D.C. Sniper Mastermind on Death Row Seeks Clemency

FAIRFAX, Va. — The attorney for convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad says he plans to ask for clemency for his client, who's scheduled for execution next month.

Jonathan Sheldon plans to file the request next Thursday with Gov. Timothy Kaine, according to an announcement on his law firm's Web site. Sheldon also plans to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kaine previously has said he's unlikely to grant clemency but would review Muhammad's request.

Muhammad was sentenced to death for the October 2002 slaying of Dean Harold Meyers at a Manassas gas station during a string of shootings that left 10 people dead and three wounded in Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Maryland.

Muhammad's teenage co-defendant Lee Boyd Malvo is serving a life sentence.

hang, draw, and quarter please.

No. The man didn't show any clemency when he went around shooting innocent civilians filling up on gas, or putting away stuff in their cars in parking lots... and he deserves none.

I'm actually surprised they haven't executed him yet, to be completely honest...

So we're lowering ourselves to his level?

No. We need to go lower. Much, much lower.

Interesting game of moral limbo you've got going on. Why is it wrong for him to kill and enjoy suffering but justice for you to do the same?

This man killed a number of innocent people, his motive apparently being little more than flipping out and killing people. Not only does the execution constitute only killing one non-innocent person, but it has the motivation of keeping a person from flipping out and killing people, as he has already demonstrated a tendency to do, at a later date.

No. I personally would rather he was executed already. Why waste tax dollars locking him up for years on end?

Plus, longer suffering.

It actually costs more to execute someone then to imprison them for life, I believe.

Plus, longer suffering.

Does it? That's surprising, I thought I read a few years ago that it costs something like 100k per year to house a death row inmate in California?

Well, it's mostly legal fees. It is supposed to be VERY hard to execute someone (lower chance of executing an innocent).

Law is impotent if the punishment is not harsh. Crime can only be deterred by the prospect of grave punishment.

Justice and Law is not just made, it is instilled. Through fear. Fear of punishment. If the possible punishment is severe, any criminal will think twice about doing a crime. So long as criminals are assured that their crime does not merit sufficient punishment, society is not safe.

In middle ages wherever the reach of the law existed, society was safe. It was where law did not reach that anarchy prevailed. Today law's reach is there everywhere, it is the punishment that decreases.

This man deserves death, death as example to other criminals who would get encouraged if he gets lenient punishment. If a murderer faces the prospect of a long safe life with assured food and assured heirarchy in an environment of other criminals, why would he think twice about committing a crime?

Also questions like "Should society stoop to their level" is stupid.

If someone defecates publicly, someone should do the dirty job of clearing the muck. Else it shall remain a blot.

Would you kill in self defense or to protect your family? Wont killing a murderer make you stoop to his same level?

The obvious answer to that, though, is that we just lock him up and don't let him out. Then he's only a danger to other criminals (and corrections officers). I mean, this isn't Britain, we don't just let terrorists go free.

This man deserves death, death as example to other criminals who would get encouraged if he gets lenient punishment. If a murderer faces the prospect of a long safe life with assured food and assured heirarchy in an environment of other criminals, why would he think twice about committing a crime?

Bureau of Justice Statistics
filename: exe.csv
data source: Capital Punishment 2007
authors: Tracy L. Snell
refer questions to: askbjs@usdoj.gov (202) 307-0765
date of version: 1/22/2009


Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2008

Executions
1930 155
1931 153
1932 140
1933 160
1934 168
1935 199
1936 195
1937 147
1938 190
1939 160
1940 124
1941 123
1942 147
1943 131
1944 120
1945 117
1946 131
1947 153
1948 119
1949 119
1950 82
1951 105
1952 83
1953 62
1954 81
1955 76
1956 65
1957 65
1958 49
1959 49
1960 56
1961 42
1962 47
1963 21
1964 15
1965 7
1966 1
1967 2
1968 0
1969 0
1970 0
1971 0
1972 0
1973 0
1974 0
1975 0
1976 0
1977 1
1978 0
1979 2
1980 0
1981 1
1982 2
1983 5
1984 21
1985 18
1986 18
1987 25
1988 11
1989 16
1990 23
1991 14
1992 31
1993 38
1994 31
1995 56
1996 45
1997 74
1998 68
1999 98
2000 85
2001 66
2002 71
2003 65
2004 59
2005 60
2006 53
2007 42
2008 37


Total = 4995 Avg = 64.03846154

The obvious answer to that, though, is that we just lock him up and don't let him out. Then he's only a danger to other criminals (and corrections officers). I mean, this isn't Britain, we don't just let terrorists go free.

Ah, the "Death Penalty as a Deterrent" argument.

To bad it is entirely bogus.



Yes, because executing a helpless person is the same as defending yourself and your family. Righto.

