Moussaoui Mental? Bull!!
Hello readers, I hope all of you are well.
Today's post concerns the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. For those of you who are severely out of the loop, Moussaoui is the only person to be tried for being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. He has been found guilty in a federal court and is now in the penalty phase of the trial. The same jury that convicted him is now deciding whether he will face life imprisonment or execution.
After having read about the information the government has presented during the penalty phase, and after having read Moussaoui's remarks today, I have decide that if anyone deserves to be executed, it is this guy. Not only did Moussaoui show no regret for his actions, he also wished that the victims (and their relatives) had suffered more.
Now the defense plans on contending that Moussaoui is nuts. I say bull. Moussaoui is not nuts, he knows exactly what he is doing. He has stated that he does not want to spend life in prison, he wants to be executed and become an Al Qaida martyr. He knows that by inflaming the jury he will get his wish. I, generally, am not for giving someone like Moussaoui his wish, but in this case I will make an exception.
I think that Moussaoui, indeed, deserves death, but not to make him a martyr. I think he deserves death as no other punishment is severe enough to fit his crime. Unfortunately, in the federal system, execution is done by lethal injection. I think this is a far too easy way out for Moussaoui. I am advocating the institution of a different manner of death for Moussaoui. I believe that he should be put to death using the old English punishment for treason.
The punishment for treason in England, from about Norman times to roughly the 1700's or 1800's, was extremely harsh. If you were convicted for treason (and were not a royal), first you would be hanged, but not until you were dead. Instead you would be hanged until you were nearly dead. Then you would be taken down. After that, you would be eviscerated (while still alive), and your bowels would be burned to ashes before you. Then, whether you were still alive or not, your head would be lopped off (it usually took the axman a few tries to get it off entirely). After that, your limbs would be tied to four horses and your body would be quartered. From there, your body parts would be sent to four different towns as a warning against treason and your head would be stuck on a pike on London Bridge (also as a warning).
I think that this would be a very good way of executing Moussaoui (and even this might be a little too mild). Of course a guy I talked to on the Yahoo message boards had a punishment which I won't go into except to say it involved the desert, some stakes, some honey, and a red ant hill. Either way, this guy should be made to suffer before we send him on his way to receive his 75 virgins and he should be made to suffer as much as the victims, their friends and relatives have been made to suffer since 9/11/2001!!
I am Chuck and some will say my bloodlust is showing.
Note: Edited 0347hrs EDT on 14APR06 for typos.
Today's post concerns the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. For those of you who are severely out of the loop, Moussaoui is the only person to be tried for being part of the 9/11 conspiracy. He has been found guilty in a federal court and is now in the penalty phase of the trial. The same jury that convicted him is now deciding whether he will face life imprisonment or execution.
After having read about the information the government has presented during the penalty phase, and after having read Moussaoui's remarks today, I have decide that if anyone deserves to be executed, it is this guy. Not only did Moussaoui show no regret for his actions, he also wished that the victims (and their relatives) had suffered more.
Now the defense plans on contending that Moussaoui is nuts. I say bull. Moussaoui is not nuts, he knows exactly what he is doing. He has stated that he does not want to spend life in prison, he wants to be executed and become an Al Qaida martyr. He knows that by inflaming the jury he will get his wish. I, generally, am not for giving someone like Moussaoui his wish, but in this case I will make an exception.
I think that Moussaoui, indeed, deserves death, but not to make him a martyr. I think he deserves death as no other punishment is severe enough to fit his crime. Unfortunately, in the federal system, execution is done by lethal injection. I think this is a far too easy way out for Moussaoui. I am advocating the institution of a different manner of death for Moussaoui. I believe that he should be put to death using the old English punishment for treason.
The punishment for treason in England, from about Norman times to roughly the 1700's or 1800's, was extremely harsh. If you were convicted for treason (and were not a royal), first you would be hanged, but not until you were dead. Instead you would be hanged until you were nearly dead. Then you would be taken down. After that, you would be eviscerated (while still alive), and your bowels would be burned to ashes before you. Then, whether you were still alive or not, your head would be lopped off (it usually took the axman a few tries to get it off entirely). After that, your limbs would be tied to four horses and your body would be quartered. From there, your body parts would be sent to four different towns as a warning against treason and your head would be stuck on a pike on London Bridge (also as a warning).
I think that this would be a very good way of executing Moussaoui (and even this might be a little too mild). Of course a guy I talked to on the Yahoo message boards had a punishment which I won't go into except to say it involved the desert, some stakes, some honey, and a red ant hill. Either way, this guy should be made to suffer before we send him on his way to receive his 75 virgins and he should be made to suffer as much as the victims, their friends and relatives have been made to suffer since 9/11/2001!!
I am Chuck and some will say my bloodlust is showing.
Note: Edited 0347hrs EDT on 14APR06 for typos.
posted by Chuck | 03:47
7 Comments:
I agree he is not crazy but he is just trying to force the jury into imposing the death penalty. The problem is what will happen if he is sentenced to death. His execution will be exactly the sort of propaganda that the leaders of Al Qaeda need to increase the number of radicalised members within their ranks. Therefore, he must be kept alive in prison just so his wish of becoming a martyr is not granted.
Politics through the eyes of a teenager.
Tom,
First, thank you for the comment.
Second, I do agree with your concerns that his death would used as propaganda by Al Qaeda for the very purpose you describe. I was pretty much "venting" when I wrote my entry. However, I do stand by the original premise that if anyone deserves to be executed for his crimes, it is Moussaoui.
