timothy j mcveigh was pronounced dead at 7:14 am, central time.
McVeigh vs Death Penalty
by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
OrangeBlossom
I hope the victims of the Oklahoma bombing can now find closure and begin rebuilding their lives to whatever extent possible. No one can truly rebuild with the loss of a loved one, but if they can continue on in their lives a little easier now, with this person gone, then I am happy for them. He is one person who had control of his death, 168 people did not.
-
mommy
Harmony,
Your post brought tears to my eyes.Logical,
I agree! May God have mercy on their soul? That has to be the most hypocritical statement. I do believe they do say that in real life.I would just like to point out one thing to Six of nine, you said there is nothing wrong with revenge. I will bet you $100 monoply $ there is a man sitting on death row, waiting to be executed, by this fine judicial sytem we have, who murdered a man or woman out of revenge.
Obviously by the amoounts of responses this subject is very debatable on either side. I am glad to be able to read the responses you have all given.
wendy -
Englishman
BBC Radio 2 today held a moderated radio phone in concerning the USA's stance on the death penalty.
Of particular interest was the UK Daily Mail reporter who, having witnessed 2 executions already, said that lethal injection was just like watching a hospital procedure, the electric chair gave a far greater sense of drama and was much more satisfactory to the onlookers.
Many people wanted to know how the US could be so outraged at the Oklahoma bombing when President Clinton offered hospitality to known IRA bombers during his presidency, and greatly offended English people by so doing.
Others said that executions should be televised so that the enormity of the punishment was brought home to be an effective deterrent.
..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
-
SixofNine
Your probably right, however i would not be viewing the issue objectively.
IMO, on the contrary, I think you would then be viewing it much more objectively. It is not a cold, dispassionate issue, and it never should be.
-
AcapulcoGold
welcome to europe - birthplace of the fascist regime.
AG
-
philo
jelly,
:why dont you tell me how many people were executed in America last year?
It was reported on the BBC today that in the USA 3 people are executed per day.
------------------
Amazing,
I have only read page one of this thread (life is short ) but I am against the death penalty for primarily moral reasons, which have already been mentioned.
In the round, I also think it deters criminality not at all. A life sentence is a more enduring signal of punishment for the offender and for the public. It is less dramatic, thus attracting fewer would-be martyrs, crusaders and 'Howard Roarkes' (see The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand).
It sickens me that this terrorist has been made into an existentialist hero.
philo
-
Skimmer
I do not support capital punishment.
1) The State which has so much power is ever greedy for more, and the more it gets, the more it wants. There is the very real danger that capital punishment will be extended to more and more offenses if it seen as a solution to what we now consider "capital" crimes.
2) There is no real need for it when life imprisonment is available. If the justice system were more truthful, then a life sentence would really mean no parole, no furloughs, no anything but a life inside a two by three meter cage.
3) The threat of capital punishment can be used to coerce an accused innocent to confess to lesser charges.
4) Capital punishment puts the United States in the company of countries like Communist China and Saudi Arabia that have no respect for human rights.
5) Some innocent may be executed; while I think this is relatively uncommon, it can still happen. As evidence, I point to the numerous persons on death row that have been exonerated by DNA evidence. How many others might have been set free if the technology had been available sooner? What if there is yet undiscovered technology that might save any innocents that are on death row today?
6) It is incredibly expensive. The costs to the taxpayer for all the trials and appeals is something like three to ten times higher than for a life imprisonment penalty. That money could go towards feeding hungry people or helping the homeless. Should the State allow an offender to further victimize others in this way?
7) It is a dubious deterrent at best. To all the guilty on death row, it was no deterrent at all. To the contrary, there has been evidence that capital punishment is a motivator for some killers as a means for public martyrdom.
8) There are very serious doubts about the quality of some of the public defenders used by accused in capital cases. There are few wealthy persons that are on death row.
9) It brings out the worst in some. Seeing video of capital punishment supporters at execution sites makes me think that some of the more fanatic persons would have fit it quite well as joyful and self-righteous spectators at witch burnings. Perhaps there were such spectators for the Crucifixion.
10) It desensitizes society and so moves some people further down on the slippery slope: abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and involuntary sterilization/eugenics.
The above are secular reasons. For me, the most important reason is religious. The Catholic Church teaches the importance of "wearing the seamless garment" and this means having a consistent and non-hypocritical approach to moral issues. The catechism teaches respect for life and this means for the lives of all persons no matter how vile some of them may be. It is not an easy doctrine, but it is a necessary one. The catechism does acknowledge the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens from those who would do harm, but it also clearly states that capital punishment is a last resort and can only be used when there is absolutely no alternative available. Pope John Paul II is a strong opponent of capital punishment and has stated that it has no place in any civilized nation, and I agree.
A quote from J. R. R. Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_:
"Does he deserve death? I daresay he does. Yet many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so quick to condemn others, as even the Wise cannot foresee all ends."
-
Amazing
Hi Skimmer:
You said, "I do not support capital punishment."
I support very limited use, in cases such as McVeigh's where there is 100% certainty that he committed the crime (by his own proud and arrogant admission that he even refers to innocent babies as collarteral damage.)
You said, "1) The State which has so much power is ever greedy for more, and the more it gets, the more it wants. There is the very real danger that capital punishment will be extended to more and more offenses if it seen as a solution to what we now consider "capital" crimes."
I generally agree that the 'state' especially a central federal system has too much power, or at least more power than the framers of the Constitution intended. As a conservative, I am always concerned about the state's power and its potential or actual abuse. I do not see limited capital punishment as an abuse of that power.
You said, "2) There is no real need for it when life imprisonment is available. If the justice system were more truthful, then a life sentence would really mean no parole, no furloughs, no anything but a life inside a two by three meter cage."
I believe to cage a human for life is cruel and unusual punishment. It can and often does cause the inmate to become mentally unstable, and most often only harms and hardens them. If for some reason they are released from prison, or escape, then they become an even greater threat to Society. I believe that they need to be confined to smaller institutions where they can be submitted to rehabilitative counseling, and work toward release. But, in very limited cases, such as McVeigh, I see no just alternative than to kindly execute them with lethal injection.
You said, "3) The threat of capital punishment can be used to coerce an accused innocent to confess to lesser charges."
This is an interesting view. In the USA justice system people can refuse to say anything, and demand an attorney who will properly advise them. If they are truly innocent, there is no need to confess to any crime.
You said, "4) Capital punishment puts the United States in the company of countries like Communist China and Saudi Arabia that have no respect for human rights."
No, it does not. Those nations, such as Saudi Arabia, stone people to death for adultery, or cut off fingers and hands for stealing. China rolls over political dissidents with tanks. The USA is far and above that, and is extremely slow to move toward capital punishment. There is no fair comparison.
You said, "5) Some innocent may be executed; while I think this is relatively uncommon, it can still happen. As evidence, I point to the numerous persons on death row that have been exonerated by DNA evidence."
In those cases where there is some 'shadow' of doubt, then I agree that the death penalty should be withheld until 100% certainty is achieved. DNA does not necessarily 'exeronate' the convicted. It may only mean that the evidence to convict is inclusive. For example, a criminal taking part in a rape-murder may not have actually engaged in the rape portion, and thus DNA would only should that they did not have intercourse with the victim, but that another perty to the crime did. In other cases, DNA has exonerated the accused, and by all means release them.
You continued, "How many others might have been set free if the technology had been available sooner? What if there is yet undiscovered technology that might save any innocents that are on death row today?"
I agree. As long as there is a 'shadow' of doubt, however unlikely that is, then withhold the death penalty. In cases like McVeigh we have a man who proudly pronounces his guilt and refers to the casulaties as 'collateral' damage. keep in mind that the collateral damage are innocent babies. By what rational should McVeigh continue to live? So he can 'think' about his crime? What good will that do him or anyone?
You said, "6) It is incredibly expensive. The costs to the taxpayer for all the trials and appeals is something like three to ten times higher than for a life imprisonment penalty. That money could go towards feeding hungry people or helping the homeless."
Could you please cite some credible sources for this claim? I somehow doubt that 40 or 50 years of food, medical care, clothing, etc. would cost less than the process to execute someone.
You continued, "Should the State allow an offender to further victimize others in this way?"
Either way it is not the state allowing the offender to victimize anyone. The cost of a trial is the major component. Continued appeals throughout the life of the convicted adds greatly to that cost. Unless, and until we find a way to treat criminals, and more desirably, to prevent the problem by proper homelife when growing up, then the cost will be there regardless of execution or life in prison.
You said, "7) It is a dubious deterrent at best. To all the guilty on death row, it was no deterrent at all. To the contrary, there has been evidence that capital punishment is a motivator for some killers as a means for public martyrdom."
First, deterance cannot be the objective of any punishment. The real deterance are the development of moral values as a child that stay with them into adult years. Laws against murder are not a deterance. Life in prison is not a deterance. Therefore, I do not expect capital punishment to deter. My whole argument is about justice, and justice alone. As far as martyers, that is a rare case, and insufficient for this specific case of executing McVeigh. No one I know of in the USA, or press reports, etc. see him as a maryter. The only people saying this are those who are against capital punishment and attempt to use this as an argument against executions.
