Tim briefly mentioned my skepticism regarding all things related to the death penalty earlier, but I have a few thoughts about this case:
Now that a jury has delivered a verdict that al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty, his lawyers face an uphill battle as they try to save a client who apparently wants to die.
“I’m glad I’m not writing life insurance on the guy,” Vermont Law School professor Stephen Dycus said Monday after a jury opened the door for prosecutors to present wrenching, gruesome detail on the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Dycus and other legal experts say the jury still may decide to spare Moussaoui’s life, but suggest he may have sealed his fate by taking the witness stand. He testified that he was to have flown a fifth plane targeting the White House while fellow 9/11 conspirators flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
First, I find Dycus’s comments to be inappropriate- maybe I am just cranky this morning (that would be a surprise!), but something just rubbed me the wrong way about this Law Prof joking about someone’s possible execution.
Second, I think the real reason he will be sentenced to death is not because of his actual guilt, not because of his actual complicity in 9/11, but because of a nascent bloodlust regarding all things WTC. I am particularly against the death penalty as a form of base retribution.
Third, I am not completely sure he is even sane. I haven’t been paying close attention, but hasn’t he confessed to just about everything but the Lindbergh kidnapping?
Of course, I may be wrong on all accounts, but I just am not sure what executing this poor fool/vile scum (I alternate depending on mood) accomplishes, or if it is even just.