Collegiate Times

Having met the heroic Eric Sutphin in life, I was outraged at his sudden, violent death. William Morva committed a horrific pair of murders with malice and aforethought. He deserves his conviction and justice will only be served by his being executed at Greensville for the crimes.

I am sorry Mr. Sutphin lost his life. He was a good man and an excellent American. But justice is never served through additional violence. Nor is it economically prudent to the taxpayers as executions cost more than life in prison. There are more murders in the USA than any of our European peers. Guns aren't making us safer, and the death penalty isn't creating an incentive for people to refrain from committing murder, or you'd see less. 1% of America is in jail. We have a broken system that perpetuates violences and enables killers to do horrible things through. Clearly, it isn't morally acceptable to kill someone, but it's also not moral to kill someone for killing. You are wrong, sir.

he's a certain danger to society, especially having already escaped from officers before. it's not that he deserves it necessarily, but that his death will be an action of defending those he killed and a source of protection to anyone he may be a threat to now that everyone knows what he's capable of.

Ted, I'm not disagreeing with what you said I'm just curious and I don't have the time to go do research because I'm at work. Is it really more expensive to execute someone then it is to provide for them for the rest of their lives?? I'd be interested in reading up on that. I understand that people on death row aren't actually killed for many many years after they're sentenced, but that really jumps out at me if it's true. I think that Morva obviously did a terrible thing, and justice is served with a conviction. Whether he gets the death penalty or not.

So what should they do with a murderer, if they can't sentence him to life in prison, or the death penalty? Try to rehabilitate him into a productive member of our society? I don't think so...he killed two innocent people. Sutphin was shot in the back of the head, as he was biking AWAY from Morva. He deserves the punishment he receives.

morva is mentally ill, he doesn't deserve to die, and this article is wrong when it says he is a cold blooded killer, he didn't kill everyone that came into his path, he passed quite a few people on the huckleberry trail that he just walked past, he does deserve life in prison, don't get me wrong. but if he was a "cold-blooded killer" there would be a lot more people dead, he only killed those who were a threat to him, the police. and he told the police that he was sorry he killed their friend as they put him into the cop car, those aren't the words of a mentally stable person. i don't think he should ever be released, but he doesn't deserve death.

No one forced Morva to escape, no one forced Morva to kill two people. He knew it was wrong and he did it to further his criminal behavior. A death sentence in this situation is not violence, but rather punishment worthy for his crimes and continuing danger to society.

his brother knew that he was mentally ill, and convinced him to escape, he is just as at fault

Most defense attorneys are not incompetent - if a mental competence defense were tenable in this situation, my guess is that the defense counsel would have used it. Perhaps he DID use it - but keep in mind, people can be 'mentally ill' and still be held legally culpable for their crimes. For a mental illness defense to hold, the defense needs to prove that the accused was 'not capable for distinguishing right from wrong' at the time of the crime. In other words, having a mental illness is not a blanket defense for anything - while the illness MAY affect one's judgment GENERALLY, it remains to be proven that the disease affected one's judgment WHILE THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED. Part of the reason why it 'costs more' to execute prisoners rather than hold them for life is that convicts on death row are REQUIRED to appeal a certain number of times, by law. Consequently, in addition to the 'standard living costs' for an inmate, the public has to pay for his defense counsel, the court's time and fees, and other administrivia associated with filing appeals.

I knew William Morva before he went to jail. A friend of mine i used to visit was roommate with him (and two of the other guys that tried to rob the convenience store with him) and ive talked to him before. He was definitely a hippy and didn't seem like the cold blooded killer they say he is. But to kill two people to aid in an escape is definitely in my eyes punishable. I dont believe in the death sentence but Im not going to argue against any punishment they give him. I knew him, but i wasnt friends with him by any means. What he did is inexcusable at BEST.

As to the argument that it is less expensive to provide life in prison as opposed to the death penalty, my question is, "So what?" The justice system is, and should be, primarily concerned with administering justice. Morva has committed crimes which deserve the death penalty, and he really should get what he deserves no matter how much it costs.

Will does not deserve to die. I spoke with Will many times before he went to prison and I admired his individuality. Trust me, the worst punishment the state could give to Will is life in prison. He was and is a free soul. Yes he messed up and ruined many peoples lives. He is a murderer. If Will is killed by the state then he is killed by you and by me. You and I would be murderers as well. As a community who knows tragedy first hand, we should all stand by Will and allow him to live the remainder of his life.

Will committed three acts of capital murder (according to the law). Will did not have to shoot Mr. Ferguson at point blank range in the face -- Will did not have to shoot Deputy Sutphin in the back of the head when he posed no overt threat to him. Yet, "Will" decided to do this and is a ruthless killer. As someone who has witnesses the execution of death sentence at Greensville before, Morva's death will be humane and peaceful compared to what he inflicted on his two victims. Let's not forget, Will is going to be serving 38 years in prison for holding up the Glade Deli at gunpoint in 2005. Nice guy!! Good riddance.

