Condemnations were quick and direct when a Libyan court approved a death penalty sentence for the son of deposed dictator Muammar Gaddafi and eight others for war crimes, including murder.
Reasonable people can fairly disagree about the use of death sentences in criminal justice proceedings. Some nations and international organizations don't approve of or use them, but others do -- including the United States. And death penalty opposition is at least partly responsible for some of the criticism surrounding the Libyan verdict. That's to be expected.
However anyone feels about these specific verdicts, Libyans have earned the right to see their tormentors brought to justice. And the work of Libyan courts in these cases should be commended -- or at least respected.
These Libyan verdicts give some closure to dark times and evil actions.
Those protesting the loudest didn't have to witness and live through the crimes. The Libyans who did replay in their minds images of public hangings, mass executions and even mass burnings of those who opposed Gaddafi. For 42 years, Libyans lived in a large, national corrections camp where the best ways to survive were to become a guard of the state or remain absolutely quiet no matter what humiliation and injustice was dispensed.
As a result, the verdicts and sentences were welcomed by many Libyans who lived through the horrific criminal actions of the newly convicted. Welcomed, not celebrated.
As a resident of greater Boston, the feelings in Libya remind me of local sentiment regarding the death penalty verdicts of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the convicted Boston Marathon bomber. Like those, these Libyan verdicts give some closure to dark times and evil actions.
Yet critics of the Libyan verdicts question the Libyan court system. That may be partly fair. Today's criminal justice system in Libya is not perfect. Indeed, few justice systems anywhere in the world are. Even the American system is under heavy criticism for long mandatory sentences of non-violent offenders and, yes, for our use of the death penalty.
Few things are perfect in Libya these days. The nation is divided by armed conflict between two governments, under threat and siege by the Islamic State and under diplomatic pressure by the United States and others to approve a peace plan which few Libyans actually support.
For 42 years, Libyans lived in a large, national corrections camp where the best ways to survive were to become a guard of the state or remain absolutely quiet no matter what humiliation and injustice was dispensed.
Expecting judicial purity and perfection under these circumstances is too much. We should not lower the bar for Libya, but consideration should be afforded to any nation undergoing this level of upheaval.
Even under these circumstances, the Libyan trials were "open to the public" and spanned more than two years. Almost 4,000 pages of documented evidence were introduced. The accused were represented by lawyers and afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. In fact, four of the 37 original defendants were acquitted in the trials. Nine were sentenced to death and the others received jail sentences.
Attorney Ahmed Nashad who represented Mr. Senussi and Abuzaid Dorda, both of whom received recent death penalty sentences, said in a televised interview, "The trial was not politicized and was conducted in a normal and professional manner. The court was very accommodating to our needs. I am able to say that the trial was well conducted overall."
For a country still recovering from a bloody revolution and 42 years of brutal repression of all human rights, the trials were anything but speedy "revolutionary justice" -- as some have contended. Revolutionary justice is quick and effective at the expense of fairness and transparency. This two year trial in the midst of civil war was anything but quick or secretive.
Many forget that even America, during its revolution, executed accused spies and war criminals under less than ideal judicial circumstances. In contrast, Libyans held back the understandable demands for swift extrajudicial retribution and opted instead to give a fledgling judicial system a chance. But that was not good enough for those who have been quick to condemn the entire Libyan justice system.
Libyan courts should be encouraged and supported while they are being improved and strengthened. That's the kind of leadership Libyans need from those who claim to support democracy and the rule of laws.
