http://www.msnbc.com/news/980078.asp?0cv=CA01

I said he SHOULD get the death penalty for being an accomplise and committing some of the murders himself. He and his friend terriorized the East Coast. I am not actually surprised that he was found guilty. They had a case on him that was solid.

In my opinion, the death penalty is warranted in this case. This man terrorized an entire region of the country and his punishment should reflect his crime. Nothing can be gained from studying him or keeping him housed in a facility. Let justice be served.

yep.

they put sick animals to sleep, how is this animal any different?

who cares why he did what he did, I am so thoroughly tired of any kind of apologizing for ghouls like these.

rant over

Muhammed and other sick individuals like Ted Bundy and Jefferey Dahmer deserve the death penalty, not just because the acts they committed were so terrible, but because they are such sick people that the rest of society just can't go on living safely with people like them still alive. Whether or not hey are locked up is of no difference. If you are that evil, you must die.

If Muhammad and Malvo don't deserve the death penalty nobody does. For all the death, pain and misery they inflicted they are nothing more than domestic terrorists and there's only one way to deal with a terrorist.

If found guilty by a jury of their peers in a fair trial, both men deserve to be put to death.

I agree completely here.

I am sure some will protest Malvo's execution based on his age (and Muhammad's on general principles).

So if they get "life", they're probably in the pokey for 50 years or more, considering life expectancies and such. With "death", they're alive for -- on average -- about 8 years more.

Callous me: I'd vote for death, just to save some money on prison space.

From what I've read it is cheaper (by 3 times or more) to put people in prison for life than it is to execute them, so the argument that killing is ok based on what is cheaper really does not make much sense.

Obviously we have to protect society from people like Muhammad, but I wonder how we are protecting it by killing them after the fact. I don't think people like this are "deterred" by anything.

There are other problems.

For one, by killing them we are effectively saying that they are sane. Do we really want to say that these kinds of behaviors are sane? In my opinion this kind of crime is proof that someone is insane.

When the state puts someone to death homicides typically go up in number, not down. It's probably related to people feelling that a death sentence is reasonable if the crime warrants it. Well, my wife is sleeping with my neighbor, and by God, that warrants killing them both...you get the idea.

Finally, there is no question that innocent people have been put to death. Since this is the case, we are all guilty of premeditated murder. I wonder what our punishment should be?

P.S. I am new to this forum, and didn't document my sources, but a google search is all you need to find ample evidence. If anybody asks, I'd be happy to cite my sources. I'm looking forward to some civil debate on these issues.

I see a bunch of citations of studies on this, but they seem to assume a few things:

(1) death penalty cases are more expensive to try. In this case, that doesn't appear to be true.

(2) People getting "life" in prison are only in prison about 20 years. Considering their ages, that's too low.

(3) death penalties get overturned on errors. This happens in ALL cases, so not sure that just claiming it's a "death penalty cost" is accurate.

(4) the numerous appeals in death penalty cases. This, I agree, is more costly, just because the lawyers and the "system" are more tolerant of numerous appeals in these cases. However, in Virginia these costs could very likely be lower than those studies indicate.



If most of the costs are at the trial level and the trial is over, where's the additional 5x to 6x costs?

The death penalty is always wrong. I cannot condone it with clear conscience, no matter how monstrous the crime.

I think it would be very difficult to quantify how much it would cost in this particular case. However, I think the other arguments are far more important than the financial argument. We also have to ask ourselves if we are willing to incur a rise in violent crime in order to put these two to death. IMO there has already been enough violence.

But didn't this man execute his victims, thus issuing his own death penalty to completely innocent people?

What if it had been somebody you are close to, or one of your children this monster had killed?

I'm not sure where you correlate "a rise in violent crime" with the death penalty, but let's say they go into prison and kill more people in there. Did you get what you wanted?

I say: burn 'em. Pretty sure that's the only way to keep them from EVER killing again.

Sleeper, yes, he is a monster. He gave his "death penalty" to people. I don't think this means that we should stoop to his level.

