I thought that was a surprise.



One thing for sure, all those families are missing a loved one this
Christmas because these two people decided to go killing people.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by elviswasmydad
I thought that was a surprise.

One thing for sure, all those families are missing a loved one this Christmas because these two people decided to go killing people.



Hi:



I wonder if Maryland will now seek to try him.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:

I wonder if Maryland will now seek to try him.







I have not followed it closely. I was under the impression that they
tried it where they did, because they thought they had the best shot at
a death penalty there.



They only reason to bring him to Maryland would be to seek the death
penalty. I don't know how they stand on the death penalty in Maryland.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:

I wonder if Maryland will now seek to try him.



Probably, but it seems pointless given his ineligibility for parole.



Under Maryland law, he is ineligible for the death penalty because the
crime was committed before his 18th birthday.



I know most disagreed with me, but IMO this is the right outcome, IMO.


--
Dekka's Angel


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
Probably, but it seems pointless given his ineligibility for parole.

Under Maryland law, he is ineligible for the death penalty because the crime was committed before his 18th birthday.

I know most disagreed with me, but IMO this is the right outcome, IMO.







Well the jury agrees with you .


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Dekka's Angel

I know most disagreed with me, but IMO this is the right outcome, IMO.



Most, but not all. Guess I am getting soft in my old age.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:

I wonder if Maryland will now seek to try him.



Folksy-



There is also the option of trying him in Alabama (I think that is where
they shot the store attendents). They could also try him for other
victims in Va, especially if he admitted to them in his confession he
took back.



Kimberly


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Yup and three million to try hin and millions to support him the rest of
his days.....





Originally posted by elviswasmydad
I thought that was a surprise.


One thing for sure, all those families are missing a loved one
this Christmas because these two people decided to go killing
people.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla wrote:
Originally posted by elviswasmydad I thought that was a surprise. One thing for sure, all those families are missing a loved one this Christmas because these two people decided to go killing people. Hi: I wonder if Maryland will now seek to try him. -- Certified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization Posted via http://britishexpats.com

What a waste of time and my tax dollars that would be. Even if he got
the death penalty here they would never carry it out Best chance to fry
him is if they send him back to I think it's Alabama to be tried.

Michael D. Young wrote:
What a waste of time and my tax dollars that would be. Even if he got the death penalty here they would never carry it out Best chance to fry him is if they send him back to I think it's Alabama to be tried.

Well maybe the prison population could help out. They did in Jeffery
Dalmer's case!

Speaking of which, what did Jeffery Dalmer say to Lorena Bobbet?

[drum roll....]

A: "Hey are you gonna eat that?"

(Ducking for cover and returning to holiday activities... Merry
Christmas all...)



--
There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

Originally posted by elviswasmydad
Well the jury agrees with you .



I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the families
will never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! no
exception.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Michael D. Young

What a waste of time and my tax dollars that would be. Even if he got
the death penalty here they would never carry it out Best chance to fry
him is if they send him back to I think it's Alabama to be tried.



It is far more expensive to litigate one death penalty case of this
type than to lock him up for 60 years, let alone the cost of years
of appeals.



But then again, perhaps if we keep trying him in all the different
states, somewhere they will give him the "ultimate penalty".

Alabama-stan likes to execute blacks, perhaps that is the best option.



One wonders if with all of our budget deficits here if that would be
something the Govenor or D.A. would even want to open that can of worms.
Maybe they could call back Judge Roy S. Moore especially to ensure "just-
us" is done in this case.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by dutchman2001nl
I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the families will never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! no exception.



Hi:



On a related prosecution, Oklahoma's murder prosecution of Terry Nichols
bother's me. They didn't prosecute Timothy McVeigh. But Nichols was
also convicted by the Feds -- life and throw away the key.



With Malvo's case, the murders were retail and over several
jurisdictions. He was just convicted on two of them. Nichols was
already tried and convicted for his ONE act of wholesale murder in ONE
location, albeit with overlapping jurisditions.



I believe that unless you were on the jury, one really can't criticize
the actually judgment. It is an awsome responsiblity. I recall Jerry
Brown talking about how his father couldn't sleep on execution nights
when he was governor -- and Pat Brown allowed for quite a few executions
to go forward back in a day when they were nowhere near as
controversial. That struck me as quite appropriate. I know that I was
upset about reading how a certain recent Governor of Texas would be
giggling during when considering stays of execution. Even when an
execution may be appropriate, it should not be done with a light heart.


--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by dutchman2001nl
I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the families will never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! no exception.





I, too, believe he should have been sentenced to death. However, the
trial was a fair one and the jury has reached their decision on guilt
and sentencing and as a citizen I uphold their decision as due process
of law. Does not mean I have to agree with it.



