March 9 (Bloomberg) -- John Allen Muhammad, one of two men accused in the sniper-shooting deaths of 10 people in the Washington, D.C., area in 2002, was sentenced to death by a Virginia judge for murdering a man at a gas station.
A jury in Virginia Beach, Virginia, convicted Muhammad of capital murder, terrorism, conspiracy and firearms violations in November for the death of Dean Harold Meyers, 53, who was gunned down in Manassas, Virginia, in October 2002. Meyers was the seventh sniper victim.
The same jury a week later recommended the death sentence for the crime. Prince William County Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. today accepted the jury's recommendation and imposed the death penalty, county sheriff's Captain Brenda Perkins said in a telephone interview.
``There are no winners today,'' Meyers's brother Bob said at a televised press conference. ``This was not a victory. But yet it was something that had to be done and it was done right.''
Muhammad's execution is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 14, pending appeals, officials said. A formal date will likely be set after an appeal is filed, Prince William County Court Administrator Bob Marsh said.
Full Story @ Bloomberg.com
Yea! Finally someone will pay for a crime.
Posted by: muddy at March 9, 2004 07:05 PM2000 years since salvation and man is still judging man with the dealth penalty. sad that Muhammed gave death to others, sad that the state will spend millions to deal death to him. Most other species do not kill their own.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 11, 2004 09:08 AMbenny:
"2000 years since salvation and man is still judging man with the dealth penalty."
Ok, what do YOU suggest we do with the monster?
"sad that the state will spend millions to deal death to him."
I'd rather spend "millions" in one "shot" than to spend it year after year giving him three square meals a day and cable access.
"Most other species do not kill their own."
Most other species (in fact - ALL other species) do not have "free will" - only *human beings* do. Animals react on their God given animal instinct generation after generation. They have NO choices.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 11, 2004 11:58 AMMost other species (in fact - ALL other species) do not have "free will" - only *human beings* do
LOL -- dont you mean to say -only "Americans" do.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 11, 2004 02:15 PM"don't you mean to say -only "Americans" do"
No, actually, I was refering to the free will *God* gives us ALL *as* human beings.
No matter what country a person is from, they *can* very well choose to commit a crime BUT of course, they would have to answer for it under the law(s) of their government.
You didn't answer my question. If we shouldn't kill Muhammed...then what should we do with him?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 11, 2004 03:02 PMThere is no easy answer...
He sniped random people in attempt to extort money from the US government... the government that taught him to kill.
He was created by the government so I guess it fits that they will end him.
The real questions behind the motivations for violent acts like this can lead to more and more questions about human nature and injustice in society - questions that are so morrally charged that most people simply do not want to ask them. (Why did he think it would actually work? What precedent is there for rouge agents/terrorists extorting money from the US?) Many of these questions can not be definitively answered because the information is classified.
It is far easier to hide social misfits away in prison or kill them than it is to deal with the root causes of social disease. It is just so much more convenient to assign blame and punish people than it is to develop an equitable society where there is no motivation for violence. Unfortunately little progress can be made when these cycles of crime and punishment persist.
He fulfilled a mission of gripping the DC area in terror at a time when many powerful people in that erea were gaining more power due to the fact that everyone in DC was blind with fear(most of those politico's are already paranoid and being blackmailed on a daily basis).
By inflicting fear on the eastern seaboard, whose agenda did he really advance?
It is easy to write off people like this as homicidal maniacs who need to be removed to protect decent people. Sometimes the big picture is much more complex.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 11, 2004 11:50 PMbenny:
"It is far easier to hide social misfits away in prison or kill them than it is to deal with the root causes of social disease."
I understand what your saying but he wasn't *just* a "social misfit". He shot people down in cold blood therefore, indeed making him a very serious danger to society. If he *was* just a misfit then he could have gotten the help he needed ( and needs).
"It is just so much more convenient to assign blame and punish people than it is to develop an equitable society where there is no motivation for violence."
