(originally posted 6 May. Reposted here)
Three cheers for the jury in the Moussaoui trial - for one of the more dignified responses to the 911 atrocity.
Here was perhaps the one culprit they actually had in their hands, involved in a terrible crime and part of an even more terrible movement - and yet they managed not to follow their own government in bringing things down to his level.
That the death penalty is considered for any crime I have to admit I consider quite primitive, but in the case of a suicide attacker, it makes no rational as well as no moral sense.
Normally, one of three justifications are given for the death penalty, and in this case especially, none of the three hold water.
Firstly, there is the notion of deterrance - that the ultimate punishment will dissuade all but the most incorrigible villains. However whether something is a punishment or not depends on your world view. For a normal individual to be put to death is perhaps the worst that can happen - but for a suicide attacker? One who not only wanted to die in his attack, but actively looks forward to a paradise that he thinks awaits him if he is killed in his 'war'? Is the message supposed to be 'don't try and kill yourself attacking us, because if you're caught, you'll be killed'?! Not the strongest of deterrants!
The second common justification is that is 'just' punishment. In other words, regardless of whether it deters, the punishment must match the crime, and therefore murder should be met with death. This might perhaps be seen as providing a 'balance' which can underpin a justice system. Sentances in this view are not only designed to stop future crimes, but really to punish those that are committed. The question one has to ask here is 'qui bono'? What is gained from the death penalty? If the criminal is already removed from society then the menace has been dealt with, and while the costs of a imprisonment are high, the costs of the countless appeal procedures are also not insignificant - and are we to base justice on cost anyway?
It has to be admitted that this counter argument would undermine any notion of punishment that was over and above prevention. If someone promised or could physically not do a crime again, then aside from pure 'punishment' there would be no reason to do anything to them. So punishment of some form, for pure punishment's sake, is needed.
But the death penalty cannot be viewed this way. The notion that the punishment should match the deed fits well into the notions necessary for justice, but in the case of the death penalty, the punishement resembles the deed. It would be to kill because they violated an ideology, which is exactly the viewpoint that Moussaoui would use to justify his attempted murder - America violates his ideology.
If the punishment resembles the crime, then we are back to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and not only as Ghandi said, might the whole world go blind, but more importantly, it leads to a world of eye gougers and tooth pullers - which is worse, since makes us not only the victims, but the perpetrators of crimes.
An eye for an eye though is perhaps the most honest justfication of the death penalty. Pure, naked, revenge. Desire for revenge often seems a normal response, and as such might be considered 'therapeutic' in some way, and hence justifiable since it might yield some benefit for the society - and help it recover from it's wound. But even on a personal level, while often what we want, revenge is rarely what we need. And on a state level, it most definately isn't so. So while revenge might be the most honest pillar of support for the death penalty, and the one quietly supporting the other justifications, few people would openly admit it, and that alone shows there is something tacitly acknowledged to be wrong about it.
So, in my view in all cases, but especially in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, there is no point, no advantage, and no right in putting him to death, and if we want to deal with such people, we have to look for other punishments.
Unfortunately of course there is often not much to be done with his ilk. Deterrants don't work, no satisfaction comes from punishment, and little is to be gained whatever we do.
But life imprisonment is perhaps the least worst of all options. As a deterrant, it shows that a failed suicide attacker will be left to rot in a cell, and rather than going out with a glorious bang, will die 'with a whimper'. As a punishment, it is in the eyes of those who would do such things definately a terrible one - since it denies them what they most crave. And as a practicality, who knows? Maybe after many years contemplating his and this life, such a person might eventually, with admittedly small possibility, regret what they've done, and see the world otherwise. And as an example and a tool in the war against those who still have such perverted views, this would definately be an asset. So since he wanted death, and sought to end his and other's lives, give him in response, life, without parole.
For 'life, without parole' captures perhaps what such fanatics are most missing, and what any member of modern society has to accept. This life which we're blessed or shackled with depending on your viewpoint, whatever else it is, is a reality, and the only sure way of dealing with it is based on that reality. A suicidal fanatic might be trying to break out of this life, but they only do so because they conceive of another one that they can escape to. Whether suicidal or not, agressive or not, the problem with religious fanaticism is it seeks to portray this life as an inferior and insignificant phase in the midst of a more important and eternal one. And having made this initial leap, they are nothing but logical in wanting to bend the ways of this life, to the (supposed) ways of the other one.
But whether we like it or not, or think it's everything or not, we all have this life sentance, and whether materialist or religious, as long as not extremist, one has to agree that we should do justice to it. That means living it for what it is, and not trying to destroy it in the name of what might come after.
So, by sentancing Moussaoui to life imprisonment, by forcing him to live out both his sentances in entirety, we are truly defending our way of life, against those that wish to destroy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment