Yep. That’s why Virginia got him first.
Now do they go through all the other trials, too?
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
I wonder, do they need someone to throw the switch, or push in the plunger or whatever it is they do? I’ll take off work that day.
Thanks for playing, Moe. Buh bye.
I don’t imagine anyone is really surprised at this, are they? Why else did Virginia get him rather than Maryland?
By the way, MD’s esteemed Governor, Robert Erlich, called a halt on the Death Penalty moratorium almost as soon as he was sworn in. Whatta guy.
All Washington D.C. area residents who had to duck their heads while pumping gas last year should get free whacks with a ball-peen hammer before they snuff him.
It death by firing squad, right?
I was watching CNN when the jury was deliberating on his obvious guilt and one of the correspondents said that John Ashcroft had stepped in and given Virginia first dibs at him because they were more likely to sentence him to death.
Rib Eye, that’s a great line!
I would rather not, thanks.
We kill him.
Because he killed, and we’re better than that.
Something I’ve never understood either, Bricker.
One juror didn’t understand, either. But that same juror later decided that if he didn’t vote for the death penalty, and ole JM got loose… that JM would kill again.
It seems likely, based on the evidence.
So then what? Just let him sit in a room for several decades and let him go because he is “rehabilitated”?
Some people can never be.
I was nervous for a bit, since the jury seemed headed for a deadlock, but they came around in the end.
The sooner that BASTARD is killed the better. Let’s hope the appeals don’t take too long.
It’s a shame they gave him the death penalty. Life in prison with no parole is a far, far worse sentence, at least in my opinion. I think he’s getting off easy.
You don’t think it’s morally better to kill a murderer than to kill an innocent man?
You don’t think it’s morally better for the state to kill a man who has been duly tried and convicted by a jury of his peers than for one man to kill people just because he thinks they need killing?
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
No, some folk just don’t subscribe to “an eye for an eye”-style justice, or even “an eye for seventeen eyes.”
Is everyone forgetting that, according to all known evidence and the trial proceedings, John Allen Muhammad did not actually kill anyone? He may have had Svengali-like control over Malvo, but he never pulled a trigger, and was not convicted for doing so.
Slate had a somewhat interesting article that points out how the prosecution didn’t even really try to prove the “brainwashing”, just let the jury fill in the blanks themselves.
Likely? You think it likely that in the absence of the death penalty that the defendent would ever be released from prison?
Even if successive life sentences were not handed down (unlikely) and the defendent somehow was eligible for parole, legislatures have shown a willingness to pass laws to keep specific murderers behind bars until they die.
Then again, I’m a foreigner so I can’t claim to fathom the opinions of many Americans when it comes to capital punishment. Different cultures, I guess.
I know you’re replying to Bricker, but I’d say no, not in the slightest. So twelve people think he needs killing?
This is indeed why he was tried in Virginia, ditto for Malvo. Although as Jeff Olsen’s quote says, “The jury’s recommendation is not final. Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. can reduce the punishment to life in prison without parole when Muhammad is formally sentenced, but Virginia judges rarely take such action.”
OK well then have a real life sentence. Let the fucker look at a wall for the rest of his life. Exercising alone and thinking about how he pissed his life away. Would you rather be dead than that punishment? I know I would.
Death is quick, painless and makes society seem like it’s about vengeance rather than punishment.
Make the fucker the loneliest person in the world and keep him like that.