By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Julius Cæsar built a temple to her memory and commissioned statuary depicting the Roman conqueror strolling amiably hand-in-hand with the goddess. Augustus cited her name in pardoning Cinna for plotting an assassination attempt to install himself as ruler of Rome. Legend has it that Augustus’ wife, Livia, reminded the emperor that violent retribution against his enemies had not deterred their incessant murderous plotting and thus a new tactic was warranted. It must have worked well as Cinna went on the next year to be named consul and reportedly left all his possessions to Augustus in his will. The act of mercy also earned the Roman strongman an undying reputation among the people as the “good emperor.” For citizens of the ancient Italian city-state, Clementia was the ugly goddess murdered for being too rotund and not fitting the Olympian image of health and vigor. She was something else as well — the embodiment of mercy, restraint, forbearance and humanity. What we still call today the virtue of clemency.
I read Thursday that the USDOJ had decided to ask for the death penalty in its case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged
Boston Marathon bomber. Tsarnaev is charged with one of the most horrific acts of wanton brutality ever committed on American soil when he and his brother loaded two backpacks full of shrapnel and high explosives and placed them behind the appendages of kids and adults watching the Boston City Marathon on Tax Day, 2013. Killing three and horribly wounding 260 in callous savagery few could match, the now 20-year-old’s record of mayhem and senseless violence has resulted in a capital charge of premeditated murder by means of terrorism.
Calling the alleged acts ““heinous, cruel and depraved,” the DOJ bolstered its case for death saying Tsarnaev’s decision to target the Boston Marathon, “an iconic event that draws large crowds of men, women, and children to its final stretch, making it especially susceptible to the act and effects of terrorism … compelled the decision.”
Miriam Conrad, one of Tsarnaev’s lawyers, said the defense team had no comment. And what could she say? Was little 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown apart as he waited for his chance to catch a glimpse of runners at the finish line, a ruthless capitalist seeking to oppress the downtrodden? Was his 6-year-old sister a conspirator in Western hegemony and thus deserving of losing her leg? Was Martin’s mother really part of the West’s plot to first corrupt and then attack muslim lands in the Mid-East so as to justify her brain injury? Of course not, and rational people all over the globe recognize this and demand justice for making war on civilians in the most cowardly way imaginable — a blast that indiscriminately kills and maims without any thought of mercy or justice.
It seems so simple and exceedingly just: an eye for an eye; a life for a life. But is it both simple and just? Does it serve our interests to snuff out a life that snuffed out the lives of others? Innocent others? And is the alternative of life imprisonment too much for the nation’s soul to bear?
The chief indictment against the West in the words of the terrorist himself scrawled on the walls of the boat cabin where he was finally apprehended say his actions were in retaliation for US attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those innocents killed in the bombing in Boston were “collateral damage” and Tsarnaev added this even more chilling adumbrate:
“The U.S. Government is killing our innocent civilians. I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished,” and “We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.”
Of course, these are the words of the barbarian and it strikes us odd, as we sit here in the garden of the West, that one so young could be so devoid of human compassion that murdering 8-year-olds is nothing more than “collateral damage.” This was no bombardier’s indifference for abstract killing; this was personal, close-up murder of children in service to an ideology. This was turning the knife even as he looked into his victim’s eyes and feeling ever so– even divinely — justified.
But is capital punishment in our own national interests and does it serve the ends of justice? A death sentence for a near teen muslim from an American court confirms everything radical-leaning muslims detest about perceived US hypocrisy and undermines the strides more moderate muslims have made in combatting radical strains in the faith. In 2007, surveys conducted by Pew Center Research showed that a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 predominantly muslim countries responded that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is “never” justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely.
The poll results point up the cultural war going on inside Islam about the tactics of terrorism in the overall strategy to expand the faith and respond to the West. Even more recent attitude surveys show a decidedly moderating tide according to a 2013 assessment in which “72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is “often” or “sometimes” justified. An average of 25% of Muslims among the 20 nations surveyed believe suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is justified at least rarely.” More radical nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya were not polled but densely populated muslim nations like Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia were surveyed.
