NOTICE: The
following article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not
trying to violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. I have
posted the news source from http://www.policymic.com
Why James Eagan Holmes Should Not Be Executed
Why James
Eagan Holmes Should Not Be Executed
The
Aurora, Colorado monster, in my opinion, will get his, in this life or the
next. There are consequences for every action. Although I sympathize with some
who would like to pull the lever on his electric chair, we should think twice
about giving the State the right to execute people. One can make a strong
argument that State execution is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits.
The
destruction the Aurora shooter unleashed needs no compassion. There is nothing
that this monster can do to make it right in this life. However, asking the
State to take his life won't make it right. Wanting the State to execute such
monsters turns us into monsters, and instills in us the idea that two wrongs do
make a right. Allowing the State to execute him with a painless death by lethal
injection is too kind. Instead, make this monster think about his crimes for
the rest of his life in hard labor — the kind that Nelson Mandela unjustly served.
The above
does not prohibit cops or troops from shooting bad guys to protect themselves
or innocent bystanders. After all, the Fifth Amendment ensures that no
"person … shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Cops or troops that take fire are deprived of life if bad
guys take their lives.
Years
ago, before I understood the Constitution, I would have been in favor of a
president signing a kill order for Osama bin Laden using drones flying above
the battlefield or armed troops on the ground. Heck, I would have probably
volunteered to push the button or pull the trigger. However — and please do not
take what I am about to write as being soft on terrorism — most of what we know
of the monster bin Laden is what our government has told us through their
mouthpiece, the U.S. media. Because the Constitution protects
"persons," bin Laden should have been arrested and tried in court,
preferably a military one. If he had been tried and found guilty, he should
have served hard, isolated time instead of the glorified martyrdom he likely
desired.
Although
Executive Orders 11905 (Ford), 12036 (Carter), and 12333 (Reagan) outlaw State
assassination, the bin Laden raid appears to be a government sponsored
assassination op. I came to this conclusion after reading an MSNBC article. According to it, the White House's
"corrected account raised questions about whether the Americans ever
planned to take him alive, or simply were out to kill him." Initial news
reports, that were dispelled later, gave this op some cover suggesting, "bin Laden had been holding a gun and perhaps firing at U.S.
forces." The Executive Orders proscribing assassination is a
great example of presidents keeping their oaths to uphold the Constitution
because these actions are necessary for suspect persons to be
given due process.
If
monsters like the Aurora shooter and bin Laden serve hard, isolated time, my
positions, if adopted, are not soft on crime or terrorism.
Like
offensive speech that must be protected, monsters like the Aurora shooter and
bin Laden must be given due process. Politicians who celebrate executions of
suspected persons or erect anti-offensive language laws are
would-be tyrants. Don't be fooled. No matter how politicians justify laws or
actions that limit speech or support State execution, they are eroding the
Constitution. And in doing so, are violating their oath to uphold it.
Don’t be
a fool.
The
Constitution is holding back the floodwaters of tyranny, and it keeps us from
becoming the barbarians we fear.
James Holmes Trial: Why the Aurora Shooter Should Be Executed
- James Banks
- Monday 7 January 2012
James Eagan Holmes, the Aurora,
Colorado, shooter needs to die. I am saying this as one who does not believe
that we should apply the death penalty liberally. Given the possibility of
executing the wrong person, I do not support implementing it in cases in which
there is any question of guilt involved. But in the case of James Holmes, his
attorneys will not plead innocence; they will plead insanity.
Before going further, I should add two
caveats: I am not familiar enough with criminal law to say whether an insanity
plea should apply; the shooter may not have known the difference between good
and evil, but a mind that could concoct and carry out such a plan pretty much
is pure evil. Also, I have no proof as to whether or not James Holmes is the
shooter and no knowledge of the subject beyond what I can read on the news;
this piece presumes guilt, but jurors for the trial have a legal and ethical
responsibility to presume otherwise.
The case in Colorado has reframed the
question of capital punishment: Whereas the media discussion usually focuses on
whether or not the defendant is guilty, the only question now seems to be
whether or not the death penalty is just. Recently, a PolicyMic colleague
took the
position that killing by the government can never be just, writing:
"monsters like the Aurora shooter and bin Laden must be given due
process." I agree on the principle of "due process," but not its
application.
Maintaining the legitimacy of due
process of law is precisely the reason it is so important that the government
execute criminals like James Holmes. Whether or not we approve of all actions
that the government takes, there is no question that the government is the only
institution that can legally use force for any other reason except defense of
self, property or peers. In this case, death is certainly the penalty that fits
the crime.
This doesn't mean that all of the
arguments cited in favor of capital punishment apply. Executing James Holmes
will probably not deter more mass shootings from taking place. Usually, mass
shooters are suicidal and the prospect of being punished for their actions does
not register high on their list of concerns. But it is a major concern for the
members of the community that the shooter affects.
When people no longer have confidence
in the government to punish crime appropriately, they begin to take matters
into their own hands. A police officer that loses his partner to a gunman is
less likely to try to take the gunman alive if he knows that imprisonment
without parole is the maximum punishment for suicide. Several years ago, I was
at a lecture by the English journalist Peter Hitchens, during which he claimed
that British vigilantism had risen since the elimination of capital punishment
and a quick Google search for vigilantism in the United Kingdom brings you to
news stories like this and websites like this.
Once vigilantes begin to take matters
into their own hands, they will begin to punish major and minor crimes alike:
undocumented workers and shoplifters might begin to find themselves targets of
vigilante justice. Hollywood has given America a somewhat positive view of
vigilantes, but real life vigilantes are more like Travis Bickle than
Batman. Vigilante mobs don't offer due process of law. They don't elect a jury
of twelve peers. They don't lock criminals up with the intention of
rehabilitating them one day or, at worst, execute them after providing a final
meal. Instead, they beat suspects within an inch of their lives; take fingers,
hands or genitals; or just kill the suspects so that they won't raise assault
charges.
The only other punishment that the
government has for James Holmes is life in prison under conditions of hard
labor. But placing someone like that in the penal system is a questionable
decision as Holmes could pose a threat to guards or prisoners; while he may not
be as used to the culture of violence as most hardened criminals, learning to
kill without a gun doesn't take long for someone who is mentally deranged.
Furthermore, were he given a maximum sentence short of the death penalty, he
would enter into a state penitentiary with nothing to lose.
Max Weber famously wrote that
the government is an institution that "upholds the claim to the monopoly
of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."
But when the government stops using the amount of physical force that average
citizens deem appropriate, it is not surprising that individuals or
organizations start using illegitimate physical force to uphold their idea of
order. If the government wants to be responsible for upholding social order,
sometimes this means taking physical force to its furthest reach.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22085/james-holmes-trial-why-the-aurora-shooter-should-be-executed
No comments:
Post a Comment