You said, "8) There are very serious doubts about the quality of some of the public defenders used by accused in capital cases. There are few wealthy persons that are on death row."
You have a point here. Our judical system does favor those who can afford the best legal counsel. However, many accused are not aware that they can request almost any lawyer, because public defenders are mostly over booked. Private attorneys, however, as officers of the court, are normally required to provide a percentage of pro-bone service to the courts, and a judge can appoint them to serve the interests of the accused.
You said, "9) It brings out the worst in some. Seeing video of capital punishment supporters at execution sites makes me think that some of the more fanatic persons would have fit it quite well as joyful and self-righteous spectators at witch burnings. Perhaps there were such spectators for the Crucifixion."
I agree that spectators outside the prison walls engaged in protest for or against capital punishment should not be there. I too object to any joyous outpouring when a felon is executed. But these people are in a small minority, and will always exist.
You said, "10) It desensitizes society and so moves some people further down on the slippery slope: abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and involuntary sterilization/eugenics."
I am sure I can agree with this. But I have no specific points at the moment.
You said, "The above are secular reasons. For me, the most important reason is religious. The Catholic Church teaches the importance of "wearing the seamless garment" and this means having a consistent and non-hypocritical approach to moral issues."
I agree with consistency. I believe abortion is murder. I believe that an innocent child still in the womb has done nothing to deserve death. Whereas an adult, like McVeigh, killed innocent women, men, children, and babies. He is a cold blooded killer. His execution is not murder in my opinion, but rather, an act of justice to force him to forfeit his life, because when he wantonly murdered 168 people, he lost any right to continue to live.
You continued, "The catechism teaches respect for life and this means for the lives of all persons no matter how vile some of them may be."
I agree with respect for life. And my respect for the lives of the 168 innocent people means that McVeigh's execution is an act that demonstrates to all that if you are going to wantonly murder, you deserve to die, you forfiet your right to any claim on continued life.
You continued, "It is not an easy doctrine, but it is a necessary one. The catechism does acknowledge the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens from those who would do harm, but it also clearly states that capital punishment is a last resort and can only be used when there is absolutely no alternative available."
BINGO! "...absolutely no alternative available" And what other alternative would you allow the likes of Mr. McVeigh? A secure life in prison where he can enjoy food, shelter, medical care, TV, radio, work, newspapers, and yes, even a certain amount of relationships, letters to loved ones on the outside. Or take all these away and put him in a private box with no contact? Does torture also come with the religious teaching? Because that is exactly what you are asking for with a life sentance where you cut a person off from normal human social needs.
You continued, "Pope John Paul II is a strong opponent of capital punishment and has stated that it has no place in any civilized nation, and I agree."
I disagree with the Pope. He is just one man as I am.
You continued, "A quote from J. R. R. Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_:
"Does he deserve death? I daresay he does. Yet many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so quick to condemn others, as even the Wise cannot foresee all ends."[/i]
No one was quick to judge in this case. McVeigh had a fair trial. He was afforded some of the best legal help at the state's expense. He had every opportunity to have his point of view and claims aired in the court. No one made Mr. McVeigh write a book and admit his guilt. he could have maintain innocence all along and kept up the appeal process. He chose not to ... he chose to die. He proudly admitted guilt. I, nor my fellow citizens in the USA were wuick to judge, but rather, McVeigh was quick to kill, murder, and maime. We the people gave him every opportunity. He chose to die, and we gave him what he wanted. - Amazing
-
JustAThought
Sorry if this has already been said, but I just wanted to set my thoughts on this topic on record.
I also believe that the usage of the death penalty is an issue of justice. But the question has been asked ... what is justice?
I think that it has much less to do with the general population at large, and has much more to do with the families (witness Cowboy's admitted bias on page 1) of the victims. I think that such justice (as we see today with the death of Timothy McVeigh) has to do with avoiding having these persons, not only, enduring the loss of their loved one, but further, the continued life of the one who took their loved one from them. I believe that justice does permit and encourage closure, for once the offender's existence is ended (and have no doubt that the offender's existence is offensive to victims' families, even if he/she is put away for life), attention can be turned from the 'unfair' continued life of the offender. They can, then, properly grieve and move on. Justice frees those who would be trapped by memory of the crime, rather than that of the victim.
Justice can be a complicated and controversial entity, but one which I think is necessary.
In short ... Justice ... places the psychological need of those who have been offended at highest priority. It is they who are served by it. In time, they will move on.
JustAThought