American Views Abroad

 
What is justice and what punishment fits a crime? How much punishment, in particular, how long should life in prison be? The rest of a human life span or are 24 or 26 years enough? Are former terrorists now nearing 60 still a danger to society or is it more productive for a society to draw a line and close the matter by pardoning or giving early release? These are some of the issues being hotly discussed these days here. Possible Presidential Pardon Reawakens Memories of Terror at www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2180783,00.html, for example.
Here comments from readers which vividly show the trans-Atlantic divide on public attitudes toward punishment at www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2324724,00.html.

What's the purpose of capital punishment these days? It certainly isn't to protect society anymore. People can be locked up in high security prisons and society can be adequately protected from them. Crime victims' families need a tremendous amount of support in dealing with grief and trauma. Should they, however, have the right to decide if capital punishment or life in prison is the ultimate goal when prosecuting because of their need for closure in dealing with their grief? 'Families of the executed are victims too', the report published by Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights stresses. 'The pain of one group of survivors should not be redressed by causing pain to another group of survivors. Society needs to address the emotional and physical harm that is being done.' Executions Create Generations of Victims at www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0213-03.htm.

In California one can be sentenced to life in prison under the three strikes out law for stealing a box of Pampers or for trivia drug offences. Is this justice? Obviously not. Releasing a former terrorist who shows little to no remorse is on another level. Perhaps a society that shows greater wisdom in dealing with these issues and does not lower itself to the level of the crimes committed is the one that ultimately takes the wind out of the sails of terrorism. In order to do that, though, it needs to recognize a public response where the majority does not approve its decision. Recognizing a negative public response means opening a discussion on the issue and is a far better move than a knee-jerk act of harshness which is nothing more than pandering to the mood of the day.
- posted by Gloria @ 5:40 PM