John Allen Muhammad Executed
Washington-area sniper John Allen Muhammad was executed Tuesday by lethal injection, a Virginia prisons spokesman said.
He was declared dead at 9:11 p.m., said Larry Traylor, director of communications for the Virginia Department of Corrections.
[...]
During three weeks in October 2002, Muhammad and accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo, then 17, killed 10 people and wounded three, while taunting police with written messages and phoned-in threats and demands.
I’ll ask the tough question. What did his execution accomplish?
Posted by james wigderson on November 11, 2009 at 0937 hrs
Not tough at all. He is dead.
Posted by Owen on November 11, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Thank you for not saying, “He’s dead, Jim.” But what did his death accomplish?
Posted by James Wigderson on November 11, 2009 at 1033 hrs
He is no longer a threat to anyone, including the guards and fellow inmates.
Posted by Owen on November 11, 2009 at 1110 hrs
That could have been accomplished without killing him.
Posted by james wigderson on November 11, 2009 at 1115 hrs
Really? You can imprison him in a way where he would never possibly be able to harm his guards or fellow inmates? You should give the US prison system a call, because they haven’t figured out how to do that 100% yet.
Posted by Owen on November 11, 2009 at 1117 hrs
He’s now after 7 long years paid his penalty!
Had he been a law abiding citizen that penalty would not have applied to him.
But he chose Execution. Not only for himself but his victims.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1120 hrs
It seems to me that you’re asking an obstinate question. If you really want to ask a tough question, why don’t you ask one of the family members of the sniper’s victims what his execution has accomplished?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1157 hrs
I guess the answer to Owen’s question is that for seven years they managed to accomplish it prior to John Allen Muhammad’s execution. That there were no reports that he was a danger to anyone since his incarceration should argue against his potential as a threat in the future.
As for his whether he chose execution, yes, he chose to commit his crimes in a death penalty state. How does that square with the death penalty’s supposed deterrence value?
And laker, I’m asking an instructive question, not one simply born of obstinance. While we take into account the wishes of family members of victims, if one of them devised some hideous torture for John Allen Muhammad I would hope we would oppose that, too. The rule of law is dependent upon dispassioned reasoning, not the transitory desires for revenge.
Posted by james wigderson on November 11, 2009 at 1234 hrs
The death penalty is dumb, but it is satisying to some people, often victims and their families.
Personally, I’d rather die ASAP than spend the next 40-50 years incarcerated, but that’s just me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1248 hrs
The death penalty also acts as a deterrent. Although I agree that waiting 7 years tends to minimize that. There does need to be a balance to insure that innocent people aren’t killed.
However in these case - it was pretty clear cut.
I also think the death penalty should be able to be used on people who commit crimes in prison. If you are already serving 2 life sentences, what more can they do to you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1327 hrs
In criminal sentencing, there are several theories on the imposition of punishment—protection of society, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation.
In cases such as this, I see no need to consider whether its actually a deterrent to others or whether society is protected by life in confinement—retribution is ample reason on its own. You kill a bunch of innocents for no reason, you deserve to die. Period.
Posted by Jed on November 11, 2009 at 1356 hrs
Jed beat me to the punch. Most folks having this debate fail to recognize that retribution is and has long been recognized as a ligitimate goal of the criminal justice system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1523 hrs
...not to be taken as a taunt: This is a “conservative” site where the spending of tax dollars are scrutinized no matter what they are spent on be it schools or prisons, yes?
...and if anyone cites “eye for an eye”, then let’s consider bringing back that old time “blood money”.
CA Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice 2008 - said California’s death penalty system “broken” and “dysfunctional,” and costs the state an estimated $137 million a year. 685 inmates on death row with only 13 killed since ‘77.
Death penalty is considered a boon by some California inmates
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deathrow11-2009nov11,0,597884.storyTry to find the cost to taxpayers for John Allen Muhammad’s execution. Good luck.
Death penalty Financial Costs:
This money could be better spent on libraries, schools, veteran’s hospitals or returned to the taxpayers.North Carolina - death penalty cost to taxpayer: $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life.
Texas - death penalty cost to taxpayer: $2.3 million, 3X the cost of 40 years, max security, single cell.
Nebraska - Judiciary Committee 1998 report: savings from executing an inmate are outweighed by the financial legal costs.
United States Judicial Conference - Prosecution costs are 67% higher than defense costs which are approximately 4X higher than comparable cases where the death penalty is not pursued.
