9 of 12
Once a defendant is found guilty, in most cases, the jury is asked to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case in order to decide the sentence. Aggravating factors relate to the evidence that supports the harshest penalty, while mitigating factors relate to evidence that would support a lesser sentence. In cases with the death penalty, a juror would weigh the circumstances and decide. A death sentence must me unanimous while life sentence does not.
In Zacarias Moussaoui's case, the jury decided against the death penalty, and instead of simply saying there wasn't a unanimous decision, we can look a little deeper into the process. The jury goes through a Special Verdict Form, where in 42 pages, they review the aggravating and mitigating factors of the trial. This document is available to read.
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/mou1852.pdf
A few things that caught my attention were in the mitigating factors sections. Here we can see how many jurors felt the defense had "established the existence of each listed Mitigating Factor by a preponderance of the evidence." Not one juror thought a life sentence would be a more severe punishment than death, nor did they think his execution would fulfill his jihad and provide him martyr status while also serving up a martyr for other fanatics to feed from. No jurors at all.
However, nine out of the twelve felt that his unstable early childhood and abusive father were factors that supported a lighter sentence.
In essence, creating a martyr was not an issue at all, and given the choice to inflict the severest punishment, the jury felt that his childhood was enough of an influence to play part in excusing him from the death penalty.
Treating terrorists as criminals is a huge setback in any fight against Islamofacism. As Mark Steyn wrote in today's New York Sun, "A 'criminal' approach gives terrorists all the right of criminals, including the 'Gee, Officer Krupke' defense: I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived."