Lessons from bin Laden
On May 2, 2011 Usama bin Laden’s time was up. Seal Team 6 landed in his front yard and when those dudes show up, you might as well off yourself if you are the one they are looking for. Fortunately, bin Laden did not kill himself which gave DEVGRU member Rob O’Neill what I assume was the extreme pleasure of removing him from the planet.
The SEALs intended to kill bin Laden. There was no thought of “Let’s arrest him and put him on trial”. America was incensed about what he had done to us, and many rejoiced when he was killed. I know I did. Even those who weren’t outright rejoicing weren’t complaining; I can’t recall a single media outlet or talking head complaining about the assassination.
I found it peculiar that nobody complained not because I disagreed with the course of action ( I didn’t), but because so many people who oppose the death penalty seemed to at least tacitly condone the mission even if they didn’t vocally support it.
As tragic as the 911 attacks were, most Americans weren’t directly impacted by it. What I mean is that although we grieved and were outraged, most Americans didn’t directly lose a loved one as a result of Bin Laden’s diabolical plan. And yet even the most liberal of media outlets abstained from even hinting that the revenge we got on him was morally wrong.
If Americans condone the execution of a man who didn’t directly harm them, then why do so many claim it is morally wrong to execute criminals who have acted with impunity in destroying law abiding families? If our rage and desire for revenge was morally justified in bin Laden’s death, why is it wrong for state or federal governments to execute criminals who have induced rage and a desire for revenge amongst families who have been devastated by the worst types of crimes?
When California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a moratorium on executions in his state, one of the prisoners who benefitted was Richard Allen Davis.
Davis was a career criminal, racking up 14 arrests prior to breaking into the house of 12 year old Polly Klaas, who was having a sleepover with two friends. A drunken Davis stole a knife from the kitchen and entered Polly’s room where he told the terrified girls that he just wanted money. He put pillow cases over their heads and then left with Polly. He later confessed to murdering Polly and led investigators to her body.
During his trial, Davis seemed surprised at the rancor directed at him by Polly’s father, Mark Klaas, who told him to burn in hell after his execution. These statements incited Davis who gave Mark Klaas the finger and in his final statement to the court, made up a story that Polly had told him “Just don’t do me like my dad” in order to further torture Klaas.
Davis was sentenced to death on August 5th, 1996. Judge Thomas C. Hastings, who presided over the trial, stated that while sentencing someone to death was usually emotionally wrenching and arduous, Davis’s conduct in court made delivering that verdict “…very easy today”.
Governor Newsom, in pronouncing his moratorium, deprived an irate Mark Klaas and many others the justice and closure they deserve. In a bombastic fit, Newsom stated that he would stop executions because “We are better than that”.
Really? Were we better than that when we celebrated the death of bin Laden? Wasn’t the taste of revenge sweet in that instance, even for those of us who weren’t directly impacted? If so, why would Newsom claim the moral high ground in protecting human scum like Davis?
In my opinion allowing people like Davis to live on the taxpayers’ dime does not make us “better”, but executing such people and sending the message that some things just will not be tolerated does. If it is revenge, so be it. If it doesn’t deter anyone else- who cares? It will at the very least ensure that the Davises of the world don’t ever have the chance to hurt anyone ever again.
If death was appropriate for bin Laden, it is for Davis and his ilk too.