SNIPER
SHOOTINGS
We at MCADP, like everyone else in the United States,
were relieved when John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, the snipers who
terrorized the Washington, D.C. area, were arrested. Their punishment
should be severe, but we do not support the efforts by the jurisdictions
involved to impose the death penalty. Rather, to us, the case is simply
one more illustration of the ultimate folly and futility of the death
penalty itself.
Given the nationwide publicity the shootings generated,
it came as no surprise that Mitt Romney and Shannon O'Brien were asked
in their final gubenetorial debate whether the snipers should be put
to death. Romney supported death for the two because he believes capital
punishment deters future killings.
Of all the lessons that could be learned from the
sniper shootings, this is the least plausible. For, if anything, the
shootings demonstrate how little effect the death penalty has on those
bent on killing. Muhammad and Malvo were certainly not deterred by
the death penalty. Whatever their motives, of the ten killings they
committed in the Washington, D.C. area, nine were in death penalty
states (six in Maryland and three in Virginia) and only one was in
Washington, D.C. itself, which does not have a death penalty. Virginia,
the state where they are now to be tried, has been one of the most
active in imposing capital punishment. It has executed 87 people since
1976, which puts it second only to Texas in the execution column.
If the death penalty deterred, one would think that
Muhammad and Malvo would have avoided committing killings in Virginia
and Maryland and driven somewhere else. But they didn't. Their behavior
on their cross-country crime spree before they got to D.C. reflects
the same refusal to be deterred by death. They are suspected in a
total of 21 shootings, including murders in Washington state and Alabama,
both death penalty states.
The irony of all this is that the one known target
of Muhammad's anger is his second ex-wife, Mildred Green, who lives
in Washington, D.C. Green has custody of the three children she had
with Muhammad. Robert Holmes, Muhammad's Army buddy, with whom he
was staying in Tacoma, when told by Muhammad that he was leaving for
the D.C. area, asked him whether he intended to harm Green. Muhammad
assured him that he did not, but Holmes told Dateline NBC that he
now suspects that Muhammad intended to kill Green and disguise his
role in her death. Thus, it is all the more surprising that Muhammad
chose to kill mostly outside of D.C.
Given the heinous and unprecedented nature of the shootings, it was
not unexpected that the death penalty would be sought for Muhammad
and Malvo. But the public scrambling among Virginia, Maryland and
the federal government to be the first to prosecute by demonstrating
that it would be the harshest was unseemly and hardly in keeping with
the majesty of the law.
One would have thought that given the absence of witnesses
to any of the shootings and the paucity of evidence in general that
the focus should have been exclusively on which jurisdiction had the
best case. But instead, one of the key components in the decision
was which state was most likely to execute a juvenile. Malvo, at 17
could get death in Virginia, but not in Maryland.
There is simply nothing wrong with Maryland's refusal
to execute juveniles. Indeed, as Justice John Paul Stevens said recently,
"The practice of executing [juveniles] is a relic of the past
and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized
society. We should put an end to this shameful practice." Few
counties outside the United States allow the execution of juveniles,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Nigeria being notable exceptions. Even
in the United States where 38 states have a death penalty, only 22
allow the execution of juveniles. Disturbingly, the last six executions
of juveniles have been of six black males In Texas.
The reason for the reluctance to execute juveniles
is admirably and unfortunately demonstrated in the case of John Lee
Malvo. Malvo was born in Jamaica in 1985 and has been for most of
his life in the off and on care of his mother, a seamstress, who moved
from place to place to find work. She left him for long periods of
time with a revolving set of friends and relatives. By all accounts,
Malvo longed for a steady adult influence in his life, particularly
someone who could act as a father to him. At 14, he was a standout
student at York Castle High in Jamaica, who recited poetry at school
talent shows. By early 2001, when he had come within Muhammad's care,
his grades slipped, he entered the U.S. illegally and ended up with
Muhammad in a homeless shelter in Bellingham, Washington. As the shelter's
director, Reverend Al Archer, described it, "The thing that stood
out to us was that [Malvo] was a follower of John's, that his purpose
was to please John and always be in John's favor and do whatever John
wanted him to do." It was Muhammad who taught him how to shoot
and Muhammad who took him on a cross-country journey of death.
Malvo, at his age, should have known that the killings
he participated in were wrong, and he should be held accountable.
But it is one thing to speak of the accountability of a 41 year old
adult, like Muhammad, and another to speak of the accountability of
a 17 year old who is dependent on that adult. We can only hope that
Malvo's age and his life circumstances are given the appropriate weight
in the courts of Virginia. For without Muhammad's depraved influence,
Malvo would not have killed anyone and would still be in the Caribbean
reciting poetry.
