I’ve been thinking a lot
recently about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s sentence. The infamous Boston Marathon
Bomber was sentenced to death a few weeks ago, with the trial drawing a lot of
the attention from the media and the public, as anyone who has turned on the TV
or looked at the news over the last year will know. I always find myself
feeling slightly uncomfortable watching coverage of these kinds of high profile
trials for a number of reasons.
The media always loves a
spectacle. The more terrible things in the world are, the happier FOX and CNN
are. Some networks, of course, are worse in this regard than others, but even
the most unbiased news networks enjoy a spectacle simply because their viewers
enjoy one. It’s simple logic. We get endless reports about the heroics of the
rescue services involved, stories from the survivors, and interviews with the
teary eyed family members of the dead, speaking of how they can finally have
peace now they’ve achieved justice.
Now, I’m being cynical, but it
is an undeniable fact that the public, you and I included, feeds the cyclical
nature of the news. Even now, only a few weeks after the sentencing, the amount
of coverage has dropped drastically in lieu of other more pressing news
stories, and it will remain this way until some other revelatory event happens.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his older brother, and their victims will be forgotten again
by the bloodlusting public for a time. People react to these cases very
emotionally, whether in anger at the act itself or elation at the sentence. Yet,
as soon as it isn’t flashed in their faces every waking moment, the emotions
slip their mind. I don’t blame people for this (the average individual has far
too many worries on their hands to be concerned with the sentencing of some
terrorist). However, the more I think about it, the more I find myself
wondering: does this not lend a false air to their cries for justice?
The argument can probably be
made in relation to any major news story from terrorist attacks to natural
disasters, and I am not saying it’s ever going to change. However, surely if
such emotive reactions were sincere then they would last a little longer, with
more depth? I suppose this is beside the main point of this essay, which I am
getting to, but I think it is very important to consider the manner in which we
are affected by a sensationalist media, one that loves to stoke the fire.
And here, I reach the problem I set
out to write about: Tsarnaev’s death sentence.
I am not a supporter of the
death penalty and never will be. My reasons are long and varied, but they
effectively boil down to a belief that the death sentence is institutionalized
murder. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some people out there who could
not be rehabilitated, would waste taxpayer money in the prison system, and the
world could generally do without. However, I think these people are surely few
and far between, and it is impossible for a bureaucracy weed these individuals
out. How can a society hope to uphold civil rule of law when its government is
exempt from the same rules?
The media attention, people’s
overly (empty?) emotional reactions, and my pre-ingrained biases in regards to
the death penalty all combine to leave me incredibly uneasy over this case. I
simply can’t help but feeling have not seen the results of a trial, but that of
a witch hunt. Tsarnaev’s trial represents an entire nation in search of
vindication. This is an incredibly dangerous president to set, and we see the
same mentality in the biases present throughout the west concerning Muslims and
Middle-Easterners.
Now, I’m all for patriotism and
I am certainly all for justice. However, it is an incredibly slippery slope
once we, the public and the government, begin making examples of certain
individuals in the way that America seems to have done with Tsarnaev. This is a
problem present throughout western nations, not just the United States; in
Canada, as much as any other country, we are so brainwashed into a fear of the
“terrorist threat” that we allow bills such as C-24 and C-51 to be passed.
As we have seen with the
Tsarnaev trial, people are scared and they are angry; scared and angry people
tend to lash out.
And, finally, I come back to
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev himself. The boy was only nineteen at the time of the attacks,
barely more than a kid. By all accounts, he was a caring, good natured kid, who
idolized his older brother. He was not the mastermind in this plot, simply a
pawn. This does not excuse his horrific actions, but it does provide some
context for them. We’ve all been there: confused, young, alone, tired of
constantly putting up a façade and hoping for a chance to do something
meaningful with our lives. His older brother’s radicalization provided Dzhokhar
an opportunity to do something meaningful, and, for better or worse, he took
it.
I guess I’m just trying to say
that evil acts do not make evil people. This was a confused – probably
depressed and lonely – young man who was presented a way to do something
meaningful. I don’t mean to say he should not be punished, but can’t we show at
least a minute amount of compassion, the slightest bit of understanding?
Dzhokhar Tsarvaev’s sentence saddened
me, but it did not surprise me. I’ve been trying to work out my thoughts in
order to write this piece for a while now. I suppose I expected it, but hoped
for a different outcome to the trial. Many people reading this (not that anyone
actually reads this blog) will probably not understand where I’m coming from,
so I was hesitant to voice my thoughts, lest I not articulate them clearly. These
sorts of cases continually inspire a “you’re either with us or against us”
mentality, that extends even to these at home discussions.
That said, I hope I’ve
articulated my thoughts clearly. Anyone reading this, I’d be interested to know
what you think! Message me on facebook or comment on here. Do you agree or disagree?
Why or why not? I value all kinds of feedback, and I love debate and
discussion.
As always, thanks for taking the
time to read my rambling!
No comments:
Post a Comment