An "equitable society"? Yeah....good luck with *that* one. As long as mankind has breath, there will *always* be *some* motivation for violence.
"Sometimes the big picture is much more complex."
True. And breaking *up* the big picture into tiny details can sometimes be even more complexing in the end.
I am looking for consistency. Both the idea of "free will" and "human nature" have been used to justify the violence in this thread.
Can the same be said of peace?
Can humans choose peace?
Can peace be a surpressed "nature?"
I think we can all agree that historically and presently Gov't and institutions of great power all over the world have promoted violence over peace.
What if peace was promoted?
What would Jesus say?
Would Jesus want to pull the switch?
Posted by: BamB00zLed at March 13, 2004 02:08 PMBamboozled:
"Both the idea of "free will" and "human nature" have been used to justify the violence in this thread."
I don't think *any* one of us is "using" free will and human nature to justify violence. Nothing "justifies" violence. that would be like giving an "Excuses" to violence - which would make someone exempt from blame from their violent act(s). Rarely, (in my opinion) does anyone have an "excuse" for violence but human nature and free will are just *one* of the *reasons* behind someone's act of violence because it *is* in our human nature to do wrong (to sin) and it's our free will from Christ that allows us to *choose* whether we *do* either right or wrong.
Of course - now that I've written the previous paragraph - I just dawned on me that your definition of "violence" would depend on if your refering to the violence that the sniper commited or are you saying you believe the death penalty is an act of violence?
If it's the death penalty you feel is violent then I just don't agree with you. But that's my opinion. I don't feel it's violent because making someone pay with their own life for the life/lives that they've taken, is ( in *my* view) justice. I believe, however, in exceptions to that "rule"....for instance, in an act of self defense as well as in a situation where a woman (or man in some cases) may accidentally kill their spouse because of spousal abuse - which *would* be, in essence - self defense. In those cases, I don't even think that should warrent *jail/prison* time let alone the death penalty.
"Can the same be said of peace?"
Of being apart of human nature? Well, I do believe personally that the core of all human's nature is indeed sinful and evil....but can peace be apart of that nature? I guess so. I mean, if God indeed made us all (which He did) and He's the one that *gave* us our free-will, then I guess peace would most likely have to be in our "nature" *somewhere* in order for it *to* be a choice.
"Can humans choose peace?"
Sure....however, judging by the actions taken by some people in this world, obviously, peace isn't always the *first* choice...if it's even (by some people) considered to be an option at all.
"I think we can all agree that historically and presently Gov't and institutions of great power all over the world have promoted violence over peace."
Not neccesarily. As contradicting as this may sound....sometimes - when your way of life is being threated - you have to react in a way in which some people would refer to as "violent" when in actuality, they're just defending themselves. And so, therefore, one would have to defend (or become "violent" - so to speak) in order to preserve their peaceful way of life.
"Would Jesus want to pull the switch?"
Jesus "pulls the 'switch'" EVERY day. The "switch" that sends people to Hell, that is. However, I don't believe He "pulls" it because He "wants" to (nor do I believe it makes Him "happy" - quite the contrary) but because He *has* to. When He judges souls that come before Him and when some of those souls have not accepted Him as their personal savior, He HAS to send them to Hell based on the choice they made to *reject* Him - because Jesus Himself *is* a *just* God (or a God of justice - as it could also be put).
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 13, 2004 09:08 PMLet's mix this up a bit:
“If it's the death penalty you feel is violent then I just don't agree with you. But that's my opinion. I don't feel it's violent because making someone pay with their own life for the life/lives that they've taken, is ( in *my* view) justice.”
“that would be like giving an "Excuses" to violence - which would make someone exempt from blame from their violent act(s). Rarely, (in my opinion) does anyone have an "excuse" for violence”
If god made all of us to be inherently evil, how do you explain the innocence of a child?
Is god sadistic?
Was it a mistake?
Why is there an old and a new testament?
