Hi all. Just wondering if you think this guy should be put down or if he should be given a chance at rehabilitation ( to kill or not to kill ). IIRC, both Maryland and Virginia have the death penalty. Same for Alabama. His chances don't look good, and that's fine by me. Not sure about the stepson though. What are your thoughts?

First find out whats wrong with him. Good reason (mentally unstable) = get put in a high security mental hospital for the rest of his life with no luxuries or anything. Not good reason = kill the ****hole. It'd be less than he deserves.

I vote for the medievel way, or the old roman way but hey that's just me ;)

Death penalty: to cheap (it doesn't even hurt)

Prison: just make sure it'll be the biggest hell hole out there

Rehab: no way!

Maybe something like that guy in Reservoir dogs, that looked painful

Arent they suspects? What about innocent until proven guilty? It always bugs me when the media comes out with names and full background stories of a person that it is just a suspect. It really doesnt matter how strong an evidence there is against him isnt he innocent until he has been convicted of a crime? If this dude against all odds would prove to be innocent, new evidence whatever something to prove that he didnt do it then he will always be viewed as the sniper. He will have that label over the whole world and will never get rid of the suspicouns (on second thought he could probably make a ****load of money on being a freed suspect but thats not really my point).
I just think they should keep the identity secret until proven guilty but this is the police's work. If media are lucky and get to know it good for them.

They have confirmed that the rifle found in the suspects' car has just been used to kill 10 people and injure 3 others. Gonna take some believing that they're innocent?

Trial by media? Perhaps, but things like this is too high profile to keep a lid on suspects identities etc.

On topic - I think the whole thing is probably too calculated to go down as the work of a "mad man".

If he / they are fit to stand trial, I suppose it will depend where he stands trial. DC have no death penalty, Maryland and Virginia have, but one (I think it's Maryland) have currently a moratorium on the death penalty. Looks like a Virgina trial then.

In all honesty, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty, but it would seem pretty fitting in this case. I also have no sympathy for the 17 year old, but perhaps life imprisonment would be more apt. Accessory (at least) to ten counts of murder. No-one can claim he didn't know or understand unless he has a mental age of 4!

I'm curious about the case. Probably the suspect/ suspects will be accused in the area where he committed his/ their crimes - and judged by a jury he/ they scared and intimidated (actually Washington was under siege) for about two or three weeks. Good chances for a fair trial :rolleyes: :shake:

And I agree with joacqin - they are to be found guilty in the trial - not in the media and not here. They are accused by now, that's a major difference. Who knows? Maybe there were several snipers around, or maybe the cops just got something wrong, made a misinterpretation or a false analysis. **** happens. Wait and see.

I dont know or really care about what sentice he gets as long as he isnt released. But what ever happens, even if he is innocent, he's the person they are going to blame. My fear is that they have the wrong people and that the sniper is still out there. Frankly I dont trust what the media says execepte where, when. The media has a bad habit of miss reporting things and untill some one of athorthy says something it's all rumor. Or maybe this is just some rant from a half alseep guy who just wants to sleep. Just a thought.

As far as i'm concerned. Squeeze out those informative juices he may have which may connect to some terroist group etc. and after that, death. And that excludes the life sentence. Hopefully, the most painful one ... physically.

Well, with matching ballistics and fingerprinting.... "Dead man walking!"

Seriously, the talk that we shouldn't "prejudge" or that "they're innocent until proven guilty" is a bit over the top in my opinion because we're some dudes in an internet chat room. If we were a judge or jury I'd agree with you but we're not. "Innocent until proven guilty" was never something intended to be enforced upon the general public, it is a term of art in the legal profession. More often I see it used by people in an attempt to stifle opinion, no offense.

I imagine the case will be moved from the counties in which the murders took place. I imagine that there will be multiple trials. If they by some chance weren't sentenced to death in any of the states near D.C., well, I imagine Alabama would have a thing or two to say about that. As a matter of fact, Alabama is rather proud of their brand spanking new death chamber and is giving prisoners the option between it and the old "Yellow Mama."

This isn't to say I advocate the death penalty in any case or here, just what I think will happen.

