Posted on 05/12/2006 5:37:49 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON -- I am no great fan of the death penalty. I oppose it in almost all cases, though not on principle. There are crimes -- high, monstrous and rare -- that warrant the ultimate sanction.
Not because it is a deterrent; the evidence for deterrence is very equivocal. And not, as our Oprah-soaked sentimentalism suggests, in order bring closure to the victim's family. Family has nothing to do with it. It is The State v. The Miscreant, not the family v. the miscreant. And punishment is meant to do more than just bring order to the state; it brings moral order to the universe. Some crimes are so terrible that the moral balance of the universe remains disturbed so long as the perpetrator walks the earth.
Eichmann, for example. Or, at the lower end of the scale, Timothy McVeigh. Goering was an excellent candidate until he cheated the hangman by poisoning himself in prison. So is Saddam Hussein, champion mass murderer of our time, whose execution will bring a modicum of rebalance to the universe.
But a civilized society should be loath to invoke the death penalty for anything short of that. There's a remarkable passage in the Talmud that says that ``a Sanhedrin (high court) that executes a person once in seven years is considered murderous." One sage says, ``once every seventy years."
Does Zacarias Moussaoui meet that kind of high standard? I think not. Had I been on the jury, I too would have voted for life in the Colorado Supermax. But not for the reasons most of the jury cited.
In the Moussaoui case, there were three plausible grounds for mitigation: insignificance, lunacy or deprivation. Insignificance would have been my choice. Moussaoui was hardly even a cog.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
"exeuting" = executing
Krauthammer Bump
Thanks for the info & the link.
I didn't know that.
Reading that makes my blood boil anew!
The above is silliness...and from Krauthammer.
While I agree that closure and deterrance are not the best reasons for the death penalty, they are, nonetheless, acceptable reasons.
The best reason, imo, is that the death penalty is an affirmation of the value any society places on life. In any unjustifiable homicide, any penalty less than life says that the life taken is less valuable than other pursuits and interests....as defined by the state.
...and then, Chuck, there are the Scriptures proper:
"When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death."
...Exodus 21:14, JPS 1985. I think I like that reading even better than the one in the NIV.
Moussaoui across as such a moron, even the terrorists wanted nothing to do with the guy. BUT, guys willing to fly into buildings ar HARD to come by.
I wouldn't trust this guy to organize a picnic let alone a terrorist attack.
The above is silliness...and from Krauthammer. While I agree that closure and deterrance are not the best reasons for the death penalty, they are, nonetheless, acceptable reasons.
Agreed!
When The Kraut talks, I always listen but in this case he's off the farm.
Gettin' even is good enuf reason for me.
I have always thought this guy should have gone to Gitmo with no trial. He's not an American and he is a member of Al Qaeda. What am I missing?
I have always thought this guy should have gone to Gitmo with no trial. He's not an American and he is a member of Al Qaeda. What am I missing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.