THE PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTER VERDICT
This won’t be a popular opinion. But I think it needs to be expressed.
All too often, we spend our time bashing the American legal system. We post criticisms on social media. We get mad about things we disagree with. This mass frenzy snowballs and perpetuates even more anger and distrust.
So, maybe it’s time to recognize an essential component of the way our criminal justice system works that is worth defending and maintaining. This is just such a time.
Yesterday, I watched the sentence read aloud in a Florida courtroom for crimes committed by the Parkland school shooter. Much like the families of victims and millions who also watched, I was shocked and even outraged by the final verdict by jurors. They sentenced the lone gunman/murderer to “life imprisonment” (with no possibility of parole). I empathized totally with the widely-popular point of view that if *this* horrific crime didn’t warrant the death penalty as punishment, then *what* criminal act would? What criminal act could be worse than opening gunfire on innocent schoolchildren, murdering 17 kids, injuring dozens more, and ruining countless lives forever? Moreover, what is accomplished by keeping this cretin alive (he’s 19) for presumably another 60-70 years locked up (at taxpayer expense)? Yeah, I totally get the anger and confusion.
The reason(s) given for a life sentence instead of the death penalty was referred to as “mitigating factors.” Simply defined, this means other facts related to the case, including the defendant’s personal history and his mental faculties. As one expects in a horrific criminal act like this, the gunman/murderer has a checkered past, and in some ways is a victim in his upbringing (read the details from sources on Google, should you wish to know more). The gunman/murderer clearly has mental issues. What mass shooter doesn’t have “mental issues?”
It’s hard to elicit any sympathy for someone who committed such a horrific act and then shows no remorse. So, I won’t try. That’s because I share the mob mentality that the most satisfying punishment for this crime is to kill him, and perhaps even slowly and painfully. Believe me, I get it. “Eye for an eye” is the way someone put it a few thousand years ago.
But that’s when I later came to a realization, after thinking more about this crime, the verdict, and the mass reaction to the sentence. It’s a good thing the families and victims of the crimes are not given the power of rendering a decision on punishment. Otherwise, every guilty person would probably get hanged. We’d be electrocuting people for petty theft. And, it’s also a good thing I wasn’t on that jury. I doubt that I could have been fair and impartial given what I know about the case.
Note: My position on the death penalty is I’d favor it being used far more frequently contingent on the certainty that the death penalty gets applied equally, rather than disproportionally to non-Whites and poor people. Also, given the undeniable flaws of our legal system that has all too often found innocent people guilty, that’s the tipping point for my opposition to the death penalty.
Let’s agree the criminal justice system is deeply flawed. From the way law enforcement is applied…to the court system…to jails and prisons — there are a lot of things going on worth criticizing. In fact, most of the problems deserve even greater scrutiny. That said, “a jury of our peers” in Florida listened to all the evidence available from a terrible crime. They weighed that evidence. They considered mitigating factors. And, the 12 of them reached a decision as one, within a reasonably short time frame (less than 24 hours).
I believe that decision, even if we disagree with it from afar, merits respect. From all accounts, the composition of jurors was agreed to pre-trial by both sides and acted fairly, or at least tried to be as fair as humanly and collectively possible under the circumstances of a highly-emotional legal case. Rather than bash those jurors, I think they deserve respect. If 12 different jurors were picked from another pool, would the sentence have been the same? Who knows? What matters is, the legal system worked. The legal system worked as it was designed. A terrible crime happened. The suspect was caught. He was charged. He was found guilty. He was sentenced. And, he will face punishment. That’s how it works.
Disrupting that process is harmful. Criticizing a jury’s decision after what by all accounts was a fair trial is counterproductive. It might make us all feel better to scream for the death penalty and get outraged when other people don’t see things quite the same way. But that’s a dangerous position to take. Juries are society’s guardrails against vigilantism and mob hangings.
Instead of wanting to exact revenge, I suggest channeling that anger into changing America’s preposterous gun laws that allowed a teenager with serious mental problems to legally purchase a semi-automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. I suggest targeting that justified outrage on an entire nation that underfunds mental health and slashes public services that aim to deal with people who may commit violence. I suggest recognizing that “mitigating factors” will apply to every crime, and the goal of society should be to reduce and possibly eliminate those things that make the United States such an embarrassing outlier in gun violence and mental health treatment.