Phil Johnson wrote a column against John Allen Muhammad’s execution, asking, “Did he give society reason to murder him?” The answer is yes.John Muhammad shot and killed 10 people in cold blood. He shot with intent to kill three more people, including one Iran Brown, a 13-year-old boy, in front of his school. He chose his victims at random; there was no crime of passion here, merely one man bent on death.

This type of person would be a danger to everyone around them as long as they live. Society needs to have the moral fortitude to say, “Muhammad, you killed 10 people and show no remorse for having done so, you’re done.” Muhammad is now in the only place where he is guaranteed not to harm anyone else, and I think we are better for it.

Insinuating that allowing victim’s family members to watch the execution to mean that it is a revenge killing is simply wrong. The family members were not involved in the sentencing; they did not carry out the execution. A judge and jury decided that Muhammad should die, and trained executioners made it happen. Executions should not happen behind closed doors.

If society decides that a person should die for their crimes, then it should be mature enough to see the results of its choices.Phil’s use of Gandhi’s “eye for an eye” quote would be more appropriate if all killing was morally equivalent, but it is not. However, I will counter with “you reap what you sow.” If you are like Muhammad and only give hate and death, you should expect to get a little in return.

Neil Gebhardt,

senior in engineering