Fascinating op-ed by the Unabomber’s brother, who had helped law enforcement capture murderous Ted way back a few years ago. The essay actually presents an interesting and perhaps unmeasurable point about deterrence and the death penalty, one that I haven’t seen mentioned before:
How many family members out there are harboring information about a loved one’s crimes because they fear that their hubby, brother or son etc. will be executed? More precisely, the deterrence types should focus on how to answer the question of marginal deterrence: for those families who know something, are they not disclosing information because they fear any punishment at all for their loved one, or specifically executions?
Ethan and I are planning to write an article in the not-too distant future on the problems Antigone-type figures, such as the Unabomber’s brother, face in the law. Thoughts are welcome.
Posted by Administrators on April 13, 2005 at 12:50 PM
Comments
Family members are likely to have both more information and more loyalty than anyone else. Not always, of course, but I’d say the Unabomber’s brother was as torn as anyone could be. Thus, putting it in the context of family highlights the issue in the starkest way possible, but you are right that the logic can apply elsewhere.
Posted by: amosanon1 | Apr 15, 2005 1:19:20 PM
Why are families different than others who have both incriminating information and loyalty to the suspect?
Posted by: Noel O’contend-Ray | Apr 15, 2005 1:07:04 PM
I like the Antigone parallel. I think you can make the interesting case that the family member is put in the most difficult of positions in the law stuck between the duty to the law and duty to family. In the Orestia, Antigone gets the worst of the punishments since Orestes gets to have a trial and reform the Furies to the Eumenides. I think you can keep that analogy going. The fear of potential punishment because of the very lightning-bolt throwing law enforcement system that has developed does discourage cooperation from the family member … who ends up in greater trouble once the original suspect is apprehended. The family member may be guilty of harboring a fugitive whether or not the fugitive is convicted of the crime charged or not. The ethical catch-22.
Posted by: Joel | Apr 15, 2005 9:48:18 AM