posted on December 26, 2003 08:48:56 AM new "I think that he was given Life as opposed to the death penalty because of the percieved influence of Muhammad."
I doubt that the jury would have considered such influence if Malvo had been considered an adult by the jury.
posted on December 26, 2003 09:00:18 AM new
On the contrary Helen - I believe that had he commited the crime as an 18 year old he would have received the same sympathy from a few people on the jury as he did as a 17 year old. Remember - many jurers capitulated and went for life when they wanted death in the name of a unanimous decision.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 09:20:16 AM new
So, to warrant special consideration for influence by Muhammad, an 18 year old would be considered by a few as a child too. And the other jurors would capitulate and vote for life when they wanted death in the name of a unanimous decision?
posted on December 26, 2003 09:33:55 AM new
Helen - I realise that you are trying very hard to manipulate words to fit your opinion (please stop trying to put the child word in my mouth I do not and have not felt that is or was one at the time of his crime) so let me spell this out in no uncertain terms.
My opinion is that there were jurors that felt that Muhhamads influence was a mitigating factor in Malvos decision to commit multiple murders. I believe they would have felt this is his was 15, 18 or 21. I also believe that they were wrong, that he is a sick puppy incapable and undeserving of living in society at large and that the greatest favor that those jurors could have done him, his victims families and the tax payers of Virginia is to vote to put a needle in his arm and be done with it.
I do not believe that there is any trend moving away from the death penalty although I do believe that there are people that fervently wish there was and will take any individual vote against it as a light at the end of their tunnel.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 10:48:24 AM new
OK...Let's call Malvo an individual.
I don't agree that a jury would buy the mitigating circumstance of manipulation by Muhammad if Malvo had been an adult and not a seventeen year old individual.
Seventeen year old individuals are easily manipulated and influenced especially if they are alone and being misled by a father figure. I don't believe that a more mature and emotionally stable individual could be convinced to go on such a shooting spree and then successfully convince a jury that he was simply led astray.
By the time Muhammad fininshed his indoctrination of this boy, he was as you say, a sick puppy. Most civilized societies don't kill sick humans. I hope that someday, we will join most of the world and stop such barbaric acts. Call it a light at the end of the tunnel if you like.
posted on December 26, 2003 11:24:21 AM new
::Most civilized societies don't kill sick humans.::
Yes but those that do and that carry it out on a regular and timely basis have some of the worlds lowest murder rates. Do you think that's an accident?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 12:22:33 PM new
If you check out this information, you will see that your statement that countries that impose the death penalty have the lowest murder rates is simply not true.
I belive that murder and crime rates are influenced by the economy of a country rather than by any penalty.
posted on December 26, 2003 12:49:13 PM new
Reall - I know that last time I checked crime stats for Saudi Arabia who does not seem to appear on your list in regards to another debate here I believe their murder rate was .04
The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on that list is a very graphic description of how incomplete it is and therefore how difficult it is for you to reject my statement. Look at the information you gave for comparision Helen - the overwhelming majority of countries listed on the Amnesty International list of countries that utilize the death penalty do not even apear on your list so how in the world can you believe that it backs up your statement that I am incorrect?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Take Canada for example....There has been a steady decline in murder rate since 1976 when the death penalty was abolished.
"One of the most frequently used arguments in favour of the death penalty is that it provides a deterrent against others committing serious crimes. The consensus view amongst criminologists is that there is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate this thesis. The death penalty for murder was abolished in Canada in 1976. The year before abolition, the murder rate was 3.09 per 100,000 population. By 1980 the rate had dropped to 2.41 per 100,000, and by 1993 to 2.19 per 100,000 population - 27 percent lower than the year before the abolition of the death penalty. US States which have abolished and then reintroduced the death penalty do not appear to show any significant variations in the homicide rate. Similarly, there does not appear to be any variation in the homicide rate in a particular locality after a death sentence has been carried out there."
posted on December 26, 2003 01:09:44 PM new
And, out of all the countries in the world, only China, Australia and Saudi Arabia claim a deterrence effect resulting from capital punishment. How can you base your conclusion on that small sample when we have countries with no capital punishment with lower murder rate per 100,000 than these countries?
posted on December 26, 2003 01:19:31 PM new
I did not say they were the lowest - I stated that they are among he lowest - they certainly are not among the highest with the exception of the United States where it takes nearly 20 years for a death sentence to be administered.
BTW - Where did you dig up that pathetic list that does not bother to include countries such as China and Saudi Arabia but includes Slovenia and Estonia.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 01:36:25 PM new
Fenix, deterrence is the weakest argument that you can make in support of capital punishment because it's so clearly unsubstantiated. Even my incomplete list should remove all doubt that executing people is not effective deterrence. Even if the murder rate in Saudi Arabia is 0 you can't jump to the conclusion that the death penalty has eliminated homicide. BTW...my information was linked.
A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
Furthermore, FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with capital punishment have homicide rates above. Based on the data in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, average of murder rates among death penalty states in 2001 was 5.2 per 100,000 population in contrast to 2.9 among states without death penalty.
Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment.
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 26, 2003 01:37 PM ]
posted on December 26, 2003 02:05:51 PM new
I'm sure the difference is because of guns. Since I've been in Canada, I've never met a person that owned a gun, except for hunting rifles. I've never even seen a hand gun in real life.
If any of you saw Bowling For Columbine, it's true that I can walk into a Canadian Tire store and buy as much ammunition as I want. I don't have to sign anything, give ID... nothing.
In the U.S., owning a gun is like owning a car or boat... it's just something everyone buys automatically.
