It goes without saying that the legal process can be beneficial to some, Michael Fortier, and certain death to others, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui. I, for one, have no idea exactly what role, if any, Moussaoui had in the 9-11 attacks. By using his right to plead guilty, the public has been denied the ability to see the government's case in a court of law. Now a jury has decided that he is a candidate for death, primarily it seems based on Moussaoui's own testimony. Is he the 20th hijacker, as the government has always called him, or is he a somewhat delusional person who may have been part of an original plan to fly planes into buildings? As it stands now, I have no way of knowing any of this.
But Michael Fortier is a free man after 12 years in prison for his testimony against Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Muir Building. One of the reasons that Moussaoui can be executed is that he didn't give information up about a terrorist act and at least one person died as a result of his inaction. Michael Fortier and his wife Lori Fortier actively worked with Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Muir building. He had ample opportunity to alert anyone of the plan and could have saved many lives including many children. He didn't, but he works with the prosecutors and gets a reduced sentence and is now free. The Fortier's were guilty as sin. Lori Fortier was never charged with any crime and never served any prison time. She got complete immunity. Moussaoui is at the most; maybe, probably, not al all, or somewhat guilty of something; Whatever that something might be.
I admit we live in a fearful time, but does this country really want to execute this man when it is unclear what he actually is guilty of? Will the judge show courage in the face of certain criticism by not imposing the death sentence? Don't count on it.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/conspirators.html