The police are 99.9999999999999% sure it was them. The Sniper gun was confirmed to have fired the bullets that killed all those people. And how many people do you know who carry around a Sniper Rifle in their car?... The car was also modified so that he could fire the rifle while using the scope from the car boot. How could any of you possibly think that these are the wrong people. :rolleyes: He was confiremd as an ex-Gulf war sniper and was also confirmed to have killed a shop assistant in a robbery a few months ago.

[ October 25, 2002, 18:22: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Maryland suspended its death penalty when DNA evidence started to prove the people on death row were innocent (although I don't know that any incarcerated by Maryland were set free). The governor, a Democrat, is saying that he will reverse the suspension for these two, according to a co-worker.

Virginia and Alabama both have the death penalty and are seeking it against both Mohammed and Malvo.

Right now the suspects are in Baltimore. Jurisdiction is being negotiated since the first shooting (and the one with the best evidence against Malvo) was in Alabama, while Maryland has custody as well as the overwhelming number of victims.

I say leave them in a room with the friends and family of the dead and wounded ;)

Assuming these two people are found guilty in a court of law, no amount of suffering they go through will make up for the 10 people who died, or the way they terrorized 2 or 3 states for weeks.

I do think, if guilty, they should be executed because: It was not a crime of passion, it was not a mental deficiency (their caution and success in eluding police indicates this). There is absolutely nothing you can say in your defense when you've cold-bloodedly and methodically killed 10 people and caused so much fear and chaos.
Therefore, there is no way these two people should ever be free again. But I don't see why the taxpayers should pay the cost of keeping them fed, clothed, and in medical services, etc, in prison. They should both be executed.

And I doubt if every state or community they killed people in will have a seperate trial. There is too much time and expense involved in this. I think what is more likely is either a federal trial (since the FBI was involved, and the case crossed state lines), or one big state trial with all of the states submitting evidence.

Hey Bel, how would you like to be the lawyer defending these two?

If I understand that rightly the governor of Maryland will make an exception for those two birds. Given it is the right of the governor to decide if death penalty is to be suspended or not, re-establishing death penalty for two *special guests* after suspending it because of general doubt is ... questionable from a constitutional point of view, to say the least. All criminals should be equal under the rule law - either you hang them all or none of them.

Depending on the Maryland regulation of the suspension this could also be a retrospective law ... which is not less questionable. You cannot change a law to punish someone the way you like *after* he committed that crime. Making an exception here, maybe because it is politically advantageous, is a crime of it's own kind.

[ October 25, 2002, 20:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I just hope the lawyers don't twist things around and he ends up getting less that what he deserves.

I'm assuming that this topic is about what should be done with the two should they be found guilty, so I don't think we need to be talking about the fair trial necessity as we all know that the entitlement to one is a basic human right.

Personally, I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty for these two. I don't particularly want to be paying for their lifestyles in the imo over-luxurious prisons in this nation.

Whether rehabilitation is likely to work for the son, I don't know as I have not heard enough of the case to know exactly what role he did play. He should certainly be tried as an adult though, and be punished as one.

On the matter of the principle of all suspects of crime being "innocent until proven guilty", although, of course, in an ideal society, this concept would hold true, the plain fact of the matter is that, despite one's own personal feelings on the subject, this is simply not the case. Additionally, as to whether or not we can believe the media is in fact giving the truth on any topic, it takes only a few days (if not days) of the most basic political experience for one to wonder if the media are even reporting today's date with any accuracy

I agree with Ragusa. From a legal stand point it will be hard to have a fair trial anywhere in the U.S.A. The media always seemed to me to have too much " power " If we could limit their information in cases like these it would help the police and law enforcement communities a lot. But also I hope they fry the B****d!

What bothers me most is they actually put the picture up. He's under 18 - which means he's still a minor. No matter if he understands or not, the law still dictates that he is a minor. And even with crimes committed or assisted by minors, the media has never put the picture or the name of the criminal underage until now. That means even if he is brainwashed into thinking what's right and what's not and that he is released from jail (assuming he doesn't get the death penalty), he won't be able to get a job, apply to a university, because the media has sent out his picture and name to every possible corner in the US AND in Canada, and probably a lot of other countries too. I mean, they have no right to ruin his life even if he deserves it!!! That's like taking away a child's favorite toy because he stole the last piece of pie in the kitchen. Not to mention he isn't even a US citizen. He's from Jamaica, and if any reasonability is in here, they should banish him from USA and let Jamaica make up their decision to do what they want with him.

