posted on December 18, 2003 02:46:43 PM new
CHESAPEAKE, Va. (AP) - A jury convicted Lee Boyd Malvo of capital murder in the Washington-area sniper case Thursday, rejecting claims that the teenager was brainwashed by John Allen Muhammad into taking part in the three-week reign of terror that left 10 people dead.
The jury now will decide whether Malvo should be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. A jury in nearby Virginia Beach convicted Muhammad last month and recommended that he be executed for his role as the mastermind of the killings.
Malvo, whose expressions had often been animated throughout the trial, leaned on his elbows at the table with a blank look on his face while the verdict was read. The jury had deliberated for 13 hours over two days.
Malvo, 18, was convicted of two counts of capital murder in the Oct. 14, 2002, killing of FBI analyst Linda Franklin, who was cut down by a bullet to the head outside a Home Depot (HD) in Falls Church, Va. The sentencing phase will begin Friday.
Franklin's daughter, Katrina Hannum, cried after the verdict. Other members of her family and other people in the courtroom patted each other on the shoulders.
"I'm happy," said June Boyle, the detective who heard Malvo's confession. "Not all the way happy yet, though. We still have sentencing to do."
One of the counts against Malvo alleged the killing was part of a series of murders over a three-year period; the other alleged that Franklin's killing was intended to terrorize the public. Malvo and Muhammad, 42, are the first two people tried under the post-Sept. 11 terrorism law.
Attorney General John Ashcroft had cited Virginia's ability to impose "the ultimate sanction" in sending Malvo and Muhammad to Virginia for prosecution. Virginia is one of only 21 states that allow the execution of those who were 16 or 17 when they killed. Malvo was 17 at the time of the sniper rampage.
Prosecutors portrayed Malvo as a gleeful and eager triggerman in the October 2002 killing spree, saying he fired shots from the trunk of a beat-up Chevy while Muhammad plotted the attacks.
posted on December 18, 2003 03:06:00 PM new
WA state did want him on trial up here for his first murder. He murdered an ex girlfriend, to prove to this Muhammad guy that he 'had the guts to kill' before going back east. Up here its hanging.
(but they do have lethal injection also, I don't know if its up to the accused to choose)
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 18, 2003 03:32:37 PM new
Did you see the story today about the Green River Killer who killed 48 women? After he agreed to help police find the bodies, he was sentenced to life rather than the death penalty.
The death penalty will soon be history.
posted on December 18, 2003 03:47:06 PM new
Yeah he cut a deal, for his life in prison. All I see on the news is he was helping the Green River task force in locating all the bodies of these girls.
I guess that was the only way they were going to find them. He was the only one to know this, but then I don't think he can even remember where ALL of them are, which is sad, and sick. The whole case is sick.
I believe he should have been hung.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 18, 2003 03:56:36 PM new
I'm glad he was found guilty. If the death penalty should EVER be used, it should be used in cases just like this.
And another reason I hope we never eliminate the death pentalty, is for the above reasons. Facing death. If they knew they only faced life in prison, they'd most likely never give up the locations of their victims. With the death penalty hanging over their heads.....they talk to cut the deal for their own SICK life. Their talking brings much needed closure to many families who have long wondered where their children are.
posted on December 18, 2003 04:54:35 PM newThe death penalty will soon be history
Not likely. Especially in Texas.
The only reason the Green River Killer was given life rather that the lethal injection was for him to identify the locations of the missing victims & the other killings he committed.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 18, 2003 06:06:51 PM new
Helen - the only reason he was given life was because that was the deal that was cut in order for him to come clean on everything. lthough there are 48 bodies that have been found in connection to the Green River Killer, his confessions have detailed up to 70 actual eaths helping to close the chapter on many families mysteries concerning their missing loved ones. I think the death penalty is far from on its last legs. Unless you have valuable information and are willing to plee guilty I think you will see it remain as if not increase in "popularity".
If anything, the advances in DNA are helping to remove that question of doubt from peoples mind helping to remove some of the "but what if we are wrong" issues.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 07:23:37 PM new
I disagree with the death penalty for a number of reasons including the possibility of killing an innocent person. There is a current case (Darnell Williams) in which someone on death row for 16 years...only 3 days from execution is expected to be cleared by DNA. The option to clear people wrongly convicted of murder with DNA evidence is not always available.
It's not a deterrent and as you can see in this case it's not even useful as revenge.
So far, fourteen states have abolished the death penalty. I hope that the trend will continue as people see it as ineffective and barbaric.
posted on December 18, 2003 09:59:52 PM new
I agree whole heartedly in the death penalty but I do believe that in any case where previously untested potential DNA evidence exists that testing should be required prior to the setting of a date in fct it should be a prerequisite for setting an actual date that if DNA evidence was not available at trial that all evidence be re-examined for DNA testing.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 18, 2003 10:36:09 PM new
I agree with you, fenix.
Otherwise, I support the death penalty whole-heartedly. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
CHESAPEAKE, Va., Dec. 24 — The decision by a jury here to spare Lee Malvo's life after finding him guilty in last year's Washington-area sniper rampage may hasten a movement to abolish the death penalty for juvenile killers, legal experts say.
