Spring Break
What is the value of justice when dealing with human life?
Seth Anthony
Issue date: 6/25/08 Section: Opinion
Prosecutor John Hower commented, "We believe it is a very just verdict."
Monica Owens, the mother of the man who now faces death for his crimes, sees things differently.
She commented after the trial that she wanted "to let the jurors and the mothers that wish death upon my son [know] that to me they're no different than what they accuse him of, this murder."
Few people would say that there's a moral equivalence between the deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian Wolfe and the possible execution of Sir Mario Owens. The intensity of her words, though, is understandable, from a mother who has just learned that she's going to lose her son, not just to prison, but for good.
The nugget of truth in her statement is that the mothers and the jurors, through their declarations and their verdicts, do "wish death" upon Owens. They desire that he die in order that justice be served.
Sir Mario Owens also desired that Javad and Vivian die when he ambushed their car on an Aurora street corner, but for different reasons.
Any legal system takes intent into account, and the intent behind these two wishes for death is what causes us to call one "justice" and the other "murder." It's that threshold of intent that our society uses to either sanction or condemn the taking of life.
Before the death sentence was announced, Rhonda Fields said that, to murderers like Owens, "human life is nothing."
I was brought up to believe that human life is of immeasurable value.
It turns out, according to our legal system, that it's somewhere in between.
The human life of Sir Mario Owens appears to be worth only slightly less than the value of our collective sense of "justice." At least the cosmic ledger sheets are balanced.
Seth Anthony is a graduate student working towards his doctorate in chemistry. His column appears occasionally in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.
Monica Owens, the mother of the man who now faces death for his crimes, sees things differently.
She commented after the trial that she wanted "to let the jurors and the mothers that wish death upon my son [know] that to me they're no different than what they accuse him of, this murder."
Few people would say that there's a moral equivalence between the deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian Wolfe and the possible execution of Sir Mario Owens. The intensity of her words, though, is understandable, from a mother who has just learned that she's going to lose her son, not just to prison, but for good.
The nugget of truth in her statement is that the mothers and the jurors, through their declarations and their verdicts, do "wish death" upon Owens. They desire that he die in order that justice be served.
Sir Mario Owens also desired that Javad and Vivian die when he ambushed their car on an Aurora street corner, but for different reasons.
Any legal system takes intent into account, and the intent behind these two wishes for death is what causes us to call one "justice" and the other "murder." It's that threshold of intent that our society uses to either sanction or condemn the taking of life.
Before the death sentence was announced, Rhonda Fields said that, to murderers like Owens, "human life is nothing."
I was brought up to believe that human life is of immeasurable value.
It turns out, according to our legal system, that it's somewhere in between.
The human life of Sir Mario Owens appears to be worth only slightly less than the value of our collective sense of "justice." At least the cosmic ledger sheets are balanced.
Seth Anthony is a graduate student working towards his doctorate in chemistry. His column appears occasionally in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.
Be the first to comment on this story