Charles Krauthammer gives a cogent, un-Oprah rationale for the death sentence (it doesn’t involve “closure”):
“I am no great fan of the death penalty. I oppose it in almost all cases, though not on principle. There are crimes — high, monstrous and rare — that warrant the ultimate sanction.
“Not because it is a deterrent; the evidence for deterrence is very equivocal. And not, as our Oprah-soaked sentimentalism suggests, to bring closure to the victim’s family. Family has nothing to do with it. It is The State v. The Miscreant , not the family v. the miscreant. And punishment is meant to do more than just bring order to the state; it brings moral order to the universe. Some crimes are so terrible that the moral balance of the universe remains disturbed so long as the perpetrator walks the earth.”
Krauthammer believes (as do I) that Moussaoui got the right sentence-for the wrong reasons:
“In the Moussaoui case, there were three plausible grounds for mitigation: insignificance, lunacy or deprivation. Insignificance would have been my choice. Moussaoui was hardly even a cog. If he had any role in Sept. 11, which is doubtful, it was extremely peripheral. He was a foot soldier in an army of evil, but he never got a chance to practice his craft. That warrants life, not hanging. …
“Yet the bit-player argument seems to have been a mitigating circumstance for only three of the 12 jurors. And none cited a second possible factor, weaker than the first but still plausible: psychosis. …
“Moussaoui is more in that equivocal [John] Hinckley category. He clearly is delusional, but he is also clever, aware and savagely cruel, as he demonstrated in taunting the Sept. 11 families. Nonetheless, he seemed to me just deranged enough to be spared execution on an admittedly close insanity call.
“But that appears not to be why the jury spared him. Instead, fully nine of 12 jurors found mitigation in his ‘unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family,’ lack of ‘structure and emotional and financial support’ and ‘hostile relationship with his mother.’ Plus the father with the ‘violent temper.’
“The jury foreman tells The Post that only two of the jurors voted against the death penalty. Nonetheless, these childhood deprivations were cited more than any others as mitigating factors. What a trivial consideration. So Moussaoui had a tough childhood. I’m sure Pol Pot’s was no bed of roses either. Who gives a damn? On those grounds, there is not a killer in history who cannot escape judgment. What next? The Twinkie defense — the junk food made me do it — for Khalid Sheik Mohammed?”