Guilty

[gekkogecko]

For those of you who don't know, I live in the county near DC where the sniper shootings started last year. Four people were shot and killed in a single day before the terrorist(s) involved took their special brand of hatred to a wider area.

John Allen Muhammed was found guilty on all counts earlier today: two counts of murder, 1 of attempted extortion in connection with a terrorist act, and 1 count of using a firearm in the comission of a felony.

Now the jury must deliberate to decide what sentence should be handed down by the judge.

For my part, and on the part of many people around here, I do hope he gets the death penalty. Serial murder and/or mass murder are circumstances which truly merit the ultimate penalty.

[Scorpious]

I'd prefer that they lock him up and throw away the key but since they can't do that "cruel and unusual punishment", I go for frying him but that too is frowned on nowadays so let him slip off to sleep and go away.

[jennaflower]

agreed...... sadly tho... such a finding won't bring those victims back... nor will it be carried out quickly...

[PantyFanatic]

Maybe just send a note to the parents of the victims with a time and drop him off in an alley.:rolleyes:

[Belial]

Lock him up until he's rehabilitated, exhonorated, or dead.

[Nightstick26]

He'll get the death penalty, society doesn't want anything less, even though is is a hell of a lot cheaper to house him til he dies naturally.

My choice would be to shoot anyone convicted of multiple murders right in the head on the courthouse steps.

then again, I guess I'd be out of a job if we did that! LOL

[Sharni]

Death...no question!

[dancingrugger]

I'd like to see him die, eye for an eye, just wish he had more than one life we could take from him. like gekkogecko i was very close to many of the shootings. I dunno if anyone heard of the pentagon theory about how they chose the sites (all the ones in the Michael's crafts parking lots formed a star) but based on that theory the shopping center that i work at was pointed out as the next target ... at any rate regardless of where it happened its senseless and Muhammed should be punished along w/Malvo (sp?)

[Belial]

If we take an "eye" from him for the "eye" he took, who takes the "eye" from us for taking his "eye"? Who takes their "eye"?

[LixyChick]

It takes entirely too long for all of this sentencing and finally the actual day of the execution to come to fruition........so I'll reserve my thoughts for the day the protestors come out of the woodwork to stop it (no more stays from the governor)......

See ya in about 14 years!

[Steph]

I'm glad he's been convicted. Those were scary times for your area, gekkogecko.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

At least the court was able to figure out that he was guilty of murder. One step at a time. The penalty phase of the trial has yet to occur.

Given the philosophical issues involved, we would do well to handle with kid gloves the issues surrounding appropriate treatment of the murderer. The subject of the death penalty can often bring people to express themselves intemperately. I am assuming here that everyone wishes to continue the thread.

[gekkogecko]

>The subject of the death penalty can often bring people to >express themselves intemperately. I am assuming here that >everyone wishes to continue the thread.

Correct on both counts, jseal. At least for my part.

Belial, my point is *not* "an eye for an eye, a toothe for a tooth, a life for a life". For one thing, I'm not a christian.

But to argue dispassionately, we can ask "what is justice"?
A system of justice:
1. Prevents crimes from happening in the first place.
2. Corrects the unjust act.
3. Prevents future crimes from happening.

In the cases of arrest and conviction, 1 is not possible. We can ask: is it possible to apply point 2?

No. No act, life imprisonment or execution can restore a normal life to those who were shot and wounded, nor restore any life to those who were murdered.

Is it possible to apply point 3?
The vast majority of murders are actually comitted by a fairly small number of people. IOW, it it demonstrable that people who have murdered in the past are likely to murder again.
Now, we can ask, is John Allen Muhammed likely to kill again if he is allowed to live?
The answer must be yes.
Will life imprisonment guarrantee that he won't kill again? No. Absolutely not. There have been cases where convicted murders have escaped and killed, either in the act of escape or while fugitives. And there have also been murders comitted by people who were members of criminal organizations in efforts to free their compatriots. And in some cases, those compatriots have been freed, and have comitted murder again.

It is entirely appropriate to guarrantee that JAM does not commit murder again. It is therefore, appropriate to apply the death penalty in his case.

[Scarecrow]

In the bible it says "revenge is mine' sayith the Lord", so let us send him to the Lord in the shortest possible time.

[Nightstick26]

best quote I've ever heard fits here...

when asked if he would ever forgive the terrorists that attacked on 9-11 Norman Schwarzkopf replied...

"It is not my job to forgive. That is God's job. Mine is simply to arrange the meeting"

[PantyFanatic]

Originally posted by gekkogecko
[B...Belial, my point is *not* "an eye for an eye, a toothe for a tooth, a life for a life". For one thing, I'm not a christian.[/B]
Neither am I, and I believe the later quoted "revenge is mine' sayith the Lord", are part of and concurrent in the same passage. The point here is that, for societies and his sake, he needs to go someplace where he is better suited.

[jseal]

Belial,

I think that the idea expressed by some who are opposed to the death penalty is that society is lessened or demeaned by the act of executing murderers.

I think that one could reasonably question that assertion.

To draw a practical example, a substantial part of every human is the part that defends the whole body from something which it, the body, find dangerous. We call this the immune system, and without it we die. This is analogous to a substantial portion of society existing to defend the society. We call these the armed forces, traditionally (in democratic societies) separated into those who defend the society from external threats, the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.; and those who defend society from internal threats, the police. Both groups are controlled by people who are, again in democracies, themselves controlled by the society at large.

Murderers are a group of people who reject society's prohibition of citizens initiating the use of physical force to achieve their aims. Please note that most people who kill are not murderers. Crimes of passion and situations of limited mental capacity exclude most killers from the set of murderers. Murder is, by definition, pre meditated. Each murderer wanted and planned to do it. Thus, as a result, these people have rejected the constraints of their society. They need, therefore, not be accorded the same accommodations that the State makes for its citizens.

This is why, usually, the police and the military report to, and are under control of politicians. It is through the politicians who write the laws that each society realizes both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in itself.

If a society’s laws reflect the mores and beliefs of that society, then one is forced to accept that that society’s laws about capital crimes – and punishments – will reflect that society.

I would then ask if the society of England = France = USA = India = Australia = Canada = Germany? If not, then why would one – why SHOULD one expect their laws to be the same?

[Lilith]

vengeance

[jseal]

Originally posted by Lilith
vengeance

Lilith,

???

[Lilith]

I think (although I am not a scholar in this) the word in the quote is 'vengeance' not revenge...not that it matters... it's only the Bible :p That part is in Leviticus but they do use the word revenge in Roman's but it's not the saying that most people quote. Usually they are referring to the Leviticus one.

[Belial]

Originally posted by jseal
Belial,

I think that the idea expressed by some who are opposed to the death penalty is that society is lessened or demeaned by the act of executing murderers.

I think that one could reasonably question that assertion.

To draw a practical example, a substantial part of every human is the part that defends the whole body from something which it, the body, find dangerous. We call this the immune system, and without it we die. This is analogous to a substantial portion of society existing to defend the society. We call these the armed forces, traditionally (in democratic societies) separated into those who defend the society from external threats, the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.; and those who defend society from internal threats, the police. Both groups are controlled by people who are, again in democracies, themselves controlled by the society at large.

Murderers are a group of people who reject society's prohibition of citizens initiating the use of physical force to achieve their aims. Please note that most people who kill are not murderers. Crimes of passion and situations of limited mental capacity exclude most killers from the set of murderers. Murder is, by definition, pre meditated. Each murderer wanted and planned to do it. Thus, as a result, these people have rejected the constraints of their society. They need, therefore, not be accorded the same accommodations that the State makes for its citizens.

This is why, usually, the police and the military report to, and are under control of politicians. It is through the politicians who write the laws that each society realizes both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in itself.

If a society’s laws reflect the mores and beliefs of that society, then one is forced to accept that that society’s laws about capital crimes – and punishments – will reflect that society.

I would then ask if the society of England = France = USA = India = Australia = Canada = Germany? If not, then why would one – why SHOULD one expect their laws to be the same?

Murders reject the constraints of their societies. This is true, but should not the constraints of society be reflected in its laws? Therefore, isn't any criminal, as a breacher of those constraints, not entitled to the protection of society? Aren't assaulters and batterers examples of people rejecting society's constraint against the use of physical force to achieve their aims? Should we then authorize the supervised beating of convicts of these crimes by their victims? Is it not somewhat hypocritical of society to breach its very own constraints in the enforcement of those same constraints?

What do we hope to achieve by executing convicted murderers? Vengeance? Seems unlikely; if revenge was an ideal of society, we'd permit normally criminal acts to be justified as the taking of revenge. We don't. Provide a deterrent? Studies consistently show the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and why would it? Penalties only become part of the equation when the offender is caught, and no-one with the premeditation you describe murders under the belief that they will be caught.

