The Washington Post's Richard Cohen invariably fails to be persuasive in his columns, and his latest effort keeps his record unblemished. He argues that Zacarias Moussaoui should not receive the death penalty for his role in the 9/11 attacks. It's not that he doesn't deserve it, mind you. Rather it's that the death penalty is what he wants and we shouldn't help him get what he wants. Even by Mr. Cohen's lax standards, this is nonsense.
He writes:
[The world] might marvel at how much effort had gone into the killing of a single man. They will note his trial and the lengthy part of it devoted to determining if he is worthy of the death penalty and then whether or not he will get it. The process is almost a parody of justice -- a laborious procedure to carry out what most of us recognize is nothing more than revenge.
Or, contrarily and at least as plausibly, the world will note how careful we are to make sure that the man has every opportunity to establish his innocence and to demonstrate compelling reasons why he should not die.
Call it justice if you will, we all know what it really is.
In other words, it's only pretend justice to bend over backwards to ensure this man his legal rights. It's not really justice if the whole process culminates in Moussaoui's execution. And why would that be? The only answer is that the death penalty is inherently unjust. Cohen's assumption that anything we do to protect Moussaoui's rights means nothing if the end result is his execution makes everything else he's about to offer as reasons for not killing the terrorist a hypocritical smoke screen.
Moreover, we wonder why Cohen assumes that if the execution is for revenge that it is therefore not just. What reason does he give for assuming that revenge and justice are mutually exclusive? Unfortunately, he simply assumes that we'll agree with him and lets the matter drop with no explanation.
He seems determined to become a martyr. He might have slipped the noose after the government bollixed up its own case when a lawyer coached some witnesses. Had he simply not taken the stand and let his lawyers talk for him, he might have averted the death penalty. Not only did he insist on testifying, he was insulting and unfeeling and downright hateful. Here was a man crying out for execution. With the government's help, he will attain what he always wanted -- martyrdom.
If I had my way, I would deny Moussaoui his opportunity. I would do so not just because it is pretty clear the man is crazy and, on account of that, he played a marginal role at best in the 9/11 plot, but because I would not complete the plot for him. I would not grant him what he wanted from the day he stepped foot in America -- his own death. If, in his case, the punishment is to fit the crime, then he would suffer most by spending the rest of his life behind bars. When he dies of old age, he will have been forgotten. In no place will people gather to mark his death. That will not happen if he is executed.
No, execution is not what he wants. He wants to die in the act of killing as many Americans as he can. If he is executed by the state that won't happen. His death will be shrouded in ignominious failure. As long as he is alive, though, he will harbor a hope that somehow, someway, he will one day find himself in a position where he can carry out his dream. Why not argue that he should be denied that hope and that opportunity? Why not argue that he should die knowing full well that his life was wasted?
The answer, of course, is that these are not Cohen's real reasons for being reluctant to execute him. Cohen is simply being disingenuous. In the end he comes right out and admits it:
Of course, I would not seek his death in any case. I am opposed to capital punishment -- not for Moussaoui's sake or for another guy's, but for our own. The taking of life is something we should not permit government to do. In the first place, life is inviolate.
The death penalty is wrong, Cohen claims, because human life is inviolate, but where does that come from? What makes it inviolate? Why is it wrong for a government to put a man to death? Cohen gives us no answer. He just assumes the reader will nod in agreement with this amiable sentiment and move on without giving it any further thought.
Second, governments have abused this power in the past and will do so in the future. It is no accident that Europe bans the death penalty. Under Hitler, Stalin and others, Europeans learned what government can do.
Governments should not use the death penalty, Mr. Cohen is here averring, because it has been abused in the past. Well, now. What else should governments not do because it has been abused in the past? Incarcerate criminals? Tax citizens? Pass laws? Confiscate property? The fact that something has been abused is not in itself a reason for not doing it, it is only a reason to insure that it is done carefully and with respect for the rights of the accused. But doing it carefully in Moussaoui's case is exactly what Cohen scoffs at in the beginning of his essay.
Anyway, like spectators rooting for the kid at the bottom of the lineup who can never manage to get a hit, we keep expecting that Richard will one of these days, perhaps with a wild swing of the bat, make contact with the ball, even if only by pure luck.
Although Mr. Cohen appears to have it as his personal goal, nobody takes the collar forever.