I am biased. I am against the death penalty

[question everything]

so of course, I am against it for Moussai.

But either way, I think that killing him will set a dangerous precedent. Moussai did not fly the planes into the building on Sept. 11. At most, he may have conspired and we are not even sure about that. Every police officer in every town in the country knows of nut cases who claim responsibilities for notorious crimes.

He may have planned on flying another plane with Richard Reid - only two? who were the others? How come he knows of only one team member? But he did not.

Our jails are also full of suspects who refused to cooperate and crimes still go unresolved.

I think that to punish someone for crime he planned to commit but did not can escalate into other areas. During the 50s people were punished for their beliefs (in Communism) and since then, I think, we've moved away from indicting people for what they say and think - except for "fire in a crowded theatre, of course." I would hate to think that this is coming back.

[tocqueville]

1. it's not bias, it's sound thinking...

besides killing him creates a martyr, thus helping the enemy

[Warpy]

12. Plus, he's obviously nuts

and I doubt he was part of the larger plot. I think he may have been recruited and then discarded because he's clearly insane and none too bright.

A wannabe.

To blame him for 9/11 and execute him is dreadful on a lot of counts. The way the prosecution is emotionally manipulating the jury by playing all that 9/11 stuff--that he didn't do--is shameful.

This is a disgusting precedent. It will bite us on the ass eventually unless a judge is wise enough and brave enough to overturn it.

[SheilaT]

2. I'm with you.

It seems to me as though Moussai's connection to 9/11 was dodgy at best.

And he didn't actually fly an airplane on that day, did he?

As for my personal opposition to the death penalty, I find that most people who support it are quite surprised to find out that most of the rest of the world, except for such shining paragons of freedom and human rights as China and Saudi Arabia, manage to do without it.

[question everything]

6. And you can be sure that killing him will not bring "closure"

to the families, even if they think so now.

It was reported again and again that families of victims cannot go on with their lives because they wait for the executions - in states that do kill their citizens - and when this happens - nothing. Only emptiness wondering what to do now.

(I have not had a crime commit against a loved one, so really cannot say this for certain, just from what I've read and knowing that obsessing about one thing can paralyze any normal activities).

[MADem]

3. I have a problem with it too, so you are not alone

Sometimes, a crime is so heinous that my 'revenge meter' kicks in, but when I step back and think about it, I just can't get behind state-sponsored killing.

Richard Reid didn't even GET here until December, so THAT plan wasn't too well thought out, was it?? Or perhaps it was total horsehit to begin with. And seeing as Reid (another nutcase) was trying to blow up the plane he was on with his sneakers, how could he have met up with Moussauoi to complete any nefarious deeds? It just does not make sense.

My thoughts on Moussauoi are that he is crazy as a fucking bedbug, a hanger-on, and if he was part of the plot, they dumped him because he was completely unreliable. In any event, his ass was in jail while the rest of those clowns were headed to their "reward."

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Add to that, by killing him, we are doing him a favor.

This is what he wants. Better to deny him his wish.

[genie_weenie]

5. I'm biased. I'm against the State.

Everyone should be against the State having the power to kill people.

[marmar]

7. Me too. No death penalty, for him, McVeigh or anyone else...

and it seems to me that this trial has been turned into an appalling, exploitive (of the victims' families) circus show.

[electron_blue]

8. Well, is it only that he planned to commit, or is he guilty of aiding &

abetting the others who did commit?

I agree, we shouldn't punish someone who only planned. But if they helped others who actually did commit a crime, then he should be punished.

I'm also against the death penalty.

[Strawman]

9. I don't trust the state to execute criminals

There is just too much systemic and political bias.

But there are those cases that just absolutely disgust me. Open and shut cases, but I'm still against the death penalty because I can't say it's ok to potentially kill people who don't deserve it just to get the ones that do. I have no right to sacrifice their innocent lives to punish even the sickest, cruelest bastards.

But if those sons of bitches who deserve it are murdered in jail, I won't cry for them. If an angry family member snaps and shoots them in the head, I'm probably not going to convict.

[question everything]

10. Same here. I think that I have a more tolerance

of vigilante by family members than to state-mandate execution. Especially when prosecutors and judges are elected and hence have to think of their next campaign.

I think that this was the original idea of a jury of one's peers. If you actually know the defendant you will hesitate in sending him to the gas chamber. But today's "peers" are complete strangers.

And this may be why OJ, MJ and Blake were acquitted of criminal trials. The jury felt that they "knew" them.

[mnmoderatedem]

11. agree and in addition

with the way Islamist extremists view martydom, I think it would be unwise to execute him....

[zbdent]

13. Except in cases like Hitler, I agree

Besides, the US has had, what, just over a 1000 executed since the re-instatement of the penalty in the 70s? Wow, that really deterred the murders and killing . . .

I personally feel that, instead of the death penalty, the murderer get minimal food and water and living conditions, minimal human contact. The person should live out the rest of his/her days remembering exactly what put him or her in there . . . in those cases, death becomes an escape, a release.