In addition, mainstream muslim groups have heeded criticism from the West and condemned wanton terrorist violence revealed in such recent attacks as the terrorist massacre at the Westgate Mall in Kenya. CBS Minnesota reported that “the horrifying attack in Kenya was strongly condemned by Muslim leaders at a Minneapolis mosque this afternoon,” and quoted Imam Abdisalam Adam as saying, “This outrageous act of violence has no place in Islam the perpetrators of this barbaric act do not share our Islamic values.” Reuters reported that “the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims condemned the raid on the mall as a ‘heinous terror attack’ and called for Kenyans not to divide along sectarian lines.” Moderate voices are emerging at great risk to their own existence and the tide seems to be sweeping out against terrorism as a tactic. But tides change quick in the Mid-East and a rallying point is all that is sometimes needed to quell the voices of civilization and catapult extremists back into power.
There’s another value in mercy, too. What better way to undermine and repudiate reports of American savagery against muslims than a demonstration of humanity by what the radicals call the “Great Satan”? No better recruiting tool exists for the terrorists than geopolitical ignorance and glaring examples of perceived overreaction by the militarily juggernaut of the West. Denouncing the West’s claim of life’s inherent sanctity, these extremists point to American’s merciless sense of eye-for-an eye justice for muslims but lax standards for US leaders whom, they claim, exact death on muslim civilians every day directly and through their surrogate states like Israel and Pakistan. A showing of compassion to a young alleged perpetrator like Tsarnaev takes a lot of venom from the mouths of radicals who demonize every action of the West. That is not to suggest that American justice is premised on the criticisms of radicals but thwarting their designs surely is in furtherance of the cause of overall justice.
And there’s something else, too, that I think those old Romans knew about the quality of mercy apart from its practical virtues. Mercy inures to the benefit of both giver and recipient and has unintended consequences. America’s keen observer of the human condition, Abraham Lincoln, who could wield the terrible swift sword of justice when he had to, once remarked that, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” Maybe that explains his conciliatory approach to the South cut short by Booth’s derringer that harmed the vanquished region at least as much as it did its intended victim.
Mercy also reveals an often hidden or disregarded bond between members of the species that points up the uniqueness of our existence. The cosmologist Carl Sagan put it this way:
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
That perspective doesn’t mean mindless sentimentality calling for the exoneration of young Tsarnaev from responsibility for his nefarious actions. Rather, it means we as a society recognize the value of mercy walking hand-in-hand with justice. Our boy terrorist deserves the full measure of Western justice tempered by the principle that virtues like mercy define us ever as much as our commitment to justice.
Sources: Boston Globe; US News; National Post
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
The cycle of violence must end. Our President sends drones that kill men, women, and children in parts of the world we have not declared war in. For those that want justice on young Tsarnaev, are you calling for the same justice on our Presidents (Obama and Bush)?
If convicted, 20-30 years behind bars, then if he can, find a life to live where he can contemplate his actions and explain them to anyone he meets.
itchinBayDog touched on punks. That Justin Bieber punk needs to be deported. If he gets locked up in a prison in general population he would not last a day without getting punked. These punks know what they are doing when they dress and act like they do– they are asking to be punked.
I would be in favor of life without parole, but I had to vote for death in this instance. If the life sentence would be 23 hrs in a cell by himself, I would be in favor of that, but the reality is that such punishment is being denounced as inhumane, and down the road he may well get out. So I take the position that Britain and Israel have taken, which is that some crimes are worthy of the death penalty under war time conditions. Then we have the precedent of the Nurenburg war crimes trials. Trotsky in answer to those socialists who were against the Bolsheviks executing spies, and saboteurs said that in war time conditions, life in prison isn’t an effective deterrent when the criminals think that their side might win and release them. After the Civil War and foreign invaders had been driven out, they banned the death penalty once again. I believe that Britain’s death penalty is only for use in wartime. Israel hung Eichman, which I think was right.
My only concern is that I would prefer hanging as the method of execution for this POS.
I would like to see him killed. I will not employ the word “execute” when speaking of killing. But before he is killed he needs to be housed in “general population” in a bad prison. He looks like a “punk”. In general pop he will “get punked” which means he will be anally raped. One punking for each person injured would be justice. Then if he could be killed once for each human he killed that would be justice. The story from other sources about all the welfare that this punk and his family were getting in America after there emigration here is disgusting. We do not need any emigrants from these Pirate Territories who arrive here with names like Tsarboy. If they ever do kill this punk, we at the marina will have a dog party to celebrate. Oh, the photo of the punk says it all when the issue of getting punked arises. He is purposely looking like a punk to be had.
(Dave, the death penalty has been shown repeatedly to cost more (in $) then life in prison)
When I heard the story, one of the people involved with the decision, think it was from the Boston prosecutor’s office) was said to be against the death penalty however in a case as horrendous as this…. it is okay.
