The Execution of the D.C Sniper

[Phantom]

Hey all, those that lived between Philadelphia and Washington D.C should know all about the D.C Sniper. This guy and his teenage accomplice reeked havoc in 2002, killing random people for no apparent reason. I saw this news story when I was school eating lunch back in 2002. Anyway this guy who had been finally caught in 2002 was in jail for his crimes, and at 9:11 pm last night the "D.C Sniper" known for relentless and merciless killings has been put to death by lethal injection. Here's the link to the story:


D.C. Sniper's Execution Carried Out

VideoPhotoPreviousNextClick to Watch VideoClick to Watch Video
Regular Photo SizeD.C. Sniper CaseRaw Video: Execution Witnesses Speak

Some of the officials and media members who witnessed the …

DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad Executed

Just more than seven years after he took the lives of 10 people…

D.C. Sniper's Execution Carried Out

The execution of John Allen Muhammad -- the D.C. sniper who …

•More Coverage From MyFoxDC.com
Ramsey: Sniper Execution 'Appropriate'

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey was police …

D.C. Sniper Execution Expected Today

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block Tuesday's scheduled…

Supreme Ct. Refuses to Stop Sniper…

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block Tuesday's scheduled…

Killings Remain Unsolved as D.C.…
Victims' relatives have unanswered questions about the killing …
DC Sniper Proclaims Innocence in Letter

Attorneys for John Allen Muhammad have released a May 2008 …

DC Sniper Asks Court to Block Execution

Attorneys for sniper mastermind John Allen Muhammad are asking …

DC Sniper Muhammad Execution Date Set

A Virginia circuit court judge has set a Nov. 10 execution date…

•Raw Video: Execution Witnesses Speak
•Ramsey: Sniper Execution 'Appropriate'
D.C. Sniper's Execution Carried Out
Local Victim's Brother Forgives Muhammad
PHILADELPHIA - John Allen Muhammad, the D.C. sniper who terrorized a community and a nation, was put to death Tuesday night.

The killing spree touched a lot of lives over a three-week span seven years ago.

The procedure started at 9:06 p.m. Muhammad was pronounced dead minutes later at 9:11 p.m.

Officials said Muhammad seemed emotionless the entire time. An official from the corrections department spoke outside the prison and was followed by an attorney representing the Muhammad family.

"Mr. Muhammad was asked if he liked to make a last statement," prison spokesman Larry Traylor said. "He did not acknowledge us or make any statement whatsoever."

"We deeply sympathize with the families and loved ones who have to relive the pain and loss of those terrible days," said Muhammad lawyer, who later got choked up.

His client killed 10 people during the shooting spree.

Tuesday was a night of mixed emotions for some local residents whose lives were forever changed by the D.C. sniper case.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey was Washington's police chief during the spree. He said Tuesday that Muhammad was getting exactly what he deserved.

Still memories of the killings haunt him like a never-ending nightmare.

"The three weeks in October of '02 was the most intense period I've spent in my entire career," Ramsey said.

At the time, the nation was gripped by the faceless, heartless sniper picking off targets completely at random, paralyzing the nation's capital and its Virginia and Maryland suburbs with absolute fear.

"It was just totally senseless," Ramsey said. "He killed over and over and over and over again over a period of about 10 days. Now that's about as cold blooded as it gets. … And if anybody deserved to die – whether it's by lethal injection, electric chair or whatever – the means, John Allen Muhammad certainly does qualify for that."

Still Ramsey said that horrible feeling is back years after he was D.C.'s top cop during 9-11 and then came the sniper.

"You kind of get that same sick feeling in the pit of your stomach," he said, adding that he remembers "an incredible sense of urgency like I've never felt before to find the person responsible. I mean we had people dying almost every day."

Dean Meyers became a target on Oct. 9, 2002, shot while filling up at a gas station in Manassas, Va., just days after a phone call to his brother in Perkiomenville, Pa.

"He said that there's millions of people down here so it's pretty unlikely that, you know, they're gonna get me," said Robert Meyers, who witnessed the execution of his brother's murderer Tuesday night.

