View on the news

Who do you have a right to kill?

Posted

On May 15, 2015, convicted Boston Bombing perpetrator Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers under federal law. Almost all opinions regarding his imminent trip to the gallows have been supportive of killing him. Considering the utter carnage that he and his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev caused, logic would seem to dictate that his murder was warranted.

Whether killing Dzhokhar would satisfy the cause of justice, or whether his execution would satisfy a thirst for vengeance, or whether his termination would serve as a conspicuous penalty meant to deter others from planning such a similar heinous event in the future – all are less poignant questions than this: What does this impending exercise in capital punishment say about our society?

All societies across the globe can be characterized by the manner in which they apply the ultimate penalty. Those nations who use the bloody sword of questionable justice liberally are usually countries where violence is somehow glorified either in pursuit of a religious objective or a political one. History has taught us that those who are quick to administer the irrevocable punishment are societies where miscarriages of justice have occurred often.

Even in the United States, where anyone on the earth has the most protections against unlawful prosecutions, mistakes have been made and lives have been ended erroneously.

One must ask oneself, do we become what we revile by murdering others who have murdered their fellow human beings? How does capital punishment reflect upon our supposed civil society? What if a person is wrongly convicted and killed by the state? Would not it be better to impose a sentence that could be reversed if the conviction was in error? Simply, who do you have the right to kill?

When the Tsarnaev brothers decided to use two homemade pressure cooker bombs to attack the Boston Marathon on Patriots Day, April 15, 2013, they did more than injure 260 people and murder three others. They attacked our sensibilities as Americans. By choosing a race that is part of Americana and a day that celebrates our revolutionary fighters at Lexington and Concord, they demeaned our country. Despite the lunacy of their zealous religious intent, they simultaneously attempted to make a decrying statement quite quizzically against the most religiously tolerant nation in the world.

What compelled two brothers who apparently thoroughly enjoyed living, studying, and immersing themselves in our American culture to maim and kill their fellow man is beyond logic.

As heinous and deplorable as their actions were, what statement do we make by putting the perpetrator to death? No life will be returned to us, and no injured citizen will be made whole by trading murder for murder. Also considering Tsarnaev’s stated terrorist goal of martyrdom, are we not indulging him by ending his pathetically misguided life? By his execution, do we galvanize others of a similarly demented paradigm to attempt an assault on our homeland?

By ceasing capital punishment in this case and all cases, we would pronounce to the world that our society is better than others in that we respect all life, not just American lives. Now, we cannot make that assertion.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in United States history at least 39 wrongly convicted innocent men have been killed by our system of justice. Our adversarial system of justice is imperfect. Juries and judges make mistakes, and when the sentence arrived at is irrevocable, miscarriages cannot be remedied. Between 1950 and 2000, 10 men have been killed by the state erroneously. Furthermore, 17 death row inmates have been exonerated by advances in DNA analysis in the last 25 years.

Additionally, in a decade-long study, Dr. Samuel Gross of the University of Michigan found that 4 percent of death row inmates are innocent yet convicted by our less than perfect judicial system. His study was peer reviewed and eventually presented by the National Academy of Sciences.

Thus, as fair and safeguarded as our system is, we can make mistakes. If the mistake is the ending of a wrongfully convicted person’s right to live, how does this reflect on what kind of society we want to have?

More specifically, other nations around the world use the death penalty in ways that define their character as countries. North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan lead the countries that liberally apply the death penalty. North Korea, which is led by the “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Un, has a policy of total political compliance. The penalty for any lack of servitude to the government can be internment or a sentence of death. Human Rights Watch cannot accurately estimate the amount of innocents slaughtered by North Korea’s “dog and pony show” of a judicial system, but an approximation has the total in the four years since Un has been in power at perhaps between 400 and 600. That number has included close relatives who have been accused, tried and executed in less than 24 hours.

Although usually related to some religious law, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have no problem demonstrating their barbarism. Matters of religious non-compliance, not respecting the wishes of a particular husband, and any act interpreted as adultery or leading to an adulterous act can find your neck at the end of a sword in these misogynistic countries. The trials are farcical proclamations and accusations often without the benefit of qualified counsel for the accused. Their unjustly applied death penalties are reflective of countries in which the violence of execution is glorified as righteous and celebratory.

Strikingly, in the countries of Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania, a person can be to death for the crime of homosexuality. In the Central African Republic, a convicted man can be put to death for “Charlatanism.” A trickster who cons a government official can be put to death with no appeal possible. Additionally, one can be executed for “proven witchcraft” in the Central African Republic as well.

Certainly, America does not send people to the gallows for political rebellion, religious non-compliance, or outlandish nonsensical accusations.

However, we are one of the 36 countries out of the 195 countries recognized by the United Nations that still put our fellow man to death.

We terminate the lives of those who are convicted of multiple homicides, killing children, murdering policemen, torturing victims before killing them, terrorism, and substantial drug dealers. No matter how reprehensible these crimes are, do we become as repugnant as they are when we murder them as retribution for their crimes? More importantly, what if we wrongly convict them? Execution is obviously irreversible.

In conclusion, there was a time when the death penalty was pervasive across the globe. Countries progressed and became more civil and evolved into nations where all life was greater valued. Understanding, there needs to be an ever-present awareness that sometimes systems of justice can be wrong! In our nation, every individual has the greatest chance at enjoying liberty and freedom. Simply, to ensure that fairness will live eternally in America, we should eliminate the death penalty.

Who do you have a right to kill?

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • davebarry109

    Why the author would discuss 39 people wrongly killed under the death penalty with the Boston Terrorist defies logic. There is NO DOUBT that he killed people with pre-meditation and terror. If we can't apply the death penalty in this case, we can't apply it in any case.

    Friday, May 29, 2015 Report this

  • Justanidiot

    Exactly. Old Testament vengeance is not the hallmark of a civilized society.

    Tuesday, June 2, 2015 Report this