The movement had stalled, they say, because Mr. Malvo's crimes, at age 17, were so troubling. Now, though, the jury's decision to let him live may prompt reconsideration of whether executing juvenile offenders is ever proper.
Though the death penalty for murders committed by 16- and 17-year-olds remains available in a minority of states, it is being imposed with less and less frequency. Public support for it is limited. It is essentially unknown in the rest of the world.
posted on December 25, 2003 08:15:32 AM new
Helen - is there any article that justifies that belief or is it more of a hope in beliefs clothing? I think that if Malvo had been acting independently there would have been no question as to whether he would have been given the deah pnalty. There is a big difference between abolishing something and simply not using it and I have seen no actual reason justifying abolishment.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 25, 2003 11:41:20 AM new "Helen - is there any article that justifies that belief or is it more of a hope in beliefs clothing? I think that if Malvo had been acting independently there would have been no question as to whether he would have been given the deah pnalty. There is a big difference between abolishing something and simply not using it and I have seen no actual reason justifying abolishment."
If Malvo had been acting independently, his sentence should have been the same (life imprisonment) because he was a child when the murders were committed.
Generally, it's believed that children should be excluded from the death penalty because of their immaturity and failure to examine consequences of their actions. Psychological and sociological studies have consistently validated the belief that moral and character formation is an age related development throughout childhood. Children are at the mercy of their parents and their community. If either fails them, we should show them some special consideration.
If you read the cases here in which children have been executed in the U.S. you will find a history of drug or alcohol abuse, neglect, homelessness, or mental impairment involved. When you consider those background situations, along with the relative developmental immaturity of a child, it's a wonder that more crimes are not committed.
Some people will argue that execution is also against international law but in the U.S. international law is considered irrelevant.
posted on December 25, 2003 12:30:07 PM new If Malvo had been acting independently, his sentence should have been the same (life imprisonment) because he was a child when the murders were committed.
How do you know that Helen? Did the jurers state that the only reason they voted against the death penalty was because of this age? In fact, a number of the jurors wanted to impose the death penalty but stated that eventuall it became clear the only way to reach a unanimous decision was to vote for life. It sounds as though you are trying to adapt a compromise agreement to fit your personal belief but in doing so you have ignored statements from actual jurors.
My question had absolutely nothing to do with why some groups feel that the death penalty should not be an option for juvenile defenders. My question was what is it about the Malvo case specifically that would lead to the abolishment of it which is what the author implied.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Dec 25, 2003 12:32 PM ]
posted on December 25, 2003 01:33:38 PM new
You misunderstood my comment, fenix. That is *my* opinion...that Malvo should not receive a death sentence even if he acted independently because he was a child when the crime was committed.
According to the article that I posted, there has been a movement to abolish the death penalty for children. As the article indicates, although the death penalty for murders committed by 16- and 17-year-olds remains available in a minority of states, it is being imposed with less and less frequency. The fact that Malvo was not sentenced to death in spite of the malicious and horrible nature of his crime leads the proponents of abolishing the penalty to believe that there is a considerable amount of support for their cause. Malvo, who was clearly guilty, was not sentenced to death in Virginia, a state that has previously executed children. This may indicate that there is currently a prevailing reluctance to execute children.
This represents speculation and can only be considered as a hopeful sign by those working to abolish the death penalty for children. If Malvo was older when he committed the crime, I believe that he would have received the death penalty.
posted on December 25, 2003 02:23:14 PM new
I think that the numbers are easily to manipulate though. As opposed to comparing actual death penalty sentences I'm curious to know what the percentage of cases are where the death penalty is available but rejected. I don't believe that people are suddenly less willing to impose the death penalty. I am more inclined to believe that there are less applicable cases but I am certainly open to correction if actual numbers were produced.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 25, 2003 05:34:17 PM new
Sorry, seventeen is not a "child." Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 26, 2003 05:49:04 AM new
No need to be "sorry". It's just your opinion. Some call seventeen a juvenile or a teenager...whatever. But thank goodness there is a growing number of people unwilling to kill people of this age.
Evidence of this trend is the number of states now using the age 18 to define an adult and the number of states that do not have a death penalty at all.
posted on December 26, 2003 07:27:10 AM new
::Evidence of this trend is the number of states now using the age 18 to define an adult and the number of states that do not have a death penalty at all.::
Please expain. You say that there is a growing trend of moving away from the death penalty for juveniles and moving away in general. Are there states that have overturned their death penalty laws or that have changed their laws to no longer include minors? Unless some states have RECENTLY abolished their death penalty I don't understand how you can utilize the number of states that do not have it as evidence of a growing trend.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 08:01:27 AM new
A "growing trend" does not necessarily indicate a "recent" trend, fenix. Trends can extend for years and that is the case with the juvenile death penalty throughout the world and including the United States.
posted on December 26, 2003 08:20:31 AM new
I think that he was given Life as opposed to the death penalty because of the percieved influence of Muhammad.
I also think that for a life without possibility of parole is a much less human sentence than the death penalty.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
