Lee Malvo (the teenage member of the Washington area snipers) was given a life sentence today by his jury. The prosecutor, Robert Horan, stated in reaction :
Look, you bloodthirsty bastard, you are not hired to off as many people as you possibly can! You are hired to serve the cause of justice. The jury chose to dispense justice tempered with mercy, and you are disappointed? Your will, your desire, should override the decision of twelve good men and true? Fuck you.
It would be interesting to see if people sentenced during the holidays end up with lighter sentences, on average. There are probably stats on that somewhere.
Is this Malvo’s only trial?
I seem to recall hearing that at least two other states wanted a crack at him, too.
He ain’t off the hook yet.
Life in prison w/o parole? Death penalty?
Either way, who cares? This poor lost soul is outta the pool! Fuck him AND his prosecutor.
You’re right; he could face trials in Maryland, D.C., Alabama and Louisiana. In the latter two he could face the death penalty again.
Actually, as the elected prosecutor, he is required to protect the public interest by getting the stiffest penalties he can get. He though he had enough for the death penalty, he didn’t get it, and he expressed disappointment that he didn’t get it.
I think the guy should fry (or whatever it is they do in Virginia), partially because the crime warrants it, and partially because I’m an Old Testament eye-for-an-eye sort of person. The prosecutor may be like that, he may not, but he didn’t get the punishment that he thought the crime warranted, and was displeased.
I don’t see where he said that his will should override the jury’s will. He was simply disappointed with the decision. Given the scope of the crime, I’m frankly stunned that Malvo didn’t get the DP.
I note from your language (“bloodthristy”) that you are probably against the death penalty, so I don’t expect you to agree with any of this. However, the DP is in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court, and is done in accordance with the will of the people. Anyone who runs afoul of those laws get what they deserve, IMO.
Um, not exactly… That’s only one measure of doing the job successfully, and not the most important one by far…
Trinopus
What do you feel is the most important one, Trinopus?
Well, I’m opposed to the death penalty, but I’m not outraged. There is a belief among many prosecutors that the Christmas holidays play a part in both the guilt and punishment phases of a trial.
All Horan is saying is that (a) Malvo deserved the death penalty, and (b) he didn’t get it, in part, because Christmas is upon us. He believes that he was “hired to serve the cause of justice” and justice wasn’t served because of illegitimate reasons.
You’re right, too, Airman, I am opposed to the death penalty, for what I consider to be good and moral reasons. I don’t demonize those who support it though, probably because my father served on a jury that imposed the death penalty on the defendant.
However, this sentence is wrong:
The adversial nature of our system of justice often conceals the fact that all parties, the prosecutor, the defense, and the judge are in court to serve one purpose, the administration of justice. There should be no winners and losers as long as the result is just. Was it just for prosecutors in Texas to press for life in prison for possesion of marijuana? Was it just for the lawyer for John Gotti (can’t recall his name) to pretend he was oblivious to the behind-the-scenes juror intimidation? Is it naive of me to believe this? No, no, and yes.
Well, see, he thought that if it wasn’t Christmas, he would have got what he wanted. It’s not his job to press for the stiffest penalty, in my opinion; it’s his job to press for the penalty that serves justice. I think a life sentence for an evil crime committed by a 17-year-old serves justice. We disagree. I’m not so stunned, by the way, I think the defense’s work during the trial phase laid a lot of the ground work for the penalty phase.
Agreed. That’s why I want it changed. I am simply attacking Horan because he was so disappointed that Virginia was not going to get to fry Malvo. That is NOT his duty. Given the circumstances of the death penalty in this country, it may be an end result of his duty, but it should not be his goal.
I think it’s kind of sick that you use the word “evil” to describe the DA who was trying this sick little bastard. JLM is evil, buddy -learn the difference
Yeah, that OP had me worried. Not that I don’t believe lawyers are all evil…
Lee Malvo got lucky in his first trial, but has more to go.