Rete


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

I saw on fox news last night that Alabama and Louisiana are both
interested in trials for Malvo in those states. Both Alabama and
Louisiana have the death penalty.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by elviswasmydad
I saw on fox news last night that Alabama and Louisiana are both interested in trials for Malvo in those states. Both Alabama and Louisiana have the death penalty.



This whole thread reminds me of a phrase I was brought up with....



There but for the grace of God, go I.



Retributive justice has never made a nation great and, at least in
theory, our justice system is not founded upon it. Reading the
bloodlust folks have for this person, a child himself when he did what
he did, makes me sick to my stomach, and I wonder how many have ever
read what the intent of the juvenile justice system is supposed to be in
this country.



Let's be blunt. I excuse nothing that he did. Life in prison is a fair
sentence, for a man who will live another 60 years, at least, and I have
no complaint about it. But I also abhor the rank politicking that
caused this child to be tried in Virginia in the first place, merely to
satisfy bloodlust, instead of pursue justice (which would have almost
certainly resulted in a trial in Maryland). This young man has now had
his day in court, in a hostile forum. Killing him will bring nobody
back to life. Ongoing forum shopping just to keep rolling the death
penalty dice now that a jury of the *prosecution's* choosing (their
forum shop, their jury pool, their voir dire) has deemed that he will
live instead of die is nothing short of willfully murderous, and frankly
amoral. Individuals may be murderers, but our government should not be
in the business of pursuit of it. They are, only because we as citizens
encourage them to be. Considering that tomorrow is the second most holy
day in the Christian calendar, some self-examination and reflection of
what the day means might be in order.



But that is my opinion, such as it is.


--
Dekka's Angel


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Dekka's Angel
This whole thread reminds me of a phrase I was brought up with....

There but for the grace of God, go I.

Retributive justice has never made a nation great. It has only made them murderers. This young man has had his day in court, and killing him will bring nobody back to life. Forum shopping now that a jury of the *prosecution's* choosing (their forum shop, their jury pool, their voir dire) has deemed that he will live is nothing short of willfully murderous. Individuals may be murderers, but our government should not be in the business of pursuit of it.

But that is my opinion, admittedly.

I concur. The death penalty was one of the things that took the most
getting used to for me when moving to the U.S. If we are against people
murdering people then why do we murder in return? I know this issue is
like abortion - you will be on one side or the other and there is
little one can do to dissuade someone's opinion. My perspective as an
immigrant was just one of shock to know that I live in a nation that
supports such acts.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Excuse my ignorance.. Who is Malvo?? I have never heard of him
:rolleyes:, sorry but I had to ask!!


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

My only comment on the death penalty is this...



If you put someone to death. You should have some criteria of evidence,
ie DNA, video, or some combination of 99.999% proof.



The reason I say this, is innocent people have been executed.



The second thing I think about the death penalty, is that if you are
going to do it, do it quickly. I think It should be carried out within 6
months to a years time.



The reason I say this, is people sit on death row years and years
and years.



I am not saying that I am for or against the death penalty, I am just
saying that if you do have a death penalty, these are the conditions
that should go with it.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by Hypertweeky
Excuse my ignorance.. Who is Malvo?? I have never heard of him :rolleyes:, sorry but I had to ask!!



:rolleyes: and >insert crying smilie<


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by dutchman2001nl
:rolleyes: and >insert crying smilie<



Sorry Dutch, I didn´t know the sniper´s son name, sphyrapicus

has just told me.


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Dekka's Angel wrote:
This whole thread reminds me of a phrase I was brought up with.... There but for the grace of God, go I.

I don't know. Are you packing a rifle and taking target practice at
innocent people? I think not. Therefore I don't think that you'd be
going anywhere.
Retributive justice has never made a nation great

Nor has murder.
and, at least in theory, our justice system is not founded upon it. Reading the bloodlust folks have for this person, a child himself when he did what he did, makes me sick to my stomach, and I wonder how many have ever read what the intent of the juvenile justice system is supposed to be in this country.

Personally what this person has done makes me more sick. Tell the above
to the families of the survivors. I doubt they will share your sentiments.
Let's be blunt. I excuse nothing that he did.

Sure sounds like your attempting to by implying that somehow people who
would like to see the death penalty applied, as it was for the older
guy, in this case too as sickening.
Life in prison is a fair sentence, for a man who will live another 60 years, at least, and I have no complaint about it. But I also abhor the rank politicking that caused this child to be tried in Virginia in the first place, merely to satisfy bloodlust, instead of pursue justice (which would have almost certainly resulted in a trial in Maryland).

Some people view justice as the death penalty. Obviously you don't. But
please allow others to have a different opinion
This young man has now had his day in court, in a hostile forum.

I'd hardly call it hostile. Putting him in a car and having the jury
members take rifle shots at him - that'd be hostile - as hostile as his
actions.
Killing him will bring nobody back to life.

But it would insure that he does not commit this crime again.
Ongoing forum shopping just to keep rolling the death penalty dice now that a jury of the *prosecution's* choosing (their forum shop, their jury pool, their voir dire) has deemed that he will live instead of die is nothing short of willfully murderous, and frankly amoral.

Others disagree.
Individuals may be murderers, but our government should not be in the business of pursuit of it.

The government is in the business of protecting our rights. This
individual has deprived a number of people of their lives and have hurt
dozens of others permanently. IMHO the government is justified in going
after him with vigilance.
They are, only because we as citizens encourage them to be. Considering that tomorrow is the second most holy day in the Christian calendar, some self-examination and reflection of what the day means might be in order.

Christmas has nothing to do with this issue.
--
Read my chips: No new upgrades!

sphyrapicus wrote:
I concur. The death penalty was one of the things that took the most getting used to for me when moving to the U.S. If we are against people murdering people then why do we murder in return?

I've heard some people say that it can be viewed as the state acting on
behalf of the deceased in a posthumous act of self defense.
I know this issue is like abortion - you will be on one side or the other and there is little one can do to dissuade someone's opinion. My perspective as an immigrant was just one of shock to know that I live in a nation that supports such acts.

Some foreign countries engage in murder of innocent people too. A
foreign regime, recently deposed, comes to mind... ;-)

Give a choice I'll stick with the US.

--
Is French kissing in France just called kissing?

Hypertweeky wrote:
Excuse my ignorance.. Who is Malvo?? I have never heard of him :rolleyes:, sorry but I had to ask!!

Do you Google?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Malvo&btnG=Google+Search

--
Ambition is the last refuge of a failure.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:36:00 +0000, dutchman2001nl
<member16161@british_expats.com> wrote:
Originally posted by elviswasmydad Well the jury agrees with you .I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the familieswill never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! noexception.

He was a kid, nobody cared for him, and an older person manipulated
his need for love and guidance. I'm not saying he shouldn't be made to
answer for what he did, but a system that wants to kill him is as
vicious and merciless as the crimes themselves.

Grahame and Laura

K-1 app. mailed 1/24/2002.
First NOA received 2/4/2002 (dated 1/28).
Approval via automated phone line 2/13.
Sydney consulate cabled 2/14.

Grahame and Laura wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:36:00 +0000, dutchman2001nl <member16161@british_expats.com> wrote: Originally posted by elviswasmydad Well the jury agrees with you . I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the families will never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! no exception. He was a kid, nobody cared for him, and an older person manipulated his need for love and guidance. I'm not saying he shouldn't be made to answer for what he did, but a system that wants to kill him is as vicious and merciless as the crimes themselves.

Your emotional arguments carry little weight. If what you are saying is
true then what stops millions of other kids, with nobody caring for
them, and an older person manipulating them for their need for love and
guidance from doing the same thing? We would have an epidemic of serial
snipers yet we don't.
--
If we are what we eat, I'm cheap, fast, and easy.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:50:12 -0800, Andrew DeFaria
<Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:
Grahame and Laura wrote: On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:36:00 +0000, dutchman2001nl <member16161@british_expats.com> wrote: Originally posted by elviswasmydad> Well the jury agrees with you . I sure as hell don't. Look at the lives he has taken... the families will never see their lovedones again. I'd say: Death penalty ! no exception. He was a kid, nobody cared for him, and an older person manipulated his need for love and guidance. I'm not saying he shouldn't be made to answer for what he did, but a system that wants to kill him is as vicious and merciless as the crimes themselves.Your emotional arguments carry little weight. If what you are saying istrue then what stops millions of other kids, with nobody caring forthem, and an older person manipulating them for their need for love andguidance from doing the same thing? We would have an epidemic of serialsnipers yet we don't.

Because people aren't robots, each human is different and reacts
differently to what life hands out.

Grahame and Laura

K-1 app. mailed 1/24/2002.
First NOA received 2/4/2002 (dated 1/28).
Approval via automated phone line 2/13.
Sydney consulate cabled 2/14.

Grahame and Laura wrote:
He was a kid, nobody cared for him, and an older person manipulated his need for love and guidance. I'm not saying he shouldn't be made to answer for what he did, but a system that wants to kill him is as vicious and merciless as the crimes themselves. Your emotional arguments carry little weight. If what you are saying is true then what stops millions of other kids, with nobody caring for them, and an older person manipulating them for their need for love and guidance from doing the same thing? We would have an epidemic of serial snipers yet we don't. Because people aren't robots, each human is different and reacts differently to what life hands out.

Yes people aren't robots and each human is different. I did not say, nor
mean to infer, that *every* neglected kid would become a sniper. However
if you're theory was to hold true then it stands to reason that
statistically there would be a lot of this going on everyday - yet they
ain't. What does that say to you about your own theory?

Face it. Some people are good people. Ergo some people are bad people.
This one is a bad one. Deflecting responsibility to another person it
not the answer. People should be held accountable for their actions.
Both of these people perform similar bad actions. Both have been found
guilty and both are facing punishment. One is facing more punishment
than the other. Why? The only issue is the fact that one was a minor. If
we are compelled to try some minors as adults then they should also be
compelled to face adult punishment. YMMV.
--
Nebraska: At least the cows are sane.

Originally posted by Andrew DeFaria
very intelligent answer



I thought so too.... ;)


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Folinskyinla wrote:
Actually, you have hit upon a very basic question -- what is a "crime?"

Ugh! Haven't we been here before? :-)
And the question is not that simple one to answer.

Maybe not for you but it's pretty simple for me. ;-)
Traditionally speaking, a crime is an offense against the SOVREIGN. In England against the crown, in California it is "The People", in Virginia it is "Commonwealth."

In this case we are talking about murder. I think it's pretty clear to
all that that is indeed a crime. It is also a violation of an
individual's rights, in this case the right to life.
I just took a look at my Criminal Law Hornbook [an authographed copy of Perkins]

Ever notice that lawyers appear to have this tendency to brag? Is there
a particular reason why we need to know that this copy was autographed?
and the book starts off with that question -- the summary paragraphs repeatedly stated it was an offense against society.

I tend to think it's when one violates another's rights.
An example I remember from law school was the crime of "mayhem." You break a guys nose -- it may be assault, it may be battery, but it ain't mayhem. You break a guys arm -- the King has been deprived of an archer -- hence the crime of mayhem.

Huh? Remember the topic - it's about murder.
However, there has been a growing "victim's rights" movement. Traditionally speaking, the victim's family had no formal interest in the prosecution -- that was a government function -- but at least in sentencing -- the victim's family can be heard.

Huh? I was not talking about the victim's family - I was talking about
the victim themselves. (Your response was all over the map and makes me
wonder what you were trying to say).

--
DOS Tip #17: Add DEVICE=FNGRCROS.SYS to CONFIG.SYS

Folinskyinla wrote:
It was hostile in context -- the weapons given the jury was the power to impose the death sentence. Rather than rifles, they were given the power to order a lethal injection.

For which they would dutifully sterilize the needle, however I digress.
I assume, since the jury did not impose the death sentence, then you are
in agreement with me by your contention that the jury was indeed not
hostile. ;-)
What if the jury had been given those rifles, authority to shoot and encouraged to shoot? That would be hostile, would it not?

That was my statement was it not? The jury did not "shoot" ergo they
were not hostile. However I still content, even if they did impose the
death penalty they would not be hostile rather they would be acting in a
sort of posthumous self defense of the victims. The person that was
hostile was the person pulling the trigger killing innocent people. (I'm
funny that way).
But the jury chose not to shoot.

Ah, yes they did not shoot - but they should have!

--
BREAKFAST.COM Halted...Cereal Port Not Responding

Folinskyinla wrote:
I feel that Andrew was twisting the word "hostile" around by taking it out of context.

I'm using hostile in a more absurd context to shed light on the usage of
hostile in the original context. Comparatively the jury was not
"hostile" IMHO.
Say what you will about the justification, John Ashcroft was trying as hard as he could to KILL Malvo by the means available to him by law.

As is his right, under law, no?
Sentence aside, the state with the most connection with the string of killings was Maryland -- they had the most killings -- and Malvo was arrested in Maryland. He was taken outside that jurisdiction to another jurisdiction becuse there was a higher chance of that he would get a death sentence. That was "forum shopping" that Angel mentioned. Virginia was a jurisdiction most likely to kill Malvo quickly and that is why Ashcroft sent him there. That doesn't sit right with me.

Personally I feel he should be tried for each murder he is alleged to
have committed in each jurisdiction that is applicable. Why should some
murders go unprosecuted?
On an intellectual level, I'm not opposed to the death penalty. However, it should never be lightly or easily imposed. It is so bloody serious, one should lose sleep over it and be bothered. On another level, I don't think most of the people who are sentenced to death are worth the effort.

And studies show that few of them ever have their sentences carried out...
I won't feel any safer with him dead rather than locked up and with the key thrown away.

Ah but there's the rub! Is the key ever really thrown away? I'm not
confident that "life without the posibility of parole" is really without
the possibility of parole. People, states, governments and laws change
all the time.
--
The more you complain, the longer God makes you live.