On Wednesday, the United States government announced that it had reached a plea deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—the accused principal architect of the 9/11 attacks—and two alleged co-conspirators, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi. All of them have been held at Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba since 2003.
In a letter to families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims sent by the Defense Department’s Office of the Chief Prosecutor for Military Commissions, the government explained that “In exchange for the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment, these three Accused have agreed to plead guilty to all of the charged offenses, including the murder of the 2,976 people listed in the charge sheet, and to be later sentenced by a panel of military officers.”
This news puts opponents of the death penalty in an awkward position. Surely, if anyone deserves the ultimate punishment for their horrible crimes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his collaborators would be at the top of the list. They would qualify as being among what law professor and death penalty supporter Robert Blecker calls “the worst of the worst.”
Abolitionists should not be afraid to say that.
But deservedness is not all there is in any punishment decision. Other things come into play, including the costs in time, money, and emotional distress of seeking a particular punishment.
AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Sherrilyn Ifill
Why Joe Biden Couldn’t Hold Back on Supreme Court Reform Any Longer
Read MoreWhen deciding about punishment, we rightly weigh pragmatic considerations, including whether any given punishment will make us safer or instead incite others to commit new crimes.
And for abolitionists, cases of mass murder and terrorism are the hardest cases and the most difficult politically. Should abolitionists take solace in the plea deal for the 9/11 terrorists and use this case to remind Americans that no one, not even the three terrorists in Guantanamo, ever deserves to........