Everyone is entitled to justice. No one is above the law and any criminal is subject to judgment for justice to be served. The verdict which is given to the former president of Egypt Hosni Mubarak accuses him of being a dictator during his service as the president and in the military service for over twenty years (Stork, 2012). Other allegations are that he is responsible for the death of the demonstrators during the revolution, corruption and that he ruled Egypt with an iron hand exposing the people to extreme poverty, shanty houses and dirty water for drinking. He was sentenced to a life imprisonment after the judge’s ruling in Cairo. However the verdict various controversies, thousands of demonstrators feel that the penalty is not harsh enough and that he deserved more than that (Scott, 2012).
The relevance of this discussion is to highlight the importance of democracy and justice and show how a verdict can affect the lives of people either positively or negatively. The impact of the verdict however stirred different reactions among people, it is therefore important to discuss the topic for better analysis and enable the criminal justice department to make a more informed decision concerning similar matters in future (Stork, 2012).
The verdict that is given to the former president serves him right because justice is executed, regardless of his position and power. The allegation that he was a dictator and he used his power to harass his subjects is very strong and deserves to be punished. More so, leading the nation through a period of extreme poverty and poor living standards is not something that should be taken for granted and ignored. Facilitating the killing of over 850 demonstrators is immoral and a crime that is only punishable by death (Slackman, 2012). A life sentence as opposed to a death penalty is a good verdict since he will have to serve his sentence and pay for his crimes. This is a better punishment as opposed to a death penalty. I therefore approve of the verdict since he committed a crime and should be punished accordingly.
On the other hand, it is not good for the nation’s president to be publicly sentenced. It portrays the nation as corrupt and their leaders incompetent. Despite having his weaknesses, he was able to serve the nation for more than twenty years as their president and he also headed the military service, this is a sign of dedication to his country, he served it for a long period of time. To add on this, he is in bad shape due to his poor health, in this case, he is not able to serve his full sentence in prison. His health is at stake and most of the time he is the prison’s hospital. This makes a life sentence not suitable for him due to his old age and illness (Daily Mail, 2012).
In conclusion, the former president of Egypt committed several crimes which are serious and are legible for a heavier penalty such as a death penalty as opposed to a life sentence. The issue about his verdict has raised controversies as the protestors feel that he should have been given a tougher punishment than the one he is serving to pay for the crimes he committed.
References
Daily M. (2012). Close to Death His Wife by Side. Mail Online. Web.
Scott, S. (2012). Mubarak Convicted in Charges of Protestors’ death. Weekend Edition Saturday. Web.
Slackman, M. (2012). Hosni Mubarak. The New York Times. Web.
Stork, J. (2012). What Mubarak’s Trial can’t tell us? The Guardian. Web.