About half an hour ago, John Mohammed, the DC sniper, was pronounced dead.

[Stinky The Clown]

Virginia is second only to Texas in fulfilled death penalty sentences.

[anonymous171]

1. Another wretched soul murdered by the state. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Horse shit!

Murder is defined as the ILLEGAL killing of a person. Would you care to explain how this execution was illegal?

[Orrex]

35. So if the State says it's legal, then it's legal?

[tekisui]

106. Of course, like torture.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. Actually, the law determines what is legal

Don't like the law? Elect leaders who will change it.

[Orrex]

110. So you're okay with extraordinary rendition?

For that matter, the issue isn't whether or not capital punishment is legal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. If you use the term 'murder', then legality is the key

[Orrex]

164. So, you're okay with it morally, as long as we hang a different label on it.

Got it.

[mitchum]

119. It may be immoral, unethical, distasteful, etc...

but
yes
if the State says something is legal
it is indeed legal.

Doesn't necessarily make it right, though...

[sabrina 1]

82. It's illegal in every other developed country in the world.

We are proudly a member of those underdeveloped states, like Saudi Arabia, who have decided that when the state does it, it isn't murder.

[timeforpeace]

87. Why didn't Obama commute the sentence? Does he have blood on his hands?

[sabrina 1]

95. I don't think anyone can get to the WH if they do not believe

or say they do, in the Death Penalty. This is the US and it is part of the culture. He most likely would not be re-elected if he did so.

Some day maybe we will have a president who is willing to risk a second term by doing what is morally right. But to get there, s/he would have to make sure no one knew their true 'character'.

All US presidents have blood on their hands, sadly it goes with the job.

[MajorChode]

99. Because he couldn't even if he had wanted?

Just a guess.

[WeDidIt]

102. Only Tim Kaine had that power

The president cannot commute a penalty imposed at the state level.

[sabrina 1]

117. I think he can actually.

The president has clemency powers. Eg, he can pardon anyone so I think he can commute a death sentence to life. I did think only the governor could do so, but have read since that the president can also.

The Feds can interfere in any state legal matter. Look at the marijuana laws eg. They don't often, but they can as far as I know.

Kaine personally opposes the death penalty but did not interfere probably for political reasons.

[onenote]

168. wrong. But thanks for playing.

The Constitution confers on the President the power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States..."

"Against the United States" means, in constitution-speak, federal crimes.

Don't believe me? Okay, here's a test. Over the past 100 years or so, there have been in the neighborhood of 20,000 presidential pardons or grants of executive clemency. If that power extends to pardoning or granting clemency to someone convicted of violating a state law, it shouldn't be hard to find an example. I'll wait.

[NutmegYankee]

107. Not every... Japan. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. Japan and South Korea are not developed countries?

:shrug:

[Orrex]

112. Not In terms of state-sanctioned murder, they aren't

They can take their place proudly beside such enlightened nations as Equatorial Guinea, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan.

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. Japan and South Korea are both have represetnative government

If the voters there wanted to get rid of the death penalty, they could elect leaders to do that.

[Orrex]

163. So what's your point? That Japan and South Korea are just as barbaric as we are?

More's the pity.

[Art_from_Ark]

178. Yeah, right

"If the voters there wanted to get rid of the death penalty, they could elect leaders to do that."

Fat chance for that, considering that the only major Japanese political party that consistently expresses opposition to the death penalty is the Communist Party of Japan, and their chances of being elected to power are about the same as a snowball's chance in The Very Hot Place.

[Doc_Technical]

120. Japan

Japan still has the death penality.

[ProudDad]

125. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6986512#6991060

[amerstates]

2. Closure for the mass murderer's victims families. I am glad he is gone. NT

[Bluebear]

4. "Closure" is a cliche that is rarely fulfilled by killing the murderer.

How can you "close" this kind of grief?

[Bluerthanblue]

11. what is called 'closure' for some- is the 'opening' for others.

and so the never ending spiral continues.

[marmar]

5. I wonder if the Iraqis would say that about our last president?

:think:

[BoneDaddy]

130. Excellent point

And when some high ranking right wing scum bag dies, people cheer in here. It would bring me some relief on the death of someone who killed a family member or friend, and even moreso if I was the one to do it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. I hope I'm never so fucked up I need the state to murder someone on my behalf for "closure."

Welcome to DU.

[Orsino]

111. That's an excellent point.

Modern America is an engine that runs on misery and death.

When we oppose executing criminals, we should keep in mind that violent crime does fuck people up, enough that some victims, friends and family members will demand death to make the hurt go away. By the time we get around to killing an offender, though, they may find that healing is a bit more elusive.

But it is in our nature to want retribution, and only a criminal justice system with teeth can keep that desire even partly in check.

I'm not sure we'll ever do away with the practice of execution, as long as our culture generally celebrates violence.

[tularetom]

17. I'm not unhappy that he has been fried but it won't bring "closure" for anybody

The people he shot are still fucking dead. There may be some brief feelings of vengeful satisfaction on the part of their families, but in the long run they will not feel any better for the loss of their loved ones just because Mohaammed is dead too.

