Tonight, my tax dollars — and yours, if you’re in the United States — are paying to kill John Allen Muhammad. Maybe I’m missing it, but I haven’t seen any outrage from pro-life organizations, have you?
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Kristin Rawls on “Kill the Gays” Bill is Back in Uganda
- Brandy on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Adaquinn on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Adaquinn on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- EG on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Ledasmom on The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012
- VG on The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012
- Angel H. on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Emily on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- Andie on Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet.
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- So should we just start calling high heels "body modification"? (128)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (128)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (106)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the "So a girl and a vibrator walk onto a plane..." edition (89)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (64)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: The Baby-Killing Whores Edition (63)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (63)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Does the federal government subsidize state executions? I don’t think so, which means your tax dollars are only paying for this if you live in Virginia.
Are you really under the impression that the only costs related to execution come from the state?
And yes, Virginians will pay more for this one, just like Texans and Californians also pay a ton of money for their bloated prison systems. But again, I’m not hearing any pro-lifers complaining that their tax dollars go towards executions — undoubtedly some live in states with death rows.
You’re right Jill… as obvious as it seems I was heartened to see you make the “pro-life”/death penalty argument. It seems like no one points that out.
Can we flesh out some of the arguments against the death penalty? Is it just that the state doesn’t have the right to take life (what about war?) – is it the lack of deterrent effect? Is it that’s it just wrong (it is)?
One of the many reasons I object to the death penalty is that it forces employees of the state to carry out the execution – the psychic costs to those who do so (think “Monster’s Ball”) are well-documented. Of course, the death penalty is given disproportionately to poor men of color, it sends a message that retaliation rather than rehabilitation is an appropriate function for the state to perform, and it risks the very, very real possibility of an innocent person being executed.
My only quibble, Hugo, is that it’s not a possibility. It’s a virtual certainty that we’ve killed multiple innocent people.
I wanna line item veto of the federal budget when I pay my taxes!!! I mean, it’s MY money, they ought to be able to keep it all separate and let me pick where to put it! /end whine.
The sad thing is the people who believe they ARE due just that… when it comes to women’s health.
Libdevil, fair point.
I propose that the euphemism “death penalty” be replaced with the accurate phrase “human sacrifice”.
John Muhammad was a human sacrifice. Perhaps not overtly to a god. To a god called “the State of Virginia”, perhaps, then. Or to a god called “Justice”. But that is what he was.
We live in a culture that practices regular and frequent human sacrifice.
and sometimes the sacrifice is done to the specifications of the demands of ancient deities: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009100913472
The determining factor in the sentencing deliberations of the jury was various texts of the old testament. One juror read aloud to others, and had consulted the texts long before reaching a verdict.
The man is dead now. Killed the 5th of November.
I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I also object to comparing the life of an unborn child with that of a man who played Duck Hunt with innocent people. Your taxes would have paid to keep him in jail too.
I wasn’t comparing the life of an unborn child to that of a killer. I was pointing out that our tax dollars are used in ways that end life, and that are directly opposed to Catholic ideology. And yet the same people who created a big fuss over abortion coverage in insurance — where tax dollars wouldn’t even pay for abortions — are silent. I’m comparing the reactions, not the lives.
…so? I don’t find depriving someone of their liberty for committing violent crime nearly as problematic as depriving them of their life.
jemand, be careful about what you wish. If such a thing came to pass you could kiss off large parts of scientific research funding, healthcare funding, and so on and get more stadiums and the like.
I object to the implication that somehow an equivalency between the life of a human being and something which hasn’t developed even the capacity for self awareness is degrading to anything other than the human. Also, if you’re going to be a Christianist (and if you’re going to object to abortion, have the fortitude to admit that you’re making a purely religious argument), do try to maintain some internal consistency. There is no such thing as an innocent person, remember? Thats why a benevolent and loving God sent his son to be nailed to a cross, because he used his limitless power and insight to build a horde of fuck-ups in need of salvation.
I used to think that I could support the death penalty if it was applied fairly. Cases like this make me realise that, no matter the crime and no matter how solid the evidence, I can’t support it. State-sanctioned murder is still murder, and I’m glad my country has not had the death penalty in my lifetime.
Lilacsigil, that’s a good point. Opponents of the death penalty — myself included — often point to the tough cases. The cases where there isn’t all that much evidence. The cases where the evidence is called into question. The cases where there have been false convictions. That’s a good starting point, strategically, because we do kill innocent people.