Meyers credited his Christian faith with helping him to forgive Muhammad and continue with his recovery. He'll use his experience and pain to help counsel others in tragedy.

"We don't see any winners in this situation," Meyers said.

Ramsey said, "I'll never forget it. I'll absolutely never forget it. But anything I feel has to be nothing compared to what those family members have to be going through now and for the rest of their lives."

As for Lee Malvo, Muhammad's teen-aged partner in crime, he's serving life in prison.

That's perfect, Ramsey said, since Malvo by law couldn't be put to death.

Looking back, Ramsey said he just wishes police could have found Malvo and Muhammad sooner, perhaps saving a few more lives.
================================================== ========
I feel sorry for the victims who died back then, and they lost their lives for no reason at all, they were innocent people. I read once the other night that Muhammad's true objective was to kill his wife, something about him coming home from a war and his outlook changing. He became aggressive and volient and said that "She was the enemy" or something like that.

Luckily through she is alive and safe, but Muhammad tried tracking her down to kill her, like a bloody stalker, and killed 10+ people leaving a trail of death in his path. Luckily he was finally caught back in 2002 and was put on Death row.

Mr. Ramsey is now our commesh here in Philadelphia, and he has done a good job here for the city, but regret's not taking enough steps to stop Muhammad sooner.


Muhammad, the D.C Sniper died at 9:11pm last night by lethal injection and seemed "emotionless" the entire time.


My Opinon? Killing is wrong. No one has the right to take another's life, not matter what the cause or reason. Only God decides who lives and who dies. Killing Muhammad won't bring back those who died, killing him is just a continuing cycle of death and revenge. If he had life in prison, then he would die anyway in there. But in any case, death of both sides in wrong, and I pray to God that God take pity of his soul. I pray to the families of the victims that they find peace as well as the victims watching from heaven.


Your throughts?

[Josh_R]

I believe that unjustified killing is wrong but in this case I support killing the son of a bitch, this will not bring back those that died but it will give their loved ones a sense of security. This will allow them to start the healing process knowing that the man that killt all of their loved ones payed for his crimes. Prison is not enough for son of bitches like this that take inocent lifes into their own hand, executions in my opinion is the only way to make them pay...

[Dodie16]

First, I can't believe this guy dragged his teenage son along with him when he did this stuff. Now the son is serving a life sentence in prison for being an accomplice. I'm not saying that I think the son should go free or anything like that, I'm just saying that I think it was awful that he was dragged along for this.

I feel for the family and loved ones of the victims. Even with his execution, I doubt that it really brings any closure for them. These people were gunned down for no reason. They were just innocent bystanders in this guy's hunt to get his wife. I can't even imagine how they felt when they got the call that thier family member became the latest victim in a senseless crime.

I believe that all life is precious, so I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. However, if there was no death penalty, then I'm sure that our prisons would be more crowded than they already are. I guess I'm of two minds of the matter...

[smurphy]

I completely disagree with Kisuke Hellsing, death for those sort of people is the easy way out. They should be put in the worst f#cking sh#thole imaginable and left there to rot and suffer horribly for the rest of their lives. Thats the only just thing to do.Make them suffer like they made others suffer.

Unless you are religious and believes he will go to hell upon execution. Then he'll suffer for eternity.

[Sasquatch]

I support capital punishment for one reason: American prisons suck. Seriously, the United States has one of the highest recidivism rates in the civilized world, which means our prisons aren't doing their job. If our prisons were serious shit -- places criminals get out of and say, "I will never do what I did to go back to that place" -- we wouldn't have so many repeat offenders, and we wouldn't have to choose between execution and more crime.

Plus, I'm just not comfortable with anybody -- whether it be the government, or a judge, or a group of people -- deciding who deserves to live and who doesn't.

And you've also got to consider the fact that death row inmates cost much, much more to hold. Even though it only costs about $84 for the chemicals used in a lethal injection execution, most inmates on death row cost anywhere from twice as much to ten or twelve times as much per year to hold as regular inmates.

So reform the prison system to make it tougher, and I'll fight for the abolition of capital punishment.

[Govinda]

People like him don't deserve death. They deserve infinite solitary confinement, water torture, that kind of stuff. Rapists and people who hurt children too.