[Ocracoker16]

27. If I were family of a murder victim, I don't think execution would bring closure

That is just my personal opinion. I know that many families that want the death penalty for the murderer claim that it will bring closure, but I can't believe that I would be satisfied by seeing the murderer lose his own life. I could see myself thinking about the murderer more after that rather than my loved one. Nothing can make up for losing a loved one.

[Midlodemocrat]

71. Oh, please. Will there be closure when the anniversary of his

execution is trumpeted all over the news for years? Like McVeigh's? Wake the fuck up people. There is no closure in putting someone to death. Closure only results in forgiveness. Not forgetting; but forgiveness.

[Orrex]

74. Posts like that make me want to format the hell out of some data for you

:loveya:

[Midlodemocrat]

75. Oh, dude. You love me, you know it.

:rofl:

Thanks, doll. To you and wifey. I knew you would agree.

[Orrex]

76. Wifey knows better than to get involved in these discussions

But I'm proud to say that her opposition to the death penalty helped me to see the light.

She's one smart cookie!

[Midlodemocrat]

77. Yeah, kind of an unpleasant evening, n'est-ce pas?

[Orrex]

78. Yeah. I'm about to turn in.

Let me know if I miss anything.

[sabrina 1]

83. There is no such thing as closure

a way over-used word as anyone who has suffered a tragic loss will tell you, for this kind of grief. The only thing the killing of the killer does is to satisfy the lower instincts of some humans, for revenge, and bring the cheer-leaders for the state murder, a step closer to the same mentality as the killer. Which is why all other civilized nations have abandoned the Death Penalty.

[ProudDad]

126. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6986512#6991060

[Orrex]

165. Good post.

[951-Riverside]

3. Yay!

Good riddance. :woohoo: :party: :toast:

[Raineyb]

70. You're no better than the guy that was just executed.

People who celebrate other people's deaths are fucking ghouls.

[951-Riverside]

79. Actually I'm 1000 times better

I wasnt the coward who hid in the trunk of a car and picked off 13 people.

James Martin 55 Killed October 2, 2002, 6:04 PM Wheaton, Maryland
James Buchanan 39 Killed October 3, 2002, 7:41 AM Rockville, Maryland
Premkumar Walekar 54 Killed October 3, 2002, 8:12 AM Aspen Hill, Maryland
Sarah Ramos 34 Killed October 3, 2002, 8:37 AM Silver Spring, Maryland
Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera 25 Killed October 3, 2002, 9:58 AM Kensington, Maryland
Pascal Charlot 72 Killed October 3, 2002, 9:20 PM Washington, D.C.
Caroline Seawell 43 Survived October 4, 2002, 2:30 PM Fredericksburg, Virginia
Iran Brown 13 Survived October 7, 2002, 8:09 AM Bowie, Maryland
Dean Harold Meyers 53 Killed October 9, 2002, 8:18 PM Manassas, Virginia
Kenneth Bridges 53 Killed October 11, 2002, 9:40 AM Fredericksburg, Virginia
Linda Franklin 47 Killed October 14, 2002, 9:19 PM Falls Church, Virginia
Jeffrey Hopper 37 Survived October 19, 2002, 8:00 PM Ashland, Virginia
Conrad Johnson 35 Killed October 22, 2002, 5:55 AM Aspen Hill, Maryland

The death penalty is perfect for dirtbags like him and at least he saw it coming, you can't say the same about his victims.

[Raineyb]

80. Your murderous glee says otherwise.

You're as despicable as he is.

[951-Riverside]

86. Okay you're right, he deserved a hug and 6 months of rehabilitation

Perhaps if he and the victim's families got together, held hands and talked wounds would heal faster ...whoaaa my hands are soooo amazing dude ...oh maan I am freaking out here.

[Raineyb]

88. Well there's an asinine and specious argument.

Since when is not thinking that state sanctioned murder or the disgusting cheering that accompanying it is civilized the same as thinking that people who have committed crimes merely need a hug.

What a fucking idiotic argument that is.

[Retired AF Dem]

104. Do you weep for the 20,000 kids a day that dies from hunger

or do you only weep for murdering scumbags like the DC Sniper? I hope he took the express train to hell.

[Raineyb]

140. Excuse you? But the topic at hand is the Death Penalty.

And I for one am not one to go cheer-leading for sanctioned killings which includes all our stupid wars AND the legalized murder that we call capital punishment. Furthermore anyone who cheers at someone else's death is a disgusting piece of shit not even worthy of the effort involved in feeling disdain no better than the person who was put to death. That would include your sorry ass.

The asinine and specious argument that one's opposition to the death penalty means one does not care about all the other people who die because of disease, hunger and other things that our money would be better put to use solving is one so idiotic as to not warrant a response and this will be my last one to you as anyone as scummy as you clearly are belong directly in the ignore list. How fucking dare you!

May someone wish you to hell in the manner as you feel all scumbags deserve since you are clearly in that category.

[Rebubula]

114. Bullshit argument

Complete bullshit.

My feeling of relief and cheer after the execution (I live in Rockville, MD and was terrorized by these shootings) is NOT EVEN FUCKING CLOSE to killing 13 innocent people as they wandered through their day.

You may be correct that people that celebrate others deaths are ghouls (even I felt a little morbid last night) - but that does not equate to killing random people.

But...of course you know that.....

