Moussaoui

[NewYorkRoark]

I am for the death penalty, but I beleive this was the right decision. I'd rather have him rot in jail than die a Martyr.

[DavidOdden]

I am for the death penalty, but I beleive this was the right decision. I'd rather have him rot in jail than die a Martyr.

Why?

[NewYorkRoark]

Why?

Because that's what he wants. He's made it clear that he wishes to die a Martyr. I'd rather see him slowly lose his sanity in a concrete cell. That would seem to be the greater punishment.

[D'kian]

I wonder what his recruting value for potential jihadis will be?

[Qwertz]

I for one never really agreed with the decision that his actions were directly responsible for "at least one death" on Sep.11. He was a co-conspirator before the fact, but not directly involved in the event. He was not the mastermind. I never thought the death penalty would apply.

I wonder if he'll be murdered or commit suicide in prison.

-Q

[aleph_0]

I've never understood the "that's what he wants" argument. Who cares what he wants? Should we do everything that is opposite of what he wants?

[BurgessLau]

I wonder if he'll be murdered or commit suicide in prison.

1. Or kill a guard?

2. Or continue to conspire with terrorists by passing messages through an attorney?

3. Or remain an active, public symbol by becoming a jailhouse lawyer filing lawsuits that require him to be brought to court for public display?

4. Or, if the U. S. continues to decline to European levels of justice, be released someday?

Let him be a martyr. All aggressive haters of Western Civilization should become martyrs.

[FeatherFall]

Because that's what he wants. He's made it clear that he wishes to die a Martyr. I'd rather see him slowly lose his sanity in a concrete cell. That would seem to be the greater punishment.

I've never been a supporter of the death penalty as a punishment. I support it, but only as a protection against the risks of allowing some criminals to live.

Thanks to Mr. Laughlin for the examples. They are some of the reasons why I support the death penalty in this case.

[D'kian]

Would it be immoral to offer a reward for the death of Moussaoui? I know it would be illegal.

[dark_unicorn]

The thing that troubles me the most about this wasn't neccesarily the decision, but the reasoning behind it. People taking into account such patently absurd things as family upbringing and emotional trauma as a child, as if such things can be used to rationalize such actions. Essentially many of those jurors felt that Mussoai was not possessed of a free will, and that therefore he is not responsible for his actions. By this standard any potential terrorist could escape punishment, because this can easily apply to anyone brought up in an Islamicist country.

God Bless progressive education, for it produces such wonderful morons who, in turn, decide matter of justice from the jury box. Is it any wonder that justice is failing in this country?

[DavidOdden]

People taking into account such patently absurd things as family upbringing and emotional trauma as a child, as if such things can be used to rationalize such actions.

In fairness, it is required by law. The numerous emotional victim impact statements are part of establishing aggrevating circumstances, and childhood trauma is part of mitigating circumstances.

[BurgessLau]

David, I am not at all familiar with the law of pardons. Is there any possibility that someday a president -- a sort of Ultra Jimmy Carter -- could issue a presidential pardon for Moussaoui and thereby free him? Pardons don't require Congressional approval do they?

[Hal]

Essentially many of those jurors felt that Mussoai was not possessed of a free will, and that therefore he is not responsible for his actions. By this standard any potential terrorist could escape punishment, because this can easily apply to anyone brought up in an Islamicist country.

He got a life sentence, he hardly escaped punishment. If the jurors really felt he 'wasnt responsible for his actions' I assume he'd have been found innocent or got a couple of years maximum.

[D'kian]

David, I am not at all familiar with the law of pardons. Is there any possibility that someday a president -- a sort of Ultra Jimmy Carter -- could issue a presidential pardon for Moussaoui and thereby free him? Pardons don't require Congressional approval do they?

As far as I know, a president can pardon anyone for anything, without approval from any other branch of government. It may be that he could then be impeached, but I doubt it.

As to whether a future president might pardon Moussaoui, I'm sorry to say it is most certainly possible. I can see multiculturalism stretching enough to say Moussaoui is being oppressed for expressing his cultural beliefs. I can also see a dhimmi president, like Carter or Kerry, but also a moderate Republican like Powell, pardoning this beast for any of a myriad spurious reasons; all of which boil down to fear and dhimmitude.

[NewYorkRoark]

1. Or kill a guard?

2. Or continue to conspire with terrorists by passing messages through an attorney?

3. Or remain an active, public symbol by becoming a jailhouse lawyer filing lawsuits that require him to be brought to court for public display?

4. Or, if the U. S. continues to decline to European levels of justice, be released someday?

Let him be a martyr. All aggressive haters of Western Civilization should become martyrs.

I cede my position.

[DavidOdden]

As far as I know, a president can pardon anyone for anything, without approval from any other branch of government. It may be that he could then be impeached, but I doubt it.

