It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sniper John Allen Muhammad executed

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
It's not immoral to wish for a murderer like this sniper to rot in prison and be subjected to whatever goes on that environment for the rest of his life.


This sentence proves everything I said in my previous post. The anti-death penalty crowd will talk out of both sides of their mouth to justify their views.

You people are always the first to bring up the moral issue, yet you are always the first to call for the guilty parties to suffer for the rest of their lives rather than having an easy way out.

To even pretend that it is not immoral to claim to want someone to be locked away in a small cell at night, and live through forced labor, rapes, and beatings during the day for the rest of their lives is at best delusional.

You say it is not immoral to wish for someone to 'be subjected to whatever goes on in that environment', yet people are killed in prison. So people killing people is part of that environment, which you are claiming they deserve to be a part of.

Again, talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't get to pick and choose what you like and don't like about the death penalty punishment or the life in prison punishment. You get it all or you get nothing.




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I suppose he lost all his appeals. So, he murdered several people in the US and met his fate. It is the law. If I am supposed to respect other people's laws, then they had better respect my country's laws.

Yes, I found it ironic that his time of death was 9:11 pm. Maybe it was planned; maybe it wasn't. Bottom line: a murderer in the US paid for his crimes.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You people can make yourselves feel better all you want by climbing up on your high horse and letting everyone know, using faulty logic and contradicting viewpoints, that your position is the moral high ground, but in reality, your solution is no better than the one you condemn.


Wow, there are some seriously messed up people on ATS.
I take issue with this statement, because it only takes one single wrongful execution to completely destroy your argument.

As a Canadian, we are aware that our process isn't perfect. In the Case of David Milgaard, who spent 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, (Murder and rape of a Nurse) The country was able to reverse his conviction and although he's lost 20 years, he can still have a life.

You see in his case he was native, poor, had blood on him and was in the vicinity of the murdered nurse. So the cops, in their less than unbiased manner assumed he did it, arrested him "made" their case and tah dah instant case closed.

If capital punishment were in effect at the time, how do we return his life to him? How do we compensate him for this injustice in any respect?

If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone, yourself included. These days of intense police brutality should have us all question the validity of all convictions. I agree that there must be a punishment for killing others in cold blood, with complete disregard for the lives that are being destroyed, but capital punishment just isn't it.

When we can be free of biased and dishonest police, corrupt judges who are paid for convictions, lawyers who will blatantly lie to make their point and enjoy a system where truth is actually held paramount, then sure in the few cases where there is no doubt, perhaps capital punishment is an alternative, but we do not have that system and until we do capital punishment isn't being used just for the guilty, it could be used for you or me.

..Ex



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


This is another example of faulty logic. The death penalty is not to blame for innocent people being executed; it is the justice system that put them on death row in the first place.

In order to limit the number of people wrongfully convicted of a crime, you fix the justice system wrongfully convicting them. To take away a legitimate and justified form of punishment simply because we are too lazy or stupid to fix our justice system is completely illogical.

In addition to this, I want to touch on your point of the man being released after 20 years in prison: don't pat yourselves on the back too hard. You wasted 20 years of that man's life because of your justice system. Simply because you can "undo" it by throwing paper money at him is no cause for celebration on your part.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Could any one of us be wrongfully accused of murder and sentenced erroneously to death by the state? Sure, it could happen. Could any one of us be murdered by someone who currently is only not a killer because they fear the death sentence? Yes, absolutely. Could any one of us become the victim of someone who, rather than the death penalty, was sentenced to life and either escaped or through one of the judicial systems many blunders was released for good behavior? Again, absolutely.

In just the past year we have seen states so close to insolvency that they have discussed early release for criminals who never would have been considered for such a release in better times. The odds that a highly dangerous and brutal killer will somehow find themselves free from prison (either by a mistake, escape, or financial hardship driven early release) seems a whole lot more likely to me than an innocent man being executed.

As I said in the earlier pre-execution thread on thsi topic, Muhammed demonstrated without any doubt that he was incapible of working and playing well with society. Anyone who cannot ever again be trusted is also someone who can never be considered a productive member of society. The prison system (should) have one clear goal: rehabillitation. In cases where such rehabillitation is impossible and trust/productivity can never again be seen from the convicted, then the punitive phase has begun. To me, lifelong imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment directed at the victims' families. They will never again have their loved ones to hold while the convicted will be able to live their life in custody, but the key is LIVING. Rather than allowing the purely punitive phase to be punitive to those families, justice is served when the convicted is removed entirely from the Earthly plane.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 
Well said

Also it amazes me how many people think that going to jail will automatically result in being raped. I wasn't in long but I was more worried about getting into a fight & losing remission than getting bummed. Still, from what I've seen, US jails seem worse than in the UK. I expect its to do with the length of sentences. If you know you'll be out fairly soon, you've got an incentive to just keep your head down & do your bird. If you've got ages or life without parole, you've got no incentive to do anything other than sink to the lowest common denominator. That said, this sniper would have probably done 30yrs before they let him out on licence over here. Unless he got ill after 20 or something, then he'd maybe get released on compassionate grounds, if he was deemed safe.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The death penalty aint gonna stop crime neither is life in jail. People dont fear much anymore. So when ya think about it its about personal choice. me im against the death penatly because thats too easy.. I say let em work hard labor till they wish for death.. then work them some more.. these people want to die who do these acts..



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I remember hearing about these shootings back in 2002. It was being labelled as "domestic terrorism" at the time. I found this to be very strange seeing as though with a name like that he could have been linked to some ME terrorist group and used for propaganda purposes. It was not. I also do not believe there was a conspiracy element to this story because the evidence linking Mr. Muhammad and his young apprentice to the crimes is very strong.

I will admit that the time of 9:11 being listed as the time of death does appear more than coincidental at first. But as others have stated, if he was injected at ~9:00pm, then it is likely he would die within the next 15 minutes. So it is possible that the time given was when he simply stopped showing signs of life.

I am still undecided on the death penalty, but I would have to agree that this guy deserves it for the crimes he committed.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by Nventual
It's not immoral to wish for a murderer like this sniper to rot in prison and be subjected to whatever goes on that environment for the rest of his life.


You people are always the first to bring up the moral issue, yet you are always the first to call for the guilty parties to suffer for the rest of their lives rather than having an easy way out.


You are the one bringing up the moral issue. I don't look at the issue morally or immorally, I look at it logically, and illogically the death penalty is wrong. I don't where you keep getting morals from in my posts.

When I make out the 'natural' way of things in prison I didn't mean murder, I meant ridicule, harassment, loss of freedom, confinement, possibly beatings.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
I look at it logically, and illogically the death penalty is wrong.


Explain how the death penalty is illogical. I expect some hard facts and information, such as crime statistics and the burden on taxpayers for life imprisonment vs the death penalty. If you go in to issues such as "no one should be executed or put to death at the hands of another human being" then you are dealing with morals.


Originally posted by Nventual
When I make out the 'natural' way of things in prison I didn't mean murder, I meant ridicule, harassment, loss of freedom, confinement, possibly beatings.


You can't pick and choose what you like about life imprisonment vs the death penalty. Murder is a part of the prison environment that you are endorsing, while also saying no one should die at the hands of another person. You can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try to.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Murder isn't something which just happens to everyone in prison. It hardly happens, especially in the maximum security prisons. When it does, it's because of something that happened IN the prison or because of a personal vendetta.

I would like you to think hard - if you murdered 10 people and were facing a judge, would you prefer he sentences you to life in prison or to death? Why give the murderers what they want?

The cost of keeping someone in prison is a funny thing to bring up. Surely justice is more important than efficiency, and where is the justice in preventing someone from doing time?

[edit on 11/11/09 by Nventual]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
It hardly happens


Source?


Originally posted by Nventual
Why give the murderers what they want?


You are assuming all murderers prefer death. You have nothing to base that assumption on.


Originally posted by Nventual
The cost of keeping someone in prison is a funny thing to bring up.


Not really. I don't feel like throwing away my tax dollars to feed and house someone who should be killed. If you do then feel free to pay your share as well as mine and I will gladly drop my side of the argument.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Thank you Virginia.

Long overdue, and I am glad this justice is done.

Chapter closed,.. and life now goes on.











[edit on 11-11-2009 by smirkley]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
The death penalty is only for barbaric countries like the United States. You either make progress as a nation by leading through an impeccable human rights example, or you stay far behind the curve because of Draconian ideology. Americans need to start being part of the solution, not the problem.

Revenge deaths send the wrong message and emit negative energy, no matter how you slice it.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I don't have enough time to search for reports but here's this:

Prison murders are more rare than one might imagine; there were five homicides inside all of New York's state prisons between 1996 and 1999

www.villagevoice.com...
I'm sure if I wanted to I could find a proper statistic.

Do you have any sources that say it is more expensive to keep somebody in prison than to kill them? I thought it was the other way around.

Many death row inmates actually become respective people, studying and doing classes.
They are there for gang crimes, which at the time they felt were justified. Not every person on death row is there for terrorizing a city or killing innocent people. Heck, drug crimes can be given a death row sentence.

You, America, are one of the few countries who teach that killing is wrong by killing.
Up there with China, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, etc. Notice anything? These aren't Western Countries. No wonder there is hardly any support outside of your own country for these barbaric acts of vengeance.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Honestly now, 9:11 pm EST when it was scheduled for 9:00 pm EST? I seriously doubt this was a mix-up. Do you think they executed him at this time on purpose?


Yes.

I laughed when I saw that. Once you understand how ritualistic our rulers are, it is obvious that it was blatently on purpose.

Ahh, well. Some entity scored itself a soul...



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


This is another example of faulty logic. The death penalty is not to blame for innocent people being executed; it is the justice system that put them on death row in the first place.

In order to limit the number of people wrongfully convicted of a crime, you fix the justice system wrongfully convicting them. To take away a legitimate and justified form of punishment simply because we are too lazy or stupid to fix our justice system is completely illogical.