Actually, on the subject of the minor being, as far as I recall, an illegal immigrant, there may be a good point, as he has not, if I am correct, been through the rigmarole involved in trying to enter the country legally, is he bound by that country's laws?

[ October 26, 2002, 20:43: Message edited by: Sir Humphrey Appleby ]

It disturbs me to see practically everyone here to be basically calling for the sniper (and his stepson) to be hanged, castrated, tortured, what have you. Come on, everyone deserves a second chance, even if they've killed 10 and injured (obvious wanting to kill) 3 others in cold blood. I'd prefer that the sniper get life sentence with no parole, of course. But then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if Mr. Mohammed was given the chair. It just shocks me to hear people saying that the killer should die a horrible, gruesome death after so much despair has already been inflicted. Would a slower death alleviate the pain of the family and friends of the victims?

And by the way, I live about 20 or so miles from the places of the shootings. I walked home from school several times (took 1 hour each, by the way) worrying that I'd be caught in the crosshairs. So I'm certainly not distanced from the anger directed at Mr. Mohammed.

what makes you think everyone deserves a second chance? I'd say they blew their only chance when the trigger was pulled the first day. They have no one to blame but themselves. They made their bed, now let them lie in it.

But, the law tries to promote what they think as "goodness". The law as it is, cannot turn its back to the poor (welfare), it does not turn its back to the helpless (counseling), it does not turn its back to so many other things. And yet, a mob out there thinks that because 10 deaths have incured, and 3 critical injuries, that they'll go about and kill 2 more people. Only the mad want death as justice. The people who want death deserve no more, we're not any better than those people who just killed 10 people if we want to kill them as well. We're not rising above their level, we're sinking to their level and below. That's not what we're trying to promote here. We want to show others that we can forgive, if not forget their incidents, and let them serve us in a way that will promote us to being better people. What satisfaction is made out of death anyways?

:mad: Kill him. :mad: I don't care if he has mental problems, you just don't go around killing random people, shooting kids, and try to get away with it! Who cares if he has a disease, or mental issues, what he did is just plain wrong. He deserves to rot in hell! :mad:

Let's suppose this:

-You're a really horrible person.

-You kill dozens of people for the fun of it.

-You get caught.

-You are sentenced to a horrible, painful death, which will come in, say 20 years.

-Then you start thinking about what you did, and decide that your actions were horribly wrong. You ask for forgiveness from families, try to be a better person, and sincerely regret your decisions. You would take them back in a heartbeat if you could, even if it meant you'd stay in prison.

-Some years later, you are slowly tortured to death, while people applaud and eat cake. No one on earth mourns your loss; they believe you are scum who deserves to die a most painful death, even though you have apologized several times to the public for your deeds.

I'm certain that situations like these have happened plenty of times (except maybe for the killing dozens of people and the really painful death part).

Would you be laughing and pointing fingers while someone, even a killer, died?

He is probably not the one.
Edit: Kill him?!!! What! Thats horrible! What an primitive idea, iam even against prisons.

[ October 27, 2002, 23:57: Message edited by: Turandil ]

What bothers me most is they actually put the picture up. He's under 18 - which means he's still a minor. No matter if he understands or not, the law still dictates that he is a minor.Technically, yes, although they may still publish the pictures and such as in murder cases, thirteen year olds are oftentimes tried as adults for murder (actually, one is right now a few blocks from me). He's 17, which basically makes him an adult for murder cases.

Not to mention he isn't even a US citizen. He's from Jamaica, and if any reasonability is in here, they should banish him from USA and let Jamaica make up their decision to do what they want with him.As was stated, he is an illegal immigrant. Also, we have an extradition treaty with Jaimaica, so they would just give the accused back to us anyway.

Actually, on the subject of the minor being, as far as I recall, an illegal immigrant, there may be a good point, as he has not, if I am correct, been through the rigmarole involved in trying to enter the country legally, is he bound by that country's laws?Yes. He did the crime in the US, and he does not have diplomatic immunity.

