Richard Reid, Delusions, and Perceptions

Today, a federal judge in Massachussetts sentenced attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid [BBC] to multiple terms of life imprisonment. Reid and the judge had a nice little shouting match [CNN] following the pronouncement of sentence, which the media (of course) enjoyed immensely.

In my opinion, Reid got what he deserved, for attempting to kill a couple hundred people by blowing their airplane out of the sky. There’s not really a lot that needs to be said about that. He’ll rot in the federal pen for the rest of his life, which (pending the whims of his cellmates) may be long or short. So it goes.

My observations have to do with two comments, one by the US Attorney prosecuting the case, and the other by a BBC World Service anchor reporting on the case.

“The sentence imposed today by the court sends out a strong message, not only to Richard Reid, but to others who harbor hate towards, and are committed to violence against, the United States. Our country is committed in its resolve to protect our liberties and to eradicate terrorism. Reid now stands sentenced as a member of al-Qaeda…”
     — US Attorney Mike Sullivan (as transcribed from BBC video)

Politicians like to talk, and clearly Sullivan was happy to get some face time in front of the cameras. But does he honestly think today sent any meaningful message, other than “Prepare to die in jail if you don’t succeed in killing yourself”? He’s pretty deluded if he thinks there’s a terrorist wannabe sitting in a cave in Pakistan thinking “oh, crap, some American lawyer’s coming after me, I’d better shape up!” All tossing Reid in jail does is to take him, one guy, off the playing field. That’s beneficial in and of itself (Reid won’t be trying to blow up any more American planes), but there really isn’t any deterrent value to it — al-Qaeda is going to keep trying to commit acts of terror until it is wiped off the map. The lack of deterrent value leaves Sullivan’s statement as pure political posturing, which I (for one) could have done without.

The second observation is peripheral to the terror issue, but does give us an insight into British/European perceptions of America and its legal process. BBC The World Today anchor Owen Bennett-Jones interviewed correspondent Fergal Parkinson live from Boston on the 2300 GMT (1800 US-Eastern) broadcast, and asked him twice about Reid not being sentenced to death.

Bennett-Jones (incredulously): So, how did he avoid the death sentence?
Parkinson: Well, basically, uh, uh, essentially, nobody died, and the prosecution say (sic) that the death sentence in federal cases is only asked for if there are any deaths, and in this case, ah, death was avoided. He didn’t manage to light that explosive concealed in his shoe, so nobody died, so the death sentence was, uh, not called for.
Bennett-Jones: And did his plea of guilty help him?
Parkinson: It didn’t, at all. He, ah, received life—
Bennett-Jones (interrupting): But did it help him avoid the death sentence?
Parkinson: No, at all, because nobody died in tha-, in that case. Nobody died o-, on the flight, so the death sentence was never asked for. He received life without the possibility ever of parole.

Was Bennett-Jones trying to paint the American legal system as bloodthirsty, or did it just come out that way as a result of his (typically European) anti-death penalty bias? Or was he influenced by his time as the BBC’s Islamabad (Pakistan) correspondent?

America’s legal system doesn’t execute people because we just don’t like them. The death penalty applies solely in cases of brutal, pre-meditated murder (no matter what scale), and is almost always applied to the actual shooter (bomber, knife-man, etc.) only, almost never to co-conspirators. I’d have a problem with executions for other crimes (other than perhaps rape, which is arguably worse than murder for its long-term psychological effects on the victim). Parkinson tried to get that through on his first response to Bennett-Jones, and Bennett-Jones didn’t get it at all. Instead he kept pushing for some statement that would portray the death penalty and the American system in the most negative light possible — that we would kill Reid for an attempted crime based on the ideology behind the attempt. Props to Parkinson for not swallowing the bait.