Malvo Sentencing

Dear PT DogHousers,
Let's be careful with this one because we all know it can be a hot topic.

I don't know what I think about Malvo's punishment. I am for the death penalty in many cases, but I'm troubled that he was only 17 when the crimes were committied.
He was clearly influenced by an adult, but at the same time, 17 is not 12.
So I thought I'd post here since we have members in his age group. My first impression is that 17 is old enough to know that murder is WRONG. A 17 year old should at least be mature enough to know he can't go around shooting people. He is old enough to accept the consequences of his actions.
Then I think about other actions of 17 year olds. I certainly don't think 17 year olds are mature enough to be parents, for instance.

To the 17 year olds on PT, do you believe you are old enough to know that murder is wrong and to understand that your actions could have very very harsh consequences, should you chooose to take a life?

So, should a 17 year old be executed- regardless of the heinousness of his crimes?

Then I think about all the school violence in our country. There must be some way to communicate to teens that there are punishments for violent actions.

And, does the jury really have a choice? In VA, 16 & 17 year olds are eligible for execution. If the crimes fit into the necessary standards, are they obligated to return a death sentence?

Confused, 2K.

You know...............I really don't know. Although a 17/18 year old, in my opinion, is not at the most mature age, and most people at that age still have some childishness in them, I can't help but believe that for something like THIS, a teen SHOULD be held fully accountable. 17 is not 5...........its not an age where a youngster is unaware of what he's doing. Heck, I think even a 12 year old should be accountable for doing something like this.........maybe not to the extent of a 17 year old, but still........this is something that every human should have conciousness about, regardless of the age. A *child* is different, but for a teen, this is totally unacceptable. Teens KNOW what they are doing........and while they go through periods of frustration, they STILL know what they are doing, and know what's right or wrong, and should be held accountable for committing such a crime........... Its not something you can say *He's young and didn't know any better* about..........because he DID know better than that. I think.........I *think* I believe he should be charged as an adult.

Wow. This is a hard one.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for my own moral reasons, but this is one case where I don't feel the need to get too worked up about it, if you know what I mean.

I feel like Malvo is a truly tragic human being who probably shouldn't have been born. :(

He was 18 when the trial happened, and was completely unremorseful. I'm not sure what I think....:( except I'm VERY happy he was convicted.

My son is twelve years old. He knows right from wrong. He knows murder is very, very wrong. He knows if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, they are going to die. He knew this a long time ago, actually.

Eighteen year olds can drive a car, can vote, can buy cigarettes, can join to Army and die for their country.

It's old enough. He knew.

He knew, and I'm all for the death penalty. He deserves to die, and there is no doubt in my mind about that.

I don't like the death penalty, but I'm with Soledad on this one. I think Malvo should be held accountable. I really don't believe that he was "brainwashed". I think thats a bunch of crap to try to get him off. Good thing it didn't work.


Have you all seen that other serial killer who was just sentenced? I forgot his name but he's been all over the news. He killed 38 women and he had to sit there while all the families of the victims got to go up to the microphone and say whatever they wanted to him. I think judges should have that happen more often.

perhaps I'm just dumb, but could someone please inform me as to who this person is, and what case it's referring to? :o Sorry.. I just don't recognise the name :o

Malvo is the 17 yr old accomplice to John Muhammed in the DC sniper cases.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/sniper.legal/

These are trial updates (and there are other links at the very bottom of the page)

http://crime.about.com/library/blfil...ates-malvo.htm

OOH ok thanks for letting me know :)

I'm so interested to see what the jury decides because, no matter what we think, they were there in the moment and we weren't. Soledad, you were there, what was it like to live there during that time?
I think the jury has a unique perspective on the terror of the situation- something I really can't understand sitting at my desk in Wisconsin.

Actually, I wasn't here yet. I was still living in NZ. But people here are still really traumatised from the whole thing. I can't imagine how frightening it must have been. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aly
Have you all seen that other serial killer who was just sentenced? I forgot his name but he's been all over the news. He killed 38 women and he had to sit there while all the families of the victims got to go up to the microphone and say whatever they wanted to him. I think judges should have that happen more often.

---

Gary Ridgeway, aka Green River Killer, killed 48 women mostly near Seattle WA. Most died between 1982-84. DNA linked him to seven of the early deaths. In exchange for no death penalty for the 7 deaths, he agreed to plead guilty and give information regarding location of bodies. He was sentenced to 48 Consecutive life terms.

I don't particularly like the death sentence either, but as far as him knowing right from wrong, yes he knew right from wrong. He had to have known that taking a life is wrong. As much as I hate the death penalty, I think about how they would react if it was they who were be shot at. If you so willingly take a life with no remorse, then why would you fight so hard to save your own life. I still cannot figure that out.

Maybe what I said does not make sense to you, I really can't explain what I am trying to say. Mixed feelings?

Is this person going to try and fight the death penalty? After he took lives and did not give the people a chance to fight for their life? I don't want to see anybody die, but then again I didn't loose a loved one either. Like I said I guess I am just confusing everybody here, I am confused myself. I do know he was old enough to know right from wrong, all my children at that age did.

As far as being charged, and found guilty, I agree that he should be held accountable.

I agree with everything you said Tray! I am just as confused as you I guess :)

But really, everything you said made total sense to me and I feel the same way.

