Nikolas Cruz case is one of the current criminal issues meeting Durkheimian sociology facts. He was accused of shooting and killing 17 people in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland on February 14, 2018 (DPIC, 2022). In 2019 the prosecutors rejected Cruz’s defense offer when he tried to plead guilty. He was pleading for 34 consecutive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. However, the prosecutors decided to push for capital punishment sentence in 2021. This was based on Cruz’s plead guilty to 17 murders and 17 attempts of murder. Jurors in each of the 17 accounts of murder found that there was aggravating evidence; however, three jurors found that aggravating evidence was weaker than mitigating evidence (DPIC, 2022). According to Benjamin Thomas, in an interview with CBS Miami, one of the jurors believed that the death penalty was not the appropriate punishment for Cruz (DPIC, 2022). This argument was based on the psychiatric reports that Cruz had a mental illness. The other two jurors voted to spare Cruz’s life. Cruz was sentenced to life without parole by a Florida jury.
Why was the aggravating evidence from prosecutors considered weak compared to the defendants mitigating evidence? The defense team provided evidence that Cruz was diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood caused by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The witness testified that throughout Cruz’s mother’s pregnancy, she abused alcohol and cocaine (DPIC, 2022). On the other, Cruz’s adoptive parents ignored the developmental and behavioral symptoms, which barred him from getting appropriate treatment. Melisa McNeill, in her defense, described Cruz as “a brain-damaged, broken, mentally ill person, though no fault of his own” (DPIC, 2022). Then she asked the JuryJury, “in a civilized, humane society, do we kill brain-damaged, mentally ill, broken people? I hope not” (DPIC, 2022). This comment is directly related to Emile Durkheim’s sociological theories.
Crime is inevitable in society; however, when solved correctly, it can be functional to society. Durkheim argued that crime is inevitable since not all members of society are committed to collective norms (Thompson, 2016). Some individuals in society are exposed to distinct circumstances that make them break the law. In this case, Cruz could not function properly in normal society due to external influences that controlled his actions. It is through deviant behavior that social norms change. If Cruz were convicted in the 1980s, he would receive the death penalty. According to retribution theory, Cruz deserved the death penalty. They believe crime should be matched with exact punishment (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). Since Cruz was convicted of murder, he deserved to be killed too. The cause of his actions was irrelevant to retribution arguments. However, desserts believe Cruz received punishment but not the death penalty. According to desserts, an eye for an eye is not a suitable punishment, and the criminals should be sympathized with (Cullen & Jonson, 2017). In this case, the desserts will agree with the JuryJury but not retribution.
This is also consistent with Cullen & Jonson’s argument that the cause of crime should be identified before sentencing the criminals (2017). Cruz did not deserve the death penalty because his actions were controlled by external factors such as mental illness. Durkheim argued that the primary objective of punishment was to eradicate crimes. Its primary purpose is crime control and collective sentiment maintenance. This is against retribution punishment which focuses on eradicating the crimes and criminals in society. Durkheim’s argument supports Cullen and Jonson’s suggestion that the primary goal of punishment is reducing criminal activities in society and not just causing pain to the offenders (2017). They also argue that the justice institution should focus on identifying the leading cause of crime and effectively devise ways to eradicate those influences. Therefore, Durkheim, Cullen, and Jonson (2017) agree with the court decision and defense argument that Cruz did not deserve the death penalty since he killed (deviant behavior) out of external influence.
Policymakers and leaders should enact laws that minimize retribution in law enforcement institutions. They should focus on strategies that promote collective social norms which are acceptable to all. However, when a person breaks them, their crimes should not be, matched with punishment; instead, they should employ methods that reduce crime in society. Some methods include education, health, economic, and social development.
References
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Correctional theory: Context and consequences (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications.
Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). (2022). Non-unanimous Florida jury sentences Nikolas Cruz to life without parole for Parkland school shootings. Retrieved on October 18, 2022, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/non-unanimous-florida-jury-sentences-nikolas-cruz-to-life-without-parole-for-parkland-school-shootings
Thompson, K. (2016). The functionalist perspective on crime and deviance. Crime and Deviance Social Theory. Retrieved from https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/03/functionalist-explanations-of-deviance/
write