Muhammad executed. Film at 11.

[MKSheppard]

We return you to our scheduled poo fest.

LINK

D.C.-area sniper John Allen Muhammad executed
By DENA POTTER (AP) – 31 minutes ago

JARRATT, Va. — The mastermind of the 2002 sniper attacks that killed 10 in the Washington, D.C., region has been executed.

A prison spokesman says John Allen Muhammad died by injection at 9:11 p.m. Tuesday at Greensville Correctional Center.

Muhammad was executed for killing Dean Harold Meyers at a gas station during the spree that terrorized Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., over a three-week period. His teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, was sentenced to life in prison.

Prison spokesman Larry Traylor says Muhammad had no final words. He says he didn't hear him utter a word the entire time.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

JARRATT, Va. (AP) — Virginia's governor refused to spare the life of John Allen Muhammad and cleared the way for his execution Tuesday night for the 2002 sniper attacks that left 10 dead and spread such fear that people were reluctant to go shopping, cut grass or pump gas.

The three-week killing spree in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., was carried out with a teenage accomplice who is serving life in prison without parole. Muhammad, 48, was to die by injection after he exhausted his court appeals and Gov. Tim Kaine denied clemency.

Muhammad's attorneys had asked Kaine to commute his sentence to life in prison because they said he was severely mentally ill.

"I think crimes that are this horrible, you just can't understand them, you can't explain them," said Kaine, a Democrat known for carefully considering death penalty cases. "They completely dwarf your ability to look into the life of a person who would do something like this and understand why."

Sonia Hollingsworth-Wills, the mother of Conrad Johnson, the last man slain in the attacks, sat in the back seat of a car outside the Greensville Correction Center, where the execution was set to happen. She said did not want to witness the execution but wanted to be there and was counting the minutes until Muhammad's death.

"It was the most horrifying day of my life," she said. "I'll never get complete closure but at least I can put this behind me."

Muhammad was sentenced to die for killing Dean Harold Meyers at a gas station in northern Virginia. He and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, also were suspected of fatal shootings in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana and Washington state.

Prosecutors chose to try Muhammad and Malvo in Virginia first because of the state's willingness to execute killers. He and Malvo were also convicted of six other murders in Maryland and sentenced to six life terms.

The death penalty was ruled out for Malvo, who was 17 during the killings, because the U.S. Supreme Court barred the execution of juveniles.

Muhammad met with family members in the hours before his execution but did not have a spiritual adviser, Virginia Department of Corrections spokesman Larry Traylor said. One of Muhammad's attorneys, J. Wyndal Gordon, described the convicted killer as fearless and insisted he was innocent.

"He is absolutely unafraid and he will die with dignity — dignity to the point of defiance," Gordon said.

The motive for the shootings remains murky. Malvo said Muhammad wanted to use the plot to extort $10 million from the government to set up a camp in Canada where homeless children would be trained as terrorists. But Muhammad's ex-wife has said she believes the attacks were a smoke screen for his plan to kill her and regain custody of their three children.

Muhammad has never testified or explained why he directed the attack on victims who were gunned down doing everyday chores. People stayed indoors, and those who had to go outside weaved as they walked or bobbed their heads to make themselves less of a target.

The terror ended Oct. 24, 2002, when police captured Muhammad and Malvo as they slept at a Maryland rest stop in a car they had outfitted so a shooter could hide in the trunk and fire through a hole in the body of the vehicle.

Muhammad had been in and out of the military since he graduated from high school in Louisiana and entered the National Guard. A convert to Islam, John Allen Williams would later change his name to Muhammad.

He joined the Army in 1985 and trained in Washington state as a combat engineer. He did not take special sniper training but earned an expert rating in the M-16 rifle — the military cousin of the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings.

However, his life was full of failure. He was twice divorced, and after serving in the first Iraq war, he could never find financial stability.

He opened a karate school but it didn't last; neither did his car repair shop. The man who looked for self-discipline in exercise and Islam found himself living in a homeless shelter in 2001 and a few months later was accused of shoplifting food.

Families of those killed were ready for execution day.