If someone I am close to had been a victim of these guys, I would feel differently about it, no doubt. However, it has been shown that executing the perpetrators of violent crimes does not make the survivors feel better. It certainly won't bring back the people he murdered.

Amf, the question is not about whether or not those guys would kill again while in prison. I am saying that in the population at large, homicides and violent crimes increase when the state puts someone to death.

If there is worry about them killing again while in prison, then this is a question for the penal system and a logistical question, not a reason to murder them.

I think that as a society we should accept the burden of these abberations we produce, and deal with them in a humane yet decisive way. Life in prison without the possibility of parole and in the company of other murderers seems a just punishment to me, and one that will above all safeguard the society at large.

This page http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167 shows several studies that find increases in violent crime following state sanctioned executions.

When a person is being tried for a crime such as murder, there is a certain standard that must be met if you use insanity as a defense. The Courts realize that to some extent a person is not totally stable if they killed someone. However, the fact that they are trying to reach is whether or not at the time the murders were committed if they knew what they were doing was wrong and in some cases(as in murder) if they were committing a crime. Obviously the defense could not meet this standard. Which would be hard to considering that, they killed more than one person and they were aware of the fact that they committed a crime. Not only did they not stop, they continued to disregard the law and continue committing heinous acts against others. They deserve whatver the law will allow. There is no guarantee that these two will never break out of prison. There is no guarantee that in prison they will stop. There are plenty of non-violent offenders in jail. Just as they picked these victims at random. Who is to say that they would not pick inmates at random in order to try and satiate their appetite for murder. I realize that killing them will not bring back any of their victims. But it more likely than not will help prevent there from being anymore. It also can go a long way in giving the victims families a sense of closure.

1) I have already stated that keeping these individuals away from society is a problem for the penal system, and should not be a reason to kill them. In fact, killing them costs money that could be spent in much better ways.

2) Non violent offenders are usually housed somewhere other than murderers. Even if this is not so in some areas, money saved by not killing people could be used to make it so.

3) Killing murderers does in fact not give a sense of closure to the survivors, according to several studies.

4) I wasn't making a legal argument when I said that these people are not sane. What I'm saying is that we should accept that this is insane behavior, and treat them as such. A civilized society does not execute people who are insane.

Do you think it is sane to go around killing people at random?

Bakalite,



Where are your sources to back this up?



It's NOT the problem of the penal system, it's the problem of the citizens of this nation that pay taxes to house these sick, delusional scums of the earth. And as far as the expenses go to execute the death penalty, do you know the price of a rope or a bullet?

Here we go again.

The death penalty without due process is cheaper than life in prison.

But we have due process, so it is more expensive.

The death penalty appeals to the base instinct of revenge and is satisfying if we have no morals.

But we have morals, and so ultimately the death penalty is not satisfying at all.

I think that justice could be served better if we put terrible criminals into a confined, secure and productive setting. The money earned from their production ought to go to the surviving victims of their crimes. There's lots of room for improvement in our justice and prison systems.

BTW, I was once in favor of the death penalty until examining the facts about it. Now it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless it is adminstered without due process and without moral integrity. In other words, in a barbaric setting.

Before someone doinks me on being pro-choice, I'm actually pro-birth control and pro-adult decision making. I personally would never have an abortion or encourage anyone to do this, so there We have lots of room for improvement here as well.

After they appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal and put the families of their victims through 20 years of hell and they STILL are found guilty they aught to be executed. Most people, with todays modern medicines and with improved conditions of our prison systems prisoners can live to be at least in their 80's. So, lets say if a Muhammad is 40 years old, appeals for 20 years, that STILL leaves him with another 20 YEARS of the tax payers having to flip the bill on his incarceration. I totally agree with the appeal system and think everyone should be given the opportunity to prove their innocence, but at the end of the day when all of their prospects have run dry and they are at the end of the line, they aught to be executed.

As far as morals and the death penalty are concerned, the primis that revenge for an injustice shows a lack of morals is pretty reprehensible. Obviously you've never had a loved one murdered.

I think we need to find a way to make our society better, not worse. Executing criminals increases the rates of homicides. One persons revenge begets the next persons tragedy.