But the tougher argument is a case like this one, where we know the guy was guilty and where we have little sympathy for him as a person. Even in those cases, the state should not have the right to kill its citizens as punishment.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL haven’t expressed outrage over the execution, but I guess it’s not their issue either. Presumably Nevertheless, Muhammad should have some “choice” in what the state does to his body, no?
Henrietta, many anti-choice groups are run and funded by Catholics. The Stupak amendment passed in no small part thanks to U.S. bishops. The death penalty is also technically a part of their “pro-life” platform; that’s what differentiates it from Planned Parenthood or choice groups.
I’m not so sure about that. I mean, from a strictly theoretical perspective I’m deeply torn on the issue of whether or not the state ought to have the power to kill someone in order to prevent the possibility of them repeating a serious crime. I definitely think and individual has the right to kill in self-defense, and I can imagine a few scenarios in which I wouldn’t be able to vote to convict someone of murder if they had killed in revenge, so the idea of the state making the whole process official is problematic on a theoretical level, for me, primarily because I’m suspicious of the state in general not because I’m suspicious of killing.
Personally, though, I’m against the death penalty in all cases because I can’t imagine a system in which it would be applied fairly and the idea of any non-zero chance of an innocent person being executed appalls me. I think thats the argument that is likely to gain the most traction with the greatest number of people when it comes to opposing the death penalty. Opposition to the death penalty isn’t about one specific case but rather about a system. Sure, I have no moral problem with anyone killing a person like Mohammad, but for there to exist a state apparatus to kill people like him requires a state apparatus that will necessarily come to be used against people not like him. Both the left and the right constantly forget that opposition to State power isn’t about the clear cases administered by people you trust, but about what happens when someone on the other side of the political spectrum with different motives and less supervision gets their hands on that power.
If you have a system to kill someone like Mohammad, that same system is going to be used to kill an innocent person at some point. The tough cases and the easy ones cannot be separated, they are both instances of a broader issue.
Oh I agree William. It’s not a tough case for me personally — I meant it’s a tougher case to sell, especially in a culture like the American one, where punishment is very revenge-focused.
I’m a vengeful and evil bitch who does NOT forgive (and thinks the forgiveness movement is so much bunk), but I still disagree strongly with the death penalty. Not because my heart bleeds for sadistic assholes who torture and kill people. No. It’s because executions are revenge, not justice. Revenge is not the job of the justice system. Revenge is a private hobby, a waste of an individual’s time, but it’s not a government mandate, nor should it be. And it won’t give people closure. It doesn’t. It hasn’t.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. This was punishment, not revenge, not a message to others, not a deterrent, not anything but just deserts for a person who committed a heinous atrocity against many individuals and against society as a whole.
The punishment was just that, a well deserved punishment of an individual by his society. His society used the most acceptable of all possible means, representative democracy within a constitutional framework of limited government, to legislate such punishment. His society used a rule-following, fair and impartial judicial system, including citizen judgement by a jury of his peers, to decide his guilt for his heinous atrocities and also to decide his punishment.
If you think this person’s actions did not deserve such punishment, enjoy your moral preening. Just don’t try to foist it off on the rest of humanity.
Maybe you ought to read what some of the people here have said rather than play your embattled little populist card and look like a fool.
Punishment is fine, and I really don’t mourn Muhammad’s passing. What I do mourn is that the system that allowed him to be punished in this manner is the same system which has demonstrated it’s ability to also punish innocent men in the same manner, a system which has routinely shown it’s inability to apply such punishments fairly, a system which is currently producing a frankly unconscionable number of demonstrably false convictions.
Fuck John Allen Muhammad. I don’t feel bad that he’s dead and I wouldn’t cross the street to piss in his mouth if his lungs were on fire, but the discussion isn’t really about John Allen Muhammad or his worthiness of punishment. Nor is the discussion about whether the death penalty is a deterrent (it is for the person who is killed, probably not for others) a message (probably only in treason cases), or revenge (all punishment is revenge). The discussion is about the generally unfair and improper use of a form of punishment that cannot be reversed. John Allen Muhammad is a very good example of the system working well, the Innocence Project has a truly appalling list of cases where the system has utterly failed.
The question you have to ask yourself is really quite simple: how many innocent men can we accept executing in exchange for the privilege of executing, rather than incarcerating for life, guilty men like Muhammad? This isn’t about moral outrage over every life being sacred, leave that to the Catholics, nor is this about being squeamish. Its about trading the lives of the innocent for the deaths of the guilty and whether we find that trade acceptable.
honestly, if I was innocent and convicted, I’d rather be on death row than rotting in a prison cell, there is a LOT more money and scrutiny on death row cases, and a much higher chance I’d be exonerated. There are thousands more who have had their lives thrown away in prison and are innocent… while it would be *nice* to get back out sixty years later and have the last 5 years of my life free…. I think personally I’d take the higher chances and all the money out there dedicated to ending the death penalty by searching for cases of innocents on death row, with the possibility it won’t work and I’d die, than to rather just sit innocently in prison for the rest of my life, or all but the last year of my life. People who are innocent and in prison for life lose just a little less than those who are innocent and killed in prison.
Henrietta, many anti-choice groups are run and funded by Catholics.
Jill, many pro-choice groups are run and funded by religious Christians including Catholics, or religious groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Planned Parenthood employs full-time clergy to promote its message and holds prayer breakfasts.
The Stupak amendment passed in no small part thanks to U.S. bishops.
Roe v Wade was decided in no small part thanks to a Catholic, three Presbyterians, two Episcopalians and a Methodist.
The death penalty is also technically a part of their “pro-life” platform
Yes, indeed, they have a rather active campaign to end the death penalty which includes legislative efforts. The bishops were involved in repealing the New Mexico death penalty this year, and if you look at the first link you’ll see many similar efforts listed under “Latest News.” I think the Pope has personally protested American executions. And wasn’t there a nun involved in “Dead Man Walking?”
You don’t think Catholics are doing enough? They’re hypocrites because they don’t organize protests at every execution? Are they also hypocrites because they don’t hold a rally every time there’s an abortion in some clinic?
that’s what differentiates it from Planned Parenthood or choice groups.
I agree, Planned Parenthood and choice groups don’t oppose the death penalty. That does differentiate them. And . . .?
I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. People oppose abortion for religious and secular reasons, people oppose the death penalty for religious and secular reasons.
As far as I know, it depends on how you define “related to execution.” Federal dollars paid for the original FBI investigation, and the federal government subsidizes state prisons, and it takes federal dollars to process the inevitable last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court, but I’m pretty sure the Feds don’t actually subsidize the execution itself. This seems like an odd cause to get worked up about in your capacity as a taxpayer too, as the amount of money spent on executions pales in comparison to the amount the government wastes on other bad causes.
Personally, I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I find it hard to get worked up about it. Executing an innocent person doesn’t strike me as that much worse than sending an innocent person to life without parole, especially given the horrendous condition of our prisons. Theoretically an innocent person could be released but the chance of this actually happening is minuscule. The equality-related problems with the death penalty (more likely to be imposed on black defendants, etc.) are systemic problems not specific to execution. Defendants of color get harsher sentences no matter how severe the crime.
So as far as I’m concerned, the death penalty is small potatoes compared to the much more serious problems with the justice system.
I had a friend who got like this back when they killed Timothy McVeigh… played some Johnny Cash song all night. It’s kind of a stain on us if we keep people like John Allen Mohammed or Timothy McVeigh around, though. Until we develop mechanized containment cells deep in the hearts of mountains, there isn’t a place far enough away from the rest of the world to put these people. That’s not to say that the way we do things now is right– obviously it isn’t. But as was noted above, this isn’t a “the justice system kills innocent people” case. So, unless there’s a seamless cube a mile below ground where machines will feed these guys until they die of natural causes… next best option.
I would be more enthusiastic in opposition to the death penalty if I were convinced that most death penalty opponents wouldn’t be fighting for the release of convicted murders doing life without parole sentences once the guy is old and frail. Charles Manson will likely die in prison — which is the very least justice can provide — only because his case is so famous. Less famous murderers can spend a few years in prison and, once the victim’s relatives are dead or too old to agitate, petition for sympathy and spend his last few years enjoying freedom and the companionship of his family, while the victim is forgotten, or her family spends holidays and birthdays in the graveyard.
You live in a country that imprisons around one percent of it’s total population. How many major prison breaks do we experience in a year? How many McVeighs have found their way out to reoffend? Put up or shut up, friend.
Also, say some terrible criminal did somehow manage to escape and reoffend. How many inevitable deaths of innocent people (and the co-occurring escape of actual criminals) are you willing to trade for the right to kill those monsters? How many (likely poor, black) lives are worth the death of a monster? How many guys in the wrong place at the wrong time get to be strapped to a table to prevent the off-chance of a John Allen Muhammed escaping?
You live in a country that imprisons around one percent of it’s total population. How many major prison breaks do we experience in a year? How many McVeighs have found their way out to reoffend? Put up or shut up, friend.
Also, say some terrible criminal did somehow manage to escape and reoffend. How many inevitable deaths of innocent people (and the co-occurring escape of actual criminals) are you willing to trade for the right to kill those monsters? How many (likely poor, black) lives are worth the death of a monster? How many guys in the wrong place at the wrong time get to be strapped to a table to prevent the off-chance of a John Allen Muhammed escaping?