I'm not into this eye for an eye stuff. Never have been. It doesn't work as a deterrant from crime, because you need to be bat **** insane anyway to do something that would land you in death row.

That, and the fact that it's possible to kill an innocent person (has happened before) is the reason we don't have it in the UK. That sniper deserved to have his freedom taken; now he's just dead. You can't suffer when you're dead.

[Pete]

I agree with both Gov and Sasquatch on this.

The DC sniper should still be alive because death is unfitting for him. Unfortunately, we don't allow things like torture here in the states. It's really a damn shame for people like him.

I also think that we do need to make our prison system less comfy. My dad's worked in a jail for the past 15 years or so, and he tells me that the inmates have more rights than citizens walking the streets. Plus, the food on Rikers is pretty good. They have programs for them to learn skills, and even libraries so they can read and learn, including law. That's fine and dandy, but when you think about it, you're giving criminals three nutritious meals a day, a bed and shelter, a free education and a gym membership for committing crimes. It really should be a place so horrible that you'd never want to return, but instead, you get homeless people committing crimes so they can get in off the streets for a few nights at a time in the winter.

I still owe NY State about $16K for my education, and I pay $20 a month for my gym, and I've only been to court for jury duty!

[Rocky]

Indeed, it is kind of unfitting for a man like him to lose his life over killing multiple innocent people, because many believe he deserves a fate worse than death. Unfortunately for us, we can't really make judgements for him in the afterlife so we won't know if he is getting what he deserves or not after his life on Earth.

Maybe the United States should make some kind of agreement deal with some third-world countries like Uganda or something, and have a prison inmate swap. The foreign criminals from third world countries can spend a few years in jail, learn some skills, then they can get out and live their lives in America with hopes of making a better life for themselves after rehabilitation. The American criminals can stay and attempt to survive the harsh conditions of a third world country, that is if they make it through the prison system. Not only are we giving less fortunate people chances to live in a higher standard of living environment, we are getting rid of the good riddances that chose to not do anything but live destructive lives in our own country. It's kind of like a college student exchange, but a little more extreme. Thoughts?

[Alpha]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I don't support the death penalty; I don't support long prison sentences; I don't support making prisons less comfortable; and Rocky, what the hell, why would Uganda accept that arrangement?

Firstly, the prison system used in the West (in particular America, which has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world) is unsustainable and creates more problems than it solves. Alternatively, I support a justice that reconciles the victim, not punishes the offender. Reconciliation, rather than revenge, should be the focus of the justice system in order to create a safer and more secure society.

The problem, as I see it, is that society is becoming increasingly fearful, with people building a sense of security only on fuller prisons, longer sentences and harsher treatment of offenders, resulting in increasingly punitive attitudes towards people in prison, and calls for revenge and retribution. But these aren't doing anything to stop crime or to help victims. All it does is put a wall between someone and the outside world, sweeping the problem under the carpet, if you will.

Neither repentance nor forgiveness can take place in an environment of bitterness and vengeance. Over time we have seen a great deterioration in prison conditions, and a greater stigma for those who are trying to repair their lives, and reintegrate into society. There's a lot of talk about people retraining while in prison, but nobody wants to live near these people once they are released, which is a huge contradiction.

If I may give my own religious understanding of this, I try to recognise the face of Christ in every prisoner. However, I still accept that there are some dangerous people who may need to be detained for life to protect society as a whole. This does not mean we should kill them, and this is by far an exception than a general rule.

I actually read of a study the other day (in my newspaper, no link sorry) that analysed 50 studies, involving more than 300,000 prisoners, which found that the longer people are kept in prison, the more likely they are to re-offend. Similarly, the harsher the treatment they receive, the more likely they are to re-offend.

There are several principles of restorative justice. Source: http://www.restorejustice.com/files/...rncpls.doc.pdf

PRINCIPLE #1: Crime is primarily an offense against human relationships and secondarily a violation of a law (since laws are written to protect safety and fairness in human relationships).