It seems to me if you feel the death penalty is abhorrent and beneath us as a civilized society then it cannot be well, yes unless this circumstance happens to be horrific then it is okay. This was particularly horrific and I am not minimizing it or the damage (so please don’t call me to task) but all murders are horrific and wanton.
Because I am against the death penalty I am against for this evil creature. And truly, let him rot in a prison where his name will be forgotten (maybe not by all teorrists, although I imagine even they remember the results (horrific but that they did not bring the US to its knees) they will not recall his name
Violence begets violence. Even 9-11 had a predecessor. Is the defendant a victim of zealous fanaticism as much as he is a murderous monster? And in the case of school massacres, the cycle begins with something as benign as bullying.
Carlton Stanley correctly pointed out: “Some defendants get a great deal of satisfaction out of being a martyr to their cause. In those cases, sending them to a cell for life where they will be forgotten by all their peers is a worse punishment.” I would go a step further and suggest that whether or not the defendant wants to be a martyr, life without parole is the worst punishment for most. At least in the case of a yound defendant it is probably the most expensive for the state. When Augusts pardonned Cinna I expect he had some reason to expect a good result, but that seems unlikely here.
For me, this is a fifty tie when it comes to reasons, moral or otherwise, to execute or incarcerate for life. In the end mankind is god and must take responsibility for playing god. God has killed, forgiven, and sometimes obliterated mindlessly to set an example.
When we choose to fight, what we see as evil, with ‘boots on the ground’ or drone delivered smart bombs we are certain that innocents will die. We make our point and accept the consequences of having murdered innocents along with combatants. To say, simply that it was not our intention and we did everything we could to avoid collateral damage/killings is simply an untruth. We know, we include it in our decision making, and we do it anyway.
We are this terrorist using terrorism to fight our enemies. Millions were killed on both sides of WW2 using the argument of terrorizing to convince to give up. Perhaps sending him to prison for life will make us feel better about ourselves, however, it will not exonerate us. Executing this man for his actions as a terrorist, or as a spy, or both falls within the same structure that we are working within when we sent in a drone. He did not declare himself to be an enemy combatant. He indiscriminately and intentionally attempted to and succeeded in killing innocents and only innocents. He did not attack a government office. He did not attack a police station. Under the rules of war, he should forfeit his life.
Regarding setting an example and breaching this religious fanaticism, if hundreds of suicide bombers have not convinced us yet that these extremists are immune to our concepts of forgiveness and mercy, then how many more innocents will it take for us to understand. Sometimes something is broken and you can lock it away or eliminate it. That is as far as it goes. Life in prison or death, there is no difference.
Spare me the lofty morality. If we are indeed god and we are, we have to shepherd this garden ourselves.
Compassion and mercy should begin with those who would injure or kill innocent victims.
If that had taken place in this case not many would dispute the validity of mercy as a first cause.
It is just that the prosecutors represent an entity that is not known for doing differently from the one being prosecuted.
It is the case of being able to see evil in others but not in one’s own self (Epigovernment: The New Model – 9). Droning, for example, kills more innocents that the one being prosecuted.
In this context, “holy immunity batman” is as much a relevant topic as mercy and justice are.
“I pronounce me not guilty” because “the king can do no wrong.”
Or as a famous writer / philosopher put it:
Well spoken…. Compassion is food for the soul…. What good would come of the execution…. There are many factors in play that It may show he is not all that culpable for the acts complained of…..alls we know is what the media is allowed to tell us…..
Although crime is seldom justified, knowing what motivates criminals has value. And when war underlies criminal action, looking into the motives for war has even more value. Here we have a young largely disenfranchised man whose family was disbursed and whose religion and ethnicity are rejected. Society, US society, appeared to be against him, totally against him. So he reacted as have others in the past. Have we Vietnam era veterans forgotten about Lt. Cowley? His actions killed or maimed far more. But then those victims of Lt. Cowley were not Americans, were they. Look yourself in the mirror before you form an opinion. I voted to have his sentence commuted. That seemed to send the best message, not only to Muslims but also to my fellow Americans.
Thank you for words I could not have written so well but those concepts I felt deeply when the DoJ decision was announced. I cried reading your words as I did then, believing that another death would heal no one. It never does. I wonder what my father, he, a WWII D-Day Veteran, now of blessed memory, would say: we spent years in spirited discussion about justified killing (his view of war against Hitler) and my views against capital punishment and war. Mercy and compassion have served me well.
