Death of the Sniper, Death of the Death Penalty
As I have written, I understand why the families wanted him to die. Their need to see him die (or suffer or something) is understood. Yet, I am sure they did not get what they wanted: their lives back. This is what makes the death penalty so misguided and wasteful. If anything, it would have made more sense to deliver Muhammed to them to kill, as opposed to letting the state do it in the night when most of the nation was asleep, eating, watching television, or surfing the web. The litany of reasons why the death penalty should be abolished is extensive: it costs too much money (millions in order to maintain order and legal integrity). True. It is immoral. How can killing not ever be immoral unless it is to save other lives? It does not deter murder. It doesn't. There were murders last night in states with the death penalty. Murder is impulsive so it isn't likely that a future killing will stop anyone. I could go on but I won't. The only real reason we have capital punishment anywhere, we all know, is for revenge. As someone who has had a very close friend murdered and a family member murdered, you do think of revenge very quickly. I get that. The death penalty is to allow family members see the murderer suffer or beg for their lives or forgiveness. But John Muhammed didn't beg for anything and probably didn't suffer on his way out of our world. In fact, I suspect that he did what he did to stay away from the hysteria of the moment. He wasn't going to give into it. If he came to the death chamber fighting, the family members would have loved it. Here was the devil incarnate fighting for his life. He also didn't offer any last words and in another show of defiance asked that the details of his last meal be withheld as well. Muhammed, no doubt, got the last word and this is what irks the hell out of people, yet again. If you think the relatives of some of the victims got closure, think again as well. Bob Meyers, brother of Dean Meyers, the victim Muhammed died for killing noted that "I think it was justice." He also admitted that it was only "a certain bit of closure" and that "there are no winners." These sentiments clearly suggest that he too thinks Muhammed's murder spree was vicious and wicked but most of all, really a waste to Muhammed as well. One of the Prince William County prosecutors noted he thought there was closure but he didn't lose a relative. He was just trying to defend the system which, he should admit, isn't really justice. Ask any family member would they have rather shot Muhammed as opposed to this orderly exit and I bet you they would say: "hell yes." This is, of course, the real problem with state sponsored killing: it is medicinal in nature; thus, it is allowed to continue. It reduces killing to something akin to a process. It takes murder and seals it off somewhere for the state to do. Those who really want to do it are essentially getting all of us, whether we are for this or not, to pay for a killing of someone, out of sight, out of mind. If we really want to explore the depths of state sponsored killing, we should televise executions and they should be violent deaths, in my opinion. Firing squads, beheadings, or electric chair killings with very high voltage to make sure it works. And no masks on the face of those being killed; we should see the suffering if that is what we want. Perhaps, they could be tortured into making a final statement before they are done in, as well. Waterboarding anyone? Will this new age state killing give the families and friends of victims the closure they need? |
I have long opposed the death penalty, or as I describe it: state sponsored killing. I have written about 