Laws are important. They provide a context and guide. However, it would not be possible to write enough laws to cover all of the ways that one might violate another person or their relationship. The laws that have been written cover the violations that a majority of the people or legislators have decided are serious enough to have in a form which allows the state to take an action in regard to the one who violates the law. But again, our real concern is not the law, it is the violation of human relationships that caused the law to be written in the first place.

When we place the emphasis on the violation of law instead of the violation of the human relationship, we hide or mask the real violation. It is possible for an offender to be tried and sentenced for an offense, more or less serious, and never be fully aware of the human consequences or impact of the violation.

If we take a purse snatching for an example, the offender may admit guilt or be found guilty and punished. What he doesn’t know and take responsibility for is that the victim had to get a new license, credit cards, and perhaps change locks on the house out of fear becuse the offender knew the address, and the list goes on and on.

This significant human violation is most likely never dealt with. And the needs of the victim created by the offense will most likely be completely ignored.
The real problem, the violation of the human relationship, is ignored and therefore what we are most concerned about has been hidden. In fact, when we focus primarily on the violation of the law, we inadvertently encourage denial of responsibility.

-------------------------

PRINCIPLE #2: Restorative Justice recognizes that crime (violation of persons and
relationships) is wrong and should not occur and also recognizes that after it does, there are dangers and opportunities.

The danger is that the community, victim(s), and/or offender emerge from the response further alienated, more damaged, disrespected, disempowered, feeling less safe and less cooperative with society. The opportunity is that the injustice is recognized, the equity is restored (restitution and grace), and the future is clarified so participants are safer, more respectful, and more empowered and cooperative with each other and society.

... While it is important to recognize the wrong, it is also very important how that is done. If it stigmatizes and isolates the offender so they become less cooperative with society, it is counterproductive. But if the response leads to new learning and changing behavior for the future, it is very helpful to the restoration of both
victim and offender.

-------------------------

PRINCIPLE #3: Restorative Justice is a process to make things as right as possible and includes: attending needs created by the offense such as safety and repair of injuries, relationships and physical damage resulting from the offense; and attending needs related to the cause of the offense (addictions, lack of social or employment skills or resources, lack of understanding or will to make moral or ethical decisions, etc.).

-------------------------

PRINCIPLE #4: The primary victim(s) of a crime is the one(s) most impacted by the offense. The secondary victims are others impacted by the crime and might include family members, friends, criminal justice officials, community, etc.

-------------------------

PRINCIPLE #5: As soon as immediate victim, society, and offender safety concerns are satisfied, Restorative Justice views the situation as a teachable moment for the offender–an opportunity to encourage the offender to learn new ways of acting and being in community.

-------------------------

These principles suggest that justice is a process for making things as right as possible rather than simply punishing the offender.

I know that I have not commented on the case at hand, but there is a good reason why. Firstly, it's clear I'm arguing a principle. Secondly, I do not know enough about the individuals, families, and immediate community involved in this incident. I can hope that whoever deals with such events in the future knows a little something about restorative justice.

Perhaps I'm playing the idealist card too strongly, but the death sentence (and all other punitive sentences) is something I will never agree with.

[Govinda]

Um. I read your thing, Alpha. It sounds like a nice system. Do you have any info on how they would achieve this? The practical side? Or have they just not spent enough time around actual people, as it common among academics?

Imagine it this way. Someone on a street has been caught stealing items from two or three other homes on that same street. You can 'repair the human relationship violations' to your heart's content, but that asshole is still a thief, and always will be in the eyes of those he/she stole from. How are you going to get his/her neighbours to trust him/her again? And where's the deterrent? Don't violate human relationships or we're gonna repair relationships? Have a coffee, welcome the twat who stole your car back into your community so they can re-steal it because they still need drug money? What?

The state makes laws. You mess with those, you lose your freedom, so long as you are part of the state. I wouldn't think you'd be one to disagree with John Locke.

[Alpha]

There is no one way that restorative processes should be delivered. Instead, the essence of restorative justice is not the adoption of one form rather than another; it is the adoption of any form which reflects restorative values and which aims to achieve restorative processes, outcomes and objectives. Admittedly, this is nowhere near as clear-cut as the 'find-someone-guilty-and-put-them-in-a-room' system, but when that system doesn't actually do anything, then a new approach is needed. Restorative justice is one of these.

