Reply
Tue 21 Oct, 2003 07:56 am
Legal Abuses in the Sniper Case
It takes nothing away from the horror of the Washington-area sniper attacks last year to say that the government should follow the law in prosecuting the suspects. But the prosecutors have been so intent on getting the death penalty that they have repeatedly bent the law. John Muhammad, whose trial began yesterday, may be guilty of murder, but the prosecutors diminish our justice system when they try to convict him of capital murder, a crime that the facts do not support.
Mr. Muhammad is being tried, in what could be the first of several prosecutions, for the murder of Dean Meyers at a gasoline station last October. Virginia's death penalty law has a "triggerman" rule, requiring that only a defendant who immediately caused a killing be eligible for capital punishment. But even the prosecutors say it appears that Lee Malvo, Mr. Muhammad's accomplice, then 17, was the shooter. To get around that inconvenient fact, they argue that Mr. Muhammad was "captain" of a "killing team" that included Mr. Malvo. It is a stretch, and one the law does not support.
The second law prosecutors are mangling is an antiterrorism statute that makes it a capital crime to kill someone during an act of terrorism. Whatever twisted motives Mr. Muhammad may have had, there is no reason to believe that he was using the sniper attacks for political ends. Proceeding against Mr. Muhammad as a terrorist is a clear misuse of the law, and an indication that prosecutors will use the array of new antiterrorism laws passed since Sept. 11, including the Patriot Act, to increase their surveillance power, and impose tougher sentences, in nonterrorism cases.
But the deck-stacking in favor of execution began earlier, when the Justice Department steered Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo to Virginia for their first prosecutions. By all rights, Maryland should have been allowed to proceed first. The sniping spree began in Maryland, and the investigation ended there when the two suspects were arrested. Maryland had six sniper fatalities, compared with three in Virginia and one in Washington.
The Justice Department once again ignored inconvenient facts, and evidently went with Virginia because it was more likely to execute the defendants. Virginia imposes the death penalty on juveniles like Mr. Malvo, but Maryland does not. And Virginia has executed 89 people since 1976, compared with Maryland's three.
The trial has had an unfortunate start, with Mr. Muhammad, who has insisted on representing himself, rambling in his opening argument. In criminal trials, prosecutors, as well as judges, have a duty to ensure that justice is done. To uphold this duty, the prosecutors should have charged Mr. Muhammad with noncapital murder, which describes the crime he is alleged to have committed, and nothing more.
These two animals and I am insulting animals together went on a spree and killed 10 people for no other reason than, I guess, for fun. This article would have you believe that the government is treating them unfairly. Do you believe they are? Should they both be tried on charges that if convicted would result in a capital punishment verdict?
With the prosecution, i would say that there is an assumed hue and cry of a lynch mob ringing in their ears, that they believe they have to get a conviction and a death sentence. There is, of course, always the political factor--prosecutors are often motivated by a desire to establish a record of being tough on crime, of taking no prosecutorial prisoners, which they would be able to tout when running for office. In theory, the prosecutor as officer of the court should only try what he or she is reasonably convinced the facts of the case will support. In reality, prosecutors have a host of motivations which have nothing to do with an impartial search for the truth and application of justice.
I'm assuming that you're quoting from today's NY Times editorial, au, and then adding your own commentary in the last paragraph. Might be a good idea to point that out for those of us who didn't read the paper this morning.
Having said that: It was obvious from the start that the Att'y Gen'l shopped around for the court that was most likely to lead to death penalties, and that point is clearly made in the editorial. Do those two deserve fair trials? Yes. I think the editorial is essentially correct in saying that they may not get them.
D'artagnan
Yes the last paragraph is mine. Sorry I did not make that clear.
Re: Legal Abuses in the Sniper Case
au1929 wrote:Virginia's death penalty law has a "triggerman" rule, requiring that only a defendant who immediately caused a killing be eligible for capital punishment. But even the prosecutors say it appears that Lee Malvo, Mr. Muhammad's accomplice, then 17, was the shooter. To get around that inconvenient fact, they argue that Mr. Muhammad was "captain" of a "killing team" that included Mr. Malvo. It is a stretch, and one the law does not support.
