Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Moussaoui Trial
The feelings of survivors and relatives of victims of the destructive acts of 9/11/2001 are being taken into account to determine the punishment of Mr. Moussaui. Mr. Moussaoui has confessed to being part of the ring that was responsible for flying airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He has bragged that he was to have been flown a plane into the White House. There is a question as to whether he was the "20th hijacker" who didn't make it to one of the four hijacked planes. The man apparently seeks death, as did the nineteen hijeckers who succeeded in taking over control of the airplanes.
I am bothered by the deference given to the survivors and relatives of victims. If their feelings are to be one of the grounds for determining Mr. Moussaoui's punishment, then the trial will be about revenge for the deaths of the victims. I was led to believe many years ago that our "civilized" system of criminal justice evolved centuries ago to replace a system of vengeance killings and resulting blood feuds between different tribes. The sentence of a convicted criminal criminal should be based on the following criteria and not on vengeance to appease the victims or relatives of victims of the crime:
These are three reasons for having punishments for criminals. Vengeance or closure for victims and survivors are not among them. The extreme emotion of the spouse of a murder victim should not be a basis for the punishment assigned to the murderer. Otherwise murderers who prey on homeless people or other victims without relatives or friends to express anger at the act would get lighter sentences than those who murder public figures or persons with many relatives and friends.
At least, that's what I believe.
I am bothered by the deference given to the survivors and relatives of victims. If their feelings are to be one of the grounds for determining Mr. Moussaoui's punishment, then the trial will be about revenge for the deaths of the victims. I was led to believe many years ago that our "civilized" system of criminal justice evolved centuries ago to replace a system of vengeance killings and resulting blood feuds between different tribes. The sentence of a convicted criminal criminal should be based on the following criteria and not on vengeance to appease the victims or relatives of victims of the crime:
- Protection of society. The convict may be a serial criminal and locking him up will protect society from any crimes he might otherwise commit.
- Rehabilitation. The convict is made to learn new ways of earning a living and of behaving toward other humans so that he or she will not continue to commit crimes after release from prison.
- Example to others, as a deterrent. The convict is given a sentence in proportion to the gravity of the crime to show other potential criminals what awaits them if they commit similar crimes.
These are three reasons for having punishments for criminals. Vengeance or closure for victims and survivors are not among them. The extreme emotion of the spouse of a murder victim should not be a basis for the punishment assigned to the murderer. Otherwise murderers who prey on homeless people or other victims without relatives or friends to express anger at the act would get lighter sentences than those who murder public figures or persons with many relatives and friends.
At least, that's what I believe.
