If you’ve
turned on the news in the past couple weeks, you’ve probably seen something about
ISIS, who’ve been even busier than usual creating videos that make demands and
show the gruesome murders of foreign hostages: first Haruna Yukawa, then his
Japanese countryman Kenji Goto, and now Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kassasbeh—the
first soldier from the US-led coalition to die. There’d been a lot of back-and-forth
negotiations and threats going on, with Jordan threatening to swiftly execute
all prisoners affiliated with ISIS if Kassabeh wasn’t released. When he wasn’t,
and when a video was released Tuesday showing him burning alive, Jordan quickly
followed through by killing two prominent jihadists. Seeing as even al-Qaeda
leaders have criticized their “barbaric propaganda,” I don’t think I need to
devote this blog post to denouncing ISIS. A better starting point for
interesting questions, I think, is with Jordan’s response.
It’s hard to feel
particularly saddened by the death of two long-since-convicted terrorists. This
may point to a troubling desensitization to the loss of human life, but then
plenty of people are killed daily in the Middle East, and many die at the hands
of such violent extremists. I wouldn’t really say I’m surprised towards
Jordan’s actions, much less resentful. The death of Kassabeh can’t be equated
to those of Ziad
al-Karbouli and Sajida al-Rishawi, the latter two having sat for quite some
time on death row after being convicted by Jordan, a sovereign state—plus, you
know, they weren’t burned alive on camera for the sake of internet spectacle.
Still, it’s hard not to see some parallel when their deaths were a direct
result of his, following immediately. What was Jordan doing if not trying to
send a message and intimidate its foes? There’s something at least slightly off-putting about a
nation being so willing to manipulate its judicial system in sudden retaliation
against a terrorist organization like ISIS. What does trying to meet them in
their merciless action accomplish? I doubt fear of execution will do much to
prevent terrorism. Rishawi is only alive because her explosive-filled vest didn’t
detonate properly.
Capital punishment
isn’t something that I think much about, but it is worth considering. They say you
can judge a society on the way it treats its prisoners, so... take that to its
obvious conclusion. Carrying out the death penalty is clearly an act of
vengeful violence, albeit government-sanctioned violence. By its very
definition it is legal, so we can’t call it murder, and in theory it occurs
only with good reason. But what end does it serve? A recent study from the
University of Colorado found little evidence of the death penalty doing much to
deter crime; the study found that more than 88% of the near 70 criminologists
surveyed agreed with its lack of effectiveness. No apparent correlation suggests
a link with lower crime rates. Just looking at the US (since comparing Sweden
and Sudan might be unfair), decades of data show states without the death
penalty having lower murder rates. But hey, maybe employing the death
penalty isn’t strictly about preventing future crimes from occurring. Maybe,
instead of practical concerns, it’s about the principle and people getting
what they deserve. The answer to that, of course, would be that the right to
life is the most basic of all human rights, and human rights by definition are supposed
to be inalienable; they aren’t given and they can’t be taken away; we all have
them by virtue of our humanity.
When it comes to the
philosophical question of whether or not capital punishment is acceptable under
any circumstances, I don’t know that I have a strong opinion either way.
Despite all the reasons against it, there’s still a primal sense of “Come on,
some people deserve it.” If I had to pick a side, I think it would probably
come down on the same one as all of Europe, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New
Zealand, etc. No offense to fine folks like China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea,
Syria, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Sudan. You guys do you.
I love that last line, Matthew. A pointed ironic barb. I like that you raise the idea that maybe deterrence is not really what is most important. I think that this is certainly the case. It is interesting that we so often resort to such cost/benefit calculations to justify decisions that are ultimately rooted in other sorts of judgments. I believe Obama has expressed something along these lines, saying, that the death penalty is justified to express the outrage of the community. Perhaps that's at least a slightly more honest defense of the practice, one that certainly fits what took place in Jordan.
ReplyDelete