I think it’s a bad idea just because it’s what he wants. Although, I wish there was a way we could carry out his death sentence by parachuting him into the middle of the people he thought he was helping.
I haven’t followed this case closely - did he get a psych eval before waiving his right to counsel? If not, I imagine one could still argue ineffective assistance, and that it was improper to permit him to defend himself.
Then you are not looking at the facts. Hasan probably could have received a life sentence too if he tried to get a plea deal. Prosecutors generally try to avoid a trial because you never know what will happen. And no one but Hasan wanted to drag it out for four years.
Nope, those don’t count unless it was as a consequence of torture before they could be formally executed. A martyr is specifically someone who has been killed because of his faith.
From being? Not killing them is a good one. From being treated as a symbol of the cause? Not really, no. But my comment was about the ignorance of the lawyers.
Yep - before he fired his defense counsel he was evaluated for competence and sanity, and results came back both competent and sane. I suppose they can still try to argue it, but I don’t think his defense contested his competency eval before they were fired.
Do you think public opinion in the Keffiyeh-wearing world will be swayed by legal minutiae? Would you be swayed by the argument “if only those American soldiers had cooperated with their interrogators, instead of just giving name, rank, and serial number, they wouldn’t have been executed?”
Except their argument would be a complete lie whereas my point was correct. Our legal system should not be swayed by the opinions of those outside of our country. Especially those that would only be satisfied if due process was completely ignored.
Whether or not the death penalty was the right decision in this case, I think that what the defendant did or did not appear to want cannot be a relevant consideration. It’s society’s decision to make, not his. Besides, trying to assess what he wants and then give him something else is too open to manipulation, if the defendant is able to create false impressions by playing a double game (or acting like he is).
And in any event, if the defendant says that he wants to live, then the don’t-sentence-him-to-what-he-wants argument points to giving him the death penalty, and I don’t expect that any death penalty opponents are going to suspend their opposition simply for that reason.
This greasy excrescence should be locked up and then forgotten. If they ever get around to executing him, it should be done quietly so his name and presence never foul the airwaves again. The best thing we can do now is to NOT provide him any further attention.
Heck, not by the opinions of *anyone *who would only be satisfied if due process were completely ignored.
That too.
Due process? Guantanamo Bay?
I’d say, looking from the outside, that your legal system gives you the ability to execute the mentally ill and those who committed their crimes while under the age of 18. That should make you uncomfortable.
By all means ignore what the rest of the developed world thinks, but when, even with your current policy of of capital punishment, you have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, you might want to stop and think “this isn’t working” and look elsewhere for guidance.
It doesn’t do the latter anymore.
These are apples. The oranges are over there.
That’s a pretty limp reason to not give him the death sentence.
Well, let’s do exactly what the rest of the ‘developed world’ does, by all means!
We’re not Beaver and Larry Mondello who have to go along with the gang.
And, a higher incarceration rate is immaterial, in and of itself. Maybe you chaps need to up your numbers.
If you expect foreigners to be kind to us in any judgments that they make, that is too much to expect.
IIRC, competency hearings are automatically required before trial date is even set, in a capital offense.
I’m really hoping you meant that in the backhanded, non-compliment way that it came across.
In case you are serious then yes, I admit. The state execution of people who committed their crimes when under 18 was halted in 2005.
Apparently since 1990 only 7 countries have executed juvenile offenders. USA is one of course but care to have a stab (ha!) at the others?
China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia
Nice company!
You could explain yourself a little bit here. Dismissive fruit-based phrases don’t help any of us to understand your problem.