Lombardo 1

Julia Lombardo

Dr. Kimberly Gunter

Texts and Contents EN 11

11 December 2017

The Terror of Death Row

April 19, 1995, September 11, 2001, December 2, 2015, these dates in American History

are some of the most beautiful days blue skies, cool breezes, the epitome of perfect weather.

And yet they also have some of the most horrifying similarities: attacks of terror and loss of

innocent life. The morning of October 1, 2017 started out just the same as the other dates; a

stunning day turned gruesomea gunman from Iowa fired upon a crowd at a Las Vegas country

music festival killing some and wounding more. For most, these days remain beautiful; maybe

one sees a headline on the news or an instagram post, but the day goes by as if nothing happened.

Unfortunately for me, this was not the case. My aunt and uncle were victims of the attack, both

shot while trying to flee the scene. The weeks that followed were pure chaos and hardship for my

family. Trauma-one doctor appointments, surgeries, bullet shrapnel remnants, bloody clothing

things I never imagined I would ever see. My family will forever be affected by this attack; my

aunt and uncles physical scars dont compare to the emotional ones we have all just started to

try and heal.

Terrorists are responsible for the homicides and injuries of one, two, ten, hundreds, or

thousands of people. These people, very much innocent, suffer pain, panic, and fear in some of

the most terrifying and saddening last moments of life. But unlike murderers or serial killers,

who are responsible for just the same, terrorists commit an attack on the country. There is

betrayal, treason, and clear intent to harm the security and stability of an entire community. The
 Lombardo 2

death penalty is argued to be an inhumane display of a twisted eye-for-an-eye game in real life.

But what I have figured is that terrorism is not an act of an eye-for-an-eye. Its sole purpose is to

evoke nationwide fright, panic, loss, chaos, and tragedy. The aim of a terrorist is not revenge,

and neither is the sentence of capital punishment. It is instead a dissuasion of future horrid

crimes. To give a terrorist the same sentence as that of a murderer or a rapist is ignominious. If

terror attacks are to be described by our presidents as days that will live in infamy, we need to

hold our justice system to a high standard and demand punishment appropriate for the crime of

terrorismthe death penalty (Kennedy).

The death penalty is the epitome of consequence for crime in the United States. And yet,

terrorism capital punishment cases at the federal level tend to be rare. Of the 151 cases brought

to the federal level, a staggering 65% resulted in life sentences and only 35% of these cases

resulted in death sentences (Tunis 2). At the federal level, politicians are wary of making

decisions that would chance their incumbency for following yearsthis includes favoring the

death penalty. They tend to not be vocal on the subject and instead speak through the Supreme

Court justices of which they approve or disapprove of. Though the decision is one vulnerable to

much ridicule, the death penalty will forever be part of American politics, especially if it will be

utilized as a deterrent to terrorism. Despite the inhumanity of death rowthe forced, planned

execution of a personthe lack of humanity that terrorists harbor when killing innocent people

does not compare. If their victims were not given the opportunity to live, neither should terrorists

be given that privilege. Jurors involved in capital punishment terrorism cases at the federal level

seem to believe the same; their willingness to execute is a reflection of the pain felt from the

lives lost of their fellow countrymen. In the past two decades, both the Boston Bombing
 Lombardo 3

Terrorism trial and the Oklahoma City Bombing trial resulted in the jurors unanimously

sentencing the bombers to their deaths.

Terrorism, as such an intense form of crime and national hate, is worthy of immediate

consideration of capital punishment when involved with the courts. Largely publicized, infamous

terror attacks unfortunately make waves through the American media annually. And shockingly

enough, most of the United States federal trials of these perpetrators rarely conclude with a trip

to death row. In the past twenty-four years, there have been fourteen instances where legal teams

have strived to sentence terrorists to death row, and yet only once were they successful (Hager

1). Despite the eagerness of prosecutors to execute terrorists, and the threat they pose to society,

terrorism has only been considered a crime worthy of the death penalty twice since 1994 (Hager

1). The government tends to limit itself to using the death penalty. Their decision is a reflection

of the country as a whole rather than the small portion of people it would be representative of at

the state level. Due to divide in opinion of the American government as to whether or not to use

the death penalty, there are fewer tendencies in which the federal government does.

The United States Federal Government has attempted to strengthen their counterterrorism

aims a number of times in the past, the most successful being the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This act made it a federal crime to knowingly provide

material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization(Tunis 1). The government is

constantly trying to prevent large-scale terrorist attacks on the nation. By broadening the scope to

which involvement in terrorist attacks are worthy of the death penalty, the government increases

their use of capital punishment. The federal government through this law also distinguished how

effective they feel the death penalty is[it is] a popular tool in protecting the United States'

national security because it is a preventive measure(Tunis 1). The national security team in
 Lombardo 4

America deems capital punishment worthy of use as a deterrent of terrorism through the

AEDPA. It recognizes that the death penalty is not just a reactive measure. United States

national security believes that the death penalty has the power and force to prevent terror attacks

through intimidation factors alone. Law enforcement has noted a thirty-seven percent decrease

in terror attacks and attempts since the passing of the lawthousands of lives have been

saved(Tunis 1). The decrease in plotting underlines the apprehension and intimidation in the

atmosphere of the U.S. that the AEDPA is responsible for. Terrorists are clearly less likely to

carry out radical ideas.

