Some of my recent thoughts have wandered around two recent American Military trials, with different circumstances and outcomes.
These contrasting cases are those of Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan and Army Staff Sargent Robert Bales. Major Hasan was an American Muslim who killed American soldiers. Sargent Bales was an American Christian who killed foreign Muslim civilians. Hasan was sentenced to death and Bales was sentenced to life in prison.
Is the lesson from this that the Army (and American Society) values American lives more than others, or that an American killing Muslims is less wrong than a Muslim killing Americans? Of course it is more complicated than that; but certainly these are possible perceptions of the different outcomes of these trials.
On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, went on a rampage at the Military Base in Fort Hood Texas, killing 13 and injuring 30 others. He was wounded during his attack and became a paraplegic. Major Hasan had become increasingly radicalized by hearing stories told by returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He corresponded with radical Islamist Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (killed by a U.S. drone strike in September 2011). Major Hasan stated that he considered himself to be a “Soldier of Allah” and undertook the attack to further Isalm.
At the conclusion of his Military Trial on August 28, 2013, Major Hasan was sentenced to death.
This caused me to reflect on the recent outcome of the Military Trial of Staff Sargent Robert Bales, who on August 23, 2013 was sentenced to life in prison.
On March 11, 2012, Staff Sargent Robert Bales made two separate late night sorties from his base in Fort Lewis, Kandahar, Afghanistan to two villages where he killed 16 people and wounded 6 others. Nine of his victims were children. Sargent Bales pleaded guilty in his Military Trial and was sentenced to life in prison. At the time of his conviction Sargent Bales said that he did not know why he killed the civilians. This verdict outraged many people in Afghanistan who believed that he deserved death.
The U.S. Government accepted responsibility for Sargent Bales’ actions by paying $860,000 in compensation to the families of those who were killed and the survivors.
By contrast, the Army has not accepted responsibility for the actions of Major Hasan and the families of his victims are suing the Army for negligence.
I believe that nothing can undo the devastation caused by the violence in both of these cases. I also believe that the U.S. Government should accept responsibility for both cases and offer compensation.
I wonder why death is appropriate in one case but not in the other? Is killing anyone ever justified? I believe that further killing only debases us and does not bring justice and healing – but most other people in this country do not agree.
What do we gain from our recent wars abroad? Are Iraq and Afghanistan better off after thousands upon thousands of deaths? Does our violence blow back on us in unforeseen ways?
I have not reached comforting conclusions from my thought experiment comparing these two cases. I am left with too many questions with out clear answers and lingering feelings of fatigue and sadness.
I look to others for encouragement that our efforts to promote peace and understanding will bear fruit someday.
Randy Best
Leader, Ethical Huamnist Society of the Triangle
Jack van Dijk says
Obviously I am against the death penalty, I am also against life-long prison sentences. In extreme cases (Breitvik in Norway who got life in prison = 21 years, the murderer of Van Gogh in the Netherlands) a long prison term can be extended if no change in insight has occurred. Should someone who is 86 years old and still in prison, stay there? Someone who is 54 and has been in prison for 30 years?
By talking about these two examples one looks at the result of punishment on the back end of the sentence. Revenge is long gone at that point.
James Coley says
Randy: Thanks for this thoughtful, and thought-provoking, blog post. It is indeed instructive to compare these two cases.
About the same number of people were killed in these horrifying rampages. In one case, there is the sentence of execution, in the other, life in prison.
Can the difference in sentencing be ethically justified? I share your view that it can not, and I believe that it is indeed true that most Americans value the lives of other Americans more than those of people from elsewhere in the world.
Is this morally defensible? It would seem that it is not, and that it is inconsistent with ethics based on the impartial love of all of Humanity.
You ask whether killing anyone is ever justified. This question in your blog post is in the context of capital punishment, but a related question is that of self-defense.
Randy, I would like to ask you this question: Is it ever justified to kill in self-defense, or in defense of third parties? If the answer is “Yes” then the answer to whether killing anyone is ever justified is also “Yes.”
Consider yet another horrifying rampage: the one at the Navy Yard. The shooter was killed in gunfire between himself and law enforcement agents, defending both themselves and others.
I would say they were morally justified in doing so.
Randy Best says
James –
Thanks for your probing questions.
I believe that Capital Punishment is not justified. As for killing in self defense, I see it as a matter for individual choice. I do not believe that I could kill in self-defense, but I would not condemn someone else who acted in self-defense. As the Trayvon Martin case illustrated, issues of self-defense are often not easy to discern.
I do support police action to stop killings in process. I do not have difficulty reconciling this position with my personal choice not to kill.
I believe that killing is wrong and should only be considered under extreme circumstances.