 |
 |
 |
 |
Helping Karl
Las Vegas Optic
November 2007
Families Suffer on Both Sides
We’ve heard the question more than once: “What about the victim’s rights?” It’s a haunting question, especially in the case of murder, because of course the victim’s rights have been permanently taken away — and there’s no way to restore them.
The question is often raised by those who know they will never see their loved one again. They often ask the question with a level of hostility against a judicial system that grants inalienable rights to the accused. And while their resentment is understandable, our standard of justice requires that even the worst offenders be given a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.
Those who defend the criminals, however, often point to a time in which the offender was himself victimized. And, indeed, things like child abuse often lead to destructive and violent behavior. But there comes an age of accountability in which all must be held responsible for their actions, regardless of what led them there.
Unfortunately, however, the offender cannot bear the entire burden of his or her actions. Aside from the victim, at least two families will also suffer the consequences of their behavior.
The Karl Chamberlain case is an example of what we’re talking about.
Chamberlain raped and murdered a woman 16 years ago in Dallas. We don’t know the victim’s family, so we can only imagine the suffering that they have gone through as a result of this violent crime. Surely time healed some of their wounds, but that doesn’t discount the terrible pain they went through all these years. But the suffering doesn’t stop there.
Las Vegas resident Muina Arthur, Chamberlain’s mother, also has a terrible burden to bear. Not only does she have a son in jail, but she is forced to wait for him to die at the hands of the state of Texas. She knows he must pay a price for what he did, but, like any good mother, she continues to love him — and wants his life spared.
More than anyone else, she sees the humanity that will be taken away when his death sentence is carried out. She must also live with the reality that there are people who would gladly administer the lethal injection he awaits. And, not surprisingly, she opposes the death penalty.
For most of us, the death penalty is an abstract issue, meaning nothing of consequence in our daily lives. To Muina Arthur, her belief that the death penalty is grounded in personal suffering.
If criminals could know beforehand how much their actions would hurt those they love, like their own mother, perhaps the world would be a safer place. When violent offenders are punished, so are their families. Muina Arthur can attest to that, as can her imprisoned son.
Violent crimes have grave consequences. Our heart goes out to everyone involved.
Optic Editorial Board
Las Vegas Optic
6th December 2007
