The Shafia murders Essay

The Shafia Killings

The Shafia killings involved Canadian residents of the same Afghani family. Mohammad Shafia lived in a polygamous family where he first wed an infertile woman before moving on to another woman with whom he had three daughters and one boy. (Townsend, 2009). The three Shafia sisters and the first wife perished in a drowning accident involving a vehicle that was found submerged. The killing of their relatives was a crime that Mohammad Shafia, his second wife, and their son were accused of committing. (Townsend, 2009). The trial of the crime attracted widespread media attention since it involved Canadians of Afghan origin and there was debate whether it was correct to refer to the murders as honor killings with regards to the Afghan traditions or utterly domestic violence as per the Canadian laws (Dalton, 2012). Upon completion of the case, a verdict of guilty was delivered by a jury and, the accused sentenced to life in prison (Shafia Family vs. Canada).

Facts of the Case

The Shafia murders took place on June 30th, 2009 in Kingston Ontario, Canada (Shafia Family vs. Canada).Three teenage sisters Geeti, 13, Sahar, 17 and Zainab 19 along with their 50-year-old stepmother and first wife of Mohammad Shafia, Rona Amir Mohammed died from drowning inside a family car, and their bodies discovered in the Kingston Mills Locks of Rideau Canal. On July 23rd, 2009, 58-year-old Mohammad Shafia, his second wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya, aged 41 and their son Hamed Shafia were arrested and charged with first-degree murder of the four relatives (DiManno & Chung, 2012). The trial took place in Ontario Superior Court, and after two and a half years of hearings, the jury deliberated for 15 hours and found all three accused guilty of the charges. The judge cited the Criminal Code of Canada which serves offenders charged, in this case, Mohammad Shafia, Tooba Mohammad Yahya and Hammed Shafia, with first-degree murder with a mandatory imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years for each offender (Shafia Family vs. Canada). Unsuccessful appeals for the young Hamed Shafia followed because he was 17 years old at the time of arrest in 2009 (Shafia Family vs. Canada).

Evidence

First, the prosecution counsel contended that the car was pushed deliberately into the water by another family car (DiManno & Chung, 2012). All theories of a tragic car accident were dismissed by controversial issues, for instance, the position of the car was too shallow for it to be an accident and none of the contents of the car were found floating on the dock (DiManno & Chung, 2012). Second, Rona Amir kept a diary in which she wrote of the hostilities in the family providing more cause for motive. Third, a laptop owned by Hamed had questionable searches in the days leading to the murders. For example, police found evidence of searches on Google map on the site where the killings occurred. Hamed had also searched topic like “facts and commentaries of murders” as well “where to commit murder” all of which provided actionable evidence according to the prosecution (DiManno & Chung, 2012). Other modes of evidence were expert analysis, wire taps, pathologists and crime scene analysis.

Offense, Intent, and Parties to the Offence

The physical offense of the crime was a family conspiracy to deliberately kill the three Shafia sisters and Rona Amir through a planned car wreck leading to drowning (DiManno & Chung, 2012). The intention of the murder was to protect the Shafia family from the embarrassment that came from the defiance of the sisters from following Islamic traditions of wearing hijabs and acting normally. According to DiManno & Chung (2012), the honor killing in the name of salvaging a family reputation formed the criminal mind of the case. The three accused formed the parties to the offense.

Defense Arguments

During the hearings, the defense argued that, first, there was no sufficient evidence to disproof that the drowning was not an accident (Muise, 2012). Second, Tooba, who defended herself on the stand, discredited the diary part of the evidence alleging a hostile household and, instead portraying the family as liberal with freedom of choice, creating reasonable doubt (Muise, 2012). The key to the defense was the expert analysis to discredit the events leading to the murder, for instance, Zainab who was driving did not have a driver’s license. The conflict of honor killings versus Criminal act could have formed a sufficient base of defense in the name of freedom of culture (Shafia Family vs. Canada).

Conclusion

The Shafia murder trial and convictions set precedence for future cases involving conflict between the law and accepted practices (Tooley, 2012). No further appeals have occurred since the defense counsel failed in 2012 and, the media hype surrounding the case will trigger responses on any activity involving the murders in the future.

References

Dalton, M. “Key players in Shafia trial react to verdict.” Canada: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. January 29, 2012. Web. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

DiManno, R & Chung, A. (2012) “Inside the Shafia Murder Trial.” The University of Washington Library. Web.

Muise, M. ”Was it an Honor Killing or just Plain Murder?” The Montreal Gazette. January 2012. Web. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Shafia Family vs. Canada. ”An act of representing the Criminal Law” Criminal Code of Canada Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended.

Townsend, M. ”A Timeline of the Kingston Canal Deaths.“ Windsor Star. July 24, 2009. Web Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Tooley, C. (2012). ”Opinion on the Shafia Trial.” Queens University Journal. Web. [www.queensjournal.ca/story/2012-01-27/opinions/law-students-take-shafia-trial/].