He was given life in prison and not the death penalty.
In the last few years, I've realized that I'm fairly anti-death penalty. It's not that i don't agree that some crimes should be punishable by death. Some crimes are so despicable, that perpetrators should be dealt the ultimate punishment. My opposition revolves more around utility and fairness. It is more inexpensive, for example, to just keep someone locked up for 50 or 60 years than to spend 20 years in court on appeals trying to put the criminal to death. Further, I am stunned by the permanence of the act of execution… How can you be certain of the guilt of an individual that spends 20 years in and out of court, swearing under oath that s/he is innocent? Especially, when historical evaluation reveals that our judicial system is much more likely to execute poor or dark-skinned convicts (as compared to their wealthier or lighter-skinned counterparts) I am inclined toward the sentiment, “It is better to let 100 guilty men live, than put one innocent man to death.”
This case, however, was the first time in a while that I was leaning towards “death.” I was not tending toward capital punishment because of the September 11th connection, or even because this of this terrorist’s zealous admissions of guilt. Something in the prosecution's closing statement stuck me: That this man would always be a threat to Americans and anyone he came in contact with. That because of his ideology and lack of remorse, if not executed, he would always seek to injure and kill Americans- his guards, his fellow inmates, anyone that he had access to would always be in danger.
When the sentence came yesterday, I was surprised and a little concerned. But then I was relieved. How great for America that this jury decided not to execute this man. What an amazing judicial system. A jury of everyday citizens decided (after scrutinizing more evidence about terrorist plots than the rest of us will ever be privy, seeing more gruesome depictions of 9/11 than most of us will ever see, hearing repeated outbursts from Z.M. that he was happy for the pain and deaths of innocent Americans, and in complete rejection of the notion that he was insane) that his actions were criminal and illegal and heinous, but that revenge for September 11th should and could not LEGALLY be taken out on this one man.
We’re at war. In many places overseas, we are known as occupiers, torturers, crazed monsters- out for blood to compensate for blood that was spilt in 2001.
But when a criminal- a terrorist- is brought to justice in America, he is given a lawyer and a defense, even if he tries to refuse. And when a jury decides, not even the police, or the army, or George W. Bush can interrupt that derivation of justice.
It's kind of mind-blowing.
No comments:
Post a Comment