At the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Judge Richard Lussick today sentenced the former Liberian president Charles Taylor to 50 years' imprisonment for aiding and abetting what he termed ''some of the most heinous crimes in human history''.
The crimes were committed in the course of the savage civil war in Sierra Leone and were, indeed, offences against humanity of a brutal and disgusting nature.
The judge said they occurred over a five-year period when victims' limbs were cut from their bodies and the bellies of pregnant women were slashed open to settle bets over the gender of unborn children.
Unlike Taytor, who has apparently never been in Sierra Leone, I have visited the so-called ''amp camp'' in the capital Freetown and seen something of the lasting human impact of that conflict. The sight of so many people who had suffered forced amputation will remain with me for ever.
I also came across ample evidence that children had been kidnapped and drugged and either used as slaves or forced to kill, or both. The footage in the clip above shows a youth's summary and primitive execution.
So if Taylor is guilty, and he has ample opportunity to appeal, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. What none of the rest of us deserve is to have to read about grown men and women, trained lawyers every one including the judge, solemnly dissussing the competing merits of a 50-year and, as the prosecution demanded, 80-year
sentence.
Signing in as Kingshirker - long story - I left this comment at the BBC website:
No brief for Taylor. But can anyone explain how intelligent lawyers/judges can debate whether 50 or 80 years is appropriate for a man of 64? Both amount to whole life terms. Why not just make it life imprisonment, no parole? We expect this babyish approach to sentencing in the US but the Taylor trial took place in Europe, which should be above the gimmickry of tabloid justice.
One other reader picked up on the point and agreed. And elsewhere at the Beeb, we actually find the answer.
Morris Anyah, defence counsel, told BBC Newshour, that the rules of the court ''prohibit expressly the imposition of a life sentence".
Since jailing people for life for crimes that in less civilised societies bring the death penalty, I would dearly like to know why that should be the case ... perhaps Mr Anyah or Judge Lussick will enlighten us.
Recent Comments