With the debate of how to capture the suspects in the Virginia and Maryland sniper case resolved, after police took into custody two suspects last week, a new argument has rapidly taken its place as authorities move ahead with legal proceedings:

Who tries the “Beltway snipers” – John Muhammed and Lee Malvo – first?

The Justice Department and investigators have begun laying claim to which of the two states will have the first opportunity to prosecute the two individuals – a process that The New York Times opinion page dubbed yesterday a “capital-punishment bidding war, in which the case goes to the jurisdiction most likely to execute the defendants.” The editorial goes on to say that it is Maryland, where the first and subsequent majority of the attacks occurred, that holds the strongest case to land the first legal shots upon Muhammed and Malvo.

Just as the search and investigation teetered on the brink of a media circus, with authorities imploring the media to exercise restraint for the sake of public safety, the legal atmosphere is now taking on the qualities of a three-ring event as well that has distorted the direction of the case and made light of the truly horrific events that resulted.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been involved in a prosecution where it makes no sense what’s going on,” said Douglas Gansler, the Montgomery County state’s attorney. “This case should be initiated in Montgomery County. Our families were terrorized and paralyzed by these shootings, and were disproportionately affected by this. But our citizens may never get their day in court.”

That such a concern even exists at this stage in the process is an injustice to all affected – the memories of the victims, their families, those residents of the communities in and around the vicinity of where the attacks took place.

This is, quite obviously, no time for the mishandling of a case that is relevant to numerous issues on a national stage. Human lives were lost, and with the potential for the death penalty (a decision that Attorney General John Ashcroft has, not surprisingly, dubbed “the ultimate sanction”) to be introduced to a case involving an underage defendant, authorities must focus their attentions and concern on making the most appropriate decisions, and not staging a war of public relations that will deter from what is most important.

We have a way in this country of upstaging matters of importance in favor of matters of self-reference – a disagreeable process that runs against what our established laws, in theory, set out to accomplish. We at The Collegian hope that this matter of jurisdiction is settled rapidly and that the proceedings can move forward to an appropriate conclusion, as they should.

Information from The New York Times and The Boston Globe was used in this editorial.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of The Collegian editorial board.