What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Preemptive whining on behalf of Muslim murderers--Does it work?

According to prosecutors, Faleh Almaleki has admitted that he deliberately killed his daughter by running her down with a Jeep Cherokee. Why? She "disgraced the family by not following traditional Iraqi or Muslim values."

He's been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. (The last seems sort of...odd. But I guess they wanted to get all the charges in there.)

So his court-appointed attorney decided to start whining in advance of the prosecutor's decision on whether to seek the death penalty. See, the county prosecutor is known to be a Christian. Wouldn't it be terribly unprofessional for the accused's attorney to bring that up? It sure seems so to me. But I guess if you're appointed a defense attorney in a Muslim honor killing, you are automatically endowed with extra chutzpah. Here was Attorney Little's preemptive strike:

Little requested that the office make public the process it uses to determine whether to seek capital punishment.

"An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Christian faith.

The prosecutor's office has, indeed, decided not to seek the death penalty.

I'm actually not going to say that I know that the preemptive whining worked. I imagine that the prosecutor often decides not to seek the death penalty. Heaven knows, it's hard enough to get the death penalty these days unless you have raped or tortured your victim before the murder. He merely ran her down with a car, so...So I'm not going to jump to conclusions as to the actual reasons for the decision not to seek the death penalty.

But this will undoubtedly be interpreted by the Muslim community as meaning that instantaneous and entirely unfounded complaining about bias pays, even when it's done on behalf of blatant murderers. And that is very, very disturbing. Next stop: Nidal Hasan tries it?

HT: Atlas Shrugs

Comments (17)

Perhaps the prosecutor was wrorried about "jury nullification"?


I don't know how it works in Arizona, but in a lot of states, the penalty is decided separately from the conviction, and by a jury. So he could have been convicted even if a jury wouldn't have granted the death penalty. Let me be clear: He _is_ being prosecuted for murder. The conviction itself had better not be "jury nullified." That would be truly terrible. It sounds like an open and shut case. No other suspects, that's for sure!

What an upside down world we live in.

Nothing unusual here, ugly but not unusual.
The lawyer knows which way the cultural and political wind blows. Islam, religion of peace, Christianity, theocrats, bible thumpers,and as our president said "clinging to their guns and religion", a sure entry in a future Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.

Preemptive intimidation, but it could blow up in his face before a jury of normal people, not everybody reads or takes seriously the NY Times or harbors a death wish.
Surprise, surprise.

If the prosecutors don't seek the death penalty, the jury can't impose it. But they can and (I assume) will find him guilty. He'd better be put away for good, that's all I can say, since he deserves to be pushing up daisies.

As I read the Arizona law, he can still receive natural life or life which is a minimum of 25 years. If the former, he is in for good, if the latter, he is 48, so he would be at least in his early 70s and parole can always be denied ( which should be the case, we would hope). Either way his life is over and he will have to cool his heels for quite a while before he gets his however many virgins..

The other charges constitute aggravating circumstances which will figure in when the sentence is figured out. Besides, put yourself in the place of the woman who was seriously injured. She also deserves recognition and justice.

Good point concerning the other woman. The thing is, if those other charges constitute aggravating circumstances, a preliminary statement by the prosecutor's office was that they could seek the d.p. That is to say, they could seek the d.p. if there were even one aggravating circumstance. This makes it look worse for them that they elected not to seek the d.p.

I read on Digg today that sexual misconduct in federal prisons is escalating in an alarming way. As much as I am normally outraged by prison rape, and try to not wish evil on others, if they don't execute him, part of me hopes that he spends the next 30 years being a play thing for a bunch of skinheads or a Latino gang like the Kings or MS13.

I actually don't support executing him or him getting raped. I think he should serve life in prison as our legal system is quite often a machine that spews out injustice. Giving it the power to end life is irresponsible based on what we've seen from it, no matter how much we may support the idea of the death penalty and its liberal use in cases of violent crime. Until such time as the legislatures will actually fundamentally rein in the police and prosecutors, as well as the judiciary, such men cannot be trusted with the power of life and death over the accused.

I was afraid this might turn into a discussion of the death penalty. I, like all of Christendom for umpty years, support the death penalty. I also, of course, oppose the abuse of prisoners you are describing and wish it on no one. I believe in justice, with which that has no connection. End of sub-thread.

One further thought on the topic. All we have are news reports, not the information the DA has to use in making his filing decisions. Given the circumstances, I could see possible arguments for lesser charges that at least a juror or two might buy if the stakes were high enough. In this case and until we get more information we should be careful about invoking PC reasons for the decision. (For the record, I tend to be unsympathetic to most "heat of passion" arguments and certainly would be so in this case - just being objective.)

"I could see possible arguments for lesser charges that at least a juror or two might buy..."

Has nothing to do with lesser charges. The charges just are what they are. Usually a murder conviction can carry various possible penalties, and someone convicted can be sentenced to the death penalty only if the prosecution has elected to seek the death penalty. The decision not to seek the death penalty has nothing to do with changing the charges. My own best non-PC theory is simply that they may think it would be hard to get the death penalty unless there are utterly disgusting extra crimes involved--multiple rape, torture of the victim, etc.

The use of the term "preemptive whining" wrt Muslim killers reminds me of Mark Steyn's great parodic headline:

"British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing"

I merely wished to convey my belief that, if the defense's behavior caused the prosecution to back away from capital punishment, then I say good for them.

I may not have been clear. We don't know the strength of the evidence for premeditation. A special circumstances filing raises the emotional stakes and all it takes is for the defense to get through to one juror. Beck v. Alabama prohibits juries from being restricted from considering lesser included offenses (second degree murder or manslaugther, for example) in capital cases.

I think there is a couple issues to be evaluated here. One is the obvious treatment of a violent criminal with kid's gloves because the prosecutor doesn't wish to be painted as being guilty of "Islamophobia". Our liberal, multicultural society is ghastly afraid of being accused of some sort of intolerance against non-white and\or non-Christian minorities. One has a hard time imagining a white Methodist being treated so leniently.

Of course, the other issue to be serious evaluated is why some like Faleh Almaleki was granted admission into our country in the first place. On what grounds was he given a visa? What steps are being taken to ensure that people like Almaleki are barred from entering our country and importing the barbaric practice of honor killings into the United States? (Lest we forget, it was only a year ago that "moderate" Muslim spokesman Muzzammil Hassan beheaded his wife in New York.) The immigration question is one that must continuously be raised when ever these stories present themselves.

Thanks for that info., Al. I didn't know that about the Beck case. I still believe this guy is going to be convicted of murder. As a staunch advocate of the death penalty, I just think it's a shame he isn't going to be executed, and I wish I could be more sure that this wasn't a bow to the preemptive strike by the lawyer.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.