Sorry, can't find a reference to that study right now, and I have to leave the house. I will try looking for it later if you really need it. If you think about it though, killing the murderer provides maybe a brief moment of satisfaction. From what I have read, the victim then typically wishes he/she could kill the murderer over and over again.

Not a healthy situation...

P.S. If you've had a loss of this kind please don't feel that we are being callous. We have to find solutions that work for society as a whole. I'm sure if someone killed a loved one of mine I would want them dead. I think this is a human instinct, and normal, but it is not what we should base our justice system on.

I've never had a loved one murdered, but I'm empathetic.

My feeling is this pair felt they were "soldiers" and saw death in combat as a natural risk. I see no real risk that any future parole board would ever release them for time served. I would vote to have them spend the rest of their life. isolated in prison wondering why they chose the actions they did. Impress upon them that they were heros to no one! Allow them no interviews with any author, TV, or radio station. There was a short story published once, "The Man Without a Country," in which a convict is not even allowed to read of his native land in a newspaper. They should certainly be placed in separate prisons, where they would never have contact with each other again.

this site provided a casual - not causal - correlation. The same claim could be made for property value for the 2 regions.

if the death penalty were an effective deterrent, then malvo/muhammed should be put to death. However, as stated at DPIC, death row population grows at a rate faster than executions.

on this, we agree absolutely

to me, this is a non-sequitur to the topic. The public is best served when the convicts are removed from society. For the record, i voted "no" on death penalty (lack of deterrence as stated above), but recognise - and support - the judgment levied to the fullest extent of the law. My respect for rule of law outweighs personal convictions.

The death penalty is not about revenge, or deterrence, it is about justice.

These men chose to take the lives of all of these other people. They knew what the punishment was (as do we all).

The perpetrator of a crime CHOOSES his fate, unlike the victim of the crime. They chose to kill, they chose to submit themselves to the death penalty.

It is about punishment and justice, not about anything else.

I voted no, not out of principal for I think the 18 year old should get the death penalty. My reason for the No vote stems from questions I have about the nature of the evidence presented against him. From what I have read of the case the prosecution admitted that he did not actually kill anyone. They argued that it did not matter because he participated and encouraged the other person to kill.

If the evidence proves that he never actually killed anyone, then I am curious how the prosecution can justify the death penalty as an available option of punishment. I was under the impression that an accomplis to murder was not usually treated by the law the same as the actual murderer. Perhaps I am wrong.

I had thought the whole reason this case was brought to Virginia was so they could in fact seek the death penalty.

I WAS without a doubt terrorized by these two men. I live in the DC metro area and I like everyone else living here I was terrified of what these two men may do next. I decided to forgo many of my daily activities or planned outings in order to protect myself and my family from the unthinkable. It was a horrible horrible feeling to live under and I saw many of my fellow residents in body armour, gas stations offering gun scope protections and constant warnings and theorizings of what stores or shopping areas could be considered for the next killings. It was a truly bizarre and obscene experience. Even so I do not feel that the death penalty is warranted...because I ultimately disagree with it.

Regent, you would be right if he merely provided the car, maybe knowing how it was going to be used, or hid someone out, already knowing what they did.

The charge here, however, is similar to that of someone who drives a getaway car in a bank robbery. If someone is shot and killed inside the bank, the driver is also charged with murder, because he was a direct participant in the crime when someone was killed. That's what happened here. He may not have fired the shots, but he was certainly in the car when they were fired, knew what was happening, and did nothing to stop it. Indeed, may have facilitated the shootings. That makes him eligible for murder charges and the death penalty.

Thanks for that info NiteGuy.

Is there any criteria used to determine the severity of the punishment that can be administered based the level of participation in a murder? I know that many circumstances similar to the one you mentioned allow those who participate to be tried for the murder charge, but I still wonder if the level of involvement is treated differently with regards to the punishment phase.

