Punishment or Revenge? A Self Described 9/11 Martyr

So the verdicts in! Actually the verdict has been in for sometime. Now this is the verdict to what extreme he can be sentenced. The jury says Zacarias Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty. So why isn’t there any winner in this? The government’s victory in proving that Moussaui’s omission of critical information directly contributed to the death of more than 3000 people is a double edged sword.

The controversy in this case is just how much did Moussaoui know and what was he thinking? While it is clear that he did know something in advance of 9/11, proved by his attempt to obtain training to fly a Boeing 747, should an individual be eligible for death just because of his knowledge or even more broad his thoughts? Does this kind of prosecution open the door for prosecution in areas of law that isn’t so emotionally and politically charged?

There is no question that this man’s inaction and/or omission contributed to preventing authorities from deciphering the pending doom of 9/11. Is it fair, however, that he bear the maximum weight of that responsibility, especially since he didn’t pilot one of the airplanes himself. The simple answer, in my opinion, is yes he should be treated as if he pulled the trigger himself, but the implication of that is far more difficult to summarize.

Should Zacarias Moussaoui, being found guilty, be allowed to become the martyr that he is trying so hard to portray himself as? Watching public reaction on Fox, I feel as every person that commented that this man and others like him need to suffer to the highest degree for their transgressions against humanity and their propagation of terrorism. So how could we cause this man to suffer or greater still, does our wish to make them suffer make us any better then them?

I am a long standing proponent of capital punishment. Some people have asked me how I can support capital punishment while being so pro-life on the abortion issue. The answer is that abortion is an act against an innocent defenseless human life. In areas of crime, you forfeit your right to live depending on the nature of the crime. At the very least you forfeit your right to roam freely in society. I think that capital punishment should extend beyond our normal criteria for capital offenses. For instance, it should include people who conspire to commit murder, acts of terrorism, repeated violent crimes involving aggravated circumstances, crimes against children and/or other defenseless persons, etc.

My problem with this case in particular is how emotionally charged society is concerning 9/11 and this villain. 9/11 was an immensely terrible wake-up call filled with shock and awe for America. It left us feeling vulnerable and violated and gave us a taste of what a post apocalyptic world might be like. We, for the first time, felt like the clear and present danger glamorized in Hollywood was truly a threat and gave us our first genuine motivation to rid the world of terrorism. It wasn’t at our neighbor’s house anymore; it was in our own back yard. It was appalling and deadly serious.

If this man is guilty, and I believe he is, then he should receive no less then the greatest punishment we have. I think we need to be careful in cases like this that our motivation is one of punishment and not one of revenge. Though closely thought of, they are very different motivators. Punishment addresses the act and causes retribution. Revenge inflicts injury in return for something. I think as a society we have to be careful that we’re acting with purest intentions of punishment and not out of a need for revenge. Whole nations have been at war since time began based on repeated acts of vengeance. Our sentencing needs to reflect our desire to set high the social/moral mark and clearly define the befitting punishment for its violation.

After all, providing that terrorists won’t lead to the extermination of human life, society will someday judge us for the way and manner in which we judged others.