Eliminate the possibility of recidivism? Murderers are the least likely of criminals to become recidivists, yet few, if any crimes correspond to sentences with that sort of permanency. Perhaps one could argue that the crime is so serious that a zero recidivism rate should be sought. So what methods do we use to achieve that?

We pick a jury of peers - and I don't know about you, but honestly, some of my "peers" I'd not trust to use my toilet, let alone decide someone's fate - with no legal training, no proven intelligence quotient, and no proven ability to even pay attention to interpret cases presnted, one by the state, with unparalleled access to the media, and by personnel whose jobs largely depend on the satisfaction of voters desires (I'm sure I don't need to draw a picture connecting these two factors), and another, presented on behalf of the accused, often by an attorney whose salary is paid from the very same budget bankrolling the prosecution (!), and we hope to come out with the correct answer to the question of guilt or innocence, and then, if guilty, whether the accused should be executed or not. Forgive me for not having the greatest of confidence here! Sure, there are avenues of appeal - for those who can afford it - but those are based around points of law and due process, not jury (mis)interpretation, if I recall correctly. I personally believe that any justice system that is not completely capable of self-correction is flawed, and any justice system including scope for the death penalty lacks this capability and is therefore flawed.

Then there's the consideration of the effect the death penalty has on those who enforce it and participate in its machinations. Might it be that after participating in several executions - possibly, being the actual executioner - psychological damage, what some might consider a dehumanizing effect occurs? The more modern of firing squads do not permit their members to be aware of their status, or non-status as the firer of the lethal bullet, loading all but one gun, whose holder is unknown, with blanks.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. The above reasons are why I oppose the death penalty, as best I could come up with now.

*phew*

[Nightstick26]

just curious here......

How many people here have ever set foot inside a prison, let alone walked down the runs of a death row anywhere. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect everyone's opinion as long as they are genuine, until you have been in an actual prison and not watched "oz" or a "48 hours" special it's sarting to feel like a bunch of Monday morning Quarterbacks in here. LOL

Our new cellhouses were built with roll open security windows and no air conditioning because the public preception is that inmates have it "to good" everyone seems to forget there are people in prison that have not been convicted of any crime, and their whole purpose is to protect YOU!

Don't get me wrong, I walk away from work on days hating every last inmate I see, but the fact remains, the public perception puts my life at risk when security features like "environment control" other behavior based rewards/punishment are removed because the public perception.

(stepping off my soapbox and waiting for everyone's opinion)
Please, I want to hear everyone's opinion.

[jseal]

Nightstick26,

Prison yes; DR no.

No kidding guy! One must hope that people will wise up someday.

[gekkogecko]

And the final judgement of the jury is:
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1110_AP_Online_Regional___National__US_/22b993f0-9d99-4889-bf80-71a159f20388.html

Some excerpts:
Jurors decided Monday that John Allen Muhammad should be executed for masterminding the deadly sniper attacks that terrorized the Washington area for three weeks last fall.

The jury's sentencing recommendation is not final. Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. can reduce the punishment to life in prison without parole when Muhammad is formally sentenced, but Virginia judges rarely do that. Sentencing was set for Feb. 12; Virginia death row inmates are executed by injection unless they choose electrocution.

The jury also recommended the maximum sentences of 10 years in prison for conspiracy to murder and three years for using a firearm in a felony.

The jury concluded that prosecutors proved both aggravating factors allowing the death penalty: that Muhammad would pose a danger in the future or that his crimes were wantonly vile. He was sentenced to death on both counts he was convicted of last Monday: multiple murders within three years and murder as part of a terrorist plot.

[jseal]

Gentlemen, start your appeals!

[gekkogecko]

And to continue teh argument with Belial. And before the issue is confused, this is "argument" in the intellectual sense. I feel no disrespect for Belial personally, and have no wish to convey any such by my wrods here.

To quote Belial:
What do we hope to achieve by executing convicted murderers? (snip) Provide a deterrent? Studies consistently show the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and why would it?


A half-truth which conceals the fallacy of this argument. While studies do indeed show that the death penalty AS APPLIED in this country is no deterrant, that's not all of the issue. The death penalty provides no deterrent because it takes an average of 7 to 12 YEARS between a conviction and an execution. These same studies consistently show that what does act as a deterrent to crimes in general, including murder, is the swift arrest of the perpetrator.

And to continue quoting:
Eliminate the possibility of recidivism? Murderers are the least likely of criminals to become recidivists

This is wildly inaccurate. Murders are the most likely of criminals to become recidivists; the general rate of recidivism for criminals who have been convicted and served out their sentences in general is around 45-55% (depends on which study you listen too). Murders generally come in at around 70-75%.

It is interesting to note here that a California study found that the group of criminals with the lowest recidivism rate was the ever-so-much hated child molester, at about 26%...exactly half that of the criminal population in general this study found.

Now, a counter question for you: if society is not allowed, under ANY circumstances to apply the death penalty, then how is society advanced in the case of John Allen Muhammed? I will reject, out of hand, the "jurors are untrustworthy" argument.

[Belial]

Originally posted by gekkogecko
[B]
To quote Belial:
What do we hope to achieve by executing convicted murderers? (snip) Provide a deterrent? Studies consistently show the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and why would it?


A half-truth which conceals the fallacy of this argument. While studies do indeed show that the death penalty AS APPLIED in this country is no deterrant, that's not all of the issue. The death penalty provides no deterrent because it takes an average of 7 to 12 YEARS between a conviction and an execution. These same studies consistently show that what does act as a deterrent to crimes in general, including murder, is the swift arrest of the perpetrator.

In what countries is the death penalty considered a deterrent?

Originally posted by gekkogecko
[B]

And to continue quoting:
Eliminate the possibility of recidivism? Murderers are the least likely of criminals to become recidivists

This is wildly inaccurate. Murders are the most likely of criminals to become recidivists; the general rate of recidivism for criminals who have been convicted and served out their sentences in general is around 45-55% (depends on which study you listen too). Murders generally come in at around 70-75%.


I couldn't find a single study that placed the recidivism rate for murderers anywhere near that high. In the next few days I should have more data on this particular point.

Originally posted by gekkogecko
[B]

It is interesting to note here that a California study found that the group of criminals with the lowest recidivism rate was the ever-so-much hated child molester, at about 26%...exactly half that of the criminal population in general this study found.


Possibly..but what's your point? California doesn't have the death penalty for child molesters, I don't think.

Originally posted by gekkogecko
[B]
Now, a counter question for you: if society is not allowed, under ANY circumstances to apply the death penalty, then how is society advanced in the case of John Allen Muhammed? I will reject, out of hand, the "jurors are untrustworthy" argument.

Umm..I'm not sure I understand your question, could you please clarify?

[jseal]

Belial,

My point is that different societies will have different notions of justice. Those different notions of justice will be realized in different laws. One example might be that of Capital Punishment. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the enormous range of human societies reduced to a single point of view on this or any subject.

On weakness in the anti-death penalty argument is that it will accept the death penalty only if is there is no possible chance of failure. As there exists no example of any work of human hands being 100%, then one might question why that should be expected of the Justice System.

[gekkogecko]

Originally posted by Belial
In what countries is the death penalty considered a deterrent?


It's not, but not because of the application of the death penalty. This was my point. The lack of deterrent effect comes from the horrible delay between the conviction and execution of the sentence. This was my point.


Possibly..but what's your point? California doesn't have the death penalty for child molesters, I don't think.


I picked child molesters as an example because of their low rate of recidivism. Part of your line of argument is that a low recidivism rate is a justification for a sentence of relative leniency (imprisonment vs death). When one examines case after case, though one finds the opposite is true of child molesters...often they are considered "sick" in the criminal justice sense. Therefore, they are institutionalized until they are "cured". But the argument is often advanced that "child molesters dont' get better", thereby becoming a justification for lifelong imprisonment. In the cases where the child molester is not considered sick (again, in the criminal justice sense), typically a very long sentence is handed out, then the perpetrator is hounded, harrassed and stalked after his release.

The ultimate point here is that "justice", whatever that actually is, is entirely political.

That being the case, we need to recognize that our argument is actually one of politics. It is part of my politics to allow the death penalty in some cases. And further, I think it is entirely appropriate in this particular criminal case.


Umm..I'm not sure I understand your question, could you please clarify? [/B]

John Allen Muhammad is a convicted serial murder, terrorist, and general slimy dude. His actions have made existence among the population, even though that may be confined to the criminal population, harmful to society. How is society advanced by his continued presence among the living?

