن حينها. هذا هو عندما علم برفض القضية.

في ذلك الوقت، عُرضت عليه منحة دراسية كاملة في جامعة جنوب كاليفورنيا للعب كرة القدم. لكن عند خروجه، كان مستواه الرياضي منخفضًا جدًا وغير قادر على استعادة مستواه.

هذه ليست سوى واحدة من التكاليف الباهظة التي دفعها هذا الرجل.

تمت تبرئته بعد إطلاق سراحه، عندما سجل محادثة مع المرأة التي اتهمته بالجريمة، حيث اعترفت بأنها لم تحدث قط، لكنها كانت خائفة من التراجع عن دعواها خوفًا من فقدان أموال التسوية التي تلقتها.

أُمرت المرأة بسداد 2.6 مليون دولار إلى منطقة المدارس الموحدة (كانت قد رفعت دعوى قضائية ضد المدرسة بسبب عدم كفاية الأمن).

لم يتلقَّ بانكس سوى مبلغ زهيد قدره 150 ألف دولار أمريكي عن فترة سجن.

للأسف، يقبع الكثيرون في السجن حاليًا لجرائم لم يرتكبوها قط. وقد لا يُفرج عنهم أبدًا.

نظامنا القضائي بحاجة إلى إصلاح جذري.

هو نظام العدالة الجنائية في اليابان

 

تعرض النظام القضاء الياباني للهجوم والانتقاد على خلفية قضية الرئيس التنفيذي السابق لتحالف رينو نيسان، خاصة بعد فراره من اليابان وشنه لهجوم لاذع على النظام القضائي الياباني والعدالة بشكل عام. وهو ما أثار حالة من اللغط والفهم الخاطئ لمحتوى نظام العدالة في اليابان. في هذا الموضوع نشرح لكم بطريقة سؤال وجواب كل ما تريدون معرفته عن العدالة في اليابان.

فيما يلي مجموعة من الأسئلة الشائعة والنقاط التي غالبا ما يثيرها الناس داخل اليابان وخارجها فيما يتعلق بنظام العدالة الجنائية في اليابان.

س1: من الذي يقرر في اليابان منح أمر الاعتقال أو التوقيف، وما هي الشروط الواجب توافرها لاعتقال أو توقيف أي شخص؟

لا يجوز اعتقال المشتبه به إلا في حال وجود سبب وجيه يدعو للاشتباه في أن الشخص قد ارتكب جريمة، وتستثنى من ذلك حالات مثل الاعتقال أثناء ارتكاب الشخص للجريمة.

ينبغي أن يكون الاعتقال بموجب مذكرة صادرة عن قاضٍ مستقل عن سلطة التحقيق وغير منخرط في عملية التحقيق.

لا يجوز توقيف المشتبه به – بناء على طلب من المدعي العام – لمدة تصل إلى 10 أيام في كل قضية إلا إذا وجد قاض مستقل أن هناك سببا وجيها يدعو للاشتباه في ارتكاب ذلك الشخص جريمة وهناك خطر إخفاء أدلة الجريمة أو إتلافها أو الفرار من العدالة. يجوز تمديد مدة التوقيف لما يصل إلى 10 أيام فقط إذا وجد القاضي أن هناك ظروفا لا يمكن تجنبها.

إذا اُشتبه في ارتكاب شخص لعدة جرائم، فيجوز اعتقال المشتبه به وتوقيفه فيما يتعلق بكل من تلك الجرائم إذا أصدر قاضٍ مذكرة تقر بضرورات الاعتقال والتوقيف بهدف ضمان إجراء تحقيق كاف مع منع المشتبه به من الفرار من العدالة أو إخفاء أدلة الجريمة أو إتلافها. وبالتالي من الممكن أن يتواصل توقيف المشتبه به. 

س2: هل باستطاعة النيابة العامة اعتقال وإدانة شخص ما بناء على قراراتها فقط عندما لا يتوفر سبب وجيه يدعو للشك في ارتكاب جريمة ما؟

ليس بإمكان سلطات التحقيق مثل الشرطة والنيابة العامة توقيف مشتبه به ما لم يصدر قاضٍ مستقل غير منخرط في التحقيق مذكرة بهذا الخصوص، ويستثنى من ذلك حالات اعتقال الشخص متلبّسا بالجرم المشهود. يمكن للقاضي إصدار مثل هذه المذكرة بناء على ما توصل إليه من نتائج تفيد بوجود سبب وجيه يدعو للاشتباه في أن الشخص قد ارتكب جريمة محددة، وهناك خطر إخفاء المشتبه به للأدلة أو إتلافها أو الفرار من العدالة.

تتمثل الممارسة المعمول بها فيما يتصل بقانون الإجراءات الجنائية في أنه بموجب اجتماع ما قبل المحاكمة، ينبغي على النيابة العامة أن تكشف للمدعى عليهم عن الأدلة اللازمة لدفاعهم، بما في ذلك قائمة الأدلة الموجودة في حوزة النيابة العامة والأدلة المتعلقة بالحجج التي قدمها المدعى عليه، بالإضافة إلى الأدلة التي تطلب النيابة العامة تفحصها أثناء المحاكمة.

تنص المادة 82 من الدستور الياباني على أن تكون المحاكمات علانية. وهذا يعني أن بإمكان أي شخص مراقبة فعاليات التقاضي للأطراف المعنية، بما في ذلك عرض النيابة العامة للدعاوى القضائية وإثبات الأدلة.

لا تتفحص المحاكم بدقة ادعاءات النيابة العامة – التي يقع على كاهلها عبء إثبات الادعاءات – فحسب، بل وأيضا الحجج والأدلة المقدمة من المدعى عليهم، وتتخذ القرارات من وجهة نظر عادلة ومستقلة. ينبغي على المحاكم أيضا عرض الأسباب التي استندت إليها في قراراتها ضمن أحكام مكتوبة حتى تتسنى مراجعة القرارات لاحقا.

وخلاصة القول لا يمكن للنيابة العامة – بموجب الإجراءات الجنائية اليابانية – اعتقال أو إدانة أي شخص بناء على قراراتها فحسب عندما لا يتوفر سبب وجيه يدعو للشك بوقوع جريمة.

Justice for Marriam Assaf

 

Imagine, if George Floyd was a Woman.. 

What the World would do..?

There is a Woman in Palestine;
with no Prosecution to defend
No Media too advocate,
and No President Biden to applaud..

Justice for AlKhatib..!

Justice for AlKhatib..!

Israeli soldier brutally assaults Omar Alkhatib; while kneeling on his neck (May, 2021)..

A Palestinian George Floyd

66 Years of Nakba

Salute to the ONLY true worldly case of injustice, aggression and oppression..

توخذيش كل الأغراض يا إم أحمد ، خذي الشغلات المهمة بس ، كلها يومين وبنرجع ..
اليومين صارو 66 سنة يا أبو أحمد.
اليومين صاروا عقدين
والنكبة صارت نكبتين
 بس لسا مفتاح البيت معانا ورح نرجع لفلسطين !

Charles Taylor and the Paradox of The Hague

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor was transferred to prison in the United Kingdom on Tuesday to serve out the remainder of his 50-year sentence. Taylor had been in custody at The Hague in the Netherlands since his 2012 conviction at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Sierra Leone's civil war -- itself an extension of Liberia's civil war -- during his rule from 1997 to 2003. While the transfer symbolically concludes a decadelong effort to bring Taylor to justice, the unintended consequences of the prosecution have been felt far and wide and are likely to complicate attempts to resolve violent conflicts in the future.

 

The desire for justice is understandable. Both West African conflicts were archetypically Hobbesian in nature. Diamonds mined from shallow alluvial deposits financed the just-as-easy acquisition of small arms, fueling the lusty imperial ambitions of Taylor and his allies (including former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi). Life in wartime Liberia was nasty, brutal and short, and images of limbless war survivors and of child soldiers mutilating their elders abound. Since Taylor fell, Liberia has largely been governed adequately by current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and an array of peacekeeping forces and modest foreign investment have helped stabilize the country and allow normalcy to return.

 

However, the International Criminal Court played no part in resolving the Liberian and Sierra Leonean wars (Taylor was pushed out of power by rival militias attacking from Guinea and Sierra Leone and, ultimately, by a West African peacekeeping mission), and the significance gained by the court in recent years has largely been inadvertent and, at times, counterproductive. Indeed, in the corridors of power in Africa and beyond, the court is now seen at the very least as a political liability -- and even an obstacle to conflict resolution.

