Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaio
It can't be just me that feels uncomfortable about his trial.
I appreciate that he is going to be convicted for his part in 9/11 but what exactly is the point of the cockpit recordings/phone recordings etc ?
Are they trying to get a conviction or get more public support for actions in Iraq and probably Iran later ?
DDA explain please, ta
|
Right, if i'm going to be of any use to explaining what's going on I'm going to first of all set out some basic facts.
1) Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to 6 offences in April 2005.
2) Those 6 offences were all offences of conspiracy (that means 'working with') with the dead hyjackers in order to committ the september 11th offenses.
3) Having pleaded guilty he has already been convicted.
4) What is happening now is a hearing with a jury (i think the term 'trial' is misleading to you because a 'trial' is usually what happens when somebody pleads not guilty)
5) This hearing is to determine whether Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or face life imprisonment: it is a sentencing hearing.
Now if any of what i've said so far needs clarification just ask.
So in particular relation to showing the images and the playing of tapes, the argument runs like this:
Zacarias Moussaoui is guilty of conspiracy to cause september 11th. This hearing with a jury is specifically to determine how serious those offences (committed on septermber 11th) were and thus what the appropriate punishment (sentence is). Therefore when considering this question the jury should be supplied with evidence which indicates how serious (or how not serious) the offences which Zacarias Moussaoui committed were.
Clearly that has to be balanced with issues of prejudice. But it's not prejudice to show the jury accurate and truthful evidence.
For example: In a sentencing hearing for a stabbing. It wouldn't be prejudicial to show the jury pictures of the stab wound which the defendant caused. The jury need such evidence in order to determine the appropriate punishment.