OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Michael Fortier, the prosecution's star witness in the Oklahoma City bombing trials, will be freed this week after serving less than 11 years of a 12-year sentence. Survivors of the 1995 attack and relatives of the 168 victims received a one-page form letter from the Bureau of Prisons this week indicating Fortier's release date of Friday. "He's the luckiest man in the world," said Paul Heath, who was on the fifth floor of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building when the bomb exploded outside. "Fortier, by being willing to do a plea bargain, won the Powerball lottery of the justice system." As part of his deal with prosecutors, Fortier testified against bombing conspirators Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols at their federal trials and later at Nichols' state murder trial. He was sentenced to 12 years and ordered to pay $200,000 in fines. Fortier's sentence likely was shortened because of good behavior and for time served before his formal sentence in 1998, said Irven Box, an attorney who covered the trial as a legal analyst for KWTV in Oklahoma City. Yeah, sure, the US will torture, kill, and disfigure POW's, but yet somebody who commits a terrorist attack on american soil only gets 11 years after killing 168 people. I don't know, is it just me, or does this seem kind of off? Just a little bit maybe...
And you think it'd be any different if someone 'handed over' bin laden? Also, the people who made arrangements with the OK City players were not the same as those making arrangements wrt the WoT. As for the 11 years, no, I don't think it's sufficient. Suggests to me they didn't have much of a case without the guy though (depending on what the max and likely sentences would've been w/o bargaining).
Due to public out-cry, if he isn't assassinated by some nut-job, I'm sure he would get life if not close to it Though I would lean more towards the whole nut-job idea.
I meant if Jon al'Doe turned over bin Laden, and al'Doe was also "guilty" of terrorism, the gov't would give a more lenient sentence to al'Doe for testimony* against bin Laden. * Regardless of how unreliable "paid" testimony is.
Ah, yes, guess I just didn't understand what you had written, sorry! Anyway, yeah I agree fully. The crime doesn't change, but yet because the person who did the crime wants to talk to the police, they get a lighter sentence? Makes my head spin.
No worries, i'm sure he'll be dead a few weeks after he gets out. Thats probably 100+ different families with atleast a few angry fathers...
One would hope that that doesn't happen though. He's served his time, and justice has been served. He is a free man, with no wrongdoings that can be held against him.
But if the justice system fails the mass populace (whom just happen to be the exact reason it exists) does not agree with the judgment, and it just happens that one of the people decides to formulate some more popular justice, then who are we to complain? Obviously the guy was guilty, he admitted to it, and justice was not served (as per popular opinion, which is how a democracy should work). Sometimes law doesn't cover reality
Not to mention he KILLED 168 people, injured countless others. People get life sentences for murdering ONE person...
You should note that the justice system is not democratic, because people are stupid emotional creatures, you need people with the mental capacity to suspend their emotions while they rationally analyse a situation. In this case, one person has lessened their sentence, by helping insure someone worse gets imprisoned/killed(by the state). The state doesn't do these deals just for kicks and giggles, they do them to make sure they have all the information possible, and in order to convict the more dangerous people. What would you rather, a thief doing 2 years instead of 5, or a murderer out on the streets? Thats why deals like this are mostly made.
They had more information but they obscured the truth. They made a deal so they could claim a victory after the Waco mess.
Justice has been done if this guy walks out of prison, gets an honest job or finds an honest place in the world and lives the rest of his natural life with the knowledge that he did something terrible and that he has paid the price and now he must attempt to repay society by showing that a corrective and rehabilitating justice system works. Of course having spent time in a US prison its more likely he is now addicted to hard drugs, has many friends and enemies in unsavoury circles and spends the rest of his life scrapping through life with the lowest in society, but thats what you get for not putting enough money into prisons.
Whether his sentence was long enough or not I just hope he lives the rest of his life in pain knowing that his disgusting behaviour caused the death of all the lives of those people. He could be acting normally but I bet you he has all kind of mental problems, how can someone possibly live their life knowing that they killed all these people, you must have some kind of problem in your mind..
I'm not so sure, I mean, we all live knowing lots of the clothes we buy are from sweatshops, that lots of the meat we eat is from animals that suffered. We commit all sorts of wrongs on a daily basis and rationalise it away, why is this any different? Choosing to value human life lowly is a fairly valid point of view in my opinion.
Sadly, oh so true. This guy got a lighter sentence not just due to testimony but because at the end of the day, he wasn't the one who parked the van. The final decision was not on his head. He'll live the rest of his life knowing he HELPED make it happen, but he didn't park that van... Justice *would* be best served by him walking out after thinking about that for 11 years, and realizing his legal debt to society may be done, but his personal debt will be worked off for the rest of his life, and maybe he should consider joining the peace corps or the clergy of something and committing himself to helping people.
I've seen quite a few cases, not all murder/homicide, where plea-bargaining has resulted in a light sentence. Makes me wonder what's going on. If the prosecution have such a weak case that they need to plea-bargain, why not plead "not guilty" and take your chance? Wikipedia; Or is it an adequate case but it saves time and public money? Not a good reason IMHO. My thoughts, too.