So if the worst punishment he could receive would be life in prison, why is he requesting life in prison over the death sentence? It's obvious he wants to live... I would wager a bet that he will try to escape prison though, huh?

I agree with 12:06 p.m. -- principle is a lot more important than money. This lunatic murdered two innocent people and we are worried about how much the death penalty costs to keep him out of prison (which he could escape from... haven't we learned anything here?)

That's my good boy Eric!

Glad my comments sparked so much thought. My points wasn't simply that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison, which it is. But it was also that if the death penalty is supposed to create a disincentive to murder people, then why aren't we seeing less murders in America? Why is 1% of the population in jail? Most people in our broken legal system are there for crimes that aren't even all that heinous. What Morva did WAS heinous, so he DOES deserve a life sentence. As for the reason he escaped, was because he was serving his time in Cburg. If he was in maximum security, you can be sure he wouldn't be allowed to go to the public hospital (and then leave to go to the bathroom unsupervised) for an ankle complaint. All emotions aside, the death penalty isn't an effective policy. Bless Mr. Sutphin, he was a good man.

And so Ted, with an individual such as Morva, who wrote letters promising to "step on an unarmed guard's neck til I kill him" (my paraphrasing), what do we do the next time Morva has a hissy fit and decides to murder someone else? Tell him to go sit in the corner? Give him a double-double extra special life sentence? He would be perfectly fine in prison if he was just serving a sentence of 38 years for robbery of the Glade Deli. Morva decided to elevate his violent behavior a step further and killed two men while in custody. Society owes Mr. Morva nothing more now, he will be executed and then, and only then, we will have a guarantee that Morva will never be a threat to anyone again.

You freaks. Seriously talking about a man as if he were cattle sent off to the slaughter. As long as people like you are alive, our society will continue to breed death. Would it be so easy to wish death upon a man if you had to kill him yourself at point blank. I wonder. Fred, would you walk up to Will and put a gun right between his eyes and pull the trigger? It's for the common good right?

Hokie: 12:03: Morva has been deemed guilty of having committed capital murder. Fortunately, he doesn't have to face the prospect of a bullet to the front of back of the head under Virginia law. I've seen death sentence carried out before, there wasn't anything cruel nor unusual about it. Were I in the situation you suggest (e.g. employed by the DOC and given that role), sure, I could carry out the order of the court. But that's what the DOC staff involved is paid to do, so I'll leave it to them. I also favor heart surgery as a medicinal procedure, does that mean as a supporter I need to sign up to lead a double bypass tomorrow?

When did the law stop being for rehabilitation and start being about revenge? Yes, it's right that he was found guilty. But to die for it? Hasn't there been enough death around Blacksburg? Life without parole. Maximum security.

There is no reason for us to pay for him to sit in prison for life. Execution is the way....and save as much taxpayer money as possible in the process.

Rehabilitation? Rehabilitate Morva, a convicted armed robber and double murderer, for what purpose? So he can die gracefully in prison? I think not. Just as the Virginia Tech massacre was not at all mentioned during the process of this trial, it has no bearing on the punishment for Morva.

Advocating legal punishment as a purely rehabilitative endeavor is dangerous on several levels. First, it assumes that all criminals can be rehabilitated - this is patently untrue, unless you come up with a 'disease' from which they suffer. This brings us to the second critical point - when you claim that criminals need to be rehabilitated, you directly apply the blame for his crime to society. In effect, the call for rehabilitation implies directly that society has in some way 'let the criminals down' and as a result, those criminals didn't get 'the help they needed' when they needed it. Consequently, the fault for the crime (no matter how heinous) lies with society. When you divorce the possiblity of evil from the crime itself (ie, when you suggest that individuals cannot be evil, or have evil intentions, but rather that they suffer from inequity), you effectively divorce the mens rea of the criminal from his act - something which cannot logically be done!

While I think it's a tad disturbing to think of people being FOR the death penalty (What is one more death going to do?) I CAN see how the families of his victims want justice. With that being said, I think a sentence of life in prison is FAR WORSE than the death penalty. Death is a way out of this suffering...it's easy. The rest of your life in prison is where true suffering comes in...I don't know about anyone else, but I would much rather die (peacefully no less) than spend my remaining days in a maximum security prison.

i stumbled upon this article as a research thing. i am currently working on "the death penalty" and i do not believe in it. families that have lost people are sure going to have animosity for their loved ones culprut,but,no more deaths and sad families wont help anymore than what THEY are feeling. you shouldnt want to wish pain like this on someone.