I’ll be interested to see… (posted Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm)

Everybody is aware that our justice system is, consciously or not, outwardly or not, shamefully or not, a legitimised route to vengeance before it’s a deterrent or a form of rehabilitation. That much is obvious, and it’s been the case ever since we’ve had a justice system. What I think will be interesting about the outcome of the forthcoming trials of those allegedly responsible for 9/11 is that, if it does result in the death penalty, it will be a clear and irrevocable indication not only that are we bent on revenge before trying to rehabilitate, but that we will seek revenge even at the expense of deterrence.

The criminals behind 9/11 want to be executed. They want to be martyrs; it is their greatest honour. If, as surely will be the case, they are found guilty by the court, administering the death penalty will be the opposite of a deterrent to others: it will only encourage those as deluded as them to walk the same path.

So will the justice system make an effort to do what it has long claimed to have been set up for and actually prevent further crime? Or will it just fulfill the easy, short-term job of placating our vengeful bloodlust, even when doing so fuels the flames that it supposedly exists to extinguish?

Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 comments on “I’ll be interested to see…”:
Nick said:
July 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm

But if the punishment for those crimes is, in jurisdiction of the relevant penal code, execution, then surely that must be the punishment, regardless of the issues caused by their intent.
I doubt that any legal code has a clause intended to deal with religious fanatics and preventing copycats (Though if, as you say, they do seek to prevent further crime, then this cannot be long coming.) and it comes down to what would be the lesser evil; martyring them with the potential outcome of repeat attacks; or contravening the legal system in such a way that it could potentially lead to widespread abuses of various rights.
If they were to convict them with the intention of leaving them on death row ad infinitum, then that may alleviate the actual martyrdom, though symbolically it would be the same.

On a completely different rant; have you seen: “http://thoseshirts.com/”

Kinders said:
July 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm

“But if the punishment for those crimes is, in jurisdiction of the relevant penal code, execution, then surely that must be the punishment, regardless of the issues caused by their intent.”

Forgive me, but that strikes me as ridiculously dogmatic. If the net result of a sentence is that the crime is glorified to those most likely to imitate it, then it’s the wrong sentence. If our legal system is causing instead of preventing crime (which it is) it’s a farce.

“it comes down to what would be the lesser evil; martyring them with the potential outcome of repeat attacks; or contravening the legal system in such a way that it could potentially lead to widespread abuses of various rights.”

If I understand the legal system correctly, this isn’t an issue, since the jury decides whether the defendants are guilty before the judge issues a sentence, which could legitimately be something other than execution. In any case, I don’t see why issuing a life sentence instead of a death sentence would lead to any abuses of rights - ?

“On a completely different rant; have you seen: “http://thoseshirts.com/””

I have now! Democrats really do have all the best t-shirts!

nick said:
July 8, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I’m not saying I support the idea of execution, I emphatically don’t, but the law of the land should be final, and if that is the proscribed punishment, then it should be sentenced. Obviously the death penalty is a travesty of justice in all forms, so legal reform is needed in states where it is used, but you can’t just give someone a different sentence to make things more convenient.
Socrates took Hemlock, despite being given plenty of chances to escape with his life, because he believed in upholding the Athenian legal system.

If I’m honest, I agree with you, it execution should not even be considered in this case, even if it were the norm globally, but you can’t just pick and choose where to apply the punishments (which may be what I meant about abuses of rights, but I’m no certain, so it’s probably best to pass it off as an irrelevant comment)
Plus there’s always the high possibility that I’ve a limited understanding of law and no idea what I’m talking about.

Also, I think those t-shirt are 100% serious

Kinders said:
July 8, 2009 at 8:24 pm

My argument isn’t about the death penalty as an ideal either. But I don’t think the law of the land should be final, and if it is the prescribed punishment and it’s damaging, then it shouldn’t be sentenced, and, no, you shouldn’t give a different sentence to make things more convenient, but we’re not talking about making things more convenient, we’re talking about making things better - about potentially preventing crime in the future - which is, reportedly, the purpose of the death penalty.

I see this chain of actions and reactions:
1. Fundamentalists are executed for their crimes.
2. Executed fundamentalists become glorified martyrs.
3. Other fundamentalists are inspired and encouraged to commit terrorist acts in the hope of achieving a similar glorious death which will earn them Heavenly rewards.
4. Many more people die - but the law of the land has been upheld!
- and then, no doubt,
5. Fundamentalists are executed for their crimes…

Why can’t you pick and choose punishments? Why do we have to be dogmatic? Why do we have to do the more harmful thing because our ancestors wrote it in the rulebooks?

I do like a good debate!