[Bluerthanblue]

134. not complete bullshit- the feelings you admit to having

and choosing to ignore are evidence to the reality that you KNOW what the 'state' did was WRONG. It may currently be "legal" but that doesn't change the fact that it is WRONG.

Funny how we punish 'premeditated' killing more harshly than impulse killing, and yet, we practice the one we say is more heinous.

Those 13 people (10 died- not 13 from what I know) are not honored or restored to life by more killing.

But of course YOU know THAT...

[Raineyb]

141. The bullshit is coming from you.

What the state is doing is wrong and that you cheer it makes you as wrong as the state. And as murder is wrong no matter who does it it makes all of you no better than the person who was put to death.

I stand by my comment! Ghouls every one of you!

[WeDidIt]

103. +1

I'm right there with ya!

[ProudDad]

127. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6986512#6991060

[bsd13]

160. On the one hand I gotta agree, but...

on the other, he's paid for his crimes. It's time to forgive, forget, and move on. Celebration isn't the order of the day. I mean I doubt you'd be throwing a party in the presence of his children or loved ones...

[Bluerthanblue]

6. premeditated taking of life is wrong

especially when it is done by the state, and excused by society.

A sad testimony of how far we haven't come.

[Orrex]

7. Capital punishment is an effective deterrent

As such, I'm sure that we'll never see another murder in this country, thanks to the execution of John Mohammed.

[forum slut]

12. how many murders do you think we would see in this country if there were no death penalty?

christ, if fear of death won't even stop someone, what do you think fear of life in prison would do?

[Orrex]

14. We'd see fewer murders if there were no death penalty

Because, for one thing, the state would no longer be murdering prisoners.

Other than that, I have never seen any reason to conclude that the number of murders would be changed significantly by the abolition of capital punishment.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. I believe you are right. n/t

[forum slut]

57. maybe you're right. there are certainly some folks that could stand to be murdered and I would hate

to see their murderers receive the death penalty for it. so, after a few moments of contemplating your point of view, I have changed my position on the death penalty. It is wrong.

[EFerrari]

20. Death penalty cases take so long that the death penalty is not a deterrent, no.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. fear of death doesn't stop people from KILLING others-

it only feeds a tortured need for revenge.

How many more murders do civillized countries like England, Canada, Sweeden, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, France....have than the US???..i could continue but you get the point

[npk]

37. How many people do those countries have?

You are talking 60 million in some cases compared to over 300 million people here in America. And that is just the number of people here legally. You can't compare the murder rates of other countries.

[lastliberalintexas]

49. Even so, those countries have lower murder *rates* than the US

I am not arguing that is so merely because we have the death penalty and they don't, though. We seem to be a much more violent society in general, unfortunately, and I really have no idea why.

[ProudDad]

128. It's because we're a fucking Empire is why... (n/t)

[Bluerthanblue]

50. sure you can- do it in

percentages.

We compare ourselves with other countries all the time. Why should this be any different?

[npk]

53. That is true.

The larger the population of a country the higher number of murders that are going to occur. Of course that is simple to understand. I am sure somebody could break the murder rate down into percentages. I do not have the statistics to do such a comparison.

[RoyGBiv]

63. That's okay ...

It's already done for you.

Wikipedia even has a nice little collection of status with sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I mean, there *are* people who study this sort of thing, and whether a nation imposes the death penalty for crimes has never, by itself, been shown to reduce a nation's murder rate.

What makes direct comparisons between countries more difficult is that the cultures that inhabit them tend not to be directly comparable. Europe is more comparable to the US than, say, China is, but the comparisons still aren't direct. Why? Our cultures are different. More people in the US own weapons that can be used easily for so-called crimes of passion, for instance. The US has a subculture of violence that is not sublimated through other outlets or historical experience. It's no accident, for example, that the movements to abolish the death penalty in some European countries gained heavy momentum in the aftermath of two world wars spaced so closely together that saw the mass slaughter of millions of people. The cultures were sick of death, especially death sponsored by the state.

Death penalty proponents often bring forth countries like Iran and China (often without naming them), two nations that impose the death penalty with a special sort of glee, as nations that have a nominally lower murder rate than ours. And that's instructive. Our culture is different from that in Iran and China and Vietnam Saudi Arabia. We are not, as yet, quite so oppressive and quite so willing to kill in order to impose the state's will.

If one really, truly wants to live in a state where the death penalty *is* a deterrent, there are countries where one can experience that. Have at 'em. I'd prefer England or France.

[HughMoran]

47. Yep

never has, never will.

Sane people rarely kill (most are temporarily insane at the time).

[Orrex]

48. That's a good point.

And that's another reason why we shouldn't executed people.

[HughMoran]

54. Sadly

A lot of the people who are executed are cold, calculating killers who killed defenseless people like children or others who they didn't even know just for sport. Even though I can't justify the state killing people, since killing is never "right", there are some people who are so mentally deranged that I am somewhat ambivalent about their ultimate punishment.

[Lorien]

94. Homicide rates are highest in States with death penalties.

The EU doesn't have the death penalty and their violent crime rates are far lower than ours our.

[forum slut]

97. and apples don't have orange peels either.

[barb162]

13. Is prison a deterrent for other crimes?

I think not. Maybe it's more about justice than deterrence. I suspect the jurors in his case weren't thinking about deterrence.