Americans–most Americans, anyway–have never had issues with carrying out revenge. Don’t you remember Bush making a certain comment about Hussein plotting to murder his father before we invaded Iraq? And Afghanistan? Well, you most of you guys are closer to that crater that used to be the WTC than I am.
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that we allow this ideology to permeate our criminal justice system. “I pledge allegiance to the flag, and promise to kick ass and take names. Hoorah!”
@ Marksman: it may be worth pointing out that Europeans don’t have a problem w/ the DP: support there is roughly where it is here (small majorities in some countries, barely less than 50% in others).
Well geez, William, I wasn’t defending the death penalty wholesale, I was just saying that when it’s applied to John Allen Mohammed, I don’t really have a problem with it. Anyway, the Supreme Court case that said the death penalty couldn’t apply to ‘mere’ rapists was Coker v. Georgia, which actually dealt with a killer who escaped from prison and raped a woman. Anyway, my point wasn’t that we’re letting Timothy McVeigh escape all over again every day to plot more terrorist acts; it was that the continued presence of these people in our lives, with all the rights and privileges accorded to an American prisoner, is a stain on our society. Look at how we still fetishize Charles Manson. For that matter, look at an article Radar ran a little while back where this guy carried on correspondence with a number of convicted muderers like the Menendez brothers and David Berkowitz. The fear of them killing again isn’t the only reason to get rid of them– it’s their inclusion in our system in any way.
Thats like saying you don’t have a problem with free speech in general, just when it’s used to make a picture of the Prophet. Its a statement which contradicts it’s premise. I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone killing John Allen Muhammad, I do have a problem with the state possessing the power to do so. That isn’t because I think he is worthy of life but because of the implications that such a system of power has for the rest of society. I don’t have much love for terrorists either, but I find the concept of our government reserving the right to waterboard pretty repugnant regardless of who is getting strapped down.
Such events are terrible, but I reiterate my question. How many innocent lives should society be willing to trade in exchange for being able to prevent murderers from escaping and committing another crime? That is the objective end of the policy we’re talking about.
Honestly, part of me agrees with you. I just happen to think that it isn’t so terrible a stain that we ought to be willing to trade the lives of innocent men (and the freedom of guilty ones) in order to fix it. Ted Bundy is terrible, putting an innocent man to death because we can’t get our shit together is worse.
Lets unpack that just a bit. What you’re saying is that the damage done by these kinds of individuals continuing to live is so great that we ought to kill them. In order to make that argument you have to not only make the argument that society has a vested interest in killing, but also that we can kill not for a crime committed but for the mere effects of someone’s existence. Essentially you’re arguing that even with the chance of recidivism at zero society still has an interest in killing these men because their mere presence is so antithetical to a sense of decency that they cannot be segregated through any means other than absolute obliteration. Finally, you’re arguing that the value to be gained from doing this is so great that it is worth some innocent deaths and that society ought to have the right to make that call.
At the core you’re arguing that society has the right to kill those who make us uncomfortable and to sacrifice the lives of others in order to facilitate this killing. You’re arguing that the basic rights of the individual are irrelevant in the face of the group’s disgust. Do you realize that?
“Opponents of the death penalty — myself included — often point to the tough cases. The cases where there isn’t all that much evidence. The cases where the evidence is called into question. The cases where there have been false convictions. That’s a good starting point, strategically, because we do kill innocent people.
But the tougher argument is a case like this one, where we know the guy was guilty and where we have little sympathy for him as a person. Even in those cases, the state should not have the right to kill its citizens as punishment.”
I don’t know that the tougher argument really needs to be made, though. I mean, I’m pro-death-penalty-in-theory. I’d just as soon we make sure that our John Wayne Gaceys and Ted Bundys and Daniel Conahans and Gary Ridgways really, absolutely can’t hurt anyone ever again.
But if we can’t give the state the authority to execute the no question, society is better off with them in a box under six feet of dirt guys without winding up hip-deep in cases where the crimes are less egregious or the evidence is shakier or the question of whether or not to pursue the death penalty was answered by the defendant’s skin color, religion, or ability to afford a private attorney or the court has evinced a criminal indifference to exculpatory evidence, then we shouldn’t be giving the state the authority to execute anyone. The difference between executing the John Allen Muhammads and keeping them in a supermax for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole is not–or at least shouldn’t be–so very fucking important that it provides cover for the capital prosecution of questionable cases or a cavalier attitude shown in the handling of even fairly certain cases.