Yup. VA's death penalty law does have that requirement. The anti-terrorism law which amends the death penalty law it doesn't though and that is the he's being charged under.
Quote:The second law prosecutors are mangling is an antiterrorism statute that makes it a capital crime to kill someone during an act of terrorism. Whatever twisted motives Mr. Muhammad may have had, there is no reason to believe that he was using the sniper attacks for political ends.
The antiterrorism law does't require that an act have "political" motivations. The law only requires that an act be commited with "the intent of terrorizing a community or influence a government through intimidation". That is exactly what was done. These 2 nuts tried to terrorize a community to get the public so scared that people would plead with the government to pay off the $10 million extortion demand - and that comes directly from the diary that Muhamad and Malvo kept.
There may be valid questions about the Constitutionality of the VA Antiterrorism law but there is no question that the prosecutors are acting well within the law as it is written and stands today.
I don't care if a suspect likely ate his grandmother with a spoon. The law and those who serve it have no right to prejudge. They are paid not to prejudge but to gather evidence and prosecute. They should be next in line for investigation and sanction, right after Muhammed. Politics and the emotions of those affected by the crime have to be set aside.
Au, you know that calling suspects animals is, by the standards of our justice system, quite beyond the pale!
Tartarin wrote:I don't care if a suspect likely ate his grandmother with a spoon. The law and those who serve it have no right to prejudge. They are paid not to prejudge but to gather evidence and prosecute. They should be next in line for investigation and sanction, right after Muhammed. Politics and the emotions of those affected by the crime have to be set aside.
Bullshit. Every lawyer in this country is bound by the Cannons of Legal Ethics as a function of their job. A prosecutor is required under those cannons to act in good faith and only use the power of his/her office when they believe the accused is guilty (Rule 3.8.a). Coming to that belief is a matter of judgement.
Rule 2.1 of the Cannons of Legal Ethics reads
"In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law, but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation."
As a lawyer representing the state (their client), it is not only their right to prejudge, it is a legal requirement placed upon everyone in the profession and it is exactly what they are paid to do.
the thing that really bothers me about the whole situation is the eagerness with which Arsecroft and Co. are demanding the death penalty. It seems the trial is an inconvenience. What sort of civilization are we if we take such joy in killing others? Its especially worrying since Arsecroft considers himself the perfect Christian.
Tartarin
Sorry If I disturbed your sensibilities however, they IMO are no better than wild animals.
hobitbob
Quote:
the thing that really bothers me about the whole situation is the eagerness with which Arsecroft and Co. are demanding the death penalty
Why don't you think the deserve it? The pity is even if they are found guilty and sentenced is death it will take years before the sentences are finally carried out. In fact you never know if some liberal minded judge or whoever will commute the sentence. It should be like the old west guilty today hang tomorrow for these two degenerates.
Actually, i don't know of wild animals which stalk and kill others of their own species simply for the sake of the killing--i'd rather think you malign wild animals there, Boss.
Setanta
I agree I have indeed maligned the animals.
Part of the concern over this is that Ashcroft orchestrated these trials to occur where they were most likely to result in death penalties (as has been pointed out above).
You may approve of the death penalty, au, and you certainly seem to have decided these two merit it--before they're even tried--but that's not how the system is supposed to work.
Blood lust is one thing, and justice is another.
Do I think the two are guilty? Absolutely. Could you possibly believe they are not. However, I did not call for hanging until after they are tried and convicted. The cry of those who are against the death penalty is that we may be executing an innocent person. Can there be any doubt of the duo's guilt?.
I guess I tend to err on the side of compassion. Killing solves nothing. The "Christian Right" has embraced the act of killing as a "Family Value."
Yes, hobitbob, but it must feel so good to the peanut gallery--the folks who like to stand outside prisons to celebrate executions...
"Innocent until Proven guilty" has become a trite cliche? Bush went to war over his "belief" in the guilt of Saddam currently having WoMD, Bush was wrong. Shoot first and ask questions later is not an acceptable methodology in a modern world.
dyslexia
How did Bush get on this thread?
Sorry, Fishin' -- I think you've got that badly wrong.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace