Note: I know it's not a big standard here to include adjustments to headlines like this, but I felt the context was too important to leave out, especially given how even with these adjustments the...
Note: I know it's not a big standard here to include adjustments to headlines like this, but I felt the context was too important to leave out, especially given how even with these adjustments the headline makes this sound significantly more tame than it actually is due to the "lethal attacks" bit.1 So long as the grave seriousness of this law is maintained, I'm perfectly fine with title changes; that same seriousness might warrant discussion first, but the folks here who change titles are good people who I trust the judgement of, so I'm not worried.
Anyways, speaking of context, here's some snippets from the article:
JERUSALEM, March 30 (Reuters) - Israel's parliament passed a law on Monday making the death penalty a default sentence for Palestinians convicted in military courts of deadly attacks, fulfilling a pledge by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right allies.
The legislation has drawn international criticism of Israel, which is already under scrutiny for increasing violence by Jewish settlers against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
The measure includes provisions requiring an execution by hanging within 90 days of sentencing, with some allowance for a delay but no right to clemency and the option of imposing a life imprisonment sentence instead of capital punishment.
[...]
Military courts in the West Bank can already impose a death sentence on Palestinian convicts but have never done so.
The measure was promoted by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right national security minister who has worn noose-shaped lapel pins in the run-up to the vote.
[...]
The original bill had mandated the death sentence for non-Israeli citizens convicted in West Bank military courts of deadly terrorist acts. The revised legislation includes the option of life imprisonment.
In Israel's civilian courts, the new legislation mandates either life imprisonment or the death penalty for anyone convicted of "deliberately causing the death of a person with the intent of ending Israel's existence."
[...]
Israeli rights group B'Tselem says that military courts in the West Bank, where Palestinians are tried for alleged crimes, have a 96% conviction rate and have a history of extracting confessions through torture.
Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of racist incitement against Arabs and support for the Kach group on the Israeli and U.S. terrorism blacklists, has overseen an overhaul of prisons that has led to allegations of abuse of Palestinian prisoners.
He made capital punishment for Palestinian militants a main pledge in his 2022 election campaign and since taking office has publicly backed some Israeli soldiers being probed for suspected excessive force against Palestinians. The next national election is due in October 2026.
1. Specifically, the "lethal attacks" part makes it sound less unreasonable, since it makes it sound like it'd only be meted out for severe crimes. But when you add the context above of a 96% conviction rate, plus a military court, plus allegations of confessions obtained via torture... it's, er, not so great.
Thank you for adding context to the title, I think that was very reasonable. However, I'm having trouble understanding the "default" wording. By default, does that mean that the court has no...
Thank you for adding context to the title, I think that was very reasonable.
However, I'm having trouble understanding the "default" wording. By default, does that mean that the court has no flexibility to change the sentence even if it wanted to?
That's how I understand it. It's a mandatory sentence. But not a legal expert. Edit: per the revisions cited below (or above if that changes) there's now an option for a judge to reduce to life...
That's how I understand it. It's a mandatory sentence. But not a legal expert.
Edit: per the revisions cited below (or above if that changes) there's now an option for a judge to reduce to life imprisonment
I don't think so, but obviously I'm reading the same article you are so I could be misinterpreting: I'm interpreting this as saying there are circumstances under which judges are allowed to...
I don't think so, but obviously I'm reading the same article you are so I could be misinterpreting:
The original bill had mandated the death sentence for non-Israeli citizens convicted in West Bank military courts of deadly terrorist acts. The revised legislation includes the option of life imprisonment.
I'm interpreting this as saying there are circumstances under which judges are allowed to downgrade the sentence to life imprisonment, but if those conditions are not met, they must default to a death sentence.
Yeah, it's not ideal. I was trying to keep it succinct and keep changes to a minimum, and I wasn't sure of a better way to bring it up in the title with those restrictions. @smores' reply above is...
Yeah, it's not ideal. I was trying to keep it succinct and keep changes to a minimum, and I wasn't sure of a better way to bring it up in the title with those restrictions.
