Justice, American-Style
I opened the google news page this morning and saw this headline:
Reading down the article a bit, it was specified that,
Although this does not necessarily represent the majority of opinions in America, it really struck a chord with me, reminding me of the seeming "Biblical Punishment" (A legitimate, biblical function of government is to punish those who do wrong. And when they do, they function as God’s agents to punish evil. That is part of how God administers justice.) justice style that permeates the US, setting it apart from other places where a functioning society/rehabilitation of criminals might be the desired product of the justice system.
It seems to me that the death penalty is a prime example of this mentality of an "eye for an eye". In the case of Moussaoui, in which it has been implied that on some level he was seeking martyrdom through death for some cause, it would no longer be desirable to kill this person, as this would not be inflicting the most hardship on this person. Nevermind his mental condition, nevermind that during the trial, he had a stun belt under his clothing in case he got out of line, severly impairing a sense of fair trial, some evil has been commited and it is necessary to find someone to inflict the most punishment possible on.
This type of mentality severely hinders the argument for the death penalty that its purpose is to remove those who are beyond help from society permenently. Why not just find out what a person's biggest fear is and subject them to it for the rest of their life. That'd show 'em.
9/11 families glad Moussaoui won't die a martyr
Reading down the article a bit, it was specified that,
[f]amily members of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington hailed a Virginia jury's decision to put al-Qa'ida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in jail for life rather than make him a martyr through execution.
Elizabeth Jordan, 37, who also lost her husband in the terrorist attacks, said life in prison was appropriate because Moussaoui "doesn't value death or see it as anything wrong".
Although this does not necessarily represent the majority of opinions in America, it really struck a chord with me, reminding me of the seeming "Biblical Punishment" (A legitimate, biblical function of government is to punish those who do wrong. And when they do, they function as God’s agents to punish evil. That is part of how God administers justice.) justice style that permeates the US, setting it apart from other places where a functioning society/rehabilitation of criminals might be the desired product of the justice system.
It seems to me that the death penalty is a prime example of this mentality of an "eye for an eye". In the case of Moussaoui, in which it has been implied that on some level he was seeking martyrdom through death for some cause, it would no longer be desirable to kill this person, as this would not be inflicting the most hardship on this person. Nevermind his mental condition, nevermind that during the trial, he had a stun belt under his clothing in case he got out of line, severly impairing a sense of fair trial, some evil has been commited and it is necessary to find someone to inflict the most punishment possible on.
This type of mentality severely hinders the argument for the death penalty that its purpose is to remove those who are beyond help from society permenently. Why not just find out what a person's biggest fear is and subject them to it for the rest of their life. That'd show 'em.
posted by Mike at 8:48 AM
4 Comments:
He was tried in an open court by a jury of his peers. What would you suggest?
I would suggest removing the stun belt from the defendant when in the courtroom.
Amnesty International had this to say about the US's use of stun belts:
Officers can use it to psychologically threaten a prisoner, and it appears designed to humiliate and degrade a prisoner...Amnesty International believes that the use of such belts could constitute a violation of international human rights standards which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The piece itself was more about the concept of the administration of justice as a society versus the concept of punishment and vindication, which some people see as one and the same and some people see as completely different things.
I also think that this US adminstration, given its record of now 5-plus years of abusing judiciary process, breaking domestic and international laws, lying outright in press conferences and under oath combined with the mainstream press' seeming lack of will to challenge or expose much of this causes me to be extremely skeptical of anything that is claimed as being done correctly. There have been obvious breaches of the concept of a fair trial (threatening Moussaoui with what amounts to basically torture during the trial), I find myself skeptical of the whole process.
The US was planning on releasing 141 prisoners from Guantanamo without charges as it was determined they posed no threat after some being held for as many as four years, being subject to torture, etc. As far as I'm concerned, that fact right there puts into question any such claim of judicial fairness that the US claims to be pursuing. I'm not saying that the outcome wouldn't have necessarily been the same had everything been done correctly and fairly, but there's enough doubt in my mind and I think there should be in most people's minds to wonder about sending someone who appears pretty psychologically unstable away for the rest of his life (or killing him, which was an option on the table).
Excellent observations.
I would only add that it's not just the sentencing that was both unfair and unreliable.
The whole 'Moussaoui saga' from start to finish wreaks 'frame up.'
I agree qrswave, the situation definitely has 'patsy' written all over it to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home