NRP faction leader Sha\'ul Yahalom has submitted a personal request for a pardon for Margalit Har-Shefi. Yahalom asked President Moshe Katzav and Justice Minister Meir Shetreet to release her from prison \"even before the Passover holiday begins [this Saturday night], thus ending this personal and public travesty of justice.\" Yahalom thus joins a long line of other public figures making the same call. He specifically quoted former Supreme Court Justice Tzvi Tal [brother of the late Shlomo Tal, editor of Siddur Rinat Yisrael], who wrote a stinging attack on the Supreme Court\'s upholding of Har-Shefi\'s conviction of \"not preventing the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin.\" Margalit, who has consistently maintained that she never believed that Yigal Amir would attempt to carry out his threats, began serving her nine-month sentence eleven days ago.
Tal wrote, \"It appears to me that the Supreme Court erred by convicting Margalit… The Court did not deal at all with the question [of criminal intent]. If it had done so, I am of the opinion that it would have concluded that from the start there was no reason to bring her to trial…\"
Tal also noted that the crime of which she was convicted - not reporting or preventing a crime - is \"itself problematic; the Court ruling states as much, and many feel that it should not even be on our law books. Certainly it should not be broadly interpreted as including the non-purposeful failure to report a crime. The correct interpretation should be that only one who purposely did nothing - i.e., he wished the crime to be committed, or, at worst, was impartial to it - should be convicted. Margalit Har-Shefi, as the Court\'s ruling states, was not only not in favor of the killing, but she tried to argue with Yigal Amir and convince him that Rabin [should not be killed]... It appears that there is no element at all of criminal intent.\"
The judges ruled that Margalit \"did not employ all reasonable means\" to prevent the crime, noting that in general, this would involve \"reporting to the security forces responsible for law and order.\" Judge Tal objects: \"Yes, that is definitely a \'reasonable means\' - but not the only one. Her attempt to convince Amir not to carry out his plans is also a reasonable way. True, it is not always effective, but neither is reporting to the police always effective. How many times do we read about family murder threats that were not prevented by reporting them to the police? Especially in this case, where we know that the \'security forces\' [already] knew about Amir\'s intentions!... A constant refrain in the ruling is that Margalit tried to convince Amir - is it possible to say that she did not \'reasonably\' try to prevent the crime?\"
Judge Tal writes that the Court acknowledged that the only way to know what a person is thinking is to observe his actions. Thus, the Court brought several examples that \"proved\" that Margalit in fact \"knew\" that Amir was serious about his threats. For instance, Margalit knew that Amir always walked around with a gun, that he had tried twice before to murder Rabin but did not succeed, and more. Judge Tal again objects: \"These [proofs] are inconclusive. She only knew about his previous attempts because he told her - but she thought that he was merely boasting! And the fact that he always walked around with a gun - this proves the opposite! If she knew that he only took a gun when he went out on a \'mission\' - OK. But if someone always walks around with a gun, how does this prove that he had specific intentions to murder Rabin?...\" After bringing two other such examples, Judge Tal concludes, \"The Court is charged with acquitting a defendant if the circumstantial evidence against him is not conclusive.\"
Judge Tal concludes, \"The maximum punishment for this crime is two years in prison. Yet Margalit Har-Shefi was given the full sentence - nine months of actual prison time, and the rest as a suspended sentence... [The reduction was given because of] her young age, her clean past... but in my opinion, the judges did not emphasize the fact that she did not want the crime to be committed and that she attempted to prevent it via argumentation. In short: In my opinion, the Court should have acquitted her. But even given a conviction, the opinion of Judge Tirkel [one of the three Supreme Court judges deciding the case] should have been accepted to sentence her only to six months of public service.\"
Har-Shefi\'s family is still asking that faxes be sent to Justice Minister Shetreet ((+972-2) 628-5438) and President Katzav ((+972-2) 561-1033).
Tal wrote, \"It appears to me that the Supreme Court erred by convicting Margalit… The Court did not deal at all with the question [of criminal intent]. If it had done so, I am of the opinion that it would have concluded that from the start there was no reason to bring her to trial…\"
Tal also noted that the crime of which she was convicted - not reporting or preventing a crime - is \"itself problematic; the Court ruling states as much, and many feel that it should not even be on our law books. Certainly it should not be broadly interpreted as including the non-purposeful failure to report a crime. The correct interpretation should be that only one who purposely did nothing - i.e., he wished the crime to be committed, or, at worst, was impartial to it - should be convicted. Margalit Har-Shefi, as the Court\'s ruling states, was not only not in favor of the killing, but she tried to argue with Yigal Amir and convince him that Rabin [should not be killed]... It appears that there is no element at all of criminal intent.\"
The judges ruled that Margalit \"did not employ all reasonable means\" to prevent the crime, noting that in general, this would involve \"reporting to the security forces responsible for law and order.\" Judge Tal objects: \"Yes, that is definitely a \'reasonable means\' - but not the only one. Her attempt to convince Amir not to carry out his plans is also a reasonable way. True, it is not always effective, but neither is reporting to the police always effective. How many times do we read about family murder threats that were not prevented by reporting them to the police? Especially in this case, where we know that the \'security forces\' [already] knew about Amir\'s intentions!... A constant refrain in the ruling is that Margalit tried to convince Amir - is it possible to say that she did not \'reasonably\' try to prevent the crime?\"
Judge Tal writes that the Court acknowledged that the only way to know what a person is thinking is to observe his actions. Thus, the Court brought several examples that \"proved\" that Margalit in fact \"knew\" that Amir was serious about his threats. For instance, Margalit knew that Amir always walked around with a gun, that he had tried twice before to murder Rabin but did not succeed, and more. Judge Tal again objects: \"These [proofs] are inconclusive. She only knew about his previous attempts because he told her - but she thought that he was merely boasting! And the fact that he always walked around with a gun - this proves the opposite! If she knew that he only took a gun when he went out on a \'mission\' - OK. But if someone always walks around with a gun, how does this prove that he had specific intentions to murder Rabin?...\" After bringing two other such examples, Judge Tal concludes, \"The Court is charged with acquitting a defendant if the circumstantial evidence against him is not conclusive.\"
Judge Tal concludes, \"The maximum punishment for this crime is two years in prison. Yet Margalit Har-Shefi was given the full sentence - nine months of actual prison time, and the rest as a suspended sentence... [The reduction was given because of] her young age, her clean past... but in my opinion, the judges did not emphasize the fact that she did not want the crime to be committed and that she attempted to prevent it via argumentation. In short: In my opinion, the Court should have acquitted her. But even given a conviction, the opinion of Judge Tirkel [one of the three Supreme Court judges deciding the case] should have been accepted to sentence her only to six months of public service.\"
Har-Shefi\'s family is still asking that faxes be sent to Justice Minister Shetreet ((+972-2) 628-5438) and President Katzav ((+972-2) 561-1033).