In addition to this, I want to touch on your point of the man being released after 20 years in prison: don't pat yourselves on the back too hard. You wasted 20 years of that man's life because of your justice system. Simply because you can "undo" it by throwing paper money at him is no cause for celebration on your part.


Faulty logic? Hardly. How exactly do you propose to "fix" corruption in the system? Police frame-up's happen. Corrupt judges exist. Until you manage to find a way to clean that up, which in my opinion is nye impossible, then you will never be able to guarantee that innocent people will not be put to death. In a civilized society that should be unacceptable. In many, it is.

And as far fixing Mr. Milgaards' situation by throwing money at him, at least he's alive to catch it.


edit:spelling

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Nyteskye]

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Nyteskye]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


I lived in that area during that fiasco. I don't scare easily (at all) but it was frickin' scary! I wouldn't let my wife put gas in the car lol

Whether this guy was a pawn in the fear agenda, working with his partner on their own, or just a patsy...

having him dead allowed me to take a deep break and relax. His execution gave me a little bit of closure.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Justice has been served, even if putting someone to sleep with a bunch of chemicals is a little too nice given that the guy iced 11 people with a sniper rifle...

The Chinese method of a good old bullet in the neck ( and the bullet is paid for by the family by the way ) should be applied in some cases, to freak potential snipers out.


no , seriously, some people were born to do evil. Good to know that one of them gets caught and terminated.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 




These are interesting times.... eye for an eye and all that rot.


Indeed, which makes it quite astutely clear why the blind are leading the blind. The last man with one good eye, who's opponent cannot see to pluck it out, will be king.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 




Your values and morals do not free you from the obligation that all living things must succumb to: kill or be killed.


Values and morals only exist as cultural constructs by which to guide social interaction within a tribe/society. They exist in part because we can understand that other people outside of our own subjective emotional states, can similarly feel emotions such as pain, sorrow, guilt, happiness, love, jealousy, etc. We can empathize with those emotions that others display.

And just what do you think it was that endowed us with such an ability as empathy? The exact same nature which endowed us with the instinct to hunt and kill. The same nature which endowed us with the sense of reciprocity for our actions.

If you want to claim it to be human nature, our "obligation", to fight and kill each other, that's fine. In fact, I agree with it, despite being far more complex than that. But if such is your stance, you don't get to cherry pick which behaviors to support just because they fit your argument. You also have to factor in altruism. The "better angles" of our nature, as it were.

We all think about killing each other. And far more often than we'd like to admit - male and female both - if interviews and polls are to be believed. So why aren't we slaughtering each other in the streets? Perhaps it's because while our urge to kill each other is there, people generally don't like killing each other. It's not a very pleasant task, excepting at times for a rather small portion of the population who have trouble with, or cannot process empathy for others. Such as psychopaths. And yes, there does seem to be a genetic component and difference in brain structure in relation to the expression of empathy. (So it seems Dawkins was right, that selfish genes do not necessarily have to code for a selfish creature)

Yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that empathy and altruism guide us. There are far more factors and considerations which affect whether the "Angel or Devil" wins out. Perhaps cued from certain stimuli in our tribal pasts, such as irrational fears or group mentalities, can play havoc with our behaviors and push us into doing things we normally wouldn't think of. Fear of being raided by your tribal neighbors could inspire a pre-emptive attack to weaken their numbers.

But there's another little trick we learned. It's called dehumanization. The stripping away of either your humanity, or your neighbor's humanity, to quell the sensation of empathy and allow you to slaughter them with impunity. You're no longer killing people... you're eradicating scum, exterminating vermin, or removing parasites. Or you allow the monster to take possession of you, to do what must be done. You become just a faceless cog in the war machine. Conformity in uniform and face paintings... they're basically the same expression. And this is further reinforced by the deferment of responsibility. It's easier to subvert your own morality when you are provided an avenue by which to shift the burden of the act. It's not your call, just following orders. It's one of the reasons why old men declare wars, but it's the young men must go and fight them. There's more to it that just cowardice and greed that so many want to attribute it to.

If you haven't, you really ought to check out the studies leading up to, and culminating in the Stanford Prison Experiment. And while you're at it, look up the statistics on the rates of killings between modern tribal people who use dehumanization techniques before going into war. Especially the statistics regarding the rates of mutilation and torture among those tribes who actively change their appearance vs. those who don't.

Further... I have to evoke Hume's Guillotine on you. "Is" and "Ought" are not synonymous. Just because we can accept murder "Is" a fact of life, it does not follow that we "Ought" to just accept it without trying to mitigate that behavior - nor that we "Ought" to wield it in equal measure back upon the instigator. Whether we kill the killers in eye for an eye justice is a cultural and policy matter to debate and make concessions for in the public forum as a state or a nation. However, you're seemingly willing to ignore the moral implications of such a decision by trying to use nature to justify your position. Nature only applies to the affirmation of "Is", but has no logical or causal implications on the "Ought".

--------------------------

As for my opinion on whether or not John Allen should have been executed? I would suggest no, were the decision up to me. But it's not. The crime did not occur in my state, nor am I related to or affiliated with the victims or their families. I don't feel it's my place to make that decision.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join