It disturbs me to see practically everyone here to be basically calling for the sniper (and his stepson) to be hanged, castrated, tortured, what have you. Come on, everyone deserves a second chance, even if they've killed 10 and injured (obvious wanting to kill) 3 others in cold blood. I'd prefer that the sniper get life sentence with no parole, of course. But then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if Mr. Mohammed was given the chair. It just shocks me to hear people saying that the killer should die a horrible, gruesome death after so much despair has already been inflicted. Would a slower death alleviate the pain of the family and friends of the victims?Nothing will allevate the pain of the family and friends. Although, with the life sentence, we (the law-abiding citizens) end up paying thousands per year to keep him alive. I'd rather just go off of the eye-for-an-eye concept and kill him.

What satisfaction is made out of death anyways?A finality, a deterrent. If we do inflict the death penalty, not only will it bring a greater sense of justice to the familes of the victims, but it will serve to show others that may be contemplating this sort of extremist action that we are not tolerant. Perhaps that will discourage them from continuing the spree.

I'll try to remember to look a link up to back this up, but it actually costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. A lot of extra legal ramifications with the death penalty = mo' money.

EDIT -- forgot to say don't have the time to search for a link now, but I'm certain this was true a couple of years ago, quite a bit more expensive actually.

[ October 28, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: Laches ]

Some years later, you are slowly tortured to death, while people applaud and eat cake. No one on earth mourns your loss; they believe you are scum who deserves to die a most painful death, even though you have apologized several times to the public for your deeds. An apology does not erase a deed. What so many people seem not to understand is that their actions have consequences. The consequence for murder is either imprisonment or execution. If you don't want to be imprisoned or executed, don't commit murder. It's that simple. Whether or not you feel bad about killing someone does not alter the fact that you HAVE killed a person. Killed. A. Human. Killing is irreversable: therefore, the punishment should be as well.

A finality, a deterrent. If we do inflict the death penalty, not only will it bring a greater sense of justice to the familes of the victims, but it will serve to show others that may be contemplating this sort of extremist action that we are not tolerant. Perhaps that will discourage them from continuing the spree. Finality - yes, deterrent - no, justice - no.

Finality, yes I'm sure some of them will feel better. That does not make it justice. An Eye for an Eye may appear just to some victims, but it is not justice.

Deterrent, no.

Firstly, no evidence has been found that the death penalty is any sort of effective deterrent to murder in general.

Secondly, anyone who considers such action as we've seen here are not concerned about their personal consequences. They generally believe they are just in what they do "in the eyes of God" (whichever god that might be) thus the consequences are not a relevant consideration.

[ October 28, 2002, 11:28: Message edited by: Viking ]

If only he could, say, be exiled somewhere where he can't escape and has rescourses to look after himself without anyone having to worry about him. But that will not happen so maybe just straigth out getting rid of trash like that would be better.

Ok these may be the two stupidest comments I've ever read:

He is probably not the one.
Edit: Kill him?!!! What! Thats horrible! What an primitive idea, iam even against prisons.
So prison is out then? What should be done with convicted killers? Send them to your house?

...be able to get a job, apply to a university, because the media has sent out his picture and name to every possible corner in the US AND in Canada, and probably a lot of other countries too.Um... he just aided in the deaths of 10 people, and you're concerned that he now won't be able to get a job or go to college, in a country that he is not a citizen in and that he has randomly murdered people in...

I think on the latter point Art, the point had nothing to do with a scumbag who should be in prison would find it hard to apply for a job, uni etc.

The point was that the picture should not be published until the guy has been found guilty, since if he was found innocent it would still probably ruin his life.

In the UK publishing the name and picture of the 17 year old would have brought a hefty fine and possibly editors on contempt charges, unless a judge specifically opens for reporting of those details in the public interest. In this case, I rather think they would have, but still.

Viking, yes I agree with you on that point, however I apologize, I quoted the wrong part of the original post:

they have no right to ruin his life even if he deserves it!!!Huh? Is that suggesting that if he is guilty, he should not be put in prison, or executed, and it should not be publicly known that he's guilty... or... what?

