John Allen Muhammad get Death!

[mf_dolphin]

Just in...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113627,00.html

[Stephanie]

ALRIGHT!!!!

[HurricaneGirl]

Good!

[Lindaloo]

Excellent!!

[southerngale]

Buh-bye!!

[Bunch]

That's great news. Anybody who holds human life so cheaply deserves to forfeit their own.

[Anonymous]

Predictably, I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of the above posts, but it looks like I'm in a real minority here... the current poll on CNN.com shows 88% supportive of the decision to execute Muhammad. At least Malvo's life was spared, I guess.

And... while I respect everyone's right to an opinion on whether or not these men should receive the death penalty... I do question responses like "excellent!" and "good!"

The crime is done, folks -- and there is nothing good or joyous about this crime OR any of the subsequent effects and consequences -- and certainly there is NEVER a case where learning of someone's death or demise should be cause for a celebration. I happen to think that despite his heinous and dispicable act he should be imprisoned for life without parole, but like I said, even if you believe the right thing is being done here, it shouldn't put a simle on your face. Just my opinion, of course.

[PTrackerLA]

I don't always believe in the death penalty but in this case, he needs to be put to death.

[JCT777]

brett - I actually agree with you. I have never been in favor of the death penalty. Give him life in prison with no parole.

[timNms]

If a person has a real chance of being rehabilitated, perhaps prison time would work. But when someone kills for the "thrill" of it, they are of no use to society and should be put to death.

[Anonymous]

If a person has a real chance of being rehabilitated, perhaps prison time would work. But when someone kills for the "thrill" of it, they are of no use to society and should be put to death.

Agreed on the first point.

As for the second, I have to disagree for two reasons.

1) Your implication that society should determine an individual's right to life or death based on how "useful" they are. This is absurd... society is necessary for the human race to advance, but it should not be viewed as a God-like power that ultimately decides anything and everything for everyone. If we go along with your logic, the next step would be putting down all the mentally challenged, the homeless, the drug addicts... anyone who doesn't contribute sufficiently. (Please don't take offense to this... I'm sure this isn't what you meant, just making a point).

2) Independent of the above, I don't believe there is ever a reason for a straight-thinking group of intelligent individuals (in this case the government, specifically the court system) to willingly choose for another human to die. There's just something disturbing about it to me... I'm not religious, but I do believe that there is no human being walking the Earth who inherently has a right to decide the fate of another human... regardless of the circumstances. When murderers kill their victims, there is always a motive behind it... be it a specific one (someone cheating on your wife), or a general contempt for life, or a certain psychological condition (getting off by killing random people). In the case of premeditated murder of specific individuals, there is often a real tangible reason (such as the wife cheating situation), and the out-of-control emotions associated with that situation are what leads to the murder.

BUT when a court that is part of a government representative of 300 million people, and made up of various individuals who were not directly affected by the murder's actions, premeditate the death of a convicted murder, there are no such emotions present... it's a process that should be entirely logical and rational with no emotion involved, yet clearly isn't because the conclusion is that someone should die and that the government has every right to make that happen simply because they are the majority.

[timNms]

I understand the points that you are making, Brett, and I can see your point of view. However, I think it's safe to say that we disagree.

"If we go along with your logic, the next step would be putting down all the mentally challenged, the homeless, the drug addicts... anyone who doesn't contribute sufficiently. (Please don't take offense to this... I'm sure this isn't what you meant, just making a point)."

You're right. I didn't mean it in that manner. (And you didn't offend me.)

I was in a rush when I posted and didn't go into details. Serial killers came to mind when I said "of no use to society". To kill another human being out of self defense is one thing, but to kill someone just because you get a thrill out of it is pure evil. Psycological abnormalities (in my opinion) are not an excuse to let someone off the hook.

This is one of those days that my thoughts are getting short-circuited and not getting to my fingers lol. I hope what I've typed makes some sense.