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs2.html http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpicrace.html http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm http://www.uscourts.gov/publications.html http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/dp/dpfacts.htmPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1637 hrs
Yes, it is too expensive. I have a few ideas on how to reduce the costs. If don’t properly it should not cost as much as keeping someone in jail for 120 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1655 hrs
Jason, are you saying that the death penalty is too expensive, and therefore, justifies providing food, shelter, work, schooling, etc., for these inmates for their remaining life sentences? I have a hard time “buying” that.
Posted by GAMazy on November 11, 2009 at 1704 hrs
John Allen Mohammed is dead and deservedly so. People kill and are killed in prison and sometimes they get paroled or pardoned or some judge and jurisdiction decides to release prisoners. Now, I grant you that JAM would be very low on any such list of possible releases but now he is completely non-existant.
What was accomplished? Justice.
I witnessed an execution when I was overseas. I felt pity on the condemned but again the path they chose led them to those poles in the desert.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on November 11, 2009 at 1722 hrs
GAMazy,
I’ll never say go Ghandi and turn the other cheek on this issue. It’s is simply costly. Taxpayer’s pay for it. Not having the tax penalty = taxpayer’s savings. Life Imprisonment is plainly less expensive.Also, I have serious concern.s with a State having the right to kill while the common citizen does not. The individual’s rights are as important as the state; the state is made of individuals. Does a group (The State) get more rights than the individual in these matters?
Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness really makes one think about the state vs. individual issue in 15 pages, completely circumventing the cost arguments.
Good blog discussion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2009 at 1812 hrs
Food for thought, Jason. Thanks….. I agree - good blog discussion.
Posted by GAMazy on November 11, 2009 at 1813 hrs
We could arguably state that justice was accomplished. OTOH, we could also state that it is an expensive way to provide justice. OTOH, we could also state, as Jason did, that the government also appears to have more rights than average citizens. OTOH, we could also state that giving citizens the same right as controlled governmental justice could impose a whole ‘nother set of issues.
This is beginning to sound like Reb Tevye.
Posted by GAMazy on November 11, 2009 at 1816 hrs
I don’t buy the argument that the state has to many powers in this case. He had a number of appeals and he was convicted by jury of his peers (citizens) who then decided that he should be then be killed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2009 at 0805 hrs
Remington 12 ga deer slug $ 1.00
Fleet Farm gunnysack for burial $ 1.50
Final justice PRICELESSPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2009 at 1017 hrs
It’s a false dichotomy. Individuals do have the right to kill; they can kill for self-defense, the defense of others and to protect property (in some states). That right is exercised in the heat of the moment and often not reviewed by anyone except a cop or a DA.
On the other hand, the state can only kill for very specific offenses that must be created by laws passed by a popularly elected legislature and signed by a popularly elected executive officer. Then person must be convicted by 12 other people of violating said offense and those same 12 people must recommend killing to the judge who is also often popularly elected and who can say no. Then after all of that, the condemned person gets a bunch of appeals.
I really don’t see that the state has outstripped the individual in this case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2009 at 1508 hrs
Frankly, I’m not overly concerned with Mohamed himself. I have no sympathy for him or his fate. But I do worry about a few other things, many of which have been brought up already.
It’s too expensive. (And no, there aren’t ways to make it cheaper without making it more likely we’re offing the not guilty.)
We sometimes execute people we later think were innocent. How many dead guilty people are worth one innocent one? I don’t like to contemplate it.
I don’t buy that it’s a deterrent. People who commit the kind of crimes that get a death penalty aren’t showing a whole lot of concern for their well-being to begin with. I’m not convinced that a far-off threat of the possibility of being caught and perhaps facing a death penalty that might be carried out ten years later… no, I don’t think these guys are really weighing that out when they decided to off granny for her purse.
So in principle, I’m against the death penalty. Even though I could care less about this guy.
Posted by scott on November 12, 2009 at 1701 hrs
Joe,
We have the right to kill another human in limited circumstances. However, if the wife of Dude X is killed, Dude X is NOT given license to go out and whack his wife’s murderer. To allow for the personal extraction of vengeance can and does lead to inter-generational vendettas and feuds—not good.
Members of all societies generally give up the right for personal vengeance and pass that onto society—the government. Governments have their processes to make sure such retribution is directed at the offending party and not their family or friends.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on November 12, 2009 at 2351 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 03:42 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).