Moussaoui is spared death penalty

[Wiccan013]

I think that the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court did not what to give Moussaoui the death penalty, is because that they did not want him viewed as a martyr. But what they should have done was let him go on the steps of the court house, and told him "good luck".

Because Every one knows that he would not have lasted more than 5 minutes after the people found out about it. :ko:

Just my opinion.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Ah, well. If you're going to judge people by their answers, you may wish to note that in your opening question so that we can all attempt to live up to whatever standards you've decided we must have.

When I come to RF and read a post, I expect to answer it with the truth of whatever I'm feeling. It's only rarely that I express anger- and I feel very used for one of those instances being utilized as a way to judge me.

Actually, I feel humiliated and set up. I come to RF for the ability to express what I feel, not to be scolded for what someone else decides I should feel like.

My apology. That was and is not my intention. I am not scolding anyone or criticizing anyone. I am just trying to spread some good feeling and good will around.:162:

 

[greatcalgarian]

I think that the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court did not what to give Moussaoui the death penalty, is because that they did not want him viewed as a martyr. But what they should have done was let him go on the steps of the court house, and told him "good luck".

Because Every one knows that he would not have lasted more than 5 minutes after the people found out about it. :ko:

Just my opinion.

That will not work. American is a country following law. And whoever who is going to take law into their own hand will then be judged.

 

[greatcalgarian]

They can't really do much for mass murderers.

You have to give it a try. And if it does not work out, then execute the solution left: life in prison so that they will not be able to carry out anymore evil deeds.

As put forward by the defence lawer, the cause could be child hood problem etc, which may be able to solve through proper treatment.

 

[niceguy]

A majority of the jury members actually DID go for the death penalty. One of them opposed it. They question is why? I do not know.

1) They believed in humanity and do not believe in death penalty
This is possible but really not an allowed option. People that are against the death penalty are not allowed to be part of a jury in a death penalty trial.

(2) They did not wish to let Moussanoui full fill his wish of being a martyr
That is REALPOLITIK, a court are supposed to be about LAW however, not realpolitik.

(3) They considered the evidence presented by both sides, and felt that that is the correct verdict following the judge's analysis and direction.
This is what a court case really are about, the reason it "should" be, it is not neccessary true thou.

(4) They felt that life imprisonment is a better punishment for Moussaoui as he will be tortured in any American prison by the guards and the prisoners alike for the rest of his life.
Misstreatment of prisoners are a sad reality, illegal but it does happen. To sentence someone to prison inorder to be misstreated are hardly legal, or moral.

(5) Cheaper than appeal etc if death sentence was passed.
This is the realpolitik argument again.

(6) Others?
Possible, but what do we know what happened in ONE persons chain of thoughts?

I mite add that I myself are against the death penalty and it was abolished in my contry 1921.

 

[Ody]

You have to give it a try.

Has it worked for Gacy! :no:

 

[michel]

I think that the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court did not what to give Moussaoui the death penalty, is because that they did not want him viewed as a martyr. But what they should have done was let him go on the steps of the court house, and told him "good luck".

Because Every one knows that he would not have lasted more than 5 minutes after the people found out about it. :ko:

Just my opinion.

And a very valid and good one (the point about him dying as a martyr); I am sure that was the reason.

 

[Sunstone]

The government decision to prosecute him for the death penality was probably motivated more by domestic politics and hysteria than anything else, IMO. Once he confessed and was convicted, the prospect of his spending the rest of his days in Florence, Colorado's SuperMax prision should have satisfied anyone who wanted revenge for 9/11.

Right after the verdict for life, one of the talk show programs trotted out an idiot who said the verdict reflected the "sissyfication of America". While I'm all for the talk show's effort to employ the emotionally retarded, I can't imagine even that pundit enjoying the rest of his life in the SuperMax, nor finding that it was a "sissyfied" sentence, if it had happened to him.

 

[michel]

The government decision to prosecute him for the death penality was probably motivated more by domestic politics and hysteria than anything else, IMO. Once he confessed and was convicted, the prospect of his spending the rest of his days in Florence, Colorado's SuperMax prision should have satisfied anyone who wanted revenge for 9/11.

Right after the verdict for life, one of the talk show programs trotted out an idiot who said the verdict reflected the "sissyfication of America". While I'm all for the talk show's effort to employ the emotionally retarded, I can't imagine even that pundit enjoying the rest of his life in the SuperMax, nor finding that it was a "sissyfied" sentence, if it had happened to him.

Quite.

In his place, I would far rather have had the death penalty passed on me.

 

[greatcalgarian]

After the verdict, it appeared that there is a leak on how the Jury dicussed and voted on the case. It seemed now the media is witchhunting for the sole dissenting soul jury member that voted against the death penalty in the first round.
It appeared that the media is trying to haunt that particular jury member. So what do you think of the current American jury system? Should jury members be subjected to torment after they have suffered and have to fought with their conscience and moral to reach their decision, often difficult, and yet after that being criticise by the media?

 

[niceguy]

It should, in my opion be a crime to investigate who it was that voted against the use of the death penalty. It should likewise be a crime to publish the information, regardless of how it was aquired. Even speculations about who it was should be avoided. Not that we could even attempt to begin speculation unless we know who the jury members was, something that we should not be able to know in the first place.

I understand that it's common for media to interveiv jury memebers. In a well working system, there would be no way for them to know whatever a person really was on a jury or was just making things up. That's how effective the protection of jury members identity should be. We cannot have revenge hungry associates of the looser in a court case kicking in the door to jury members homes.

 

[greatcalgarian]

It should, in my opion be a crime to investigate who it was that voted against the use of the death penalty. It should likewise be a crime to publish the information, regardless of how it was aquired. Even speculations about who it was should be avoided. Not that we could even attempt to begin speculation unless we know who the jury members was, something that we should not be able to know in the first place.

I understand that it's common for media to interveiv jury memebers. In a well working system, there would be no way for them to know whatever a person really was on a jury or was just making things up. That's how effective the protection of jury members identity should be. We cannot have revenge hungry associates of the looser in a court case kicking in the door to jury members homes.

Frubals to you.:yes:

 

[Cuthberta]

The man was insane. His role in the events of September 11, 2001 is questionable. If he played a role, it was quite minimal. One might find a number of people in the Bush administration more culpable than this delusional fellow.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The man was insane. His role in the events of September 11, 2001 is questionable. If he played a role, it was quite minimal. One might find a number of people in the Bush administration more culpable than this delusional fellow.

If it is shown that the man was insane, then he was not guilty of anything he has been charged with. On the ground that he was insane, then he should be committed to a top security psychiatric hospital, and kept there for treatment until he becomes sane again.