[gwrjr33]

I understand why people want McVeigh dead

but I really hate how our hunger for vengeance has made him into a celebrity.

[Xeo]

Agreed.

[opallaser]

I understand why but i still don't agree with it.

[jholmes]

Hopefully this will also be a lesson to others.

The US will kill a home-born terrorist and will do the same to those who would bring terror here.

[Cipher13]

Fry the bastard.

[opallaser]

Hopefully this will also be a lesson to others.

The US will kill a home-born terrorist and will do the same to those who would bring terror here.

They don't fear death. Being killed just makes them a hero for their cause. They'll gladly surrender one of theirs to take 180 of ours. That's their nature.

[christ]

Originally posted by jholmes:
<STRONG>Hopefully this will also be a lesson to others.

The US will kill a home-born terrorist and will do the same to those who would bring terror here.</STRONG>

This is an interesting sentiment.

What is the lesson here? That terrorism is a ticket to celebrity and martyrdom? Martyrdom can be a dangerous thing, especially to those whose world view is such that they choose/ are driven to terrorism.

I'm not quite sure what cause(s) your home-born terrorist espoused, but 'those who would bring terror here' are almost certainly going to do it in order to gain the oxygen of publicity for the flames of their fanaticism. The US certainly seems to guarantee to provide that advertising.

Whilst I'm not sure whether I am for or against frying him (I wasn't on the jury, so I don't know everything that counted for and against him - the picture above is certainly emotive, but probably doesn't give both sides of the story very effectively - I'm sure that Saddam could wheel out some very emotive shots, but they were OK because he - not the dead folk, but he - is a baddie), I do know that the arguments for/ against capital punishment are not as simple as 'That'll teach them not to do it!'

Chris. T.

[HeatMiser]

Wanna be on the jury? Ask yourself this one question:

"Do I believe that knowingly killing innocent children is a justifiable means of expressing myself?"

If you said "yes," then vote to acquit. If you said "no," vote for the death penalty.

This is the question McVeigh had to ask himself, and we now know what answer he arrived at.

Elvis Presley was a celebrity. Marilyn Monroe was a celebrity. But murderers who attained celebrity status? I suppose you could make arguments for Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and Chuck Manson, but McVeigh is not a celebrity. In the end he is, like the others, a murderer. Our society punishes murderers, death penalty or not. McVeigh's story ends today; we'll never see him interviewed from his cell in some federal prison; we'll never hear about his endless appeals.

Is he a martyr for people like Randy Weaver? Sure. But I promise you that even without Timmy McVeigh, people like Randy Weaver would find some supposed fallen brother's memory to rally around.

McVeigh's death will not be a deterrent to domestic terrorists. Still, I'm glad he's gone. What message does the death penalty send about our society? Well, for one, it says that we're willing to draw the line at what is intolerable behavior.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by christ:
<STRONG>

This is an interesting sentiment.

What is the lesson here? That terrorism is a ticket to celebrity and martyrdom? Martyrdom can be a dangerous thing, especially to those whose world view is such that they choose/ are driven to terrorism.

I'm not quite sure what cause(s) your home-born terrorist espoused, but 'those who would bring terror here' are almost certainly going to do it in order to gain the oxygen of publicity for the flames of their fanaticism. The US certainly seems to guarantee to provide that advertising.

Chris. T.</STRONG>

I think you are right, to a point. How much more press has McViegh got, than say, the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon? The attack on the USS Cole and the embassy bombings? Intentional or not, the media gave McViegh exactly what he wanted. They made sure that his cause was never forgotten by the public. And the additional publicity generated by the FBI's document snafu just furthered his cause (at least in his mind). I bet his was tickled pink to hear that they had withheld those documents

[Resolution]

The worst thing is that he'll die happy. Killing him was a really bad idea, in my mind. If he had to stew in jail for 50 years, he'd reconsider. It's well known that young people are dreamers and they become more "realistic" in their later years. McVeigh may think (/have thought) the militia is the cat's meow now, but when he would have been 70, you can bet he would have reconsidered. How bad would he feel then?
Plus, he could have implicated more people, and then justice would truly have been served. Maybe Terry Nichols will stay around long enough to tell?
By killing him we did the worst thing: we let McVeigh die happy, lost a crucial link to other collaborators (who are going free and are just as responsible, and bad, as McVeigh) and gave the victims no closure, because they'll forever know how thrilled he was to die.
I find it hard to believe that he was the ringleader. To see how these type of "one man operations" tend to work, watch the movie Arlington Road, then tell me that McVeigh was working alone.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Resolution ]

[itomato]

I'm still not sure which side of the line I stand on regarding capital punishment.