I'm suprised, because I confuse myself sometimes, so I can imagine how I make you people feel sometimes, all the time?

Tray

I agree with Twisterdog...

It's old enough and he knew what he did was wrong.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I think there are too many people already on death row getting 3 square meals a day, a roof over their heads and a free education, all paid for by the U.S. citizens. Why the heck should they get that kind of treatment after what they did.

I say fry everyone on death row. Think of all the money it'll save the taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moosmom
I agree with Twisterdog...

It's old enough and he knew what he did was wrong.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I think there are too many people already on death row getting 3 square meals a day, a roof over their heads and a free education, all paid for by the U.S. citizens. Why the heck should they get that kind of treatment after what they did.

I say fry everyone on death row. Think of all the money it'll save the taxpayers.

---

Ditto!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moosmom
IAs far as the death penalty is concerned, I think there are too many people already on death row getting 3 square meals a day, a roof over their heads and a free education, all paid for by the U.S. citizens. Why the heck should they get that kind of treatment after what they did.

I say fry everyone on death row. Think of all the money it'll save the taxpayers.

---

I agree!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moosmom
I say fry everyone on death row. Think of all the money it'll save the taxpayers.

---

Took the words out of my mouth!!

I also think Rape should be a capital offense.

It actually costs more to kill someone on death row than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
It actually costs more to kill someone on death row than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their life.

---

soledad, how did you find that out? is that with the cost of the appeals process? i'm curious.
tim mcveigh isn't costing too much now, but terry nichols is still costing money.

From Amnesty International:


Death Penalty Facts
COST

The Death Penalty is Expensive.

Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.

A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment.

In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.

Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.

More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.

When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.


"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WolfChan
Took the words out of my mouth!!

I also think Rape should be a capital offense.

---

Definitely.

Quote:

---

It actually costs more to kill someone on death row than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their life.

---

Actually, all it costs to kill someone on death row is the cost of the lethal injection ... probably what? $2.00?

Perhaps our legal system needs a serious overhaul if there is so much legal mumbo-jumbo that basic justice becomes cost-prohibitive. Just MHO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
From Amnesty International:


Death Penalty Facts
COST

The Death Penalty is Expensive.

Capital punishment is a far more expensive system than one whose maximum penalty is life in prison.

A New York study estimated the cost of an execution at three times that of life imprisonment.

In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.

Studies in California, Kansas, Maryland, and North Carolina all have concluded that capital punishment is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.

More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.

When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).
The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Reducing the resources states put into crime prevention, education and rehabilitation, investigative resources, and drug treatment programs.


"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." --Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999

---

Could we have some hard numbers please??? No proof for me without numbers. And the numbers that are given are not explained...where is the money saved?

I think the kid is 17...he knows better...he gets what he gets.

Read it carefully. There are hard numbers and explanations in there.

Go here for further elaboration.

If you just do some light internet research, you'll find plenty of info on this.

Don't get me wrong....I think they should have to spend their life pounding rocks in Alaska with bread and water...oh that's right...that might infringe on their rights....I forgot.

I'm still not convinced that it's more expensive to keep them for life. Then we have to support their cable TV, air conditioning, weight room,....

Well, pounding on rocks in Alaska may not be infringing on their rights, but killing someone who has been falsely imprisoned could definitely be seen as an erosion of one's rights.

It happens more than we'd like to think.

My son worked at a prison. They weren't allowed to carry any kind of weapon. They considered that an infringement of the prisoners rights, even when there was a riot and the guards were almost killed. My son was present at one of these, and he said two guards were almost killed, and the only thing that saved their life was locking themselves inside one of the cells, wounded from makeshift knives.

The funny thing, my son spent the whole night marching prisoners to different places and well he said he seen a lot of naked butts, I will say that nicely. It kind of puts fear deep in your soul, when you know your son is working in a place like that, and he is like 5 or 6 hours late and no phone call. Then you hear that a riot has broke out at the very prison he works, and there are two guards down. It is very scary! He don't work there now. I say good..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mugsy
Don't get me wrong....I think they should have to spend their life pounding rocks in Alaska with bread and water...oh that's right...that might infringe on their rights....I forgot.

I'm still not convinced that it's more expensive to keep them for life. Then we have to support their cable TV, air conditioning, weight room,....

---

Ah, yes, their precious rights. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I think if you commit a crime, you lose your rights. Period. End of story.

Quote:

---

Well, pounding on rocks in Alaska may not be infringing on their rights, but killing someone who has been falsely imprisoned could definitely be seen as an erosion of one's rights.

---

Then, once again, the solution would be to give our legal system a serious overhaul if there is so much legal mumbo-jumbo that basic justice becomes cost-prohibitive ... or impossible to carry out.

I get sick and tired of people whining about the slow, faulty legal system ... innocent people imprisioned, guilty people set free, millions of tax-payers dollars spent per trial, etc. They whine and then they say, "Can't do this, can't do that ... too expensive, not possible." The solution is not to throw up our hands and bury our heads. If the death penalty is too expensive to enforce, then rewrite the laws, so that it is cheaper. If we are worried about bad lawyers and judges convicting innocent people, then make it tougher to become a lawyer or judge, and put in place a better policing organiztion for those professions. Just MHO ... but if we see a problem, we ought to fix it so that it works properly ... not keep on putting band-aids on a hemmorage, then crying about the pain.