[Orrex]

16. Never have I heard an argument in favor of state-sanctioned murder

that didn't ultimately boil down to a cry for vengeance.

A civilized society should demand better of itself.

[barb162]

58. I wouldn't agree with that first sentence.

I really don't know what was in the jurors' heads. As to the second, the citizens of a society shouldn't be doing mass murder of innocent people. As far as I can tell, this murderer wasn't having hallucinations and not knowing what he was doing. I don't recall what his "excuse" was for killing all those people.

[Orrex]

105. Your post doesn't really address mine.

The jurors received their instructions and acted upon them. The cries for vengeance didn't come from the jurors.

And of course "the citizens of a society shouldn't be doing mass murder of innocent people." Who has suggested otherwise?

[malaise]

18. Not justice

vengeance and I want no part of that.

[deaniac21]

36. Well, John Mohammed won't anyway.

[Orrex]

38. Nor would he have if he'd spent the rest of his life in solitary.

[bikingaz]

43. so permanent solitary confinement for those on death row?

How is that not torture?

[Orrex]

45. Okay, put them in GP under close guard, so that they can't harm anyone else.

I'm flexible.

[deaniac21]

44. Cruel and unusual punishment

[Orrex]

46. Right. But killing him is okey-dokey.

As I mentioned in the other reply, put the convicted murderers in GP but under such conditions that they can't harm anyone else.

[deaniac21]

167. The landfill would be a good place.

[Orrex]

173. Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself Progressive?

[deaniac21]

179. More progressive that John Mohammed and warmer too.

[Orrex]

180. So "no," in other words.

noted.

[lastliberalintexas]

51. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but some things are worse than death

Life in solitary would have to be one.

[Orrex]

67. On what do you base that assessment, exactly?

There's no reason why such incarceration would need to be made unduly hard on the prisoner, and certain comforts such as books and television could reasonably be provided, especially since the prisoner is a ward of the state.

I can envision a great many varieties of "solitary confinement" that don't necessarily have to be "worse than death."

[Progservative_n_SC]

143. Even though I am no supporter of the death penalty

Why should we even be wondering what 'comforts' could be given to a murderer to make solitary confinement for life less cruel and inhumane? How many 'comforts' are being provided to the victim...oh wait they didn't have someone advocate that their fate was cruel and unusual. A single small cell with a single small window with nothing more than a small bed, toilet and enough food and water to maintain existence is more than some murderers deserve. Let's be honest, there is a subset of the society that defends the DP that merely supports it because they know the moment it is gone there will be a vocal group of people that will begin agitating that 'Life Imprisonment' equates to cruel and unusual punishment and will work the end even that punishment. When does it end?

[Orrex]

166. Perhaps my point was unclear

Advocates for the death penalty paradoxically argue that it would be "a fate worse than death" to lock the convicted murderer in solitary confinement for life, yet they also complain that the murderer "might kill again" if allowed in the jail's general population.

My suggestion that we furnish a minimum of comforts to the murderer was to offset the objections about the "cruel and unusual" nature of solitary confinement.

Incidentally, who gets to decide what people "deserve," and by what formula is this determined?

What if, for instance, a convicted murderer is kept in his small, unfurnished cell for fifteen years, and then we discover that he was innocent. Are we justified in having subjected him to that deprivation, simply because he'd been convicted? Or do we, as a nominally civilized society, have some obligation to treat our prisoners better than we judge them to have treated their victims?

I suggest the latter.

[Progservative_n_SC]

171. FWIW, I don't believe there is an answer

That will satisfy everyone. While I don't support DP I firmly believe that life imprisonment with minimal support is an appropriate punishment. If a miscarriage of justice is discovered than the state would be in a situation to make proper restitution to the victim. Is it perfect...not by a long shot.

I also believe that work farms modeled after the old WPA system would be a great idea for most any crime. The benefits would be obvious (restitution, work/life skills, enlightenment, etc) and would provide a service that is sorely needed. The only contention I have with it is that it would still have to be administered under common work laws regarding work hours and protections or we get 'Cool Hand Luke' issues with abuse.

[Withywindle]

176. Very nice, but the murderer's victims can never enjoy books and television again.

I just DO NOT GET why some people think a murderer should be shown more mercy than he showed his victims.

I mean, we already do. The state is forbidden from shooting/raping/strangling/beating prisoners at random. Any prisoner who's done that to someone else has already crossed the line!

Incarceration of prisoners convicted of such crimes SHOULD be harsh. No books. No TV. No internet. No mail. No visitation. Just a brushed-steel room for the rest of their lives. And if they bitch, just remind them, hello, your victims are DEAD. And they died in much more fear and pain than you will, so count your meager blessings.

[npk]

62. What if he escaped from prison and murdered while he was free

Would it be worth it to execute people like this just to make absolutely sure they don't kill again. Murders in prison can still commit murder. They can kill other inmates and even guards.

I do agree with you on the death penalty, but just a little devils advocate for you.

You can't say he would never kill again. Because as long as he is alive he can kill again.

[Orrex]

65. Well, it's a toss-up

Short of chaining him to a wall, the only way to guarantee that he can't harm anyone ever again is to deny him all direct human contact. I've heard it argued that this is a form of torture, though I'm not so sure that I believe this. I'm sure that it's no fun, but I don't know that I'd want to be locked up with other murderers, either.