One one hand, I think the notion that killing someone to illustrate that killing is wrong is un-evolved and pretty pointless.

However, I fully believe that 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' is the most just method of punishment. This is universal, I think. Every action has an equal opposite.

Keeping McVeigh and others like him in jail, to point to in textbooks and so forth for 50-70 years, and say "this man/woman did this awful thing" would do more good than getting rid of him within 10 years of his crime, IMO.

There would be plenty of room in there if they'd just let the people who are really making an honest effort to live their lives and do good (that just so happen to enjoy a particular plant species or two) go. Who is the real criminal?

[davesimondotcom]

Last night on the Factor, O'Reilly brought up some really good points. Basically, McVeigh got off easy. The people who died (and those who didn't) in the bombing suffered much more than just falling asleep on a table.

He brought up the idea that anyone who commits "crimes against humanity" (his words, I don't know how he defines that) should be sentenced to hard labor. Ten hour days somewhere up in Alaska, freezing cold temps, no TV, no computers, limited visits.

It SOUNDS good. It sounds like "punishment fits the crime." But I doubt it would ever happen. There are just too many potential "cruel and unusual punishment" arguments that could be made.

However, to many people who commit crimes, jail and prison are a better life than what they have on the outside. Inside they are guaranteed to eat, have a bed, TV, a shower, warmth, even a gym. So prison loses it's deterance. I've heard prisoners say that on TV shows like "Investigative Reports."

I guess the question is, what is prison for? Punishment? Retribution? Rehibilitation?

IMHO, it depends on the crime. If you are a murderer in for life, why bother with rehibilitation? However, if you are a "white collar" criminal, you should be there for rehibilitation and retribution - work that goes towards paying your victims back.

There is no easy answer.

[davesimondotcom]

By the way, is there any truth to the rumors I have heard that that fireman in that tragic photo ended up committing suicide due to depression over the events of April 19?

I've heard lots of things about the suicide rates amongst those who were there, I don't know if they are true. It would just add to the 168 victims if it were.

The whole thing is just horrible. There is no way to get justice for a loss of innocence as well as a massive loss of life.

[nigeljedi]

I'm personally sick of paying to keep these madmen locked up. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, the incidence of jail riots and escapes is only rising, and they get "comforts" that, I believe, they shouldn't have. I have to pay good money to get the things they get for free. What kind of lesson is learned by having all of those priveleges?
I have toiled over the death penalty question many times, but I come to this ultimate conclusion: 1) I believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...", 2) Our towns and cities will be overrun by jails and prisons in the coming years due to rising inmate populations.
Generally, the criminal mind is such that, if given an opportunity to commit a crime, they will without regards to consequences or impact on others. Prison time or not, execution or not, they will commit those crimes. Nothing will deter a person who is disturbed and has a hunger for wrongdoing.
We're not deterring crime with a death penalty, we are appeasing ourselves. On the same side of the token, we're not deterring crime with long or life sentences, either. But, prolonged sentences only tax economies, bog down the legal system, and make us feel less secure by increasing the number of jails in our back yards...

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by nigeljedi:
<STRONG>I'm personally sick of paying to keep these madmen locked up. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, the incidence of jail riots and escapes is only rising, and they get "comforts" that, I believe, they shouldn't have. I have to pay good money to get the things they get for free. What kind of lesson is learned by having all of those priveleges?

</STRONG>

What priveledges, exactly? The priveledge to be sexually assaulted by your fellow inmate, or beaten by a corrupt guard? The priveledge to be monitored 24 hours a day, to have your possessions (not to mention your body) searched at any time, to have not a moment of privacy, not even on the toilet? Or is it the lousy health care and dull, menial work you pine for?

I'm sorry to rant, but the idea that jails are too soft is absurd. Like Chris Rock says, "Jails are f***ed up." I wouldn't survive six hours in a place like Rikers Island or Joliet.

And besides, violent crime on the whole is down from what it was ten years ago. The reason are prisons are filling up so badly is our government's ludicrous "war on drugs," not because everyone is turning into a maddog killer.