The prosecution of Taylor created incentives for leaders in conflict zones elsewhere to refuse mediated resolutions. In 2003, Taylor agreed to resign from the presidency in exchange for safe exile in Nigeria. But the deal was reneged upon, and Taylor was arrested in 2006. Fearing a fate similar to Taylor's, beleaguered leaders have become more likely to cling to power until forcibly removed.

 

The International Criminal Court has also effectively lowered the bar in its selection of cases to prosecute. Instead of attempting to prosecute leaders currently orchestrating mass conflicts, the court has focused more on losers of political conflicts -- and only long after their alleged crimes occurred. Furthermore, African leaders believe that the court focuses an inordinate amount of attention on them. To its detractors, the court has lost legitimacy by choosing to prosecute relatively defenseless officials who were involved in relatively minor events.

 

As a result, leaders from Kenya -- which is currently calling for an Africa-wide withdrawal from the court -- to Sudan to Zimbabwe have appeared more determined to hold onto office (and the executive immunity privileges it affords), at least in part to prevent what happened to Taylor from happening to them. For example, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government will not yield to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and risk exposing itself to a prosecution for uncertain crimes by the International Criminal Court.

 

In Libya, Gadhafi likely kept fighting until he was killed in part because he lacked a secure alternative. Ousted Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, meanwhile, argues that he was only defending his legitimate government against an armed rebellion during Ivory Coast's civil war in the 2000s and through to national elections in 2010. Regardless, Gbagbo would not have ended up at The Hague if French-backed Ivorian rebels had not captured him.

 

Most concerning today is the conflict in Syria, where President Bashar al Assad has refused all exile offers and instead continues to fight, knowing a safe exit immune from prosecution cannot be guaranteed. For this reason, the International Criminal Court, like many international organizations, will remain part of the institutional fabric of the international community but its relevance and ability to contribute to conflict resolutions may continue to wane.

http://www.stratfor.com/sample/geopolitical-diary/charles-taylor-and-paradox-hague

A Holocaust Denier..!

Holocaust phenomenon was never a distinct Jewish issue, but a Universal one.. It scrutinizes both History and Realities of Mankind, who could not peacefully accept rivals or opponents.. Yet, we thank the Jews for magnifying their misfortune incidents; which highlighted how intolerant and blood-thirsty the human beings are..!!

Fred Lundgren
CEO of KCAA,
30 Oct 2012
A response to someone on FB, who wrote to him to complain about Kathleen Wells's being a holocaust denier.

I can’t resolve this situation by interfering with our First Amendment Right of free speech. Throughout history, inhabitants of our planet have endured repeated periods of inhumanity, torture and horrible strife which causes me to question, as do many of my Jewish friends, was God asleep during ALL of these periods?

From ancient tribal wars to the religious crusades and twentieth century world wars, each side attempts to write their own version of history.

During the crusades, we had Traditionalists” and “Pluralists”. In Ireland and Scotland , people were turned against each other by the hundreds of thousands by Rulers which eventually created my mother’s Scotch-Irish ancestry while on my father’s side of the family, (the Swedes) sided with anyone who would benefit them and they went to war and created carnage against everyone from the Norwegians to the French.

Then of course, we can’t ignore our treatment of the African Americans who were bought and sold as property and worked like the machines that eventually replaced them. This human rights atrocity divided our country so intensely that we chose to settle the rights of 3.6 million slaves by killing 650,000 people in war.

Today, we spend trillions killing hundreds of thousands by preemptive wars over oil while we allow babies in underdeveloped African countries to die of starvation by the millions as we get fatter and less self sufficient by each successive generation. We do this while we blame the poor for their poverty.

During the “discovery” of America and the “settlement” of the new world, western Europeans killed native Americans by untold numbers and stole a nation filled with nations while destroying their food supply and their culture by introducing whiskey and syphilis to their populations.

If we judge history objectively, there have been numerous holocausts.

The western Europeans may have had a more efficient killing machine than the Nazis. Western Europeans thought it was ok to kill the Indians because they were not followers of their monotheistic God so by extension and rationalization, they must be less human.

Two studies have been conducted that attempt to number the natives killed by the United States . The first of these was sponsored by the United States government, and while official does not stand up to scrutiny and is therefore discounted (generally); this estimate shows between 1 million to 4 million killed. The second study was not sponsored by the US Government but was done from independent researchers. This study estimated populations and population reductions using later census data. Two figures are given, both low and high, at: between 10 million and 114 million Indians killed as a direct result of US actions that can only be judged as crimes against humanity..