Regarding the possibility of escape and subsequent murder... Does this really happen? How often? I'm asking sincerely because I don't know. But I'm talking about escape from actual prison, rather than a halfway house, or house arrest, or weekend furlough, or the like. Actual escape from actual prison.

In any case, I've frequently seen threads here at DU about child murderers and rapists, and invariably we see exhortations to "cut their balls off" or the like before we execute them in some slow and painful way. Anyone who'd petition for such a penalty can't credibly argue against lifelong solitary confinement, since they've already demonstrated themselves to be very fond of torturous punishment. That doesn't apply to all advocates for the death penalty, of course--just the ones who call for extra brutality on top of the "ultimate punishment."

In the end, you have to make a decision based on risk versus penalty. If the only way to prevent him from killing again is by denying him direct human contact, then that's what you need to do. There's no need to make it additionally torturous, either; he could be allowed books, letters, phone calls, newspapers, or whatever. Just no direct contact. I'm reminded of Hannibal Lecter's cozy little cell, for example.

[npk]

72. A case in Virginia many years ago

Several, I want to say 5, inmates escaped from a prison. While free one of the inmates, who ironically was in prison for murder, killed a man during a car-jacking while trying to escape on one of the highways from the prison. I don't have a link to the story, and can't remember the prison.

You are right though it doesn't happen often, but it is possible.

[Orrex]

73. Of course, no system is perfect

Therefore we have to devise one that is good. To that end, we need to work very hard to ensure that such escapes don't occur, but it's unlikely that we could render escape literally impossible.

[redqueen]

132. +1

I'll be so happy when we finally abandon this barbaric practice.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

148. At least I agree with you fully on some things

way to go redqueen, on this anyway.

[redqueen]

154. I bet we agree on a whole hell of a lot more than we disagree on...

and thanks. I am of course hardly surprised to see that you're against the death penalty too. :hi:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

155. We probably do you are right

thanks for being nice.

[redqueen]

158. Aw, and thank you for being nice as well...

:hug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. I can assure you it has effectively deterred John Mohammed from killing anyone else.

[Warpy]

9. My wild west state banned it this year

but there are a couple of men on death row who are still scheduled to die when the appeals are exhausted.

My hope is that Richardson commutes their sentences to life without parole before he leaves.

This state has had only one execution since 1961.

[Danger Mouse]

10. I don't support the death penalty in most cases...

...but I'm not going to mourn his passing either.

[barb162]

15. That about sums it up for me. n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

19. Not supporting the DP "in most cases" means you support the DP.

You just have a narrower set of limitations than the hang 'em high crowd.

[Orrex]

22. I only support the death penalty when the crimes ignite my sense of moral outrage

Otherwise, capital punishment is always wrong.

[Danger Mouse]

26. That's not at all what I said.

[Orrex]

29. Nor was I replying to you.

However, I've been in more than enough threads about capital punishment to know that many people who are otherwise quite progressive are entirely willing to drag out Deuteronomy when some crime occurs that they judge to be of sufficient moral repugnance.

The only distinction is in where people choose to draw the line.

[Danger Mouse]

25. Some cases I find incredibly sickening to the point...

where I wonder if the world is better off without such a person.
...however, life in prison is more effective for those types, when you think about it.
I just realize it's a highly emotional issue. I can't say 'I will never support the death penalty in any case' because I don't think that's necessarily true for myself.

[ProudDad]

137. What "types"

You think it's ok to torture anyone you don't like or feel "deserves it"?

Well, you're a good example of the kind of so-called-thought process developed to enhance and perpetuate the USAmerikan Empire...

[Danger Mouse]

145. You get from 'I support life in prison for heinous crimes' to 'I support torture...

for people I don't like'?
That's quite a stretch.

[theHandpuppet]

34. Same here

I will save my sympathies for the families of his many victims.

[Odin2005]

21. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[-..__...]

23. Lesson #1...

don't snipe at innocent people in Texas or Virginia.

[depakid]

40. Considering their crime rates- that doesn't seem to be very effective advice....

[TheCowsCameHome]

31. Whatever happened to his partner in crime?

[Orrex]

32. Multiple life sentences with no possibility of parole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Boyd_Malvo

[Joe the Revelator]

33. If there is a hell, I hope they turned the heat up

Seriously, this is the case that made me reevaluate my view of the death penalty.

[David Zephyr]

39. And what was achieved by a state murder of someone?

Just as barbaric as the killer was.

No justice was served. Just a pathetic mob need for revenge.

Stupid.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

41. by the sounds of the death fetishists posts, many erections.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Just As Barbaric As The Killer Was??? Ummmmm, Nope. Not By A Long Shot.

God I love the ridiculously over-exaggerated statements. They're too fuckin funny!

:rofl:

[Raineyb]

89. You're right. It's more barbaric. I expect more from the state. n/t

[Rebubula]

115. More Barbaric...

...they gave him a last meal and offered him spiritual comfort in his last minutes AFTER offering him legal assistance and providing him a fair trial in two jurisdictions.

