Washington Post(USA), Nov. 26, 2003 (Column) http://www.washingtonpost.com By Courtland Milloy, Metro Columnist

Now that's a hell of a sentence: two death penalties plus an additional 13 years. We want John Allen Muhammad dead, dead and even deader. And that jury of his peers didn't let us down.

Death Penalty "Having lost my father and grandmother to gun violence, I will understand the deep hurt and anger felt by the loved ones of those who have been murdered. Yet I can't accept the judgement that their killers deserve to be executed. This merely perpetuates the tragic, unending cycle of violence that destroys our hope for a decent society." - Rev. Bernice King Why we pay attention to U.S. human rights issues

Research resources on the Death Penalty

Now all we have to do is sit back and wait for, say, the rest of our lives, for him to be served that last meal and then choose from two kinds of executions: lethal injection or electrocution.

What a just desert.

Would any other Western democracy treat a condemned prisoner with such consideration? Of course not. (Never mind that no other Western democracy employs state-sanctioned murder.) The prospect of Muhammad's execution no doubt has much of the Washington area pleased. Sure, his death won't bring back the lives of the ones taken from us, but it will . . . what? Make us less afraid? "I could not live with myself if somebody else got hurt and I'd had the chance to stop it," one of the jurors said, explaining why he voted on Monday to execute Muhammad instead of sentence him to life. "One more death is better than the potential of more violence."

So why not just issue pistols to the jury after the verdict and let them put an end to such worries right on the spot? Then the prosecutors and police could really have something to give each other high-fives over.

"There is no way anybody can guarantee he could not [kill] if he got life in prison," another juror said. "Even if he were not allowed any human contact, no phone calls, no visitors, who's to say he wouldn't? Giving him a life sentence didn't mean the killing would stop."

This is merely fear masquerading as justice, which does nothing to reduce fear but has been known to result in travesties of justice.

Muhammad is 42. With two life sentences, there would be no way he'd ever see the light of day again. Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, the so-called Green River serial killer -- who recently admitted to killing 48 women -- all got life behind bars. And they are not getting out. But that conniving ole Muhammad -- he'd find a way and come kill us all.

The jurors would have been more convincing had they just come out and said they were seeking revenge on behalf of all who wanted it, people such as Marion Lewis, father of Lori Lewis Rivera, who was killed Oct. 3, 2002.

"I think I'd like 10 minutes alone with [Muhammad]," he said. "They wouldn't have to worry about an execution."

But we all know that it would be wrong to let him do that. Why, then, is it right for the state to do it not just on his behalf, but for the "public good"?

In order for the jury to sentence Muhammad to death, it had to find that his action was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind or aggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder."

Of course, it's not like anybody really needed any kind of written guidelines for why Muhammad must die. Had there been a shootout at the rest stop where the sniper suspects were found sleeping and only the police lived to tell about it, who would have complained?

Certainly not Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was the first to let his pretrial death wishes be known.

Still, the commonwealth felt compelled to justify its actions. But the law only left the jury much too confused and uncertain to take the action at all. Based on that standard, all murders are subject to being punished by the death penalty -- after all, aren't they all outrageous, vile and inhuman? And yet, the statement also implies that no murder is subject to the death penalty if the aggravated battery involved does not exceed the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder (whatever that is).

I'd like to see such a requirement applied to the death penalty itself, which is not only outrageous, vile and inhumane but certainly involves much more aggravation than necessary to accomplish what is -- whether done by man or state -- an act of murder.

Copyright & Ownership belong to the original publisher(s).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003