On Legalizing the Lynch Mob
Today I watched a group of Californians decide that a man's mother was not emotionally moving enough to persuade them that her son did not deserve death.
I wrote this blog entry twice before settling on that opening line. It just seems too outlandish to summarize the events that transpired during the sentencing phase of Scott Peterson's murder trial with those few words. But after struggling with it, I can do no other. Never before has the very idea of a "sentencing phase" been such a stark slap in the face to my sensibilites. Laying the morality of capital punishment itself to the side, isn't the typical procedure of this phase little more than an official formation of a lynch mob? It seems that when the trial ends, the woman holding the scales and the sword removes her blindfold. Objective reason and the burden of proof are discarded for photographs of corpses and the emotional ravings of mothers who have lost their children. Psychologists may speculate on the guilty party's mental state, capacity for violence, and emotional stability; but beyond that, all facts are laid aside. What matters during the sentencing phase is whether or not your peers like you.
Our legal system is completely overstepping its bounds when it leaves the land of proof, empirical evidence, and reasonable doubt and begins to judge the humanity of its subjects. Such things cannot be done, and indeed must not be done in such a "secular" venue. No jury can speak for God, and no witness testimony can reveal a man's soul.
While I personally do not support capital punishment, my argument probes much deeper than this into our legal system. Even if you support the right of the state to kill its chief offenders, you must pay close attention to the manner in which it is done. The court should never attempt to make claims beyond that which it can justify blindly. Emotional appeals to a common sense of decency that is not also legally defined and equal for everyone must never be allowed. Pay close attention and make sure that the arguments used in the "sentencing phase" do not correspond to those backroom discussions that once led to a hastily organized, unruly lynch mob. I fear that Mr. Peterson got no better treatment than many of those nameless victims. If we wish to make any claims beyond his guilt or innocence in the crime, we have left the realm of law and entered the realm of theology. If the court wishes to delve in the subject of divinity, so be it. But let it do so openly, and no longer may we hide our own thirst for vengeance behind the veil of law and order.
I wrote this blog entry twice before settling on that opening line. It just seems too outlandish to summarize the events that transpired during the sentencing phase of Scott Peterson's murder trial with those few words. But after struggling with it, I can do no other. Never before has the very idea of a "sentencing phase" been such a stark slap in the face to my sensibilites. Laying the morality of capital punishment itself to the side, isn't the typical procedure of this phase little more than an official formation of a lynch mob? It seems that when the trial ends, the woman holding the scales and the sword removes her blindfold. Objective reason and the burden of proof are discarded for photographs of corpses and the emotional ravings of mothers who have lost their children. Psychologists may speculate on the guilty party's mental state, capacity for violence, and emotional stability; but beyond that, all facts are laid aside. What matters during the sentencing phase is whether or not your peers like you.
Our legal system is completely overstepping its bounds when it leaves the land of proof, empirical evidence, and reasonable doubt and begins to judge the humanity of its subjects. Such things cannot be done, and indeed must not be done in such a "secular" venue. No jury can speak for God, and no witness testimony can reveal a man's soul.
While I personally do not support capital punishment, my argument probes much deeper than this into our legal system. Even if you support the right of the state to kill its chief offenders, you must pay close attention to the manner in which it is done. The court should never attempt to make claims beyond that which it can justify blindly. Emotional appeals to a common sense of decency that is not also legally defined and equal for everyone must never be allowed. Pay close attention and make sure that the arguments used in the "sentencing phase" do not correspond to those backroom discussions that once led to a hastily organized, unruly lynch mob. I fear that Mr. Peterson got no better treatment than many of those nameless victims. If we wish to make any claims beyond his guilt or innocence in the crime, we have left the realm of law and entered the realm of theology. If the court wishes to delve in the subject of divinity, so be it. But let it do so openly, and no longer may we hide our own thirst for vengeance behind the veil of law and order.
posted by matt at 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home