Check out section 3 in this Wikipedia article for an example of the process. I've skimmed the section, and it's alright. If you want a more authoritative source, try this, or just look for it yourself.

Um. I read your thing, Alpha. It sounds like a nice system. Do you have any info on how they would achieve this? The practical side? Or have they just not spent enough time around actual people, as it common among academics?

Heh, shit. It's a very complicated process, and I'm in no way well-versed in it's intricacies, but I'll have a go.

Imagine it this way. Someone on a street has been caught stealing items from two or three other homes on that same street. You can 'repair the human relationship violations' to your heart's content, but that asshole is still a thief, and always will be in the eyes of those he/she stole from.

I don't believe that. It's a very pessimistic way of viewing people, especially a thief. I mean, that dude wouldn't even see prison in New Zealand (murderers get about six years maximum). As stated, laws are just a codified system of what we see as being wrong. We see it as wrong to steal, clearly. But is a crime committed against the state, or against the concerned individuals? Restorative justice sees it as committed against the individuals. Instead of incarceration, this criminal should be made to meet the people s/he stole from, hear their side of the story (how it has affected them practically and mentally), and the offender themself has to be involved in remedying this. Is this 'asshole' still a thief, when s/he has spoken to those s/he has offended against, repaired the damage to whatever extent is possible, the underlying causes of the theft have been addressed (e.g. drug addiction), and the criminal fully comprehends the nature of what they did? In the case of a more serious crime, it is going to be near impossible to fully repair the damage of the crime (you can't bring back a victim of murder), but why do we need to upset another life to get revenge? If the person is likely to re-offend (possibly they are mentally ill), then a case for long-term incarceration is justified, but all the above procedures can still take place, and once feelings have been brought down, a solution devised between the criminal and those offended against may be made.

How are you going to get his/her neighbours to trust him/her again?

With a great deal of difficulty, but it's indeed possible. The offender can return what was stolen (or do something to that effect), explain their motive, attempts can be made for the offender to comprehend the impact of their crime, etc. I am reluctant to give you some '12-step process' because it does not exist. Each case is different. A minority of cases are not fit for restorative justice in a definite sense, but the principles can be incorporated in any decision.

And where's the deterrent? Don't violate human relationships or we're gonna repair relationships? Have a coffee, welcome the twat who stole your car back into your community so they can re-steal it because they still need drug money? What?

Deterrent? How about addressing recidivism and the underlying causes of crime, such as poverty and racism?

'Violating human relationships' is the same as 'breaking the law'. There is always a consequence. Prison or the death sentence is not an effective consequence because it considers crime to be an affront to some impersonal concept known as the 'law', and doesn't recognise the personal harm.

The state makes laws. You mess with those, you lose your freedom, so long as you are part of the state. I wouldn't think you'd be one to disagree with John Locke.

The state makes laws which are based on violations against human relationships. Perhaps it's a little postmodernist, but that is what the law is. We've created some fallacy where a crime is an offense against words on a bit of paper, not against people.

And there are many things I disagree with John Locke on (not all). There's one buried in my signature. I may get round to making a thread where I explain them.

[RagnaToad]

I never understood how you can take a man's life as a punishment for taking someone's life. How does not everyone see the hypocrisy in that? Don't we teach children to 'not do to the kid what he did to you' but to go and tell your parents/teachers?

I think prisons are an essential corner stone of justice if you want a safe, qualitative life for all civilians. What punishment someone deserves is really up to people who know more about the mind of people who have committed crimes.

The main reason there are prisons is to protect the rest of the population. If someone is a stealing bastard, make sure he doesn't do it again. If someone is a violent mofo, make sure he realises that it's not ok and that he doesn't get the opportunity to do it again. If someone is a murderer, obviously he should be locked away, as the person is obviously capable of committing murder.

To me, punishing criminals is all about making sure they don't do it again. If that means making someone do shitty jobs to make him realise stealing is wrong, or locking someone up for years because he is a serious threat to other civilians, that's ok.

