Post by Maggie on Sept 9, 2006 7:28:36 GMT -5
Death penalty protects no one
By JUDITH KAY
GUEST COLUMNIST
Our Jewish and Muslim communities have had a tough time recently between the Mideast war and the assault allegedly by Naveed Haq on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle office. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng says the viciousness of the local attack must be condemned. He implies that any punishment less than death would not condemn the anti-Semitic crime.
However, seeking Haq's execution would, ironically, give support to the very anti-Semitism that the community and Maleng want to denounce. How so?
Both anti-Semitism and the death penalty offer people the illusion that they will be made safer by eliminating perceived threats. However, neither the death penalty nor anti-Semitism protect anyone from harm.
Communities do need to defend themselves, but life without the possibility of parole is sufficient to keep us safe; prisons make the death penalty unnecessary. The German Christian population -- reeling from defeat in World War I, the collapse of the Weimar Republic and economic chaos -- believed eliminating Jews would solve their problems. Yet, German lives were not improved by targeting a group for destruction. Both the death penalty and anti-Semitism are distractions from things that genuinely would improve communities.
But, you may protest, the people at the Federation office were innocent, whereas Haq, if found guilty, deserves harm. Of course, that is not how Haq sees it; he apparently believes that Jews are at fault and deserve death. Both capital punishment and the oppression of Jews feed on the idea that the people we do not like, those who frighten us, or those who offend us -- the undeserving -- may be eliminated.
Although we can all agree that justice requires that wrongdoing (real, not alleged) should be responded to, there is little besides convention or prejudice that dictates that our response must be lethal. (Self-defense is different from justice because it is not a matter of what the assailant deserves, but rather the permission to do harm in order to protect ourselves.) Justice can be served by condemning the crime, restraining the criminal from harming others and meeting the needs of survivors.
Both the oppression of Jews and the death penalty operate by encouraging their supporters to close their eyes to people's humanness and instead focus solely on their prejudices or misdeeds. After years of mistreatment, white Jews may have acquired habits of seeking security through upward mobility or thinking they are smarter than people of color. After years of mistreatment, Muslims may have acquired habits of thinking that Jews control the world and are the cause of all misery.
When Jews and Muslims act on such habits, others quickly deny their humanity. In particular, Haq's apparent mental and emotional distress may make his worthiness as a human more difficult to see. Similarly, criminals are often seen as inherently evil. Justice requires we respect people's humanity while responding strongly to their misdeeds, which prohibits murdering or executing them.
Maleng should not seek to execute Haq, if he's found guilty, in the belief that such an act would strike a blow against anti-Semitism. If Maleng and the community want to take a stand against the oppression of Jews, they can refuse to sentence Haq to death. Life without the possibility of parole is sufficient to protect our community and condemn the crime. If people adjust their notion of fitting punishment to the idea all humans deserve to live regardless of their (alleged) misdeeds, Jewish oppression and the death penalty might be eliminated.
Judith Kay is professor of ethics at the University of Puget Sound and author of "Murdering Myths: The Story Behind the Death Penalty."
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/283912_haq06.html
By JUDITH KAY
GUEST COLUMNIST
Our Jewish and Muslim communities have had a tough time recently between the Mideast war and the assault allegedly by Naveed Haq on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle office. King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng says the viciousness of the local attack must be condemned. He implies that any punishment less than death would not condemn the anti-Semitic crime.
However, seeking Haq's execution would, ironically, give support to the very anti-Semitism that the community and Maleng want to denounce. How so?
Both anti-Semitism and the death penalty offer people the illusion that they will be made safer by eliminating perceived threats. However, neither the death penalty nor anti-Semitism protect anyone from harm.
Communities do need to defend themselves, but life without the possibility of parole is sufficient to keep us safe; prisons make the death penalty unnecessary. The German Christian population -- reeling from defeat in World War I, the collapse of the Weimar Republic and economic chaos -- believed eliminating Jews would solve their problems. Yet, German lives were not improved by targeting a group for destruction. Both the death penalty and anti-Semitism are distractions from things that genuinely would improve communities.
But, you may protest, the people at the Federation office were innocent, whereas Haq, if found guilty, deserves harm. Of course, that is not how Haq sees it; he apparently believes that Jews are at fault and deserve death. Both capital punishment and the oppression of Jews feed on the idea that the people we do not like, those who frighten us, or those who offend us -- the undeserving -- may be eliminated.
Although we can all agree that justice requires that wrongdoing (real, not alleged) should be responded to, there is little besides convention or prejudice that dictates that our response must be lethal. (Self-defense is different from justice because it is not a matter of what the assailant deserves, but rather the permission to do harm in order to protect ourselves.) Justice can be served by condemning the crime, restraining the criminal from harming others and meeting the needs of survivors.
Both the oppression of Jews and the death penalty operate by encouraging their supporters to close their eyes to people's humanness and instead focus solely on their prejudices or misdeeds. After years of mistreatment, white Jews may have acquired habits of seeking security through upward mobility or thinking they are smarter than people of color. After years of mistreatment, Muslims may have acquired habits of thinking that Jews control the world and are the cause of all misery.
When Jews and Muslims act on such habits, others quickly deny their humanity. In particular, Haq's apparent mental and emotional distress may make his worthiness as a human more difficult to see. Similarly, criminals are often seen as inherently evil. Justice requires we respect people's humanity while responding strongly to their misdeeds, which prohibits murdering or executing them.
Maleng should not seek to execute Haq, if he's found guilty, in the belief that such an act would strike a blow against anti-Semitism. If Maleng and the community want to take a stand against the oppression of Jews, they can refuse to sentence Haq to death. Life without the possibility of parole is sufficient to protect our community and condemn the crime. If people adjust their notion of fitting punishment to the idea all humans deserve to live regardless of their (alleged) misdeeds, Jewish oppression and the death penalty might be eliminated.
Judith Kay is professor of ethics at the University of Puget Sound and author of "Murdering Myths: The Story Behind the Death Penalty."
seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/283912_haq06.html