Sarah Ramos was sitting peacefully on a bench reading a book - BOOM
Lori Ann Rivera was vacuuming her car at a gas station - BOOM
Conrad Johnson was sitting in his Rideon Bus waiting to start his day taking local residents around town - BOOM
Prem Walekar was filling up his taxi in another day of a low paying job to support his family - BOOM
Pascal Charlot was walking the streets of DC near his house - BOOM
James Buchannan was mowing grass while trying to make ends meet - BOOM
Iran Brown was walking to school at age 13 - BOOM (Survived)
Linda Franklin was loading supplies into her car at Home Depot - BOOM

Which is more barbaric?

[Bluerthanblue]

122. would you rather suffer for years knowing that those who control your

every move and claim the 'moral high road' are going to intentionally kill you, or have some unknown faceless stranger end your life suddenly?

No one I know is justifying what the killer did, or his methods- There are those who not only don't see the hypocrisy in society's choice to murder- they justify and applaud it. THAT is barbaric.

[Withywindle]

90. No, it's not nearly as barbaric.

He had multiple chances for appeal and many lawyers fighting for him. He had numerous years to come to terms with his upcoming death. He had opportunities to say goodbye to his loved ones.


That's WAY more than his victims got.

The reason that I favor the DP in cases where it's proven beyond a doubt? Because these are cases where someone has already revoked someone else's right to live, WITHOUT due process. You don't do that. It is just not right. It usurps both the rights of the state and of God, if you believe in one or any. So if a court decides, AFTER due process, to revoke the killer's "right" to life? I think that is fully within the state's purview. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

The individual condemned has ALREADY crossed the God/state/life/death line by denying someone else THEIR right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness without just cause as determined by the court system. Someone who does this has already forfeited their right to citizenship in a civilized human society. Why NOT put them out of our misery, by the same kind of humane methods that kind and loving people use on their sick and dying pets?

[BreweryYardRat]

157. Thank you, Voice of Reason. n/t

[Raineyb]

162. Cheering death is NEVER a voice of reason

Neither is rationalizing state sanctioned murder.

[Withywindle]

174. I'm not cheering his death.

I'm not mourning either.

I wish executions were never necessary.

But as long as murders still happen, they will be. I am not cheering JM's death, by any stretch of the imagination.

But the candles I light tonight are for his victims.



A very diverse group, as far as I can see, including a few Black men who were killed without benefit of a trial. Shot randomly while putting gas in their cars? NOT OK.

John Muhammad, at least, died with the full due-process benefit of judge and jury and copious appeals. That's much more than his victims got.

Many of his victims were Black too. Are Black lives less worthy than white ones? Is it RIGHT that someone who kills a black person is less likely to face the DP than someone who kills a white person?

No. we've been "persecuting" violent crimes by upscale white people too lienently for centuries!

[salguine]

42. I lived in the DC area while all that was going on. Fuck him. I hope it didn't go smoothly.

[kestrel91316]

52. Good. Tax money spent keeping that horrible waste of skin and

oxygen alive can be better spent elsewhere.

There is a special place in hell reserved for people like him.

[Orrex]

60. So... it's morally acceptable to kill people for financial reasons?

[sabrina 1]

92. Actually, if that's your reasoning, death penalty cases

cost more than if they were just sentenced to life in prison without parole. This one cost quite a bit.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Anyone else notice the John MUHAMMED story always followed the MUSLIM Ft Hood story?

On NPR?

I pointed it out to my husband after a couple days of noticing it. They ALWAYS lined up the John MUHAMMED story after the MUSLIM FT HOOD MAJOR HASSAN story.

Yes, OT but thought it worth injecting into the convo

[bluestateguy]

56. I have a problem with the fact that he was getting free government run health care while in prison

He should have received no health care. None.

[Orrex]

69. Why? Prisoners are wards of the state.

As a nominally civilized society, we are obliged to treat prisoners humanely, even if some people don't think that they deserve it.

By your logic, we shouldn't feed prisoners or give them water, either.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. May The Piece Of Shit Bastard Rot In Hell.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[MrMickeysMom]

64. Yes, yes...

feel better?

Didn't think so. It's not a deterrent to what he did. Raising children well is.

[Orrex]

66. Very nice.

:thumbsup:

[arcadian]

68. The mouthpiece of the rabble has spoken.

[ProudDad]

129. I know your excuse for a mind is closed shut on this issue but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6986512#6991060

[SeattleGirl]

81. As much as I utterly detest what Mohammed did, I cannot support

the death penalty.

Why is it deemed wrong when Joe or Jane Citizen kills someone (and yes, I do think it is), but it's just peachy keen, fine and dandy, and legal as all get out when the state does it?

I cannot reconcile that.

[jobycom]

84. Soon Virginia will be as free from violence as Texas. nt

[sabrina 1]

93. Lol, good point!

The reason he was tried in Virginia (he could have been tried in MD) was because of John Ashcroft. He wanted to make sure he got the Death Penalty and Virginia has a record almost as high as Texas, for carrying out it out. Ashcroft was afraid that if he was tried in MD, he might not be condemned to death.

Those Bushies lover their death sentences ~ I see we have quite a few of them here too.

[jobycom]

96. Texas's AG once argued that it was okay to execute an innocent man

as long as he was legally convicted. Virginia will always be second to Texas if they don't come correct on that point of view.

[sabrina 1]

98. You're making me laugh, when

I know I should be crying at the state of our judicial system. What an unbelievable thing for an AG to say, but even more unbelievable, I doubt he lost his job over it.

[MajorChode]

100. If you think that's sad...

Fat Tony Scalia and Uncle Tom Clarence said the same thing.

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

[jobycom]

147. That's a different point, though. That's a question of judicial priority.

What Scalia and Puppet were saying is that if a person is convicted legally, meaning all proper rights of defense and law were obeyed, that a seperate habeus court decision isn't enough to override the original court and the appeals process associated with it. He wasn't arguing that actual guilt or innocence doesn't matter, he was arguing that the verdict of the first court held unless it was overturned on appeals, and that a separate ruling in a separate court wasn't enough to do that. Legally, from what I understand (and I'm not a lawyer), the convict would be able to use the evidence the habeas court used to challenge his conviction on appeal.

In short, he was saying that just because a separate court ruled that someone was innocent didn't mean they were innocent, and the original court had jurisdiction. Agree or disagree (and I don't think I understand the point well enough to do either), it was a procedural argument based on conflicting rulings, not a claim that it was acceptable to execute an innocent person.

The Texas AG, on the other hand, argued just that--it is acceptable to execute an innocent person as long as his conviction was legal. That's a totally different animal.

[MajorChode]

170. I disagree

Fat Tony was indeed arguing that innocence doesn't matter and it is legal to execute an innocent person. That was exactly the question before the court (even though the court has yet to answer that question).

Here is the rebuttal written to Fat Tony's dissent.
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Stevens.pdf

[jobycom]

116. Well, he's not AG anymore.

He's now a senator. :cry:

On edit: I've forgotten whether it was John Cornyn or Alberto Gonzales, actually.

[sabrina 1]

144. Omg, stop! This dialogue

is beginning to sound like a skit from SNL, except it's real. :cry:

[ProudDad]

135. Actually the entire execrable SCOTUS ruled in favor of that sick notion

It's now the law of the land ... the supreme law of the USAmerikan Empire is that...

If all the State's i's are dotted and t's are crossed it's ok for the state to murder an innocent prisoner...

SCOTUS has Spoken...

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States (in a 6 to 3 decision) ruled that a claim that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of one who is actually innocent is not ground for federal habeas relief.

Fuckers!

[sabrina 1]

146. Did they really rule on that?

I just posted an OP on the Death Penalty around the world showing how most countries are reviewing it and leaning towards abolishing. Kenya, just stopped over 4000 death sentences for humane reasons eg.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6988441&mesg_id=6988441

In the second link there is information on a DP case that went before the SC based on the 8th Amendment. A man on Death Row for 32 years. The SC decided not to hear it, but two of the justices, Stevens being one, wrote an opinion anyhow, condemning the practice of keeping people on Death Row as 'cruel and unusual'.

But there was no decision on the case. I didn't see anything about what you mentioned. I do remember reading what Scalia (I think) said regarding innocent people, but didn't know it had become law.

What a disgrace if that is true. Democracy dying with hardly a whimper.

[ProudDad]

150. Yep...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

This decision is very vivid to me -- it was such a miscarraige of anything resembling "justice"...

'Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, dissented. Blackmun believed that "othing could be more contrary to contemporary standards of decency or more shocking to the conscience than to execute a person who is actually innocent." Blackmun would have remanded the case to the district court for a determination as to whether a hearing should be held and to resolve the merits of Herrera's claim of actual innocence.

Chastising the majority for its circumspection, Blackmun wrote, "We really are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless, can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence," and he took note of "the State of Texas' astonishing protestation to the contrary."'

'Herrera was executed four months after the ruling. In his final statement he said: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight."'

[Starbucks Anarchist]

85. Good.

Fuck him.

[ProudDad]

151. Oh, you're into necrophilia in addition to state-sponsored murder? (n/t)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

161. Who writes your material? Dennis Miller?

[TicketyBoo]

91. I'm okay with this one.

But normally I am against the death penalty. There have been too many lethal mistakes. (One was too many.)

But there was no doubt about this one, and I'm not troubled by it in the slightest.

I think sometimes it can provide a sense of closure. If family members of a victim are seething about the murderer still drawing breath while their loved one is not, then it would be helpful.

I think I would not feel that kind of anger, but I fervently hope never to have to find out.

[WeDidIt]

101. There's some good news to see first thing in the morning.

Thanks for the report. The world is a little bit safer today.

[Owl]

113. Good.

[slackmaster]

118. I'm still opposed to the death penalty, but in his case all I have to say is...

:nopity:

[ProudDad]

124. How "consistent" of you... (n/t)

[slackmaster]

136. There are two kinds of evils in this world, ProudDad

Ones I can do something about, and ones that I have no control over.

Recognizing the difference is critical to being a happy, stable person.

[ProudDad]

138. I AM a happy, stable person

calling evil by its name is something that I DO have control over...

And I will continue to do so...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6986512#6991060

[mitchum]

121. One less predator will prey no longer

[Name removed]

139. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

123. 10 Reasons to Abolish the Death Penalty

By 2004, 118 countries had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. An average of three countries abolish the death penalty every year. The worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty is reflected in the Africa region, where 24 members of the African Union had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, by 1 October 2004.(1) Here are ten reasons for the total abolition of this degrading and inhuman punishment:

1 - the death penalty violates the right to life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person’s right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral integrity of his person." This view is reinforced by the existence of international and regional treaties providing for the abolition of the death penalty, notably the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989.