Sadly, a lot of people never realise the wrongs in their doings, or don't have the opportunity to nót be a criminal.

[Govinda]

There is no one way that restorative processes should be delivered. Instead, the essence of restorative justice is not the adoption of one form rather than another; it is the adoption of any form which reflects restorative values and which aims to achieve restorative processes, outcomes and objectives. Admittedly, this is nowhere near as clear-cut as the 'find-someone-guilty-and-put-them-in-a-room' system, but when that system doesn't actually do anything, then a new approach is needed. Restorative justice is one of these.

I concur, something new needs done. I just don't think this restorative thing is it.

Check out section 3 in this Wikipedia article for an example of the process. I've skimmed the section, and it's alright. If you want a more authoritative source, try this, or just look for it yourself.

Will do.




I don't believe that. It's a very pessimistic way of viewing people, especially a thief. I mean, that dude wouldn't even see prison in New Zealand (murderers get about six years maximum).

Wait, WHAT? Six years for killing another human being? How is someone meant to realise the gravity of what they did when all that is taken from them is six years of their life?

As stated, laws are just a codified system of what we see as being wrong. We see it as wrong to steal, clearly. But is a crime committed against the state, or against the concerned individuals?

It's committed against people, clearly, and the state exists to defend those people. That's why courts were, like, created and stuff.

Restorative justice sees it as committed against the individuals.

So does normal justice. The law is a series of bits of paper which set out the rights of individuals. Violate the person, you're violating the bit of paper.

Instead of incarceration, this criminal should be made to meet the people s/he stole from, hear their side of the story (how it has affected them practically and mentally),

That's what happens in a courtroom. The accused sits there while the victims explain what happened, and why they're not happy/utterly destroyed about it.

and the offender themself has to be involved in remedying this. Is this 'asshole' still a thief, when s/he has spoken to those s/he has offended against, repaired the damage to whatever extent is possible, the underlying causes of the theft have been addressed (e.g. drug addiction), and the criminal fully comprehends the nature of what they did?

Well, no, they've made up all nice. But can you force someone to do that? What if Hypothetical Thief is all, 'Yeah, I stole their kettle, and I don't care. And their food mixer. What you gonna do?'

In the case of a more serious crime, it is going to be near impossible to fully repair the damage of the crime (you can't bring back a victim of murder), but why do we need to upset another life to get revenge?

Because you can't just let them off with it?

If the person is likely to re-offend (possibly they are mentally ill), then a case for long-term incarceration is justified, but all the above procedures can still take place, and once feelings have been brought down, a solution devised between the criminal and those offended against may be made.

Love your use of the word 'feelings'.



With a great deal of difficulty, but it's indeed possible.

You need only suggest that a new person on the street is on the Sex Offender's Register and the street population will use eggs, crowbars, and whatever else to make sure that guy is gone ASAP. That's just suggestion. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way people are.

The offender can return what was stolen (or do something to that effect), explain their motive, attempts can be made for the offender to comprehend the impact of their crime, etc. I am reluctant to give you some '12-step process' because it does not exist. Each case is different. A minority of cases are not fit for restorative justice in a definite sense, but the principles can be incorporated in any decision.



Deterrent? How about addressing recidivism and the underlying causes of crime, such as poverty and racism?

Because a lot of crime has nothing to do with poverty and racism? Attack the underlying causes and incidence goes down, yes, but there will always be plain ol' psychos, and also people who think, 'They have, I want, will get.' Or 'That asshole slept with my wife'. Or 'He got drunk and stabbed my brother'. And so on.


'Violating human relationships' is the same as 'breaking the law'.

Exactly. They're not as seperate as you keep making out.


There is always a consequence. Prison or the death sentence is not an effective consequence because it considers crime to be an affront to some impersonal concept known as the 'law', and doesn't recognise the personal harm.

Yes, it does. They are in prison because they pissed someone off, and then that person remember that the law exists, and took them down using it. You never heard of victims' counselling? Prisoners can get it too.

The state makes laws which are based on violations against human relationships. Perhaps it's a little postmodernist, but that is what the law is. We've created some fallacy where a crime is an offense against words on a bit of paper, not against people.


