   
|
 |
Counterbalance: Crime, Punishment and Righteous Judgment  Commentary by Darryl Wood, ©2002 Wood Communications, LLC The events surrounding the abduction and murder of little 7-year-old Danielle van Dam horrified the nation. When we learned that a family 'friend' and neighbor was the person responsible it made the crime all the more unspeakable. In the aftermath of the trial a San Diego jury has returned a guilty verdict and a recommendation for the death penalty. Who would have thought it? In an era where liberal laws and criminals' rights receive inordinate consideration, 12 men and women have said what we all must know in our hearts: that there are some crimes so heinous that the perpetrator is worthy of death. Nineteenth century political activist and legal scholar Jeremy Bentham argued in favor of a legal system that let the punishment fit the crime. In this case the jurors agree. Even though they remained deadlocked over the correct punishment for several days, common sense prevailed and a righteous verdict was delivered. Surely there are those who will argue that the death penalty is archaic, barbaric and inhumane. Consider, however, Mr. Bentham's rational when he argued that "…we perceive that the punishment inflicted on the individual becomes a source of security to all...not as an act of wrath or of vengeance against a guilty or unfortunate individual who has given way to mischievous inclinations, but as an indispensable sacrifice to the common safety."1 Capital punishment may or may not have a deterrent affect on future killers; however, its application is a deterrent to the guilty perpetrator. Jurors in the van Dam case obviously understood that after an examination of the facts there was only one appropriate verdict. Furthermore, their decision-particularly in this case-communicates other important principles, not the least of which include the tangible demonstration of an appropriate degree of our collective moral outrage; our resolution to protect and secure our young and furthermore, it sends the all-important message that there is zero tolerance for the abduction and murder of defenseless children. The case is in the hands of Superior Court Judge William Mudd, who has the option of sentencing Danielle's killer, David Westerfield, to life in prison. Judge Mudd should let the verdict stand as read. Moreover, I, like 19th century legal scholar Jeremy Bentham, believe punishment should be both swift and sure. Due process has been extended. Justice has been served. Now let the punishment fit the crime. 1. Jeremy Bentham, "Enlightenment:
The Rationale of Punishment, Book I"
|
|
|