Cheryll Witz planned to watch. Malvo confessed that, at Muhammad's direction, he shot her father, Jerry Taylor, on a Tucson, Ariz., golf course in March 2002.

"He basically watched my dad breathe his last breath," Witz said. "Why shouldn't I watch his last breath?"

A small group of death penalty opponents gathered on a grassy area near the prison and had a sign reading, "We remember the victims, but not with more killing."

Beth Panilaitis, executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said those who planned to protest understand the fear that gripped the community, and the nation, during the attacks.

"The greater metro area and the citizens of Virginia have been safe from this crime for seven years," Panilaitis said. "Incarceration has worked and life without the possibility of parole has and will continue to keep the people of Virginia safe."

Kaine, Virginia's first Roman Catholic governor, has openly expressed his faith-based opposition to capital punishment, but promised as a candidate in 2005 that he would carry out Virginia's death penalty law despite his beliefs.

Associated Press writers Steve Szkotak in Jarratt and Bob Lewis in Richmond contributed to this report.

[Count Chocula]

Seven years arrest-to-execution is a speed record for a death penalty case outside the state of Texas, and it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. May he be sentenced to an eternity of eating nothing but Green Eggs and HAM!

The timing of Muhammad's excution is ironic, considering last week's massacre at Fort Hood. We'll see how long the court martial takes to sentence Hasan to the same fate.

[Master of Ossus]

So, Einy, did they kill the wrong person, today?

And to the sniper: Enjoy your virgins, fucktard.

[open_sketchbook]

While I am generally against the death penalty, the guy thought of himself as a soldier, so we punished him for war crimes. Justice served.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't say I remember that much about this particular case beyond very general information, but I'm opposed to the Death Penalty as a general principle. So needless to say I'm not happy about this.

Also, as Count Chocula pointed out, seven years is rather fast for the death penalty, isn't it?

[open_sketchbook]

Read

He randomly killed 13 people over several months with a sniper rifle, intending to us it to cover up killing his wife, who would be a "random" victim, while also fulfilling his jihad fantasies. The evidence against him was massively damning.

[Count Chocula]

^ Here's a quick primer on why John Allen Muhammad was such an asshole, and why he deserved to die a much more painful death than he actually did tonight. The fucker murdered random people including a 13-year-old boy for no other reason than he felt his faith compelled him to do so, annd he did it with the help of a minor who he, in my opinion, brainwashed into total complaisance. That, plus he was apparently a sociopath on a power trip who used his faith as an enabling crutch. If there is a Hell, I hope he burns in it. The Christian one, for extra irony.

BTW, he was executed at 9:11. Appropriate, and more subtle than I'd normally expect from the penal system.

EDIT Sketchbook beat me, damn you!

[The Romulan Republic]

To open_sketchbook and Count Chocula:

I am not for a second questioning that this individual was a sick and dangerous man who did terrible things. This man had no place walking among the civilized people to whom he is a threat, and he should definitely have spent the rest of his life in prison. My views on the Death Penalty do not change based on the severity of the crime-I consider it morally wrong, dangerous, inefficient, and ineffective-and principles aren't worth much if you throw them out the window every time a particularly bad thing happens (something the US as a whole should have learned from the political aftermath of 911, incidentally). If you demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that this man was the mastermind behind the Holocaust, I still wouldn't change my position, because my position has little or nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

Of course, I know that not everyone shares my views on this matter.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What would you do with people who murder in prison? Isolation is proved to cause psychosis in humans so if we don't execute those people we can either leave them in the general population to kill and kill again, or we can sentence them to a fate worse than death: Being tortured until psychotically insane via the method of total isolation from human contact.

At the very least it has to be acknowledged that for a social animal like Homo sapiens, the death penalty must be retained as an act of mercy in the cases of individuals who are completely incapable of functioning even in prison society and who would kill for amusement there. And they will always find ways to kill; one prison confiscated a shiv made out of seran wrap once. The guy had carefully taken the seran wrap from each of his meals every day and then melted and shaped it over a space heater until he'd created a shiv which was in fact capable of being lethal.