Sentence one contradicts sentence two, here. If the law is based on human violations, then crime under the law means exactly the same as it does under the idea we're talking about.

And there are many things I disagree with John Locke on (not all). There's one buried in my signature. I may get round to making a thread where I explain them. Neat.

Yeah I'm crap at quoteblocks. Deal.

[Maridia]

I think some old school methods need to be brought out to keep people in line. I'm not saying for every criminal. But for the Ted Bundy types... Why not crucify some people, bring back the guillotine. You don't even have to change the system we use. You set an example, strike fear into people. As bad as getting fried or injected sounds, the idea of getting tied up an and nailed to something sounds much worse. Call it simple and crude but it has its uses.

Vlad the Impaler abolished crime completely from his kingdom by having people impaled when they were found guilty for major crimes. Done too much and it loses its luster but just enough to show them you mean business is quite the deterrent.

[Che]

Not sure what the right way to go about dealing with people like that, but it isn't death. I mean, it's definitely better than letting him get to a point where he could potentially break out of jail and do it again, but overall not the right thing.

Why not? Because he was dead when he decided to do that in the first place. Death is an easy way out. He should be tortured until he dies. Make an example out of him. Maybe we'll cut down on half the "sniper shootings" from here on out if we give people who think in that way some consequence that matters to them.

I definitely agree that the prison system does not make things any better. It's literally a college for criminals. All they know when they get out (if they are to get out) is more criminal shit than when they went in.

At least, for now, that one man won't be sniping anyone else out ever. The problem is people who are suicidal and want to go out with a bang, or who are just crazy, now believe that if they want to they can just snipe some people out and it will just end with a swift death. Easy.

Alpha, your ideas on what to do with a thief seem reasonable to me. A thief will steal because they have to. Rarely do you find a thief that steals just because he wants to. However, you obviously can't do the same for people who murder someone.

Also, I would like to say:

I don't believe in reimbursing someone, or a family for someone that got taken away from them. They shouldn't receive money because (especially in America), people will do drastic things just to get money. When someone is murdered, you've lost it all. There's no way to pay them back. The only thing you can do is make sure the same thing doesn't happen again by the same murderer.

[Alpha]

So does normal justice. The law is a series of bits of paper which set out the rights of individuals. Violate the person, you're violating the bit of paper.

I took this as representative of your whole post, because I'm tired.

What I should clarify in my explanation is that punitive sentencing doesn't repair the relationship between people that law codifies. It punishes an offender, but does nothing for the victim, or for the offender once they are (potentially) released. Sure, there's the whole 'I'm glad they're off the streets' thing, which is all well and good, but wouldn't a better solution be one where people come out of a (ideally shorter) sentence, having repaired the damage they've done, understood the magnitude of their crime, had their underlying motive investigated and repaired (if possible), learnt skills to cope with similar situations again, etc. Just look this up on teh interwebz, there's a lot; the UK's Home Office is a good starting place, they're actually very big on RJ.

Actually, I'll do this one too:

That's what happens in a courtroom. The accused sits there while the victims explain what happened, and why they're not happy/utterly destroyed about it.

Sure does, but it's not acted upon. Sure, Hypothetical Thief has done an injustice, but is the appropriate response to punish, or to repair? Punitive justice is just a socially-acceptable form of violence. It's easy to say,

He should be tortured until he dies. Make an example out of him.

but a lot harder to say that the criminal and those affected by the crime should work together on a consequence that repairs than on something counterproductive and just makes society more fearful.

This is a quote from my initial source that I would like to reiterate:

When we place the emphasis on the violation of law instead of the violation of the human relationship, we hide or mask the real violation. It is possible for an offender to be tried and sentenced for an offense, more or less serious, and never be fully aware of the human consequences or impact of the violation.

Also, deterrent is rarely, if ever, effective. People will commit crime (look, I'm a realist now!), but criminals do not say, 'hey, the sentence for this crime is really light, the trade-off is in my favour, let's go commit crime!' Instead, we should focus much more on incidences of recidivism and the causes of crime. Punitivism (that needs to be a word) is not effective as deterrent. Nothing really is.