And I fail to see where a nation which annihilated a whole race of indigenous peoples, trapped, traded, and enslaved another, had witch hunts, is the richest nation on earth due to it's skill in war and weapon's manufacturing, and has only brief historical moments without war can be considered a peaceful nation. Please explain where this definition comes from.
Would Jesus agree with that definition?
What does Jesus do with the souls who say they follow his teachings but advocate the profitability of war?
Posted by: Critical.Hypocrite at March 14, 2004 05:33 PMBamboozled/Critical.Hypocrite:
"If god made all of us to be inherently evil, how do you explain the innocence of a child?"
The innocence of a child is the innocence from a life of experience. A child *has* no life experience so they ARE indeed "innocent" (but that's *my* view of it).
You have nephews right? Well, have they ever told a lie? Have they ever been disobedient to their parents? Did anyone *teach* them *how* to do those things? Or did it just come naturally?
"Why is there an old and a new testament?"
Old testament: Before Christ (B.C.) when everyone was under the law.
New testament: After Christ came (A.D) to fulfill the law and bring us grace and mercy.
"And I fail to see where a nation which annihilated..... Please explain where this definition comes from."
Wow! LOL! Dude! If *I* could explain ALL of *that*, then *I'd* be God :-) And, as of now, No one has dared asked me to take that position. Sorry, you're on your own on that one :-/
"What does Jesus do with the souls who say they follow his teachings but advocate the profitability of war?"
What He would *do* is look into their hearts (just like He does everyone else) and see their true intentions. He would then judge them accordingly because it's really between the person and God ONLY....it's none of our business or concern. Personally, I've got way too much on my plate than to worry about that anyhow - even if I wanted to.
Back to my question....Yes or no...Do you think the death penalty an act of violence? Why?
Mrs Muddy: Yes. The state imposed death penalty confirms for all that killing and violence is an acceptable and honorable way to solve problems. It is ironic (and moronic) that the same body that condemns killers as 'guilty' in a court of law would itself advocate killing as a means to an end and a reasonable punishment. There are decades of imperical data showing that the murder rate actually increases in states with the death penalty. Also it is more expensive to the innocent taxpayers to execute a convictl than it is to imprison someone for life (not to say life imprisonment is somehow a good thing either.) Not to mention that many, many people imprisoned im America are actually innocent.
Posted by: bennyhill1978 at March 16, 2004 01:33 PMWell, I can neither agree nor disagree with your facts because, at this point and time, I have neither the time nor the energy to confirm them.
Yes, it is true that there are indeed prisoners in America who *are* innocent. In some cases, though, I thought DNA was helping to clear them.
Even though I normally do believe in "a life for a life" philosophy - there *are* times when even *I* believe in giving a life sentence or at least 10 - 20yrs. Mostly, though, I believe those sentences would be for people charged with *involuntary* manslaughter (like a drunken driving case...).
However, in the case of Timothy Mcveigh....the dealth penalty was definately warranted. In the such a case of Charles Manson....I will NEVER understand why they don't fry that b*****d. I wouldn't be happy if they did but in my opinion, it would *finally* be justice served. Then, of course, there's this evil nut case out in Fresno. I mean - Good God! If this guy doesn't get the death sentence AND actually have it carried out (which I highly doubt since California doesn't know how to carry out the death penalty anymore - I believe it's even illegal...but I could be wrong.), I'm going to loose even *more* hope in the judicial system. And sometimes my hope in the system is hanging like a thread as it is.
Now, I'm not suggesting that you would disagree that what all of these "people" have done is wrong. But in this Fresno butchering....what do you think should happen to this guy.
Lastly, if it is indeed more expensive to execute prisoners for their crimes - as I realize it does cost to hire a jury for the first trial as for the trial in the appeal (if there is one), pay for a lawyer if the defendent cannot afford one... and so on. But maybe they could come up with a cheaper *form* of execution. I'll admit, though, even if an alternative form of execution still proved to be no cheaper then I would still be for it....but that probably doesn't surprise you.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at March 16, 2004 09:10 PM