What do you seriously do for people like that? It is completely immoral and inhumane to confine someone without human contact, and yet if we give them human contact, they will kill out of amusement or over the most trivial of slights.

There is at the very least in an ethical and just society, a place for the death penalty in the form of the termination of individuals who are so far gone that they cannot even function in prison society.

[open_sketchbook]

To open_sketchbook and Count Chocula:

I am not for a second questioning that this individual was a sick and dangerous man who did terrible things. This man had no place walking among the civilized people to whom he is a threat, and he should definitely have spent the rest of his life in prison. My views on the Death Penalty do not change based on the severity of the crime-I consider it morally wrong, dangerous, inefficient, and ineffective-and principles aren't worth much if you throw them out the window every time a particularly bad thing happens (something the US as a whole should have learned from the political aftermath of 911, incidentally). If you demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that this man was the mastermind behind the Holocaust, I still wouldn't change my position, because my position has little or nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

Of course, I know that not everyone shares my views on this matter.

I had similar views until very recently, when I realized the that such a belief is routed in bullshit "sanctity of human life" that is spewed by religion rather than any sort of rational analyzing. Some people are just more trouble than it's worth to keep alive, and if the legal system was constructed in a rational manner we could save a ton of money and, yes, human suffering by putting them six feet under instead of letting them go slowly insane from decades of solitary confinement or shanking a fellow prisoner. A lot of these people just aren't worth the cost of keeping them alive, plain and simple; it's an ugly truth, but hey, it's an ugly world.

[The Romulan Republic]

What would you do with people who murder in prison? Isolation is proved to cause psychosis in humans so if we don't execute those people we can either leave them in the general population to kill and kill again, or we can sentence them to a fate worse than death: Being tortured until psychotically insane via the method of total isolation from human contact.

At the very least it has to be acknowledged that for a social animal like Homo sapiens, the death penalty must be retained as an act of mercy in the cases of individuals who are completely incapable of functioning even in prison society and who would kill for amusement there. And they will always find ways to kill; one prison confiscated a shiv made out of seran wrap once. The guy had carefully taken the seran wrap from each of his meals every day and then melted and shaped it over a space heater until he'd created a shiv which was in fact capable of being lethal.

What do you seriously do for people like that? It is completely immoral and inhumane to confine someone without human contact, and yet if we give them human contact, they will kill out of amusement or over the most trivial of slights.

There is at the very least in an ethical and just society, a place for the death penalty in the form of the termination of individuals who are so far gone that they cannot even function in prison society.

A valid argument, and possibly the best justification for the use of the Death Penalty I've yet heard. I still can't say I like the idea of the Death Penalty, both because of the cost of going through all the red tape to execute someone, and the risk of accidentally executing an innocent person (though in some cases this risk is admittedly pretty small), as well as moral objections to the needless taking of human life.

[The Romulan Republic]

I had similar views until very recently, when I realized the that such a belief is routed in bullshit "sanctity of human life" that is spewed by religion rather than any sort of rational analyzing.

You are correct insofar as policy positions should be rooted in rationality and hard evidence, whatever the personal beliefs of their proponents. Their are two very obvious practical and pragmatic objections to the Death Penalty, that have little or nothing to do with religion:

1. The cost of going through all the red tape to execute someone.

2. The risk of executing an innocent person.

Note that it is difficult to see how you could reduce or eliminate one problem without exacerbating the other.

Some people are just more trouble than it's worth to keep alive, and if the legal system was constructed in a rational manner we could save a ton of money and, yes, human suffering by putting them six feet under instead of letting them go slowly insane from decades of solitary confinement or shanking a fellow prisoner. A lot of these people just aren't worth the cost of keeping them alive, plain and simple; it's an ugly truth, but hey, it's an ugly world.

I might agree with you if I believed that the Justice System was effective and reliable enough to:

a) always convict those who are guilty and only those who are guilty, and

b) accurately measure the total value of a given human life and compare it to the cost (social, political, economic, etc...) of keeping said person alive.

However, needless to say, the Justice System has a long way to go before it reaches that level of reliability.

