Yesterday the government rested its case against Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent who is the only person charged with a crime in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Moussaoui was convicted in the criminal phase of the trial, and the jury has already decided he is eligible for the death penalty. The government's case in favor of the death penalty, however, suffered serious setbacks amid allegations the government violated ethics by improperly coaching witnesses.
Even as the jury considers whether Moussaoui should live or die, a political debate centers on that very same question. Some people suggest that Moussaoui had very little to do with the hijackings and is simply trying to make himself into a martyr after the fact. Giving him the death penalty would be giving him just what he wants, and we should not oblige him even in that. This is a fair point, but it is not enough to convince me that a man even partially responsible for the deaths of 3,000 innocent American civilians should be allowed to live. To suffer the continued existence of such a man is an injustice to all of those who lost their lives.
Consider the scene in the courtroom yesterday as the government replayed the cockpit voice recording from United Airlines Flight 93 just before it crashed in Pennsylvania. After learning from cell phone calls that other planes had struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the passengers realized the gravity of their situation. Some shouted things like, "Please, don't hurt me!" and, "I don't want to die!" Other passengers tried to force open the cockpit door using the drink cart as a battering ram. All of these actions displayed their desperate desire to live, for which Moussaoui and the hijackers showed no respect or reverence.
We often hear in political debates that America should have respect and reverence for human life. I agree. Of course, this is not a new idea. Judeo-Christian teachings trace respect and reverence for human life back to Genesis 9:5-6, in which God said, "And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
Regardless of whether one believes in Judeo-Christian teachings that people reflect the image of God, consider the meaning behind this verse. Every life has value, and if a man shows disrespect for life by taking the life of another man, then society must in turn take his life to reaffirm its own respect for life. Opponents of capital punishment may see it as ironic that the Bible justifies capital punishment out of respect and reverence for human life, but I do not.
For those who would prefer to address this question in a modern, secular tone, consider the interesting language used. When a man kills another man, there should be an accounting, or, more technically, a balancing of the books. This is the source of modern judicial rhetoric about repaying debts to society. Taking the metaphor a little further, while every financial transaction has a debit and an offsetting credit, those two entries must be equal in order to offset each other. We must ask ourselves whether life imprisonment is truly enough to offset the offense of taking even one life, or, in this case, 3,000.
Perhaps it is not so much to society that a debt is owed, but rather to the victims, who cannot possibly collect it, or to their families. In this sense, it is good that the government administers capital punishment. If I were a family member of someone lost on September 11, then I would want the debt collected, and quite frankly, I do not think that I would be nearly as humane as the government in collecting it. If the government can act as an impartial third party and collect that debt in a humane way, then the books have been balanced and no individual has to sink to the level of the man who has wronged him.
Perhaps this is not the best time to start a philosophical debate over capital punishment. Fair enough. Nevertheless, where the case at hand is concerned, it seems quite clear that Zacarias Moussaoui has demonstrated a flagrant disrespect and irreverence for human life, and for that there should be an accounting.
Jonathan D. McPike is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, and a moderate columnist for the Eagle.
