Abstract
The resolution of the District of Columbia area sniper case resulted in the arrest of two individuals, one of whom, Lee Malvo, was a minor when the crimes were committed. 1 The multiple murders, with the resulting terror imposed on such a large area, were crimes for which the public insists upon the maximum punishment. The question presented is whether execution for a crime committed when the defendant was a minor violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." The efforts of District of Columbia area prosecutors to find a suitable venue for Malvo's trial, one which allows the execution of juvenile offenders, highlighted the ongoing controversy over such executions. Of the three jurisdictions in which the 2002 random sniper killings occurred (Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia), only Virginia law allows the execution of minors. 2 As a result, Virginia was awarded the prosecution after police interviews resulted in Malvo admitting to firing the fatal shots. 3 The fly in that ointment was the jury that tried and convicted Malvo of the murders. The penalty phase of the trial resulted in a judgment that Malvo not be executed, but sentenced to life in prison. 4 That jury verdict may become important in the ongoing debate on the issue. The Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia 5 , which held that execution of the mentally retarded did in fact violate the Eighth Amendment, led to speculation of a similar result in cases ...