My personal preference in this case is that Moussaoui be "disappeared". Doing so would severly restrict Al Qaeda's ability to use him as a martyr (since they wouldn't really know if he was alive or dead). It would also eliminate the possibility of an attack aimed at freeing him. The problem with "disappearing" him, however, is that it violates a great many of the basic tenets of American law, and now that the case is in front of the bench, the law must be observed. And since the law must be observed, that means that Mr Moussaoui will either get death by lethal injection or life in the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, CO (the "Supermax" or ADX Florence). Either way, it is far less punishment than he actually deserves.
On an off topic note, I took a look at your blog. It is exceptionally good! Keep up the good work, and good luck in your studies.
--Chuck.
(Hey readers, pop on over to Tom's blog [see the link in his comment]. I highly recommend it. The guy seems to be pretty smart and his head is definitely screwed on straight. Check it out.)
Thanks very much for reading my blog.
With regards to Moussaoui, he is guilty as hell. Being from the UK, I am personally against the death penalty as a punishemnt for any crime, and I dont think that it can ever be justified. If the US prosecutors had not decided to try and press for the death penalty as a punishment, he could have been tried and sentenced a few years ago and the media interest would not have been so large.
Whatever happens he will either be in prison a long time before he is executed, or be in prison for life. If he is sentenced to death I hope the media interest will die away quickly so as not to allow him to feel a sense of achievement for his crimes.
Keep on ranting!
Tom .
Tom,
You're welcome. I think your blog is very good. You write in a very clear, concise manner. The entries I read on your front page seem to get to the point and deliver your message/ideas in a very clear and engaging manner. I suspect that you are probably the student that ruins the grading curve for your fellow classmates!
As for Moussaoui, I can respect your position on the death penalty. But I have to disagree that the death penalty can never be justified. There are cases where the death penalty is more than justified as a punishment. Probably the most famous example of this would be the Nuremburg Trials after World War 2, in which the former Nazi leaders were tried for their involvement in the Holocaust. As for modern criminal trials, the argument goes that the death penalty as a punishment deters criminals from committing certain crimes. Opponents claim that this deterrence is, essentially, bull. I do believe that the death penalty does have a deterring effect in that the person receiving it will never commit that crime again. However, I also believe that most opponents of the death penalty are correct when they assess the penalty as not being a punishment, but rather a way of society visiting vengence upon a criminal who has committed an especially shocking or heinous act. The argument continues that vengence really has no place in a modern, "enlightened" legal system. I tend to agree, but I still feel that crimes like those committed by Moussaoui, et al, need to have a stronger penalty than just life without parole.
As for getting this trial started sooner, two things prevented that. The first is that the court system here in the US has an ungodly backlog, so even the high profile cases can take months or years to get to trial. The second is that the Bush Administration wants this to be a show trial. What I mean is that Bush wants the trial not to be about Moussaoui's guilt or innocence, but rather he wants this trial to show that the US is tough on terrorists. So, therefore, the trial was delayed slightly to allow the DOJ to get all of their ducks in a row.
As far as press coverage is concerned, it will not wane until Moussaoui is no longer around. The press believes that this trial is good for generating ratings and newspaper sales and until that goes away, Moussaoui will continue to be front page news. Perhaps it is my cynical side coming out, but the press in the US is far more concerned with sales and ratings than actual news. (That's why I try to catch the news on BBC-America or DW TV when I can.)
Lastly, concerning how long Moussaoui will be in prison, you are correct that his stay will be fairly lengthy. If he is sentenced to death, his stay can be up to roughly 15 years before the sentence is imposed. This is due to the automatic appeals built in to the system. If he is sentenced to life in prison, then two different lengths emerge. The first is a sentence of life without parole. That means he will be there for however long he lives. If, on the other hand, he is simply sentenced to life in prison, he could be out of prison in as little as 7 to 10 years (iirc) due to the possibility of parole. I don't think that this would be very likely, but judicial screw ups in sentencing have happened before in high profile cases.
I will try to keep on ranting, but one has to be careful these days. God knows how long it will be before the neo-cons track me down and try to burn down my house for being anti-Bush!! Maybe I could apply for refugee status and come to the UK (I have always wanted to visit your country, mostly for the history). Think Blair and the boys would still let me in after reading this blog?? (LOL)
Keep up the good work and I'll try to keep reading your blog.
--Chuck.
In using the death penalty to punish for crimes such as murder one is only going down to the level of the criminal. The legal system should be able to take the high ground by sentencing people to life in prison but first we must ensure that life means life. As in the UK you can be convicted of murder and serve as little as 14 years before being released.
I feel that the death penalty can never be justified as a criminal who is sentenced to death gets the easy way out. Personnally as I dont believe in a god or a life after death I think that having to live with your crimes is a much more effective way of punishing someone.
Anyway I have enjoyed this debate on the issues, keep on ranting!
Tom
Tom,
I too have enjoyed debating with you. Once again, I thank you for your comments.
I am, once again, finding myself agreeing with you on one point and differing on another.
I agree wholeheartedly that life in prison should, indeed, mean exactly that.
I agree with you that sitting in a small cell for the rest of your life is certainly a nasty and effective punishment. However, since I do believe in God, I also believe that those who are sentenced to death do not get off as easily as you may believe.
Perhaps when you are PM and I am the Prez, we can figure out an appropriately severe punishment for people like Moussaoui!! (J/K)
I wish you good luck with your school work and hope you have an enjoyable summer break.
--Chuck
Lol, thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home