@smores' reply above is correct insofar as I'm aware; it's death penalty as the default, with an option for life imprisonment instead if the court should so choose.
An extremely sad turn of events. One of the greatest (recent) atrocities to happen to one group of people, set to repeat those same atrocities to others.
An extremely sad turn of events. One of the greatest (recent) atrocities to happen to one group of people, set to repeat those same atrocities to others.
Ah, so I guess that excludes the West Bank settlers that participate in pogroms, or the IDF soldiers who starve and torture teenaged Palestinian detainees to death. Phew, that was almost a close one.
In Israel's civilian courts, the new legislation mandates either life imprisonment or the death penalty for anyone convicted of "deliberately causing the death of a person with the intent of ending Israel's existence."
Ah, so I guess that excludes the West Bank settlers that participate in pogroms, or the IDF soldiers who starve and torture teenaged Palestinian detainees to death. Phew, that was almost a close one.
Lack of such prosecutions does appear to be an issue: Israel has not prosecuted its citizens for killing Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank since the start of this decade, a Guardian...
Lack of such prosecutions does appear to be an issue:
From the article: So, looks like it could theoretically apply more broadly. But given the officials behind it, their attitude about the whole thing, and just context in general I find it very...
From the article:
The law would only apply to Israelis convicted of murder whose attacks aimed at "ending Israel's existence", meaning it would mete out the death penalty for Palestinians but not for Jewish Israelis who committed similar crimes, critics say.
So, looks like it could theoretically apply more broadly. But given the officials behind it, their attitude about the whole thing, and just context in general I find it very unlikely that it would be applied to anyone besides Palestinians or those supporting them, regardless of the crime.
Note: I know it's not a big standard here to include adjustments to headlines like this, but I felt the context was too important to leave out, especially given how even with these adjustments the headline makes this sound significantly more tame than it actually is due to the "lethal attacks" bit.1 So long as the grave seriousness of this law is maintained, I'm perfectly fine with title changes; that same seriousness might warrant discussion first, but the folks here who change titles are good people who I trust the judgement of, so I'm not worried.
Anyways, speaking of context, here's some snippets from the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
1. Specifically, the "lethal attacks" part makes it sound less unreasonable, since it makes it sound like it'd only be meted out for severe crimes. But when you add the context above of a 96% conviction rate, plus a military court, plus allegations of confessions obtained via torture... it's, er, not so great.
Thank you for adding context to the title, I think that was very reasonable.
However, I'm having trouble understanding the "default" wording. By default, does that mean that the court has no flexibility to change the sentence even if it wanted to?
That's how I understand it. It's a mandatory sentence. But not a legal expert.
Edit: per the revisions cited below (or above if that changes) there's now an option for a judge to reduce to life imprisonment
I don't think so, but obviously I'm reading the same article you are so I could be misinterpreting:
I'm interpreting this as saying there are circumstances under which judges are allowed to downgrade the sentence to life imprisonment, but if those conditions are not met, they must default to a death sentence.
Yeah, it's not ideal. I was trying to keep it succinct and keep changes to a minimum, and I wasn't sure of a better way to bring it up in the title with those restrictions.
@smores' reply above is correct insofar as I'm aware; it's death penalty as the default, with an option for life imprisonment instead if the court should so choose.
An extremely sad turn of events. One of the greatest (recent) atrocities to happen to one group of people, set to repeat those same atrocities to others.
Ah, so I guess that excludes the West Bank settlers that participate in pogroms, or the IDF soldiers who starve and torture teenaged Palestinian detainees to death. Phew, that was almost a close one.
Lack of such prosecutions does appear to be an issue:
Israel has not prosecuted its citizens for killing Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank since the start of this decade, a Guardian analysis of legal data and public records show, creating impunity for a campaign of violence.
Does the bill still apply only to "non-Israeli citizens," as well?
From the article:
So, looks like it could theoretically apply more broadly. But given the officials behind it, their attitude about the whole thing, and just context in general I find it very unlikely that it would be applied to anyone besides Palestinians or those supporting them, regardless of the crime.