Depends upon how you feel about marijuana. If the jury passes a life sentence, that’s how it goes. Jury of your peers and all. If you don’t want to pay the price, don’t break the law, especially in a locale that will allow such stiff sentences for such relatively minor crimes.
Was it just? Sure it was. He’s not under any obligation to help to convict his client. That responsibility falls on the prosecution. Was it ethical? No, of course it wasn’t. There is a difference. Sometimes justice and ethics overlap, and then you have a serious problem (unless you’re Johnny Cochran), but that isn’t the case with Malvo.
I’m glad to see that he got life w/o parole, but if I were a juror in that case he’d be swinging from the end of a rope by the end of the day. YMMV.
But it is also a fact that it is felt that that adversial nature is the best method by which justice may be administered by non-mind-readers.
Unless evidence comes to his notice that exculpates the accused, it is the duty of the prosecutor to press as hard as possible, not only for conviction, but for the harshest possible sentence. This might be different if the mere fact of having been convicted of a crime carried with it the opprobrium of the generality, but it does not.
In analogous fashion, unless evidence comes to his notice that convinces him of the guilt of his client, it is the defense attorney’s duty to press as hard as possible for acquital. Likewise, it is the jury’s duty to determine the facts, despite obfuscations by both prosecution and defense, and the judge’s duty to ascertain, as best she can, that all the actions of prosecutor, defense, and jury conform the laws of that jurisdiction.
Connecticut jurors must be tougher than those in the Malvo case. Last week, a guy was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman who was 8 1/2 months pregnant. The baby was delivered after the attack and survived for 42 days. He was convicted of murder of the baby as well.
I think they made the right decision. Malvo may have understood that what he was doing was wrong; he may have been brainwashed by the older sniper. But either way, he was a minor when he committed the crimes, and I don’t think the death penalty is appropriate for children.
Life in prison isn’t a basket of daisies. He’s getting punished. Justice is served, but without unnecessary brutality. Hooray for the system.
As someone who lives in Md. and has friends in the Northern Va. area along with some that live in Fredericksburg who live a mile from from one of the shootings, I can honestly say fuck him and it’s too bad the jury turned out to be a bunch of fucking crybabies.
Shot and killed while cutting your fucking grass? Shot and killed while shopping at Home Depot? Shot and killed while sitting on a bench?
Shot and killed while pumping gas into your car? Shot and killed while standing on the bus you drive? And the list can go on.
10, count 'em. 10 dead.
Shot and wounded while going to school?
Fuck him and his defense team.
Oh the good news for all of you who think he has the right to live is you get to help support his no good murdering ass.
And while you think about that, have you ever been afraid to pump gas because you may be shot while doing so?
Actually, The Commonwealth of VA gets a few more bites at the apple. From what I recall, he can alos be tried by Prince William County, Stafford County, and another county whom I am forgetting. I don’t know for certain that those jurisdictions will try him again.
Agreed. That’s not to say it’s perfect.
Unless evidence comes to his notice that exculpates the accused, it is the duty of the prosecutor to press as hard as possible, not only for conviction, but for the harshest possible sentence. This might be different if the mere fact of having been convicted of a crime carried with it the opprobrium of the generality, but it does not.**
[/QUOTE]
As I stated to Airman, absolutely wrong! It is his duty to press for the sentence that best serves justice. Read the accounts of trials in your local paper for a while - you will often find that even in a non-plea bargain case, the prosecution will not ask for the maximum. They are usually asking for a bit more than they think the judge will give; their ears are attuned to what sentence would be just.
Since when has conviction not carried opprobrium? What world are you living in? One of the biggest problems for release prisoners is finding a decent job. Why? Because they are convicted felons. Lack of opprobrium? Even I, a firm believer in second chances, would have a hard time hiring a convicted embezzler for a job anywhere near my money. I honestly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Sorry, I screwed up the coding. The piece beginning “Unless evidence” and ending “but it does not” is a quote from Akatsukami’s post.