There are times when I think the death penalty is appropriate and other times when life in prison without the chance for parole is appropriate. In order for one to reflect upon his deeds and to feel remorse, he must first have a conscience and from what I have read and heard about these savage "monsters" (especially the tapes of the 17 year-old's confessions and statements soon after they were picked up) the only remorse either one is capable of is for being caught.

To me, they are incapable of being rehabilitated to leading productive lives (in or out of prison) and sitting in prison for the remainder of their lives to reflect upon their crime is a waste of time, space, and taxpayers' money in this particular instance.

AMlord



Yep. Punishment and justice as we define it in sober moments.

The question posed here really is whether we should kill someone out of revenge. They killed, so we get to kill.

Eye for an eye, eh? Simple. Temporarily satisfying.

I think Muhammad ought to spend the rest of his days slaughtering pigs.

Productive and educational too! Surviving victims would get $$ and maybe even come visit every now and then to see Muhammad stick the pig and puke.

Because day after day of doing this, anybody would be sick of slaughter.

Or is that cruel and unusual?

Alternative: Sorting rancid garbage.

Alternative: Sewer maintenance.

Alternative: Day care for 2-year-olds.

Alternative: Cutting kudzu in Mississipi.

The death penalty is so unimaginative!

PS: I have lost plenty of loved ones and know how that feels. Yah just want to kill something at one point, but that passes. Anger and the desire for revenge is temporary and unsatisfying. Nothing brings the loved one back. Nothing asserts your domination over death. Make him stick the pig and get a real feel for it. Maybe some hog will take him out. Eh, so it goes.

I say death in prison, but not in the execution chamber. Death by lying awake night after night contemplating how he lost his freedom forever, how he could have been doing something better with his life. Death by years passing without the benefit of being any better off for it. A lingering death, years of being sick of the same food, the same four walls, the same little toilet. Rather than the oblivion of an induced, final loss of consciousness as part of some pompous ceremony, death of the will to live by repetitive circumstances where there is no scheduled finality. In short, the type of punishment in which he will come to envy every victim whose life he and Malvo ended abruptly.

Death it is!

No celebrations. Just sadness for everyone's loss and a hoping that healing comes quickly.

I just heard it on NPR also. What I want to know is, the reporter said that the judge could alter it to life in prison. Is this true? And if so, why can a judge overturn it?

From the AP article:



The jury recommends the sentence and the judge imposes it... or not. And the politics of the situation are such that this judge will impose it.

The jury made a difficult decision but, I believe, in this case the death penalty was the correct one. As I said before, in order to feel remorse, one must have a conscience, and John Lee's is self-serving as it appears the only remorse he has is that they got caught.

According to some of the TV legal consultants, if the judge feels the jury made a terrible decision in their final verdict, he has the right to only reduce the penalty sentence, but not the right to surpass their verdict. In other words, if the judge felt that the jury's verdict of "death", based upon the evidence, was wrong, he could issue a lesser penalty. If the jury issued a "life in prison without the chance for parole", the judge could not override their verdict with the "death" penalty. In most cases, judges will abide by the jury's final decision because why have a jury if their decision is habitually vetoed by a judge. And, there could be individual state laws that determine the judges' options also...I don't know about that.

Now...comes the fate of Malvo, who by his own words, feels no remorse or indicates that he was coerced by John Lee. In fact, he brags about his capabilities as a sniper and indicates not one shred of remorse for his victims. He may have been influenced by John Lee...but this is no innocent lamb led to the slaughter. In my opinion, he is one "bad" dude that without a miracle cure, will pose a threat to society for the remainder of his life. To me, the jury that will have to decide his fate has a more difficult task because of his age. And, the defense lawyer that has the nerve to try the insanity plea, I hope, will be sorely disappointed with the jury's final verdict.

This certainly was a shocking case. Ive abstained from voting as I live under a different legal system and am opposed to the death penalty, so I don't think my comments should be valid. However, it was clear from what was reported that this man was guilty and should have received Virginias maximum punishment.

I worry about the kid, however. I believe he is 18 now but was 17 when the crimes were committed, and I heard he is pleading insanity. That will definitely be a more harrowing case for a jury, even more so if the death penalty is being considered for a person who was a minor at the time.