I would also like to state that Mark’s mention of compassion and justice are well spoken, admirable and deserve praise.
If convicted and sentenced to death, it would meet with no objection from me. Mark’s points are valid, well researched and articulated but I disagree on a few points.
First, I look at this from a public threat angle. If executed he poses no threat to society. Some could argue that if he was incarcerated in ADX Florence’s IMU he wouldn’t get out so my point is not necessarily conclusive.
But my greater position is it doesn’t matter to the law and the victims who suffered a terrible assault, members attempting to apprehend him after the crime were assaulted, bombed, and one killed what the goals or cause Dzhokhar claimed to subscribe. Nor, should we allow geopolitical idealisms and perceived olive branches to certain extra-national groups to dictate what kind of justice is mettled out in our courts, either to exonerate or convict. To do so interferes with our system of justice and allows for crowd or political input to determine sentencing.
I think one is really hard pressed to find that this is not an exceptional crime. One especially cruel and a textbook definition of terrorism against society based soley on ideology and not one of defense of one’s country. Because someone feels they have been wronged by a government does not in any way give them the slightest legal or mitigating justification to blow up civilians in this horrible manner.
Moreover, if a person is going to get life in prison for simply killing one person, and that is the only sanction, what is to stop the actor from going on a killing spree and murdering a hundred if there is no capital punishment? Some say there is no deterrent by capital punishment. I can see this point but I disagree with it because not imposing additional time in prison or other sanctions cheapens the importance of the lives of each successive person whos life taken with not a matter of consequence against the convicted actor.
I wonder what is a worse situation. Executing Dzhokhar for what he did and leaving it at that, or sending a military expedition to his home country and bombing suspected terrorist sites and many innocents are killed in the process. If there is to be some reciprocity, it should be limited to those actors.
As for my position on the death penalty, I support it in the most extremely depraved actions, well above the, for lack of better words, “conventional” cases AND for which their is solid evidence even above the “beyond the reasonable doubt” standard. And yes, there has been abuses in the over application of this penalty. But in this case, if convicted I would say a case like this this is certainly one that in my book would warrant the government seeking a death penalty.
Mark Esposito , J Brian Harris your thoughts resonate for me. I don’t know the answer. I do know that responding with violence is problematic. 99guspuppet
rafflaw:
Hard enough for me to throw a kid away for life at age 20 much less end his life. I’m glad I’m excused by geography from that jury pool. I’m hoping we get Judge Joe Draughn to weigh in here.
Chuck:
“I voted for life. I assume without possibility of parole, ”
*************************
I intentionally did not specify the terms of the life sentence to see what the commenters thought about that issue. Thanks for raising it.
I voted for life. I assume without possibility of parole, which is easy enough for a judge to accomplish if the sentence for each charge is run consecutively instead of concurrent.
That does not mean I am completely against the death penalty. I worked on several cases where the crime was so awful, and the defendant so unremittingly evil, I could have pulled the lever myself. However, in many ways life is a better answer. Some defendants get a great deal of satisfaction out of being a martyr to their cause. In those cases, sending them to a cell for life where they will be forgotten by all their peers is a worse punishment.
Great article Mark. It disturbs me to read that the DOJ has decided to seek the death penalty. The circle of violence has to be broken by someone or it will never end. What good will come from executing the defendant? I submit that we as a nation can derive some good out of not executing him, if he is found guilty.
If it is my life purpose to reduce human destructiveness as an aspect of the human condition, I cannot respond to any destructive act of any person with another destructive act of my own; if I act destructively in response to a destructive act, I have added to the litany of human destructiveness.
Also, alas, if I ignore any destructive act of any person, then I have done nothing to reduce destructive human acts.
If I do not respond to a destructive act with a destructive act, and if I do not respond to a destructive act by ignoring it, what remains for me to do that will actually reduce human destructiveness?
Designing, developing, testing, and implementing an achievable, practical, economical, effective, and efficient solution to that puzzlement is the purpose of my life work as a professional engineer.
Retaliation promotes retaliation. Ignoring harm promotes ignoring harm.
Methinks, perchance, I may have actually lived an achievable, practical, economical, effective, and efficient solution well enough to set out to learn whether (or not?) I can actually and intelligibly tell anyone else about it.
As I live my life, I incessantly observe that whatever happens, as it happens, is inescapably both necessary and sufficient because nothing else ever happens?