There were a number of comments yesterday in the thread about John Allen Muhammad getting the death penalty, wondering what Kerry might say if asked about the verdict.
Thanks to today's Chicago Tribune, now we know:
Though he always has opposed the death penalty, Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday that the Sept. 11 attacks made him realize that he would want to "blow Osama bin Laden's brains out."
Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, makes an exception for terrorists in his otherwise unflinching opposition to capital punishment. That exception, he said, was sealed by the realization that war had been declared against the United States that balmy autumn morning more than two years ago.
"That status of war led me to find it impossible to suggest I wouldn't want to blow Osama bin Laden's brains out and treat him as an enemy," he said in an interview with the Tribune while visiting the Chicago area for several campaign stops.
"I walked out of the Capitol and said, 'We're at war.'" said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. "That was my instant reaction as I looked in the air for another airplane that was heading toward us. I think you destroy the enemy."
Personally, I'd rather see the death penalty taken off the table altogether. I'm just not convinced we'll ever be able to apply it fairly, even-handedly, justly, and with zero chance for errors. We came within minutes in Illinois of executing an innocent man--twice--for a crime he did not commit. (And he was only one of the 13 innocent men released from Death Row before Gov. Ryan--in one of the two courageous acts he ever performed during his tainted time in office--announced a moratorium on imposition of the death penalty pending a review of procedures.)
All the evidence I've seen on the matter suggests that the death penalty is not a deterrent to even the most heinous of crimes. It carries enormous costs in terms of time, investigation, security, etc.; much more so than sentencing someone to life without parole. About the only thing it seems to have going for it is that some people apparently derive an enormous sense of satisfaction from seeing it carried out.
I don't think that's an attitude the state should encourage in its citizens. (For one thing, it's one of the main reasons we have a legal system in the first place--to keep private vengeances from getting out of hand.) For another, if we allow strong emotions to drive our legal system or to influence the outcomes it produces, we are almost certain to end up with bad convictions--and bad executions, if we keep that weapon in the arsenal.
This is especially true if we reserve a death sentence for only the most serious offenses. These are naturally the ones that stir up the greatest and most intense emotions, and I see that having only a prejudicial effect on the system.
But I can live with Kerry's compromise. Terrorism is by nature destabilizing and displays a calculated disgregard for anything except its own ends, even to the point of using women and children as vehicles for murder. But I would want to see an ironclad guarantee that the government has to "touch base" at every opportunity to ensure that trials where the death penalty is an option are conducted openly and fairly, with every possible safeguard against rushing to judgement. If that means it takes two years to complete a trial, then that's what it takes.
I certainly don't want to see any of this nonsense the Bushies are pushing--people held without charge, without benefit of counsel, tried in closed military tribunals with no recourse to civil courts or anything resembling impartial review. That's just a disaster waiting to happen.