[dicksbro]

I generally don't like the death penalty, but for some really horrible crimes like those shootings ... I'll go for it.

[Belial]

Originally posted by gekkogecko
It's not, but not because of the application of the death penalty. This was my point. The lack of deterrent effect comes from the horrible delay between the conviction and execution of the sentence. This was my point.

I understand that, what I was trying to get at was that you seemed to be saying that the USA's particular implementation of the death penalty, and not the death penalty per se was the reason that it is not an effective deterrent. I'm asking, which particular implementations do provide a deterrent?


Originally posted by gekkogecko

I picked child molesters as an example because of their low rate of recidivism. Part of your line of argument is that a low recidivism rate is a justification for a sentence of relative leniency (imprisonment vs death). When one examines case after case, though one finds the opposite is true of child molesters...often they are considered "sick" in the criminal justice sense. Therefore, they are institutionalized until they are "cured". But the argument is often advanced that "child molesters dont' get better", thereby becoming a justification for lifelong imprisonment. In the cases where the child molester is not considered sick (again, in the criminal justice sense), typically a very long sentence is handed out, then the perpetrator is hounded, harrassed and stalked after his release.


Leniency? No, not leniency. Just not death. To say that imprisonment is necessarily more lenient than death on the inmate is an oversimplification, particularly in the abscence of any legislated views on an afterlife.

You mention child molestation as an example of a class of crimes having a low recidivism rate along with "harsh" sentences, but do not provide a causal link. In my opinion, many of the judicial measures taken against offenders of this kind have overtly political rather than ideological aims - but that's an entirely different argument/discussion/friendly chat :)

Originally posted by gekkogecko

The ultimate point here is that "justice", whatever that actually is, is entirely political.

That being the case, we need to recognize that our argument is actually one of politics. It is part of my politics to allow the death penalty in some cases. And further, I think it is entirely appropriate in this particular criminal case.


Ahh, but what then of "natural justice"? ;) Again, another argument.


Originally posted by gekkogecko

John Allen Muhammad is a convicted serial murder, terrorist, and general slimy dude. His actions have made existence among the population, even though that may be confined to the criminal population, harmful to society. How is society advanced by his continued presence among the living?

Based on what we have today, yes, one would have to conclude that Mr. Muhammad is a slimy dude. In ten years time we may conclude that he has in fact been the "fall guy" for someone else, or discover other extenuating circumstances that would justify a more lenient sentence than the one meted out to him (regardless of what that actually was). By allowing him to live, we give our justice system the opportunity to correct any mistakes that may emerge. We do not at any point become directly responsible for removing him forever from a situation whereby his family and friends who were not responsible for the deaths he caused are denied the opportunity to communicate with him on those levels, we do not encourage any like-minded people to act as he did in search of martyrdom, we give him the opportunity to rehabilitate to a point where he may be something of worth to society - and even if not, we have his labour, and we do not perpetuate the grisly hypocrisy that states that killing a human is permitted and officially facilitated and overseen if that human is judged "bad" by a jury. A fallible, swayable group of people with natural emotional responses that can and are manipulated in the name of politics.

[jseal]

Belial,

Originally posted by Belial In ten years time we may conclude that…

True, true, the contemporary assessment of the Peloponnesian War is quite different than that held by the combatants, but does that invalidate the opinions of the people who had to live through the experience. There once was a saying "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Originally posted by Belial By allowing him to live, we give our justice system the opportunity to correct any mistakes that may emerge

What about if the justice system was correct?

Originally posted by Belial We do not at any point become directly responsible…

Some people have different opinions about personal responsibility. This returns to my earlier suggestion that different peoples have different solutions to what appear to be the same problems.

Originally posted by Belial A fallible, swayable group of people with natural emotional responses that can and are manipulated ...

Assume, for the sake of argument that an infallible, inflexible group of people handed down the verdict. Would that be a better verdict? What about a verdict handed down by unemotional people? I am uncertain that removing the humanity from these issues would improve the results.

[Irish]

Just to let everyone know!I heard a jurymember,interviewed on the radio news.He said that he was always against the death
penalty.He was going to vote for life imprisonment.He thought
about it.He said that with the "McGiver"(sp?)attitude of the person,
that, with life,he would do damage to another inmate or guard!
Plus,a new governor,might commute his sentence.He voted for
the death penalty.Myself,I would rather have the death penalty!
With my luck,I'd live to be 135! Irish