Helpless person? Weren't his victims helpless? He is helpless now because the law has caught up with him. Before he was caught he callously killed many people, and when he got caught, he became helpless. Does that absolve him of his crimes?

If he is helpless why should he be imprisoned at all?

On another tangent with respect to this death penalty argument - consider Ted Bundy. He too was "helpless" for the years from 1978 to 1989. Should his execution too have been commuted to death sentence!!

Of course, since he is in prison he is "harmless" why debase society by executing him!!

Also consider Osama Bin Laden. If he was ever arrested and brought to trial in USA, would a death sentence imposed on him be objected too? Sure he led to the murder of over 3000 people, but once he is arrested, he is "harmless" too!!

Please answer the questions raised by these tangential arguments and perhaps you may find your premise to be hollow.

When did I ever remotely say his crimes should be absolved? I want him to rot in jail. But executing him, when he is no longer a danger to society, is NOT the same as self defense.

I am against the death penalty entirely. So yes, if Osama was caught, charged, and imprisoned in the US, (which I doubt will happen), I would be against execution. I can't pick and choose with this.

While I do respect your stance on this I must disagree. I hope you are familiar with the Manson family? Charles Manson has spent more than 2/3 of his life in prison before he committed his serial killings. And then once he was arrested and tried and he was put back into prison. It has been said that sending him to prison was the best thing to ever happened to him!! Was he ever reformed by incarceration?

Your ideals are tinged too much by idealism and not realism. Not every criminal hate going to prison.

Then we need to fix the prison system.

There is a difference between "freeing someone that has never been convicted of a crime" and "letting terrorists go free"

Then we need to fix the prison system.

That still leaves the potentials of prison breaks, pardons and the like, not to mention that if you are going to keep him locked up for the rest of his life it's more economical to make it a short one.

While I do respect your stance on this I must disagree. I hope you are familiar with the Manson family? Charles Manson has spent more than 2/3 of his life in prison before he committed his serial killings. And then once he was arrested and tried and he was put back into prison. It has been said that sending him to prison was the best thing to ever happened to him!! Was he ever reformed by incarceration?

Your ideals are tinged too much by idealism and not realism. Not every criminal hate going to prison.

Precisely, society is always a work in progress. Your notions of incarceration is for a more idealistic utopian age, not for today. We are truly not so far away from the rougher days of 19th or 18th century. The amenities, the technology and resources has not truly brought that much core changes to the fundamentals of human society. Until we reach a sufficiently enlightened system as to merit your idealism death penalty, death penalty shall have to remain as a lingering testament to the viler aspects of human civilization/

Precisely, society is always a work in progress. Your notions of incarceration is for a more idealistic utopian age, not for today. We are truly not so far away from the rougher days of 19th or 18th century. The amenities, the technology and resources has not truly brought that much core changes to the fundamentals of human society. Until we reach a sufficiently enlightened system as to merit your idealism death penalty, death penalty shall have to remain as a lingering testament to the viler aspects of human civilization/

Well, the abolition of the death penalty has worked out fine for every other industrialized nation. I guess the US just lags behind in the "viler aspects" area?

Might be true, except every other industrialized nation isn't the greatest country the world has ever known. We might lag behind in the "viler aspects" area, but we so far outstrip the rest of the world in all other aspects that it doesn't even matter.

Careful now, that kind of boast will bring the wrath of god in here. Sure you are spot on, but still you should know better then that, prep for the !@#$ storm. lol

Penalties must be comensurate with the crime otherwise the viability of commiting the crime remains plausable for the next criminal in line.

Capital punishment while unsavory to some has value when its done in a manner that inspires fear for consequences of ones actions.

Capital Punishment has already been demonstrated to be ineffective as a deterrent.

Thats subjective at best, but Im not going to argue point of view I can concede that in some societies it works and others it dosent. I do believe strongly that an effiecent and effective capital punishment process is a part of the justice system that democracies like the U.S. struggle with and thus makes it a less plausable course of action.

Morals aside, there are crimes that should be punished by death to remove it from the equation or even minimalize it as a potential outcome certainly wouldnt breed second thoughts on the criminals part, at least I dont believe it would but by all means convince me. I am open minded, I will read well constructed arguments without to much bias and I will even offer up humility and say I was wrong if you can convince me.

Thus far im unconvinced.

Well, since it's a moral issue for me (no man has the right to decide the fate of another man, outside of self defense), I guess I won't be able to convince you.

However, there are other arguments, such as the fact that there is always the chance that an innocent person could be executed, the lack of deterrence, and the price.

So we're lowering ourselves to his level?

I am not willing to give him clemency for his crimes, but I would rather he was taken off death row. I, after all, must be consistent in my anti-death penalty stance, especially since it serves absolutely no purpose, in terms of cost, deterrence, etc.