The Justice Department is pushing for the execution of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker" charged with conspiracy in the Sept. 11 attacks. At the time, Moussaoui, a French citizen, was spending a month imprisoned in a Minneapolis jail for visa violations.
This is the first time the United States government has sought the death penalty for a person accused of conspiracy. Legal experts question the actions of the Justice Department because Moussaoui was not directly involved in the attacks. Federal law requires that one of four conditions must be met in order to receive the death penalty; two of these requirements hold that the criminal must be directly involved. The department, however, believes that Moussaoui is liable under the two other, indirect conditions. These demand that since Moussaoui participated in an action with the intent of killing others, he must be held accountable as though he actually killed.
The United States is having a problem with finding the appropriate person to blame. It is unclear if Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, and, of course, all of the other participants in the attacks died before the law could ever reach them.
This leaves Moussaoui, the bad guy who Attorney General John Ashcroft easily, but also understandably, points the finger at to assign direct blame for the worst crime in American history. If he is guilty of the charges, Moussaoui deserves death because it's the punishment our legal system reserves for our most heinous criminals.
But the problem with the Justice Department's decision is that it relies on the emotional power of the attacks to develop its case. There is no legal precedent for seeking the death penalty for an indirect participant, and the department has not disclosed proper evidence that Moussaoui is entirely culpable.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that indicates Moussaoui assisted in coordinating the attack, even if he did not play a direct role. He enrolled in flight school, inquired about crop dusters, and received money from the same man who funded the attacks. He refused to enter a plea "in the name of Allah" (the judge interpreted this as a plea of "not guilty"), and reportedly laughed and expressed his disgust for America when he witnessed Ground Zero firsthand.
This does not, however, legally establish that Moussaoui had a direct hand in the deaths of over 3,000 people. It is for the sake of our justice system that even a person as despicable as Moussaoui deserves a fair trial. As indicated in the bin Laden videotape, Moussaoui could have been one his dupes who were not aware that the hijacked planes were designed to crash into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.
If the department establishes conspiracy as a capital offense, it then sets the precedent that we can execute individuals for crimes they have not committed. The Justice Department has used circumstantial evidence as a reason to call for the death penalty because our outrage over the attacks allows them to get away with it.
Most people couldn't care less about what happens to Moussaoui, but that does not mean the legal system can afford to make an exception, even under the worst circumstances. What happens in his trial will be judged by the entire world, and the best way to demonstrate that our system works is if we use facts and judicial precedent to make our case, rather than emotion.