I guess what's getting my goat is simply that, as soon as someone gets caught, and it does look like they caught the right guys, people forget all the pain and suffering that has been caused and brainlessly jump to the defense of these guys.

I do, however, find it disturbing that they're already pointing out on the news the possible places that these guys can be executed before the trial has even gotten underway.

Life in prison, no parole, no entertainment. Pipe in taped comments from the victims families 24 hours a day.

There really is no satisfactory treatment of criminals, everything that can be hoped for is to catch them and then try to make sure that they dont do anything again. It is a thing with no solution.

He is probably not the one.
Edit: Kill him?!!! What! Thats horrible! What an primitive idea, iam even against prisons. Wrong. These men are 'suspected' of KILLING CHILDREN.

Primitive and old isn't always wrong. I support deathsentence, a harsh decision, though, and judges should be very sure (o/c). "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise can not see all ends".
I think someone who shot 15 innocent people, for no good reason, deserves death.

An other thing, and maybe I might upset some of you:
Is killing children different? I wonder why... Because they are helpless? So was the dear policeman with the tarrotcard. Maybe these childs didn't do anything wrong in there young innocent lives, but who can say the others did?

[ October 29, 2002, 10:20: Message edited by: Master of Nuhn ]

Well, a lot of people say that children are our future (adults that is, I doubt us children have a generation below us). And, so to say, killing children is like killing the future, which isn't a very good thing.

There still is the human right component in death penalty.

The most fundamental human right is the right to live. But when in jail the human rights of the individual are in the hands of the country: So it's up to the country to enforce this rights for him in the meanwhile. One could say that with killing other people this right is forfeit. I actually have seen it like that for a while too - but the problems of a fair trial (just have a look at the "rational" decisions of juries), investigation and eventually finding sound evidence have led to tragical "mishaps". On the other hand I clearly recognize that there are criminals who maybe deserve death and who are too dangerous to be allowed to be free ever again.

Statistics iirc have showed that death penalty barely had an effect on the rates of violent crime - only natural since every criminal does his deed convinced not to be caught - more, there even was a contrary tendency: Violent crime rates increased after re-introduction of the death penalty ...

I have heared the cost-argument several times here: Criminals and antisocials in jail cost the tax payer money - for heating, food, clothing and health care. That is correct. However, this kind of calculation reminds me on Nazi math tasks like: "A criminal/ jew/ nigger eats 1kg potatoes a day - how much food do 20 of them waste over a year?" And besides, the exponents of that position use this argument inconsequently - since the same could be said about insitutionalized lunatics and old people in public senior residences ... they sit around all day, do nothing and society pays for them. Till now only the nazis have been that "consequent" - and fortunately their killing of handicapped and lunatics ended becaue of massive protest of the public and the catholic church in germany - on of our brighter days in WW-II (and the reason for the Nazis to be more secretive about their later murders).

Others wanted to punish the criminals for their deed. The thought of revenge is understandable, yet emotional. Eye for an eye is not an option for a country. If you're out for punishment - why not allow slave work for criminals? Or torture? Maybe some other inhuman treatment? That could easily be accomplished by employing some crack iraqi specialists. The way death penalty is executed additionally seems clearly to underline the element of revenge: Why all these efforts to kill a single individual (not to mention the re-attempts when they failed on first try)? Gas chamber, electric chair, poison and whatever ... if you're just out to kill someone you only need a wall and a few men with rifles. And probably there would never be a lack of volunteers in the US ... I feel tempted to say that death penalty is more a large circus and entertainment than really a solution for criminality.
As for criminals like Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and such - that's a different story ...

The deaths of hundrets of innocent in death row and in recent and less recent dictatorships (as well "legal killings" - according to local law) should have teached that restriction makes sense here: It is hard to assume a right of the country to deny people their ultimate and most fundamental human right - the right to live. You can take away personal freedom, property, equality - but once you lost your life the game is over - death penalty is irreversible. The right to live is the only right that only the individual himself can give up. It is not up to the country to do that.

That shall signify that death penalty has a totally different "quality" of rights restriction compared to jail. Too many innocent died on that basis to still see death penalty as a legitime punishment - and therefor: Never relesase them again. Fortunately most european countries share this point of view.