<STRONG>I have toiled over the death penalty question many times, but I come to this ultimate conclusion: 1) I believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...", 2) Our towns and cities will be overrun by jails and prisons in the coming years due to rising inmate populations.

</STRONG>

I understand the impulse to vengeance. It's the only thing that gives the death penalty even a pretense of legitimacy. But I don't believe a government can exact that kind of punishment and still retain the moral right to judge its citizens. My opinion.

As for your second point, see my note above on the War on Drugs ...

<STRONG>We're not deterring crime with a death penalty, we are appeasing ourselves. On the same side of the token, we're not deterring crime with long or life sentences, either. But, prolonged sentences only tax economies, bog down the legal system, and make us feel less secure by increasing the number of jails in our back yards...</STRONG>

I have news for you. It costs more money to try a capital case, go through the (mandatory) appeals process, and actually carry out the sentence than it does to imprison a criminal for life. Most of the people convicted of capital crimes in this country are still alive, awaiting the results of efforts to appeal their sentences. We are paying to clothe and feed them, usually moreso since death row inmates occupy special facilities. The idea that the death penalty saves any money at all is a complete fiction.

Philosophical differences aside, there is one incontrovertable argument against capital punishment, which I hadn't mentioned before because it's not relevant to McVeigh's case. That is: human bias and error. If you're black, you're almost four times as likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime that would get a white man life in prison. You're more likely to be sentenced to death for murdering a white person than for murdering a black or hispanic person. And needless to say, you're far more likely to be executed if you're poor than if you're rich. And there's the possibility of error:

A study published in 1982 in the Stanford Law Review documents 350 capital convictions in which it was later proven that the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 23 convicts were executed; others spent
decades of their lives in prison. In a 1996 update of this study it was revealed that in the past few years alone, four individuals
were executed although there was strong evidence that they were not guilty of the crime for which they were condemned. -- from the ACLU Position Paper on Capital Punishment

My own home state of Illinois has called a moratorium on executions for this very reason. An eye for an eye is one thing -- but what if the person never took the eye in the first place?

/rant

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by nigeljedi:
<STRONG>
I'm personally sick of paying to keep these madmen locked up...

We're not deterring crime with a death penalty, we are appeasing ourselves. On the same side of the token, we're not deterring crime with long or life sentences, either. But, prolonged sentences only tax economies, bog down the legal system, and make us feel less secure by increasing the number of jails in our back yards...</STRONG>

Prison overcrowding, the death penalty, these are two different, and pretty much completely unrelated, issues. Kill everybody on all the death rows accross the country and you'll still have a problem with overcrowding. The numbers are too small to make a difference. Reform the drug laws and that will have an impact on overcrowding.

As for the costs involved in keeping a prisoner locked up, they are a lot less than the costs involved in litigating a death penalty case. I agree with O'Reilly on this one (see davesimon's post). Give them life doing hard labor. As for the "cruel and unusual" issue, everything there is about prison is cruel and unusual to us. That clause is in the Constitution to prevent torture but the ACLU would probably have a different opinion from me.

[zippy50]

I have such mixed feelings over this. He is a madman, but we are just making a martyr out of him. Killing someone because they killed someone -- there seems to be a problem with that logic. If murder is wrong it's wrong for everyone -- including the government. Putting him in isolation, with no chance of getting his sick writings published would have seemed more of a punishment than simply going to sleep. Easy to say all this -- but if any of those people in the Federal Building had been relatives of mine my feelings would certainly be different.

I do remember reading that the fireman in that photo did commit suicide.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: zippy50 ]

[plaidpjs]

Prison overcrowding, misaligned drug policies and laws, depravations on society... whatever the case, regardless of whatever god you believe in or not, there are some people that simply deserve to die.

Timothy McVeigh deserved to die. He admittedly planted an explosive device in a quasi-public setting and set it to detonate at a time of day in which it was certain to cause the most deaths possible. Whether he was aided in this endeavor, or even guided, means nothing. He was the one caught, he was the one who confessed.

He killed innocents, the most innocent of innocent at that, he killed children... there is no redemption possible for such an atrocity, no god I could... or would... conceive of would absolve him of that sin.

Timothy McVeigh most assuredly deserved to die. In my opinion, he deserved to die painfully.

Ciao!

[nigeljedi]

Nonsuch said:

What priveledges, exactly? The priveledge to be sexually assaulted by your fellow inmate, or beaten by a corrupt guard? The priveledge to be monitored 24 hours a day, to have your possessions (not to mention your body) searched at any time, to have not a moment of privacy, not even on the toilet? Or is it the lousy health care and dull, menial work you pine for?

The privelege of receiving further education by means of correspondence and in house instruction. The privelege of being taught skills that ordinary people pay good money for or spend much time learning for honest careers such as trade work like welding, electrical maintenance and carpentry. The privelege of being able to see their families on accasion; the criminal didn't think about their victim's families and how they would never see them again.

I'm sorry to rant, but the idea that jails are too soft is absurd. Like Chris Rock says, "Jails are f***ed up." I wouldn't survive six hours in a place like Rikers Island or Joliet.

I never said prison life was soft, only skewed towards a happy-go-lucky attitude of personal betterment and re-entry into daily social life (which for a good percentage of criminals, isn't feasible due to a large number of repeat offenders). I wouldn't last, either. But, that's because I'm not of the mind to commit crime. If you live the life, you should expect to get f@#*ed in the @ss! It's the least prison life can do for you if you're a putz and rape an innocent woman or beat an old lady to death or molest a child.

The reason are prisons are filling up so badly is our government's ludicrous "war on drugs," not because everyone is turning into a maddog killer.

I disagree. The reason they are filling up at an alarming rate is because inmates get a ridiculous amount of appeals, which, in most cases, is a complete waste of time. Unless substantial evidence supporting a reasonable doubt of guilt can be obtained in one, maybe two appeals (which in some instances takes many, many years), I think the probability of a successful proof of innocence is just pi**ing in the wind.
Lawyers are paid staggering amounts to defend people whom they themselves don't always believe, trust or know they can successfully defend due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
As well, even if the appeals process is not applicable to a situation, a large number of convicted criminals have multiple offenses to their record. Clinton's "three strikes" bill is black and white evidence of that. It almost screams: "these people are gonna do it again, and again, and again..."

Philosophical differences aside, there is one incontrovertable argument against capital punishment, which I hadn't mentioned before because it's not relevant to McVeigh's case. That is: human bias and error. If you're black, you're almost four times as likely to be sentenced to death for the same crime that would get a white man life in prison. You're more likely to be sentenced to death for murdering a white person than for murdering a black or hispanic person. And needless to say, you're far more likely to be executed if you're poor than if you're rich. And there's the possibility of error:

Something we can agree on. Human error is going to play a part in any activity that occurs on this planet. Whether it's pilot error, a military error, a political error, an error in Baseball, or an error at the supermarket, the fact is, nobody is perfect and you have to place at least a little trust in your daily life. Yes, without a doubt, people are wrongly convicted--&gt;Human error. You can't pick out just that aspect and call it good. What about those who are guilty and aren't convicted at all because of error? Those who walked free because of an error? Either way, we call it "injustice."
Call it what you want, a perfect world we don't live in.

Most of this is purely opinion, and always will be. I'm sometimes more liable to resort to pure, raw, unadulterated, visceral anger when a killer, child molester or rapist (etc.) "gets away with it." Mainly, this is because I have a family of my own, and I know I would expect the harshest penalty from our Criminal Justice Sysem if some @sshole harmed my family. That, too, is human nature.
Our holocron of Justice is broken, and no one from the lowliest amoeba to the most influential politician knows how to fix it.

[RoofusPennymore]

I believe that Mcveigh probably deserved to die. Does that mean he should die if I think or anyone else thinks so? Don't know. Just because we think he should die does that make it right?

If one person dies for the death penalty and was innocent, then our justice system has completely failed (IMO). If there is a risk of that then I support NOT having a death penalty.

[TNproud2b]

what's the difference between McVeigh and a crazy person?

Why are we so quick to offer excuses when someone commits a crime because they have a mental problem? Yet, who would say McVeigh is sane?

Because he offers an understandable reason for himself doing something crazy, he should die?

What if he claimed that his neighbor's dog told him to blow up the building?

Would he deserve to die then? or be rehabilitated?

[RoofusPennymore]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>what's the difference between McVeigh and a crazy person?

Why are we so quick to offer excuses when someone commits a crime because they have a mental problem? Yet, who would say McVeigh is sane?

Because he offers an understandable reason for himself doing something crazy, he should die?

What if he claimed that his neighbor's dog told him to blow up the building?

