What’s Wrong With “Vengeance”?

Brauchler & Holmes

Since Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler’s announcement last week that he would seek the death penalty in the murder trial of James Egan Holmes for the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, that left 12 dead and 58 wounded, criticism and protest have come from many quarters. Aside from those who are out-and-out against capital punishment, the focus has been on the logic and morality of taking the life of someone who is clearly mentally ill, and possibly schizophrenic.

Killing someone like that, the reasoning goes, is neither punishment nor deterrence. Rather, it is merely vengeance.

Brauchler has stated that he consulted with hundreds of victims and their survivors before deciding on his course. This in itself has been criticized, as these people could not possibly be objective. “If it was one of my friends or relatives who was killed, I’d want him executed, too,” is a frequent refrain, implying that such survivor status actually disqualifies a person from making an informed judgment about what the defendant’s sentence should be if he is convicted.

The Oxford English Dictionary‘s primary definition of vengeance is: “The act of avenging oneself or another; retributive infliction of injury or punishment; hurt or harm done from vindictive motives.” If you then go to the definition of vindictive, you come up with such terms as “justify,” “defend,” “punish” and “set free.”

So really, what’s wrong with vengeance? In its classic definitions, isn’t that what we’re after?

Like the definition of gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the definition of victims’ rights has evolved over the past quarter century. And the way it has evolved is to give victims some legitimate standing in the criminal justice system. Yes, one aim is to deal properly with someone who has committed an offense against society. But another aim, we are coming to realize, is to make victims feel that the system is trying to offer them justice by balancing the offense against the consequences to the extent that it can.

Interestingly enough, most of the commentary I have read against seeking the death penalty for Mr. Holmes does not seem to object to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. But if the death penalty is inappropriate for such a mentally deranged individual, isn’t this punishment just as harsh and unfair?

So what else should we do with him?

Here’s the reality: If there is any justice and logic in the world, then one way or another, James Holmes is never going to walk the streets again as a free man. He is also never going to be “rehabilitated,” since that would imply – in the words of the brilliant forensic psychologist Stanton Samenow – that he had been “habilitated” in the first place.

So if you want to spend the money and take up the resources to warehouse this guy for the next half century or so with no goal in mind other than ultimately to carry him out in a box, fine. If that makes most people feel nobler or more humane, I have no real objection.

But we owe the victims, as well as ourselves, at least that much.

•