RSS
Home
DC sniper execution raises questions on constitutionality of the death penalty
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Convicted DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad, a former Army marksman.
John Allen Muhammad, the mastermind of the 2002 Beltway Sniper attacks, is set to be executed on Tuesday. A circuit court judge has opted to postpone the execution (originally scheduled for Monday, November 9th) one day so that the courts are open at least one day prior, in case of "last minute court action."
Muhammad and his accomplice, then 17-year old Lee Boyd Malvo, terrorized the DC metro area, killing 10 people and wounding 3 more over a period of 22 days. Malvo is currently serving a life sentence. The two have since been connected to at least two more shootings unrelated to the spree; one in Montgomery, Alabama, and one in Tacoma, Wahington.
Despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary, Muhammad maintains his innocence and is seeking clemency via an insanity plea.
This extreme example is a perfect case to deliberate on the constitutionality of the death penalty.
The constitution itself says nothing about the death penalty specifically. However, the fifth amendment guarantees that a citizen shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." What this has been taken to mean is that capital punishment cannot be imposed arbitrarily, and not without a proper hearing. The eight amendment protects citizens from "cruel and unusual" punishments. That means that for capital punishment to be constitutional, it must be reserved for cases where it is a punishment properly proportional to the crime. Also important is the concept of automatic appeals in capital cases.
Judicial precedent, however, is another important factor in determining constitutionality. There are numerous cases dealing with the death penalty, most notably Furman v. Georgia, where the court upheld the practice but declared its application "arbitrary" and thus unconstitutional. Woodson v. North Carolina declared all laws that mandated the death penalty were unconstitutional, building on the precedent set by Gregg v. Georgia (that in cases of capital punishment, all mitigating/aggravating circumstances must be discussed before reaching a conclusion on sentencing).
The case most relevant to Muhammad's situation is Ford v. Wainwright, where the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute an insane individual (why Muhammad's lawyers are entering an insanity plea to try and stay the execution).
So is the death penalty constitutional? When it is a proportional punishment, and is not enforced arbitrarily, it is constitutional. In this case, it is constitutional in this context.
Is Muhammad insane, thereby making it unconstitutional? This is unclear, but it seems unlikely that an individual able to methodically plan out a string of shootings designed to terrorize was "insane". His subsequent taunting of the police and delight in his own actions shows an understanding of his behavior more consistent with an anti-social personality, not an insane individual.
Weigh in below. Should Muhammad be sentenced to death for his crimes?
Related Articles:
Comments
