<p>I am not opposed to the death penalty. I don’t think it’s great, but I think that we as a country have the right to carry it out. I also only agree with it in the cases of murder - really happy we are not in the days in which robbery could result in a death sentence.</p>
<p>Anyway - should M have gotten the death penalty if he asked for it? Another, more broad, way to phrase the question is, “Should we punish someone severely when that person does not object to the punishment?” If a child does something wrong, knows he did something wrong, and asks to go to his room, do you then not send him? If a person steals and wants to make reparations, do we prevent that person from disgourging the profits? If those answers are, on a gut level, different from the death issue, why draw the line? </p>
<p>Does it matter if M asked for the death penalty because he wanted 72 virgins instead of believing strongly in justice and feeling that his actions were wrong? If he were Christian and believed most strongly in “an eye for an eye” and that death would bring him closer to God and redemption, would anyone here object as strongly? Is it better to give someone the death penalty when he would prefer it over life in prison? Should we examine the underlying reasons for the opposition and base our decision accordingly?</p>
<p>Not that I mind the philosophical discussion (clearly), but I think it’s pretty obvious that examining the underlying rationale for a defendant’s choice of punishment (beyond the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent requirements of a guilty plea) is just going to make a mess out of things. As a policy matter, it can be done; as a constitutional matter, it would be a nightmare. </p>
<p>Not to give the cop-out response, but my end take: it is within the discretion of the prosecutor to ask for the death penalty (after all, we wouldn’t want murderers to avoid the DP by asking for it and pretending to prefer it for nefarious reasons); it is within the discretion of the voters and legislatures of a state to not have a death penalty; and, ultimately, this is the function of a jury at its best: echoing the sentiments of the community and the morals it holds.</p>
<p>Sirhan Sirhan and Manson were convicted under California law before our “LWOP” - life without parole - law was enacted. At the time they were convicted the choices were life with the possibility of parole, or death. When the death penalty was thrown out everyone was converted to “life with” - not that it makes a difference for those guys…</p>
<p>I’m not opposed to the death penalty. Moussaui’s punishment is fair, IMO. HOWEVER, had the jury sentenced him to death, I wouldn’t have opposed that either.</p>
<p>Well, he’s going to prison as one of the guys responsible for 9/11. I don’t think he will retain his status as ‘Zacharias the Virgin’ too much longer.</p>
<p>Have you guys been living on another planet or something? They’re sending the guy to a supermax facility where he will be locked in solitary confinement & have no physical contact with anyone. (Same place as the unabomber). So you can fantasize all you want, but it ain’t Oz. </p>
<p>I’m sure this question has been addressed, but I’ve missed some important reporting somewhere along the line. My understanding is that Moussouai is charged with keeping silent when he was questioned by the FBI, and that by keeping silent, many died as a result.</p>
<p>I’m certainly not defending him, but I do have a serious question. The Constitution of the US says:</p>
<p>
Also, in the Mirada warning, persons are advised that they “have a right to remain silent.”</p>
<p>I’m curious about the Consitutional issues here… Discussion? Any Constitutional scholars out there, or someone who can tell me what I’m missing…</p>
<p>digmedia, I think you are absolutely right on the constitutional issues. I addressed this somewhat in my Post #10 above. </p>
<p>The prosecution theory was that he <em>lied</em> to investigators - and that his lies were in furtherance of the conspiracy… but there is no real causal nexus between the lies and the result. The lies were innocuous - he said he was a tourist - and the investigators didn’t believe him anyway. If Moussaui’s capture could have prevented the 9/11 plot, then the real causal nexus lies with the justice department authorities who denied the request of the FBI field office for a warrant. Moussaui himself did not have the information that would have been needed.</p>
<p>If Moussaui had simply refused to talk to investigators, asking for a lawyer, and refused consent to search his belongings, there would have been no theory on which the death penalty could have been sought.</p>
<p>And I think that if Moussaui had cooperated with his lawyers, then not only would he have avoided the death penalty (which he avoided anyway), but I think his case could have been resolved to something with a lesser sentence – because Moussaui really was pretty far down in terms of responsibility level and he didn’t actually end up <em>doing</em> anything, no matter what his intent. Certainly all the information from the Al Queda higher ups in custody would have been in his favor. So if he hadn’t pleaded guilty to the underlying charges, a strong defense probably could have prevailed. He wouldn’t have gotten off – but he would have been convicted under the “material support” to terrorists law that seem to produce sentences in the range of 10-20 years. </p>
<p>The real clincher on this is that the verdict forecloses any sort of legal appeal. Since Moussaui pleaded guilty, he can’t appeal the underlying conviction – and since he “won” at the penalty phase, he can’t appeal that either. So basically the man dug a very big hole and buried himself. </p>
<p>I’m not at all surprised by the verdict, actually.</p>
<p>If they gave an award for “World’s Stupidest Client” this guy would definitely win. (He actually makes me feel sympathetic for that Al Queda guy who had to deal with his incessant phone calls on their private, emergency-only line. Sheesh).</p>