By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, December 16, 2016
Of course Dylann Roof deserves the death penalty. The
question is whether he should get it.
If he does, the duty of executing him properly should
fall to the people of South Carolina, where he committed a mass murder at the
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. He has not been
convicted by South Carolina of those crimes yet, though Roof’s repeated
insistence in court – “I am guilty” — suggests that convicting him would not be
very difficult.
Instead, Roof has been convicted in federal court on
hate-crimes charges. These are, in general, bad laws that make the motive for a
heinous crime in effect the crime itself. Of course Roof was motivated by
racial animosity, and racial animosity evidences spiritual and intellectual
defects. But there are many millions of Americans who are afflicted by racial
animosity who do not walk into churches and massacre the worshippers, and there
is no good reason to walk into a church and massacre the worshippers. The crime
is the crime and the motive is the motive, and hate-crimes laws conflate them.
That being said, if we are to have executions, then Roof
is the sort of murderer who should be executed. His crimes are heinous, but
their heinousness is not the reason to put him to death. The reason to put him
to death is that while his offenses were first and foremost crimes against his
actual immediate victims, the nine people he murdered and the one survivor he
shot, they were also crimes against the public as a whole and against the
state.
Roof, by his own assessment, meant to incite a race war.
There are crimes that are essentially private, and they
are nonetheless horrible for being essentially private. A jealous husband
murders his wife, a three-block drug dealer in Chicago murders another
three-block drug dealer in Chicago. But there are crimes that are essentially
public, in which the state has a particular interest beyond merely defending the
lives and property of specific citizens. These crimes include such ancient
offenses as treason and sedition and such modern phenomena as terrorism.
Hate-crimes laws are in a sense a cousin of civil-rights
laws. They are targeted measures crafted with a mind to protecting people such
as African Americans who historically are ill served by the police and
municipal authorities, whose lives and properties were during an uglier era in
our history as much in danger from those with a legal duty to protect them as
from anybody else.
Because Dylann Roof’s crimes were racially motivated, we
think of them as being of a piece with civil-rights violations, an extreme
version of sending Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.
Properly understood, they are more like terrorism — or
simply are terrorism. Their aim is political and general rather than the
victimization of any particular person. Indeed, Roof said that he imagined that
the people in the church were decent enough, being in a church and all, and
that he almost — almost — forwent his rampage because they had been so
courteous to him. Roof might be cracked — there was some serious question as to
whether he was in fact mentally fit to stand trial for his crimes — but then so
are many Islamist suicide-bombers and Taliban beheaders.
Like that of any jihadist, his aim was to disrupt the
American order, political and social. He should be understood in that context.
Here I will anticipate an objection: As with the case of
hate crimes, the case of terrorism is defined in no small part by motive as
well. There isn’t a good reason to shoot up a church full of peaceable
worshippers, and there isn’t a good reason to fly an airliner into an office
tower, either, and what happened on September 11, 2001, was not 2,996 ordinary
homicides. But the opinion that black people are in some way inferior and
vicious is, though wicked and wrong, different from the opinion that the United
States government should be violently overthrown or that a bloody race war
should be launched on June 17, 2015. Perhaps I am cutting it fine here, but I
believe that the distinction is an important one: a terroristic attack on
African Americans per se ought to be understood as a terroristic attack on the
United States per se rather than as homicide multiplied by racism.
So, should he die?
It is not mercy to forgo putting to death those who do
not deserve it — that is only simple justice. Mercy is found in forgoing to put
to death those who do deserve to endure that penalty. There are many occasions
upon which that may be possible or even desirable. But the body politic acting
through the instrument of the state in defense of the integrity of the American
corporation as a whole owes it to each of its members to pursue the maximum
sanction without reservation or apology. Dylann Roof’s jihad may in fact be
less of a realistic threat than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s, but it ought to be
understood as a specimen of the same species.
Murder was not his only crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment