Masopher's Mind

On October 2 2002, approximately one year and a month after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. History, James D Martin was shot in a Weaton parking lot. He was not a victim of robbery, nor hate nor vengeance. He was a victim of terror. He was killed with the intention to attack the American people and sow menace.  In the following days, men, women and children, were indiscriminately targeted and shot from long range by Lee Boyd Malvo and his mentor in murder, John Muhammad. Ten lives were taken, three lives were scarred forever and the entire populations of Virginia, Maryland and the capitol were held hostage in fear and trepidation as these men carried out a senseless rampage.
The States of this nation, as with the people, are still divided on the matter of the death penalty for capital offending juveniles. Only 20 states still have provisions for this action including Virginia the location of this latest showdown. The trend for executions in general and especially individuals under the age of 18 has been towards banning this practice. The last and latest move to ban juvenile executions is the hotly contended ruling in Roper v. Simmons. In a split decision the conservative decision was made ruling that juvenile death penalty for individuals who committed the crime in the 16 -18 year old bracket is unconstitutional and a violation of the eighth amendment which protects citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. Though as Justice Kennedy points out, this is the way the world and the United States is turning, Justice Scalia rightly points out that the United States is in no way obligated to follow the world; especially if the judiciary “cherry picks”  what international precedent to agree with and what not to agree with.
The issue considered by the court is the culpability of Mr. Malvo at the time of the series of killings. In 2002 he was 17 years old and still a juvenile. Now he is almost 20 and facing life or death for his murders. According to the new precedent Malvo may not be held responsible to the point of death. Indubitably Mr. Muhammad will be tried with the possibility of death and implicated for coercion, aiding and accomplice-ing Mr. Malvo. But with such a fine line in the decision of the highest court and the circumstances of this particular incident demands some new answer beyond precedent. Mr Malvo did not kill once, but several times, aiming, pointing, firing and reloading, again and again serving cold blooded death to innocents. He taunted the police, threatened the lives of Americas youth and the safety of millions. In Simmonds (Roper V Simmonds) and Stanford (Stanford v Kentucky) the two previous cases which went in opposite directions, the offenders killed once and killed with extenuating though inexcusable circumstances. In Mr. Malvo’s case, Mr. Malvo’s victim was not a store owner, not  an individual not even the 13 lives lost that October, Malvo’s victim was the United States of America.
Trying juveniles for capital offences is a debate for the best of our minds. On one hand, a crime was done, actus reus, “the act or omissions that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute”. Yes there was a crime, in fact several crimes, a serial spree of crimes perpetrated by two individuals. These individuals were tracked down and caught by our protectors and now will be held accountable. In Mr. Malvo’s situation the additional debate is, was there mens rea, “the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime”. Is this 17 year old culpable for pulling the trigger again and again curtailing the lives of 10 of our citizenry and changing the lives of so many more? While psychologists, psychiatrists and legislators still argue back and forward, it is accepted that juveniles do not have the same mental faculties of adults. Physically and mentally development never comes to a complete stop until age 25. Misled or maladapted children may kill. And the decision should lie within the courts of hearing, whether the acts were those of a child or those of a criminal. While the facts have not been laid out, it can be conceived that Mr. Muhammad was manipulating Mr. Malvo, using his surrogate father role as leverage to indoctrinate the youth. Pulling a trigger at some cans may in some minds be almost equivocal to pulling it at people. However, some might say, Mr. Malvo surely must have known at age 17 that using a high powered rifle and so meticulously murdering individuals must have been wrong.
Mr Muhammad’s and Mr. Malvo’s actions were terrorist actions. Not only act of terrorist but acts of treason. The level of premeditation and ferocity depict no juvenile’s misguided action, but naked hatred, not only for individuals but for the society that even now  supports, feeds, clothes them, and ensures that they get tried fairly and free from prejudice. When these two men got into the car, setting out on their journey they did go as a son and a father figure, going on a fishing trip, nor even a man and boy on a camping trip. As grisly as this sounds they got in that blue Chevorlet as two individuals going on a hunting trip. In ancient cultures, a young man was given a weapon and sent out to prove himself a man. By hunting and killing, the boy proved himself a man, earning the title and recognition of his village. In his actions Mr. Malvo proved himself a man and in lieu of this should be treated as one.