On May 15th, 2015, Dzokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. Only three men met this fate in the United States of America since 1963, and many believed this decline in federal executions meant that the nation was moving away from this controversial practice. Yet, the readiness with which the jury denied a young man who had committed – yes, a horrific crime, a life behind bars, is deeply troublesome.
Vengeance is a poisonous ingredient in any criminal justice system. We draft, follow and enforce law to replace acts of vengeance tainted by emotions. Instead, criminal justice aims for deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. The belief that all four pillars of criminal justice must exist in a parallel manner varies cross-culturally, not least as it already questions the death penalty in principle (because where would that leave rehabilitation?). But even if we place all our bets on the retribution element, it cannot be conflated with vengeance.
I am not arguing that the verdict over Tsarnaev’s life is only an act of vengeance. That would be too simplistic (although in truth no act of vengeance is simple). However, fact is that no war starts with an attack. Wars start with a counter-attack (which is why neither Kenya or Spain are currently flying drones over Pakistan even though their territory had been subjected to terrorism believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda). This counter-attack is then countered by some response to the other side. Any person who has followed a war, or studied physics, knows how energy can only ever be transformed. Tsarnaev’s death, as well as his crime, are part of the perpetual, physical energy of human anger and fear.
For those not keen on metaphysical concerns, here are some more pragmatic reasons: Tsarnaev was nineteen years old when he committed the murders in Boston. Any nineteen-year-old can potentially be rehabilitated into society. Boston is the state capital of Massachusetts, where capital punishment was declared unconstitutional in 1984. In cases in which the prosecution seeks the death penalty, US law does not allow jurists to sit in trial who admit to opposing the death penalty as a method of punishment per se. This can lead to a biased and unbalanced outcome, not least because only approximately one third of US-Americans actually still think executing criminals is a good idea.
Breivik. Different country, different motives. Unbelievable terror in Norway. In 2012 this right-wing terrorist (yes, I will use the term) was charged with 77 premediated murders. He received a sentence of 21 years, which is comparatively strict in Norwegian terms. Norway’s largely ‘restorative’ justice system tries hard to keep vengeance out of the courtroom. And it seems to be working for them.
R-Bol 