[ October 31, 2002, 10:17: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Very good points there my learned European friend. Very good indeed.

I don't believe a single Western European country retain the death penalty at all in peacetime now, though I may be wrong.

I remember reading, a long time ago now and from a source I can't recall, an international study that showed a decrease in conviction rates in areas that had adopted capital punishment, as well as conversely an increase in conviction rates in areas that had eliminated it. I'm not sure now if this was valid- I am suspicious of the objectivity of research relating to a heated political issue- but it definitely made me think about how capital punishment affects juries and everyone else involved in the criminal justice system. I'm of the opinion that some people prove by their actions that they are not fully human, that they have chosen to behave like rabid dogs and therefore ought to be destroyed. On the other hand, as a result of reflecting on the research mentioned above, I don't think it's fair to a society to make taxpayers participate in killing. Nor do I think that it is likely to increase the society's general willingness to value human life, so I think the overall effect is probably the opposite of a deterrent. So overall, I am opposed to it because of how it indirectly affects the innocent members of the society that adopts the practice.

I don't suppose that this is what Turandil had in mind when he said he didn't believe in prisons, but... hmm, wouldn't it be satisfying, after a fair trial of course, to drop them off scot-free - at a publically announced time, and in a well-armed neighbourhood in an area they'd terrorised?

I think the problem with the American justice system is the idea of corrective sentencing. For instance, in a gang murder in my town a few years ago, a man was convicted, and got the maximum sentence. What was this maximum sentence? 25 years to life. Think about that. 25 years in exchange for killing someone (he'll get that, or less, if he demonstrates "good behavior" while imprisoned)? Absolutely unacceptable. Increasing prison sentences to, say, life in prison for murder, without exception, would be a very good start. We can work from there.

Another interesting aspect of death penalty is how punishment of criminals is dealt with generally:

Generally criminals are punished for their dangerous and anti-social behavior.

Back to killing people: It is often overlooked that - at least in Germany - the majority of killings result from extreme relationship problems and a highly problematic family background. These cases happen in the actual situation, where circumstances are exceptional and the phsychological stress for both victim and the eventual killer is extreme.
Of course these people deserve punishment - but how to punish them properly? Execute them anyway? Or lock them away forever?! Why? Beyond the situation of an escalating family crisis they aren't dangerous. Here a "time"-sentence even for killing a human beeing makes sense since it is unlikely that the same sitution will repeat itself.

The adequancy of punishment is a higly interesting question:

In a country where people starve you can punish food-theft with hanging - but that will hardly stop the people from stealing. Same for the renowned "3-strikes and you're off" (for life) law (that iirc exists somewhere in the US) - IMO one of the most questionable punishment rules currently in existence - you can end up in jail to the end of your life by repeatedly stealing things valueing a total of ... $ 10,-- ??! ... is that adequate, fair and just? Is a notorious pizza-thief, to take it to an extreme, so dangerous and antisocial to justify a life sentence?

Eventually that ignores the principle that every criminal expects not to be caught - so the degree of punishment is pretty irrelevant to him in the moment of crime. And when he realizes that he will end up on the electric chair anyway - why should he take any care about his victim? If he kills the victim it's more "advantageous" for him - one less witness to worry about. Insofar capitol punishment increases risk for the victims, ironically they are the people the deterrence of law should actually protect.

And you cannot equal killing and killing since there is murder in cold blood (as in the sniper's case) and manslaugher (like the family cases). Eventually, even in the US there is a difference in punishment for both deeds. Guess why ... And when someone drives a car and suddenly some wild child jumps on the street - only to be overrun? Is that murder? Is it a more criminal act because it was a child? Would there be a difference in case it had been a 90-year old granny? Hardly, the death of the victim would have been unavoidable for the driver anyway, the driver has no guilt. Or in a case of self-defence: A citizen shoots an attacker in his house - that's as well killing a human beeing - but it's justified.

The punishment for killing a human beeing can range from zero to death penalty or life sentece. The actual punishment for killing a human beeing is a highly individual thing, the individual guilt should be the basis for the later punishment but it cannot be generalized like "Killers should be killed".

[ November 01, 2002, 13:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]