2 - the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.

The UDHR categorically states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."All forms of execution are inhuman. No government can guarantee a dignified and painless death to condemned prisoners, who also suffer psychological pain in the period between their sentence and execution.

3 - the death penalty has no dissuasive effect.

No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments. The most recent investigation into the links of cause and effect between capital punishment and the murder rate, was conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002. It came to the following conclusion: "...it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.

By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal. Moreover, studies have shown that the murder rate increases immediately after executions. Researchers have suggested that this increase is similar to that caused by other violent public events, such as massacres and assassinations.

5 - the death penalty is discriminatory in its application.

Throughout the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people. Some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from wealthier sectors of society. In these cases, either the accused are less able to find their way through the maze of the judicial system (because of a lack of knowledge, confidence or financial means), or the system reflects the generally negative attitude of society and the powerful towards them. It has also been proved that certain criminals run a greater risk of being condemned to death if their victims come from higher social classes.

6 - the death penalty denies the capacity of people to mend their ways and become a better person.

Defenders of the death penalty consider that anyone sentenced to death is unable to mend their ways and could re-offend at any time if they are released. However, there are many examples of offenders who have been reintegrated and who have not re-offended. Amnesty International believes that the way to prevent re-offending is to review procedures for conditional release and the psychological monitoring of prisoners during detention, and under no circumstances to increase the number of executions. In addition, the death penalty removes any possibility for the condemned person to repent.

7 - the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.

An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family. Far from reducing the pain, the length of the trial and the appeal procedure often prolong the family’s suffering.

8 - the death penalty denies the fallibility of human institutions.

The risk of executing innocent people remains indissolubly linked to the use of the death penalty. Since 1973, 116 people condemned to death in the United States have been released after proof of their innocence has been established. Some of them have only just escaped execution, after having passed years on death row. These repeated judicial errors have been especially due to irregularities committed by prosecution or police officers, recourse to doubtful evidence, material information or confessions, or the incompetence of defence lawyers. Other prisoners have been sent to their deaths when serious doubts existed about their guilt.

9 - the death penalty is a collective punishment.

This punishment affects all the family, friends and those sympathising with the condemned person. The close relatives of an executed prisoner, who generally do not have anything to do with the crime, could feel, as a result of the death penalty, the same dreadful sense of loss as the victim’s parents felt at the death of their loved one.

10 - the death penalty goes against the religious and humanist values that are common to all humanity.

Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that Amnesty International bases its opposition to the death penalty.

[sabrina 1]

149. You should make that an OP

I was reading about how other countries around the world view the death penalty last night and was surprised, but happy, to see that so many of them are reconsidering the death penalty. This country is so isolated from the rest of the world, it's like an island unto itself where the people are not exposed to any thinking other than what the rulers tell them. And then we have Fox and the rest of the rightwing noise machine.

When you look outside of this country, it's like a whole other world that, even in countries you wouldn't expect to see it, human rights is at least a topic they are discussing and in many cases, making progress with. While the US sinks further and further into being a cruel, soulless system and more and more, with no opposition from the Democratic Party. They have worked hard to prove they are as 'tough' as Republicans. In reality we have all become weaker.

[ProudDad]

152. I have before..

Good suggestion though...

I think I will...

Thanks :hi:

[ProudDad]

153. Just made it an OP and the unrec crowd is out in force already

:shrug:

Bloodthirsty democrats in the service of the USAmerikan Empire.

[mitchum]

156. So...who did your progeny murder?

[sabrina 1]

172. Do you have a link? I'd be happy to give it a rec.

Meantime I'll go look for it. How sad is that, what kind of people could possibly disagree with it?

[aikoaiko]

142. certainty of actor + heinous crime = DP

Barring any compelling mitigating circumstances, I'm for the death penalty.

[Amaya]

159. America in the top ten!

Countries with the Most Confirmed Executions in 2008
1. China (1,718) 4. United States (37)
2. Iran (346) 5. Pakistan (36)
3. Saudi Arabia (102) 6. Iraq (34)

Countries with the Most Confirmed Executions in 2007
1. China (470) 4. Pakistan (135)
2. Iran (317) 5. United States (42)
3. Saudi Arabia (143)

Countries with the Most Confirmed Executions in 2006
1. China (1,010) 4. Iraq (65)
2. Iran (177) 5. Sudan (65)
3. Pakistan (82) 6. United States (53)


Countries with the Most Confirmed Executions in 2005
1. CHINA (1,770) 6. Yemen (24)
2. IRAN (94) 7. Vietnam (21)
3. SAUDI ARABIA (86) 8. Jordan (11)
4. UNITED STATES (60) 9. Mongolia (8)
5. Pakistan (31) 10. Mongolia (8)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective

America is NOT a progressive country :puke:

[Naturyl]

175. Owned.... lol

Catch you later, sniper guy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

177. I will not waste my breath arguing for the life of someone who himself thought life so meaningless

that he choreographed the murders of people he'd never met, the wounding of others, and showed no remorse whatsoever for either his victims, or those they left behind after they were murdered.

His life means no more to me than that which he attached to those people.