Would he deserve to die then? or be rehabilitated?</STRONG>

That's a good point. Except I don't think his sanity was ever in question. Just beceasue he had a good reason for what he did doesn't mean that society thinks it's good reason. Killing hundreds because your pissed doesn't count as a good reason, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[haunebu]

Too bad none of you has been able to jump the mental hurdle. Focusing on those killed ("The children, won't somebody please think of the children!") means that you miss the point.

Tim McVeigh is a man who struck back at a government who murdered its own citizens (At Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.). He didn't have any beef with the individuals who were working in the Murrah building per se, but with the body they were a part of. The deaths of children who happened to be inside the building were "collateral damage." As grim as that sounds, it's true.

But it's also no different than what the federal government did (and continues to do) to the children in Iraq or Serbia. Except that Tim was one man who carried out his own deeds, and the federal government is a machine of bureaucracy, whereby the very few decision makers in it have their deeds carried out by order-taking employees in twenty-million dollar fighter planes.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by haunebu:
<STRONG>Too bad none of you has been able to jump the mental hurdle. Focusing on those killed ("The children, won't somebody please think of the children!") means that you miss the point.</STRONG>

No we don't.

<STRONG>Tim McVeigh is a man who struck back at a government who murdered its own citizens (At Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.). He didn't have any beef with the individuals who were working in the Murrah building per se, but with the body they were a part of. The deaths of children who happened to be inside the building were "collateral damage." As grim as that sounds, it's true.</STRONG>

Right. He was so upset That the U.S. government murdered it's own citizens that he decided to murder some more U.S. citizens. I got it a long time ago. It's called moral blindness, hannebu.

<STRONG>But it's also no different than what the federal government did (and continues to do) to the children in Iraq or Serbia.</STRONG>

You mean it's ok to think about the children now? As long as it's the children of Iraq and Serbia we're not in danger of missing the point?

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]

[RoofusPennymore]

Originally posted by haunebu:
<STRONG>Too bad none of you has been able to jump the mental hurdle. Focusing on those killed ("The children, won't somebody please think of the children!") means that you miss the point.

Tim McVeigh is a man who struck back at a government who murdered its own citizens (At Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.). He didn't have any beef with the individuals who were working in the Murrah building per se, but with the body they were a part of. The deaths of children who happened to be inside the building were "collateral damage." As grim as that sounds, it's true.

But it's also no different than what the federal government did (and continues to do) to the children in Iraq or Serbia. Except that Tim was one man who carried out his own deeds, and the federal government is a machine of bureaucracy, whereby the very few decision makers in it have their deeds carried out by order-taking employees in twenty-million dollar fighter planes.</STRONG>

If he had no beef witht the people in the building then he shouldn't have killed them. They are/were all citizens who had nothing to do with Waco.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by nigeljedi:
<STRONG>The privelege of receiving further education by means of correspondence and in house instruction. The privelege of being taught skills that ordinary people pay good money for or spend much time learning for honest careers such as trade work like welding, electrical maintenance and carpentry. The privelege of being able to see their families on accasion; the criminal didn't think about their victim's families and how they would never see them again. ... I never said prison life was soft, only skewed towards a happy-go-lucky attitude of personal betterment and re-entry into daily social life (which for a good percentage of criminals, isn't feasible due to a large number of repeat offenders).</STRONG>

You see prison education as a privelege; I see it as the best way society has of assuring that criminals can contribute positively to society when they leave prison. It does society no good to throw these people in a hole and let them rot; it may give you a sense of crude satisfaction, but it also guarantees that crime will be the only thing they know, the only thing they'll be good at, should they ever be released. It may strike you as touchy-feely liberalism, but it's really just pragmatism.

And come on ... 'happy-go-lucky'? What is that sh1t?

<STRONG>I disagree. The reason [prisons] are filling up at an alarming rate is because inmates get a ridiculous amount of appeals, which, in most cases, is a complete waste of time. Unless substantial evidence supporting a reasonable doubt of guilt can be obtained in one, maybe two appeals (which in some instances takes many, many years), I think the probability of a successful proof of innocence is just pi**ing in the wind.

</STRONG>

This argument makes no sense. I gnoring the fact that appeals are a basic right, and one of our strongest protections against the power of the state, multiple appeals have nothing to do with prison overcrowding; you're just as "in jail" whether your lawyer is appealing your case or not. What does one have to do with the other?

I'll say it again: our prison population is exploding because of the punitive, intolerant attitude toward drug use that became institutionalized in the early 80s and has yet to go away. Again from the ACLU:

The recent steep climb in our incarceration rate has made the U.S. the world's leading jailer, with a prison population that now exceeds one million people, compared to approximately 200,000 in 1970. Nonviolent drug offenders make up 58 percent of the federal prison population [my emphasis], a population that is extremely costly to maintain. In 1990, the states alone paid $12 billion, or $16,000 per prisoner. While drug imprisonments are a leading cause of rising local tax burdens, they have neither stopped the sale and use of drugs nor enhanced public safety.

<STRONG>Lawyers are paid staggering amounts to defend people whom they themselves don't always believe, trust or know they can successfully defend due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

</STRONG>

So now you want to rewrite the Constitution? "Enough of this 'fair trial' crap. We know they're guilty!"

(BTW, public defenders work pro bono. The big money in the legal profession is in corporate law and private litigation, not criminal defense.)

(Also BTW, most criminal cases never get to trial; criminals agree to plead guilty to lesser charges. But this has to do with the burden on our courts, which is completely separate from the burden on our prisons ... maybe you're confusing the two?)

<STRONG>I'm sometimes more liable to resort to pure, raw, unadulterated, visceral anger when a killer, child molester or rapist (etc.) "gets away with it." Mainly, this is because I have a family of my own, and I know I would expect the harshest penalty from our Criminal Justice Sysem if some @sshole harmed my family. That, too, is human nature.

</STRONG>

I'm not insensitive to this. I've never lost a family member to violent crime so I can't predict how I would feel. However, it must be said that many people who have lost family members to violence do not take solace in the death penalty and do not support it. They do not like the sensation that their government -- and by extension themselves -- are no better than the person they've executed. Some people don't mind that: they say an eye for an eye, and if it drags us down to their level, so be it. As you point out, there's no one answer and we're not going to settle it any time soon.

[Nonsuch]

Duplicate post. (Was finally able to access the forums and fix it!)

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Nonsuch ]

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<STRONG>
I'm not insensitive to this. I've never lost a family member to violent crime so I can't predict how I would feel. However, it must be said that many people who have lost family members to violence do not take solace in the death penalty and do not support it. </STRONG>

I was listening to the radio monday afternoon. A man got through and told about how he used to be very pro-death penalty. Then his father was murdered. He was surprised to discover his thinking had changed. Now he is very anti-death penalty. Killing the killer wouldn't change the fact that his father was gone. Describing McVeigh's execution, he said several times, "We decided to kill someone and then we killed him." I've heard the death penalty described this way more than once but this time it hit home a little harder.

<STRONG>They do not like the sensation that their government -- and by extension themselves -- are no better than the person they've executed.</STRONG>

I don't agree with this kind of moral equivalence argument, though.

[Matsu]

hannebu,

Please explain your ignorance again, I occasionally enjoy profiling an internet character just to appreciate how bent a person can be.

[The Placid Casual]

"eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind" - Gandhi

[plaidpjs]

Here's the thing... POINT BLANK!

McVEIGH ADMITTED HE DID IT. he admitted it and showed no remorse. He admitted it and tried to justiify it. he admitted it and refused to involve any coconspirators.

What would all of you who don't support the death penalty, or who try and justify McVeigh's actions (haunebu), or who are morally perplexed about the justification for killing a human being, rather have us do? Did you want us to jail McVeigh for the rest of his life? Do you feel he could be rehabilitated and released back into society? What exactly would you have us do with him? I for one would not want dollar one of my tax money going to keep him healthy and alive. And, i sure as hell wouldn't want him released into my community.

Ciao!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by plaidpjs:
<STRONG>What would all of you who don't support the death penalty ... rather have us do? Did you want us to jail McVeigh for the rest of his life? Do you feel he could be rehabilitated and released back into society? What exactly would you have us do with him? I for one would not want dollar one of my tax money going to keep him healthy and alive. And, i sure as hell wouldn't want him released into my community.</STRONG>

Your tax dollars went to feeding and clothing him for six years, and they paid for his execution. In general it costs much more to litigate and carry out a capital case than to support a criminal over a lifetime prison sentence. It may not have been so in McVeigh's particular case, but in general the cost justification does not apply to the death penalty.

And to answer your question: no, I would not want McVeigh ever released from prison, and I wouldn't want him in my or anyone else's neighborhood.

