Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor objected to the court's haste, saying it "highlights once again the perversity of executing inmates before their appeals process have been fully concluded."Not that they said they wanted to hear the case. They didn't. That's empathy for you.
Stevens, writing for the three, said Virginia had short-circuited the process by scheduling Muhammad's execution for Tuesday night, earlier than the court would normally have reviewed his petition for the court to take his case.
November 9, 2009
"In its effort to race John Allen Muhammad to his death before his appeals could be pursued, the state of Virginia will execute a severely mentally ill man who also suffered from Gulf War Syndrome the day before Veterans day."
Said the lawyer for John Allen Muhammad, who will be executed tomorrow night, the Supreme Court having turned down his request for a stay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
He's lucky we don't behead here.
Is there any doubt about his guilt?
No.
Then what purpose does prolonging the appeals process serve other than enriching his lawyer?
So why don't they short circuit the short circuit by hearing the case?
I work with a lot of people who like to B & M & W and never do anything about it. They say things like this.
-XC
WV - mediesch - school for media covering education
Is his lawyer equating the Muslim religion with insanity? Call the ACLU! Call the bar association!
wv: manglo - sounds like a great smoothie. mmmmm.
No doubt about his guilt, he knew it was wrong, he corrupted a young man and he terrorized a large area. Still, some will use any means necessary to prevent justice from being served.
That quote desperately needs a couple of commas.
(Althouse: I know it's not you; you, rightly, merely reproduced how it appears in the article.)
Yeah, jeez. It's not like he was a teabagger, was he?
Reader:
I was very confused by it as well.
It sounded like the state was forming a conga line of executees to warm it up for John Allen.
Blake:
Good one!
If he is of no use to the right, then hang 'em high. hang 'em say. Teach him a lesson he'll never forget.
Ya'betcha!
Since Muhammad shot all those people during the month of October, why does it matter that he had Gulf War Syndrome the day before Veterans Day?
"..if he is of no use to the right, then hang 'em high. hang 'em say. Teach him a lesson he'll never forget. "
I guess then he's of use to the left
so let's commute his sentence? Got his poster on your wall?
Got a prison pen pal?
Remember how the Beltway Sniper was supposed to be a white, fundamentalist, right-wing gun nut?
The same people who said that are in charge of investigating people like
Major Hasan.
Makes you feel safe.
I crossed paths with the black Muslim terrorist John Allen Muhammad during almost the entire weeks-long attack. I frequently patronized the Barnes & Noble next to the Home Depot in Falls Church where Linda Franklin was murdered. I literally ducked while I pumped gas at a station in Manassas.
Can I throw the switch?
Well, the profilers weren't entirely wrong - the DC sniper was a male and religious.
So give them points for that. Had it been a female or transgender atheist...
What appeals from his victims did Muhammad entertain?
None.
"Is his lawyer equating the Muslim religion with insanity?"
In this case as in the case of Hasan they do seem to be all too near allied.
T0M SPAULDING, WELL SAID. i too live in the VA area, and remember how freaked out everyone was, and how his murders devastated so many lives. So...he may have been a mistreated child, but he became an evil adult.
Did he do the crimes? Yes. Was there every indication of premeditation? Yes. Was he fully conscious of what he was doing? Yes. Were there any legal issues apart from chickenshit ones like declaring 'mental illness'? No. Okay, fry him. And may the Christ of God have mercy on his soul.
I don't think that the eye for an eye approach to justice can be applied without accidentally indulging perception. It's all very similar to gang warfare. Killing a person for an act of killing will just be percieved as killing a just man by anyone who believes in his cause or has attributed one to him....I'm not sure what the solution is, but executing a man certainly doesn't offer resolution and a 'legal process' doesn't exhonerate those involved in his execution from being a part of a process designed to take life.
Grapp, I was right with you till you got to: " And may the Christ of God have mercy on his soul."
While I am not at all prone to being in favor of eternal damnation in this case I find myself quite willing for him to face God's eternal judgment.
Trey
When it comes to the death penalty, I am very liberal in my beliefs, i.e. I am in favor of it solely because it makes me feel good.
wv = uprog: UW-Madison's Twitter address
"I don't think that the eye for an eye approach to justice can be applied without accidentally indulging perception. It's all very similar to gang warfare. Killing a person for an act of killing will just be percieved as killing a just man by anyone who believes in his cause or has attributed one to him....I'm not sure what the solution is, but executing a man certainly doesn't offer resolution and a 'legal process' doesn't exhonerate those involved in his execution from being a part of a process designed to take life."
Cynical person... do you have any idea how much of what you presented as undisputed fact is actually unsupported ideological belief?
That our "perception" is relevant when facts are known. That "eye for eye" is even an issue here... it's not. The man has only one life and took many. His execution is not "eye for eye"... it's far less. Gang warfare is rational in the *absence* of something to take it's place, which is the social contract between citizens and the state to refrain from seeking justice outside of the judicial system in exchange for the assurance that the judicial system will act in the place of citizens, thus avoiding anarchy and chaos. You assume that the feelings of those who like what this man did, matter. They don't. You've bought into a faith system that insists that everything is relevant to perception... it is not. Failing to act because some nutcase probably thinks this guy is his hero is moral cowardice. The families of victims who go to see this man die *will* have as much resolution as it's possible to have. The population that was terrorized *will* have resolution as they will know that the state is keeping up it's end of the "no vigilantism" social contract. And lastly... "taking a life" is sometimes a necessary social good that no one needs to be exonerated for. The people involved in taking this man's life no more need to be exonerated than the police officer who shot Hasan would need to be exonerated if he had died.
Post a Comment