Something strange is happening in our courts. Murder indictments are repeatedly
reduced to manslaughter charges, no matter how aggravated the circumstances of
crimes that claimed innocent lives. Concomitantly, the sentences too rarely seem
to fit the crime.
Anyone with even cursory familiarity with the system
realizes that justice and fairness are by no means identical with legal
strictures. Yet a wise judiciary strives to bridge the gap.
however, seem bent on accentuating their reputation for supercilious
insensitivity, and not always because the dry letter of the law leaves them no
A case in point is that of 51-year-old George Sa’ado, who
was shot to death while walking his dog in Ramle last year. Incredibly, the
court recently saw fit to rubberstamp a plea bargain that would leave the chief
defendant with a 12-year sentence for manslaughter. With time off for good
behavior, he’d be out in eight years.
But was this manslaughter? Sa’ado
was strolling near Ramle’s Jua’arish neighborhood.
Eight Arab teens
accosted him, and shouted anti- Jewish slurs and calls to wreak vengeance for
the IDF operations against Gaza.
Sa’ado ignored them. With admitted
deliberation they waited for him when he turned back to head home, this time
armed with a gun. They shot him and then callously fired twice more – to make
sure he was dead and to kill the dog.
Does this sound like a crime
committed without forethought and malice? The prosecution initially charged the
youth accused of pulling the trigger with murder. But somewhere down the line
this was watered down to manslaughter.
To be sure, plea bargains
occasionally do serve a purpose.
They make sense whenever police have a
hard time proving their case against someone they are convinced is guilty.
Moreover, in sexual assault cases, it may be argued that sparing the victim the
ordeal of reliving the torment can supersede tougher punishment (although
testimony may be taken by video rather than in front of the
There are, additionally, cases in which police are loath to
betray sources or expose informants or witnesses.
Last but not least,
regrettably, is bureaucratic impetus. If every case in the justice system were
tried, it is maintained, the courts would be so overloaded that they would
effectively be shut down. Plea bargaining allows prosecutors to obtain guilty
pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial.
Our courts are indeed
hopelessly bogged down, but the Sa’ado case is so egregious that speeding up
processes and saving costs are intolerable excuses.
faced no insurmountable difficulties to make the charges stick. They were backed
up by surveillance cameras, the shooter’s confession and the testimonies of his
accomplices. Issues such as protecting victims or witnesses were not remotely
This sordid episode leaves us with two disconcerting questions:
Why did the prosecution opt for a plea bargain and why did the court accept it?
This is distressingly reminiscent of the Arik Karp case.
Jaljulya ruffians, convicted of the unprovoked beating to death of Arik Karp on
Tel Aviv’s Beach Promenade in August 2009 (in front of his horrified wife and
daughter) were sent up for 26 years each – but not for murder. With time off,
they will end up doing less than 18 years. In their case, too, the court opted
for manslaughter charges because the perpetrators might not have expected their
sadistic assault to produce a lethal result.
The juvenile delinquent who
in 2006 rang attorney Anat Pliner’s doorbell in Ramat Hasharon, demanded money
and proceeded to plunge a commando knife into her abdomen, right in front of her
two young children, and who then eluded capture for years, was sentenced to only
18 years. This means that the time served could easily be
Mind-boggling plea bargains affect the safety of us all and chip away
at our trust in the system. Justice not only has to be done; it has to be seen
to be done for the public to maintain faith in its functioning. The only remedy,
perhaps, is for the Knesset to enact mandatory sentencing legislation.
Think others should know about this? Please share