The responsibility of the government is to disconnect, to remove itself from the feelings

of the public, to judge the evidence and facts of the case, and to provide justified consequences

to a criminals actions. In the book, Dead Man Walking, written by Sister Helen Prejean, the

author employs personal experiences as an opposition to the death penalty. As part of the earlier

chapters, Sister Prejean writes, For me, the unnegotiable moral bedrock on which society must

be built is that killing anyone, under any conditions, cannot be tolerated (Prejean 31). This

quote demonstrates a firm belief from the author that under no circumstances should murder be

allowed in a healthy community. In contrast, I believe the death penalty is a necessary part of

society. Terrorists pose an immense danger to human life, and not just to society outside the

prison walls but inside as well. Prejean thinks of the world through rose-colored glasses

although I hope there to be another option to eliminate the threat to life that terrorists present,

there is not yet another solution better than capital punishment. Later on in the book, Sister

Prejean recounts, This evenings encounter with the Harveys has to count as one of the most

painful of my life. Never have I met such unrequited grief (Prejean 144). Prejeans devotion to

the criminals she works with as a spiritual advisor is threatened by the feelings of utter
 Lombardo 5

devastation she experiences when she visits with the victims families. In regards to terror attacks

there is more frequently, not one, not two, but tens, hundreds, and thousands of victims families

left with feelings of agony and disclosure. I believe that the only way to provide closure is

through the death penalty. Not only for the victims, but the families, friends, and fellow citizens

betrayed by terror and in need of unification after utter devastation and tragedy.

The only terrorist executed by the United States government was a man born in America.

Terrorists are most often thought of as illegal aliens. People from other countries, other cultures,

other religions, targeting the United States for whatever values do not align with their own.

Timothy McVeigh, a decorated army veteran, killed 168 of his fellow citizens in April of 1995.

As the only terrorist executed by the United States federal government, it is shocking to see the

lack of restraint and questioning when it came to his execution versus the execution of, for

example, the most recent Boston Marathon bombing terrorist. The trials and sentencing went by

rather swiftly in comparison to other state level trials and capital punishment sentencing cases.

McVeigh was executed by lethal injectionhe purposely did not shoot himself prior to being

restrained by police because he felt the pain would be less if he died in prison or was murdered

by lethal injection through government processes. McVeigh was able to decide upon how he

wanted to die, when in contrast he violently took the choice away from the 168 victims that died

due to the effects of his weapons (Hager 1). The death penalty is absolutely necessary in these

cases. It provides the rightful ending to criminals who unjustly kill people, especially terrorists

who are responsible for the perishing of innocent children, women, and men.

The McVeigh case provides substantial evidence that the American public can be

persuaded to believe in the death penalty. Terrorism cases in general have proven to increase the

public support in general of the death penalty. Some analysts refer to it as the McVeigh Factor;
 Lombardo 6

the blatant increase in national support of the death penalty due to its effect on the country and

the nature of the killer (Sundby 1958). This slight shift in public belief is a significant reflection

of public sentiment. In regards to other cases, the death penalty is usually not particularly like

and accepted by the general public. If people are able to recognize that there is a difference

between terrorism and other cases, and believe in the death penalty in regards to terrorism there

would be an enormous step in the right direction. My personal experiences have affirmed my

belief that every terrorist to attack this country should be given the death penalty. If the

American public even in the slightest parallels this feeling, it asserts the necessity for the death

penalty.

Terrorism is unfortunately a part of American life, analogously so is the death penalty.

Though capital punishment may not have ties personal to the common citizen, it is relevant to the

justice system, to many of our fellow Americans, and especially to the victims of terrorist

attacks. Those who have passed are not able to speak on what they would like, and how they

would wish to handle their part in the trials and sentencing of terrorists responsible for their own

death. It is the responsibility of the American people to be aware of the death penalty, and to

educate themselves on capital punishment. Death row is a solution to eliminate menaces to life,

underline the consequences of terror acts on our nation, and find closure for the victims of terror

attacks and their families.

 Lombardo 7

Works Cited

Kennedy, John F. John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address. John F. Kennedy - Inaugural Address.

John F. Kennedy's Presidential Inauguration, 1961, Washington D.C,

Hager, Eli. America Hates Terrorists. The Marshall Project, 16 Nov. 2016,

www.themarshallproject.org/2015/01/27/america-hates-terrorists. Accessed 15 September 2017.

Prejean, Helen. Dead Man Walking. Vintage, 31 May 1994.

Sundby, Scott E. "The Death Penalty's Future: Charting the Crosscurrents of Declining Death

Sentences and the McVeigh Factor." Texas Law Review, vol. 84, no. 7, 2006, pp. 1955-1959,

ABI/INFORM Collection; ProQuest Central Essentials

Tunis, Brent. "Material-Support-to-Terrorism Prosecutions: Fighting Terrorism by Eroding Judicial

Review." American Criminal Law Review, Winter 2012, p. 269+. LegalTrac, Accessed 28 Nov.

2017.