In another thread I detailed my proposals for punishing McVeigh without killing him. Forgive me while I quote myself:

1) Keep him alive, but on public display, in a transparent enclosurewhere he would be subject to the scrutiny, lamentation, and hatred of the general public for the rest of his life; or

2) Put him to work for the rest of his life on menial tasks that would nevertheless represent some token recompense for his victims and for society, say, assembling furniture for a new hospital or school, or planting a memorial forest for his victims; possibly combine with (1).

I like the first idea because it would have the effect of demystifying and, ultimately, "de-martyring" him; unlike say Charles Manson, who retains an aura of mystique in prison, McVeigh would be subject to constant scrutiny and so pass into banality. He'd be unable to do anything newsworthy; his only distinction would be as an object of hatred and grief.

And I like the second idea because it provides a more positive and life-affirming memorial to the dead. A memorial forest would become a place of peace and contemplation, and the knowlede that McVeigh lugged every one of its trees on his own back, no doubt hating every second of it, would give it an undeniable power.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by plaidpjs:
<STRONG>Here's the thing... POINT BLANK!

McVEIGH ADMITTED HE DID IT. he admitted it and showed no remorse. He admitted it and tried to justiify it. he admitted it and refused to involve any coconspirators.

What would all of you who don't support the death penalty, or who try and justify McVeigh's actions (haunebu), or who are morally perplexed about the justification for killing a human being, rather have us do? Did you want us to jail McVeigh for the rest of his life? Do you feel he could be rehabilitated and released back into society? What exactly would you have us do with him? I for one would not want dollar one of my tax money going to keep him healthy and alive. And, i sure as hell wouldn't want him released into my community.

Ciao!</STRONG>

Regardless of admissions of guilt or lack of remorse, it is my opinion that no-one has the right to take anothers life, it lowers that individual (or State) to the level of the one they are 'murdering'. This in no way justifies any action, it is merely a opinion.


In the UK in the late 1960's there was a sick individual called Peter Sutcliffe, known as the 'Yorkshire Ripper', he was a serial killer and no-one knows how many children and women he raped and killed. He buried them on the Yorkshire Moors, and refuses to say where his victims are buried, the relatives have had to live with this for over 30 years, never having buried their loved ones, or not knowing if they were his victims.


He was sentenced to life imprisonment, never to be released. He has remained in a 'top security' prison ever since. He has tried to starve himself to death on many occasions, and has expressed his desire to die, as he is seriously mentally tormented about his crimes. He has been stopped from doing so. He has taken his fight to establish his right to die to every court in the UK and the European Court. They have decided that because of his crimes and detention he has no rights, and has to remain alive until his natural death.

He is tormented by his crimes and what he has done in the past...he is forced to face them in their full horror, every day, every week, every month and year - he commited them, why should he be allowed to take the easy way out? IMHO McVeigh should not have been killed, he should have been forced to face his actions, everyday for the rest of his life, and, then he would have realised what he did was so very wrong. 40 years of torment and reflection on the horror he caused, is in my opinion a worse punishment than execution, after all we all have to die sometime. He should have been made to face his crimes, execution solves nothing and is merely a crude 'knee jerk' form of retribution.

Peace

Marc

(Incidentally, how many people ar killed that are innocent? how many are mentally ill? How many cannot afford legal representation that could prove them innocent? How many are ill educated and have never been taught right and wrong? How many commited crime to feed themselves or their families? How many were the victims drug addiction who could not get, or find help to beat the problem? They should not die because of faults with the 'system' and 'society', by governments who finds barbarism easier than dealing with the real causes of problems. They are the symptoms and not the cause of the trouble, why should people be 'forced' into a situation by society or government, and then be punished for this? Even if it is too late for some, I think that definate efforts should be made to prevent the horrors we see every day from pervading coming generations... regardless of how expensive a goverment may find it....how much was the 'Star Wars' initiative costing again?)

[gwrjr33]

All-American Propaganda
by deb weiss
June 12, 2001

In its wall-to-wall coverage of the last days of Timothy McVeigh, MSNBC took to describing him as an "all-American boy."

"What turned this all-American boy into America's worst nightmare?" an excited voice-over intoned with cuckoo-clock frequency, urging us to tune in and see the zillionth rerun of Matt Lauer's celebrity profile of Death.

All-American boy. I couldn't help remembering where I'd last heard that particular catchphrase used so relentlessly, with such triumphant double-entrendre.