[ray245]

If the case is very clear cut, would you agree to the death penalty?

[open_sketchbook]

It really comes down to the meaning of "needless". I'd argue somebody that proves themselves a repeated risk for causing needless death would be a fine candidate for being forcefully shifted off the mortal coil. The question is simple; how do you weigh the worth of that man's life versus the odds of him managing to kill another prisoner or guard, or even escaping, and/or the mental anguish of social isolation. For me at least, the numbers consistent come up "let the fucker burn."

I don't think the current legal system, overall, should be entrusted with this power for the most part, because of the flaws and inefficiency currently inherent in the system. However, situations like this are very clear cut; there is basically no possibility at all that he was innocent, he is a demonstrable danger to regular people, and he cannot be trusted to do anything but suck taxpayer money.

[Knife]

I have no problem with the death penalty in theory, so I cry no tears for Mr. John Allen Muhammad. My only problems with the death penalty is how it is given and how it is used in public policy. Seven years is a bit quick but I've also not heard any problems in the case where you could discount the penalty so, I guess, I have no problems what so ever with Muhammad being put to death today. Other cases with other circumstances? I just might have a problem.

[Anguirus]

^ That's similar to my feelings. I'm opposed to the death penalty, not so much on philosophical grounds as on the grounds that innocent people can and have been executed in this country, and even among the guilty there is evidence that it is not fairly applied by jurists. I also find lethal injection rather repugnant...there's not really a "nice" method of execution but that one is incredibly dehumanizing and, apparently just for incompetence's own sake, sometimes extremely painful and drawn-out.

In my perfect world, execution would be "opt-in" on the part of the defendant. If they prove violent in prison during their life sentences, isolate them to protect others. If they'd rather be dead, they can say so and the state can oblige...and I've read a manifesto from a lifer saying that he certainly would take that option if offered, whereas innocent men have fought to the end and been vindicated only in death (see Cameron Todd Willingham). As far as method I'm honestly leaning towards the Duchess' firing squad idea from another thread (I think it was her).

This is way-hypothetical of course. Practically I'm for the immediate elimination of the death penalty from US jurisprudence. I'm not sad that the crazed gutter scum Muhammad is dead, but killing the guilty isn't reason enough to preserve a system that kills the innocent.

[ray245]

^ That's similar to my feelings. I'm opposed to the death penalty, not so much on philosophical grounds as on the grounds that innocent people can and have been executed in this country, and even among the guilty there is evidence that it is not fairly applied by jurists. I also find lethal injection rather repugnant...there's not really a "nice" method of execution but that one is incredibly dehumanizing and, apparently just for incompetence's own sake, sometimes extremely painful and drawn-out.

In my perfect world, execution would be "opt-in" on the part of the defendant. If they prove violent in prison during their life sentences, isolate them to protect others. If they'd rather be dead, they can say so and the state can oblige...and I've read a manifesto from a lifer saying that he certainly would take that option if offered, whereas innocent men have fought to the end and been vindicated only in death (see Cameron Todd Willingham). As far as method I'm honestly leaning towards the Duchess' firing squad idea from another thread (I think it was her).

This is way-hypothetical of course. Practically I'm for the immediate elimination of the death penalty from US jurisprudence. I'm not sad that the crazed gutter scum Muhammad is dead, but killing the guilty isn't reason enough to preserve a system that kills the innocent.

What about the point that locking a person (guilty or not) into solidarity confinement is going to be more cruel to him?

[Anguirus]

^ Then he shouldn't have made a shiv out of his spoon. If he perceives it to be cruel then he can ask for an execution. Some of these people are *already* asking, but won't get it because of how the system is set up.

In my hypothetical rosy utopia, solitary confinement and executions would no longer be options during sentencing. If he's a mad dog, he's institutionalized and you can try to rehabilitate him, but above all you keep him from being a danger to others. If he's sane and guilty of a capital crime, he gets life. If he then wants death, he gets death. Nobody innocent or otherwise is forced down and given the needle, so there's at least a little dignity involved.

[Akkleptos]

In my perfect world, execution would be "opt-in" on the part of the defendant. If they prove violent in prison during their life sentences, isolate them to protect others. If they'd rather be dead, they can say so and the state can oblige...and I've read a manifesto from a lifer saying that he certainly would take that option if offered, whereas innocent men have fought to the end and been vindicated only in death (see Cameron Todd Willingham).

Good thinking here. But, wouldn't the isolation distress itself unqualify the subject as someone able to express his own true will for at least sometime after being released from isolation, as per the threads about torture?

The thing is, when someone can be found guilty beyond ALL reasonable doubt (and I mean ABSOLUTE doubt, unlike in some murkier affairs), it would be the responsibility of the state to make sure that perpetrators of such hideous crimes be put to death.

I'm usually against death penalty, especially in countries such as mine, where the "justice system" can be swayed this way or the other via the right combination of either pull and money. Even in the US, the doubt persists. But in blatant cases such as this one, let justice be done though the heavens fall!

In the case of psychotic killers (not this one... conditioning can fully account for what happened here), well, treatment is due... but, in the end, as we say in Spanish: "Dead, the dog, finished is rabies".

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I'm against the death penalty, not that I feel too bad for this guy died. It's unfortunate that he had to, since he was never likely going to be a threat to anybody again, and life in prison wouldn't be any better, but a moral-values debate operating between those two possibilities is a false dilemma.

Frankly, our entire penal system is simply fucked. None of it has any sound basis for what goes on other than centuries of built-up Common Law inertia. Past societies have never (to my knowledge) actually simply used pure imprisonment as a legal recourse to itself - it's always been something to keep a criminal in one place until they can be punished in some other, usually more corporeal way. The only people who ended up locked up for years (such as in the Tower of London) were there
because they needed to be gone permanently and execution would be too much trouble (usually because of political considerations).

What's the goal of the prison system today? Rehabilitation? Punishment? How can rehabilitation possibly be served by taking a person who obviously has no investment in civil society and locking them in a cage surrounded by other people, who already had no investment in civil society, for years, merely hardening them and (once they're labelled 'Convict') then releasing them with even less ability to enter society at any level? Punishment? In what way is 'Sit in a corner and think about what you did for a few years' a satisfactory way to punish or deter, for anyone? Is it the punishment of having a few more creaking bones and less hair the next time you breathe free? The punishment of being branded for life? The possibility of anal rape? If the latter two, then clearly our judicial system needs to be re-ordered to make that blatant and clear.

Are there better ways? Well, yes. Aside from their horrendous Death Row, Japan has a superior penal system more based on re-socialisation, community, and vocational learning while in prison. Prisoners even earn a decent stipend if they work that they can collect on release. And Japan has the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Labour always feels intuitively right for criminals, unskilled work being good, obvious, tangible atonement to sins against society.

Would any of this help with John Allen Muhammad? Likely not. He was probably as crazy as a shit-house rat, and there aren't many pills out there developed to cure psychopathy (not much of a market, I suppose). But the point of my diatribe is that there are measures that ought to be looked beyond between the life in prison/death dichotomy that's been foisted on us. Maybe science is advanced enough that for people like him, some kind of lobotomy should be attempted. Most of my thoughts on Justice (Jesus I've written too much on that topic) aren't about the outlier serial killers and their ilk, so I haven't thought about it thoroughly.

But why am I against the death penalty? Simply put, I decided that the only way that I could have any morality at all that wasn't purely Egoist was by deciding that Thinking Life must inherently have value, or else wiping out the entire Human Race is just as moral as saving every member of it. Thus, the amount which die must be minimized by any means necessary, all else being equal. Muhammad, in his state, was a negligible threat to anybody else's life, and so his ought to be preserved. It ought to be noted that, when I formulated my philosophy together, I realized that it had no provisions for the existence of guilt, and so I don't believe in it. If punishment will lower potential threat, then that's a good reason to punish. If it's purely because punishment is standard, it's needless and gratuitous. Responsibility is at best a very difficult concept to parse logically even in a Rationalist's world, and so it's very hard, except in anomalous cases like this one, to account for it at all. Hell, to what extent was Ed Gein even able to reason out or control his own actions, considering how fucked up his development and delusional his perceptions were? This isn't to say that these people ought to be let off the hook - rather, simply that in my philosophy they would need to be dealt with based only on the best possible outcome of the proceedings, rather than the most just.

