Parkland Trial Sparks Death Penalty Debate
Credit: QuinceCreative from Pixabay
On Valentine’s Day of 2018, a mere seven minutes became one of the deadliest school shootings in American history, leaving 17 dead and 17 injured. Expelled student Nikolas Cruz entered the school alone, carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which he had purchased legally. The attack occurred in Parkland, Florida, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and has earned itself simply the title of “Parkland.”
The country was filled with outrage as demands rose for stricter gun control laws. For the first time in 30 years, Florida finally passed much-needed legislation. Florida permitted the use of firearms for school employees, instituted a three-day waiting period for transactions regarding guns and raised the legal age to purchase a gun to 21. Although this was all much-needed and helpful to the state and community, many argued that it was not enough. However, it is a good start. It provides a precedent for Florida and other conservative states to take action based on tragedies, although a tragedy should not be what needs to occur to push the country towards a more progressive future.
Recently, on Oct. 14, 2022, Cruz’s official sentence was revealed: a life sentence without the possibility of parole. This came as a surprise to many, since his crime was so heinous that several juries, along with some of the victim’s families, encouraged the death penalty. However, capital punishment cannot be enacted without an entire consensus of a jury, and Cruz’s jury voted 9-3 in favor of the death penalty, thus condemning him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
To many, including the emotion-filled, grieving family members of the victims, this is not sufficient. Ilan Alhadeff, whose daughter Alyssa was killed in the shooting, described feeling, “disgusted with the jurors.” The feelings of the families cannot be dismissed, however, denying Cruz the easy way out through the death penalty might just be a step in the correct direction for America.
For example, this case set a landmark by having an incredibly diverse 12-person jury. Representation from different political backgrounds and standpoints were present. There were several Democrats and Republicans, along with those who were unregistered. The age ranged from 24 to 59, and racially (as well as gender-wise) the jury was split. Similarly, the jury was split on gun legislation and career paths. Although this made the case hard to settle, different outlooks on life and on the issue itself were present. The diversity of the jury ended up allowing for a more progressive push for the future, ultimately ending in Cruz’s life sentence.
Furthermore, the death penalty is inherently evil. It goes directly against Article II of the Human Rights Act: the right to live. It is an “absolute right,” which means that it cannot be broken unless doing so prevents immediate and unlawful violence. In this case, Cruz’s violence is not immediate. If he was properly shot down by the police going into or during his massacre, then it would have fit under the article. Killing him after the deed is done simply drags the trial on longer as his team works for appeals, continuously demanding the families of the victims speak out in front of the public instead of allowing them time to grieve in privacy.
Likewise, Cruz’s family was not to blame in this situation: it was simply Cruz and Cruz himself. To kill him would be bringing unnecessary pain to his family: a group of innocents who now would have to deal with even more pain than their son has given them. Cruz’s mother, for example, was described as, “a great mom,” who raised Nikolas and his brother practically single-handedly as her husband died in front of the children from a heart attack. To put her and the rest of the Cruz family through more pain is simply a cruel and unusual punishment.
Speaking of which, the death penalty can constitute as going against the 8th Amendment, which forbids all punishments “cruel and unusual.” Murdering someone with money from the state through methods that often end up botched is overly cruel. Furthermore, once the perpetrator is put out of their misery, they find themselves no longer having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Rotting in jail is, to many, a much more sane yet demeaning method of punishment that can provide opportunities for offenders such as Cruz to get help and possibly grow as an individual.
The death penalty enacts revenge, and revenge is the easy way out. This is the reason why so many offenders who go on shooting sprees commit suicide. Similarly, revenge or vengeance is a concept based solely on emotion, and although emotion is crucial in situations such as Cruz’s, when it comes to the actual criminal justice system, law needs to be based on logic and reason and justice.
The concept of revenge is an old one. It comes from lex talionis, or, “an eye for an eye”. To be consistently living in the past based on this law not in a moral sense, but in a legal sense, is simply wrong. As a people, we must progress and move forward. Although pathos is utilized in winning over a jury on the premonition of guilt, the judge and the judge’s decision for punishment must be lawful and rational, and must not come from a place of feeling, but rather from a place of consideration. Simply: everyone has a right to justice.
Cruz himself is a distinct case, as well. His crime was repulsive and it was surprising that his life was spared, especially in Florida. However, this is a step in the right direction. If a man like Cruz can be spared, then those who are innocent have a better likelihood of being spared. It sets a precedent. If we are allowing criminals the basic right to live, then we are getting closer to abolishing capital punishment and protecting innocent souls in the future. While we salvage an evil soul, it acts as a sacrifice for the public good.