Death to the new Patriot Act

The death penalty is one of the most controversial institutions of the U.S. justice system. Thirty-eight states allow it -- a large majority, no question -- but public opposition is certainly not confined to the 12 dissenting states. Rather, opposition is distributed across the nation (except maybe the Texas part of the nation), orchestrated in part by national or even international organizations like Human Rights Watch. There seems to be a strong feeling in such organizations and throughout the broader intellectual community that killing criminals does not solve the ultimate problem.

Generally speaking, I agree.

But not where terrorists are concerned. Many Americans, myself included, view "terrorism" and domestic "crime" as two separate entities. Crime is often forgivable, while terrorism is unconditionally unforgivable. To be sure, images of Sept. 11, 2001 contrasted with images of jubilant jihadists make it easy to disassociate terrorists and humanity. If you're not convinced, realize that thousands of U.S. and British troops are deployed across the world with an objective to locate and kill terrorists anyway.

This is good. Terrorists threaten to destroy the world, it's better that they die than us, and the death penalty is just another tool to ensure that it happens. But what about the death penalty for those who are suspected of harboring or otherwise supporting terrorists?

Enter the Bush Administration. More specifically, enter the House of Representatives under the Bush Administration and its endorsement of a "bigger and better" (and Big Brotherer) Patriot Act.

It turns out that the time for reauthorization of the anti-terrorist law enacted four years ago has come, and, evidently delusional in their foggy Capitol Hill reality, members of the House have agreed that it would be a good idea to tack on a few provisions that would essentially remove the safeguards currently in place to prevent wrongful corporal punishment of suspected terrorist supporters. The provisions would also triple the number of terrorism-support crimes punishable by death, but, hey, let's not get sidetracked.

The issue is quite convoluted. In convicting a suspected terrorist supporter, a jury must consider the degree of support, the intent of support, the degree of willingness to cooperate with anti-terrorist forces and so on. International courts of law are designed to analyze these complexities and sentence with appropriate severity.

The death penalty is fair game, and I suppose I can't question a careful determination that support was substantial enough to more or less constitute terrorism itself and warrant corporal punishment.

But we clearly don't want the death penalty for those who unwittingly support terrorists. The global terrorist network is exceptionally intricate, and monetary donations to covertly connected organizations from well-meaning individuals can and do end up in terrorist hands. That's not terrorism. It's not even crime. It's misfortunate misallocation, and any responsible nation would have measures in place to ensure that such individuals would not be wrongfully punished. Don't we? Well, kind of, but probably not for long!

Approval of the House bill would be wildly irresponsible legislation, subjecting accused supporters to juries with fewer than 12 members if the prosecution feels so compelled -- notwithstanding appeals from the defense.

Additionally, hung juries would be replaced with new juries, a practice never before implemented in death penalty cases. What kind of logic is this? "Try them with as biased a jury as possible until they seem guilty enough to kill"?

The new provisions attach a haphazard death-sentencing addendum to an already somewhat ineffective and quixotic law, and unless the Senate can muster sufficient opposition, the changes will indeed take place. How many innocent people will be mistakenly sentenced to death before the Capitol Hill fog clears enough to notice the blunder? Well, probably no more than have died in Iraq. So that's good. Right?