As to whether a future president might pardon Moussaoui, I'm sorry to say it is most certainly possible.

Impeachment (not to mention conviction) requires a legally improper act, so that president could not be impeached. In addition to a pardon, which is vastly less likely (only a complete political suicide or a complete dhimmi would do anything so stupid), there is the "Finnish prison" option. The Supermax facility that he is supposed to go to is surely not going to be fun: but one could argue (and for which reason I would expect that at some point it will be argued) that such extreme isolation would be "cruel and unusual" punishment, so it may be decided (by judicial decision or legislation) in the future hat all prisoners have the right to open, airy spaces, plenty of books, pretty flowers, internet access, conjugal visits, blah blah blah.

[Lathanar]

Would someone who wants to be a martyr, who would regard his imprisonment by the government to be empowering to his cause, making him a 'victim' of the evil west, is sending him to prison really a punishment? Maybe they should stop him from praying or something of the sort. I just don't see the justification of spending tax dollars to keep him alive the rest of his natural life.

[D'kian]

In addition to a pardon, which is vastly less likely (only a complete political suicide or a complete dhimmi would do anything so stupid), there is the "Finnish prison" option.

Or, he might be sent to France to serve his sentence. The French are much more likely to either pardon him, or parole him, or give him some kind of early release.

Cox and Forkum have weighed in, btw: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000836.html

[The Wrath]

I'm glad he got life. I think you people are underestimating the prison that he's living in. No one has ever escaped and he will be in solitary confinement 23 per day. The other hour is spent in a small concrete exercise yard, by himself, where he can see the sky. Not really any opportunities to kill a guard.

Our government may not have the balls that it should about the war on terror, but we're not about to turn him over to France. I also don't think any contemporary politician (including Kerry) would possibly pardon him, if they had the chance. I feel safe in saying that Moussaoui will spend the rest of his life in that prison and that, as the judge put it, he will die with a whimper.

Let him brag all he wants that "America lost." In 60 years, he will still be rotting in his cell, utterly alone, and completely forgotten.

[BurgessLau]

I just don't see the justification of spending tax dollars to keep him alive the rest of his natural life.

Of course, there is no justification for tax dollars. Period.

There should be no taxes. All prisons should be supported either through donations, fees, fines, or the labor of prisoners.

[The Wrath]

For what it's worth, the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

[BurgessLau]

For what it's worth, the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

What evidence shows that this is true in all cases?

Edited May 5, 2006 by BurgessLau

[The Wrath]

When you're talking about government, nothing is true in all cases. But, it is true in the vast majority of cases, because all death penalty cases are automatically appealed and the appeals process costs quite a bit of money. It costs something like $10,000 to house someone in prison for one year. The appeals process costs millions. It would take hundreds of years of prison to equal the cost of the death penalty appeal. Due to the high profile of this particular case, it would probably cost more than most death penalty appeals anyway.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Moose

[BurgessLau]

When you're talking about government, nothing is true in all cases. But, it is true in the vast majority of cases, because all death penalty cases are automatically appealed and the appeals process costs quite a bit of money. It costs something like $10,000 to house someone in prison for one year. The appeals process costs millions. It would take hundreds of years of prison to equal the cost of the death penalty appeal. Due to the high profile of this particular case, it would probably cost more than most death penalty appeals anyway.

So, the original statement, which was a universal one, is false. The original statement also referred to the death penalty. It did not say the cost of defending a death sentence. The death penalty itself, the actual killing of a prisoner, need not cost much at all: Pay another prisoner $100 to march the condemned man out into an empty field and shoot the condemned man in the back of the head with a shotgun.

I have read that here in Oregon the average cost for incarcerating violent criminals is about $30,000 per year -- not the $10,000 figure you mention. If that is true, then imprisonment for 30 years would be $900,000. And that is not even under "supermax" type conditions, which -- judging from recent news reports -- seem still more expensive.

But even that higher figure does not include the costs of additional trials for crimes committed while in prison. Nor does it include the cost of dealing with appeals to abandon or reduce the life sentence -- or, for that matter, the cost of a new trial, say, years from now, if a court decides the first one was tainted.

There is no question in my mind that the U. S. system of justice is very expensive. Even if there were no other reason for doing so, this is a reason for making sure that government enforces only laws dealing with aggression and fraud.

Edited May 5, 2006 by BurgessLau

[D'kian]

For what it's worth, the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Monetarily, that may be so. But the death penalty works much better as a deterrent than life witout parole. That is worth the additional price.

Also, the only rational objection I've ever come accross regarding capital punishment is: what if an innocent man (innocent of a capital crime at any rate) is unjustly sentenced to death? One way to avoid it, is to grant all those sentenced to capital punishment a thorough appeal process. And that, too, is worth the price.