It was more than twenty years ago, at the memorial service for my Red Uncle Jim. Despite the plush surroundings (old Reds do awfully well for themselves), the hall was haunted by the ghosts of rusty conspiracies and mimeographed manifestoes as, one by one, the Comrades stood up to eulogize my uncle, whom they called their "all-American boy."

You have to understand that this was a complicated matter for them...

... For his fellow-Reds, my Uncle Jim, with his sunny good looks and impeccable pedigree, was a downright certificate of authenticity. The son of an eminent clergyman, descended from sturdy Scots immigrants, he was living evidence that the movement was not some sinister and alien thing with its roots planted firmly in the dark cellars of the Kremlin, but was, on the contrary, as corny as Kansas in August and as American as apple pie.

The all-American boy - they rolled the phrase on their tongues like wine. With him, they could claim all the virtues of Americanism, improved by the dialectic. Without him, they were simply a group of bitter, deluded old men who had spent most of their adult lives (acting on orders from Moscow) doing their level best to shatter the country that had given them so much, including the freedom to be traitors and fools.

Today, Tim McVeigh is the all-American boy, and oddly enough, it's the same old game - only with a slight shift in emphasis. Now it's the all-American boy's sins that are useful, not his virtues. He makes the case for America-hating: he's living proof that there is something innately wicked about the nation, or at least about its white, gun-toting males...

... His toxic life has been swallowed whole by the reborn fetish of the death penalty, which, like mandatory sentencing, reflects the valiant but heedless effort by conservatives to undo the massive damage inflicted on our legal system in the 1960s and 1970s by left-wing judges and sociologists. (It may be emotionally satisfying, but it is a desperately poor substitute for justice.)

Evil and madness, when they intersect, do not obey any known rules, and we can conclude nothing from them except that they exist, erupting from time to time like a force of nature...

[etphonehome]

I'm not in favor of the death penalty in all of the cases in which it was administered (the retarded boy in Texas is a prime example of this), but I think that Timothy McVeigh did deserve to die for his crimes. I don't see what good it could have possibly done to keep him around on this world. Even after six years, he didn't show any remorse for killing 168 innocent people who he had never met.

As far as I know, the purpose of prison is twofold: first, to make people sorry for what they did and, second, to rehabilitate people so that they can be a productive member of society. I think that if someone doesn't feel sorry about killing over 100 innocent people six years after the fact, that person would never feel sorry about it. Also, since he would have gotten a life sentence, the rehabilitation thing doesn't apply here.

I can see where someone could say that killing is wrong, so even the government shouldn't do it, but that is the only point of the anti-death-penalty argument that makes sense to me. For example, I don't buy the "It would make him a martyr" argument because the people who are willing to kill as a form of protest against the government are already crazy, so they could committ acts of terrorism at any time, even when there isn't a legitimate reason to retaliate against the government.

My 2�.

[gwrjr33]

I get a daily newsletter from Chuck Colson but like so much of that type of email I don't always get around to reading it on a timely basis. Last weekend I was in NYC visiting my sister and her husband who were there for the week. (My brother-in-law teaches at SCAD and every summer they have a class in the city for the architecture students.) Anyway, the subject turned to the McVeigh execution. And because I'm opposed to the death penalty and my sister is in favor the discussion was more interesting than if we were in agreement. She asked me if I'd read Colson's newsletter about it. I said I hadn't. So I went home and read it. It's more to chew over...

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #010608 - 06/08/2001
Preserving the Dignity of Man: The Case for Capital Punishment

... several years ago I visited death row in Menard, Illinois, and met John Wayne Gacy, who was convicted in 1978 for the grisly murders of at least thirty people, whom he'd buried beneath the crawl space of his Chicago home.

The first thing that shocked me was how ordinary Gacy looked - like a school teacher or a businessman. The second thing was his utter defiance: He was demanding his rights, still insisting on his innocence, even though the evidence that convicted him was overwhelming.

I came away wondering if there weren't some cases where the only remedy that could produce justice was execution, and this sent me back to C. S. Lewis's classic essay, "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment."

For years, modern psychology has argued that the criminal is not guilty of crime; he's just sick, and in need of therapy. Lewis argued, however, that this view strips man of his dignity: It says we're not free moral agents, responsible for our actions, but rather patients to be manipulated for the good of society.

Lewis wrote, "To be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we 'ought to have known better,' is to be treated as a human person made in God's image." ...

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: gwrjr33 ]