And this is all aside from the purely practical ludicrous cost issues of our bloated, insane, bureaucracy- and pork-laden penal system. Hoo fucking boy.

[ray245]

^ Then he shouldn't have made a shiv out of his spoon. If he perceives it to be cruel then he can ask for an execution. Some of these people are *already* asking, but won't get it because of how the system is set up.

In my hypothetical rosy utopia, solitary confinement and executions would no longer be options during sentencing. If he's a mad dog, he's institutionalized and you can try to rehabilitate him, but above all you keep him from being a danger to others. If he's sane and guilty of a capital crime, he gets life. If he then wants death, he gets death. Nobody innocent or otherwise is forced down and given the needle, so there's at least a little dignity involved.

Err no, given that you are essentially forcing them into a condition where they beg for death. It's essentially torture.

[Qwerty 42]

I'm opposed to the death penalty, and don't make an exception here, but I don't think any better of him for it.

[Anguirus]

Of course being in isolation is not pleasant, but neither is getting stabbed. I'm not advocating it as a punitive measure, but as a way to cause the least amount of harm if the guy is a threat to any and all around him.

Is a choice offered under duress somehow less moral than offering no choice at all?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you are going to isolate a guy, just terminate him. It's really straightforward, and an easy and very clear-cut bar for when the death penalty is appropriate. If someone is still willing and capable of homicidal behaviour in a 24/7 total surveillance prison and therefore is literally so dangerous they can never be around anyone else, ever, even in such closely monitored confines as that, then they are not a part of human society and should be mercifully shot / decapitated for their own good.

[Broomstick]

I am largely opposed to the death penalty simply because my ethics allow killing a human being only as a matter of self-defense. No matter how egregious the crime, if the criminal can be safely contained then execution can not be justified. On the other hand, if he escapes feel free to shoot him in the back to protect the rest of society.

Likewise, if you put him in prison and he behaves he can live out a life sentence. If he insists on continuing to try to kill people then the defense clause kicks in and, since he can not be safely contained, then he should be killed to protect others - which would answer the problem posed by Mr. I-Make-Shivs-From-Saran-Wrap mentioned by Marina, and certainly in agreement with her most recent post prior to this one.

Not all murders in the US are put into solitary confinement as a matter of course. Even when that does occur, it is not always a permanent condition. Jeffrey Dahmer, a criminal who drugged, raped, tortured, murdered, raped again, and ate 17 men and boys (no, he was not a nice human being) was originally put into solitary for his own protection (needless to say, no other inmate wanted to share a cell with him) but was allowed contact with others after requesting it. This resulted in two attacks by fellow inmates, one of them fatal.

That said, prolong solitary confinement is torture. I have to wonder if there isn't some way to safely allow some human interaction for these inmates while protecting those they interact with. Perhaps some sort of virtual contact, so they are unable to hurt anyone while still obtaining enough social contact to prevent mental breakdown.

Some murders can be rehabilitated, to the extent that the threat they represent to others can be reduced/minimized (see Nathan Leopold, convicted for first degree murder who later helped other inmates achieve educations to enable them to work honestly later in life, participated in malaria research, and post-release worked as an x-ray and lab technician in Puerto Rico without ever falling afoul of the law, an example that a murderer can make positive contributions to society). I certainly cannot condone the death penalty for such individuals. I do think some people are too broken to ever be safe again, and if we can not confine them then, regretfully, we must eliminate them. But we should not do so in a knee-jerk fashion, out of revenge, or anger. That decision should be made only we when have exhausted other alternatives and rationally examine the situation.

Revenge may feel good, killing bad people might seem an easy solution, but the true test of morality is what you do when making the right choice is difficult, even agonizing. Morality isn't about what feels good, it's about what is right rather than wrong.