McVeigh vs Death Penalty (page 15)

Seeker

Good heavens, Englishman! It sounded as if you took my post to you at face value. I hope not. I was parodying certain, uh, less-than-knowledgable Americans I have had contact with.

Seeker

How about, say, one month after your third felony conviction we GAS YOUR ASS?!?!?

Excellent idea, LDH. Maybe we could then simplify the qualification for being gassed to death. Perhaps being a Jew?

Skimmer

Hello Amazing, and thank you for your well-considered reply to my posting.

I did not mention the McVeigh case in my posting as I wanted to retain a more general scope for objections to capital punishment. I agree that McVeigh is certainly not the first choice for an anti-death penalty poster child. Like you, I have no doubt that he is guilty. But I do have some doubt that he was free from serious mental illness. Is it not possible that he was a borderline psychotic and that the Waco incident pushed him over the edge? Is there room for a reasonable doubt about his mental stability? Did he not refuse psychiatric examination (an almost sure sign that he needed it)?

Extrapolating from this, have you considered the possibility that there might be some borderline nut case out there that is now being pushed over the edge by today's execution?

You repeatedly emphasize the need for justice. I agree. But there different interpretations of the nature of justice, and there are other needs as well. Some of the victims' survivors have stated that justice has today been served. But there are a few of them who have protested against the execution and had preferred a life imprisonment. Have they gotten justice today? Since not all could be satisfied, does that mean that some of them are just plain wrong in what they want? Or could it be that justice is impossible in this instance? Or maybe, does it mean that justice is too complex of a concept to be so easily defined in any specific case such as this?

You and others write that McViegh's crime was so despicable that nothing other than capital punishment could be justified. What if fewer had died? What if only one had died? What if only there were many serious injuries? The idea is that one could construct an entire spectrum of levels of offense. Different people would pick different points on the spectrum for the suitability of the death penalty. Are some right while others are wrong? Is there an objective point that most could agree upon? (Possibly, _lex talonis_, the "eye for an eye" standard; Gandhi was reported to say about this "an eye for an eye, and soon the whole world goes blind.")

As I wrote, I support life imprisonment as the treatment for murderers. Not a life of torture, but not a life of ease, either. In a way it still is capital punishment: death by incarceration.

Let me say here that when I was a younger man (my early twenties), I was a supporter of capital punishment and even voted for it in a referendum. Was I evil to do so? At the very least, I was ill-motivated as the main reason I had at the time was that for the most part the capital punishment opposers were composed largely of slimy, two-faced liberals. I still disagree with the slimly, two-faced liberals on just about everything except this. I am reminded of the adage that a younger man will demand justice while an older man will ask for mercy. I know that I am older; perhaps I am wiser, although I will remian silent on this and let others form their own opinion.

LDH

Seeker,

Only if that Jew willfully disobeys the Sabbath law three times!

Don't try to turn my opinion on hardened criminals and make a leap of faith to genocide. You won't sidetrack me.

How about we parole all the goody two shoes who 'found God' while in prison and let them come and live with you? Yeah right. You won't kill em but you'll lock em in a cage like an animal for the rest of their life, and pay to feed, house, educate, and police them.

I can't help the fact that we've allowed the justice system to corrupt itself by allowing racist judges and officials to serve in that capacity. But don't forget, those officials are elected officials and they speak for the people.

The people are sick of seeing good money go after bad, while we try to house the criminals in 'humane' conditions. If any of you have ever seen that movie with Brad Pitt called "Midnight Run," That's the type of prison I'm espousing for violent criminals.

PS, perhaps the fact that I grew up next to a couple whose only daughter, an 18 year old, was abducted and slain right in our small town. Maybe it's the fact that those people spent the rest of their lives in emotional anguish. Would killing the killer have brought their daughter back? Hell no. But at least he wouldn't have the same God Damned right he took from her.

Seeker

Don't try to turn my opinion on hardened criminals and make a leap of faith to genocide. You won't sidetrack me.

Wasn't trying to; was trying to show you the logical endgame of your plan. When you put people in power, and give them a law that allows them to kill citizens when they violate law X, it's a short leap for law X to be expanded more and more. Then you are at the mercy of the lawmakers to not include your behavior under law X. As we have seen in past history, that is not a gamble worth taking.

Zero tolerance laws are never a good idea. Each case must be decided on its own merits or else you wind up with severe cases of miscarriage of justice. Add the death penalty into the equation and then you are not far from a tragedy.

LDH

Seeker, I don't know what country you're from. But here in the US we are self-governed. Therefore, if the PEOPLE do not like a proposition, they can vote NO.

Of course, some people tend to be emotional and think "Three Strikes" will 'get those violent offenders' off the street. Of course, they never thought about how much money the prison machine in this country uses.

If the PEOPLE think a judge is not capable of wearing the robe, they can elect someone else or even petition to have him/her removed from the bench.

Yes there are mistakes, and innocent people are put to death. That is a price we pay for living in a world with imperfect human beings. That doesn't mean we shouldn't execute 100 bad guys because 1 'might' not be guilty.

Yes, there are situations which are a total TRAVESTY of justice. You know how I hear about them? They get their 20 minutes on Dateline, or 60 minutes or some such. And they get their day in court. It is NOT the norm, it is the exception.

I never advocated killing non-violent offenders or killing first time violent offenders. As for the repeat violent offenders, let them fry.

The man who killed Polly Klaas had no more business being on the streets than Jack the Ripper. And there are so many freaks out there, stalking our women and children. I vote FOR the death penalty, and even better, a quick execution of such. The reason the death penalty doens't deter crime, it's way too long between the offense and the execution. Shorten that time to 30 days within guilty verdict and see how fast the crime rate drops.

LDH

PS. for the record, I live in California. The execution took place at 5 am. I woke up at 4:45 to watch CNN and make sure it happened. When they reported it at 5:14 that he had been given the lethal injection, I turned off my TV and snuggled up to my husband and went back to sleep. (Well not really back to sleep, but that's another story, lol)

Seeker

Seeker, I don't know what country you're from.

Same as you.

But here in the US we are self-governed.

So was Germany. Lot of good that did. Hitler, after all, was very popular among the common man for a very long time. Mussolini had great support as well. Self-governance doesn't prevent tragedies. People can be manipulated into believing propaganda and maneuvered in ways they may not have originally intended.

Therefore, if the PEOPLE do not like a proposition, they can vote NO.

Yes, they can. Unfortunately, no matter how gruesome the laws get, people can be manipulated into thinking it's 'for the good of the country', or it's 'to protect the children', or it's 'for our safety.' It can take a long time, and many people can die, before a populace can rise up and overthrow people who are manipulating them. And, of course, once in power, a bad ruler can use that power to suppress the will of the people, as we saw eventually in Germany. Best not to give them that power in the first place.

And yes, I do see parallels between what you are proposing ('kill everyone who does X') and history. It always begins with good intentions...

JanH

Lisa,

PS. for the record, I live in California. The execution took place at 5 am. I woke up at 4:45 to watch CNN and make sure it happened. When they reported it at 5:14 that he had been given the lethal injection, I turned off my TV and snuggled up to my husband and went back to sleep. (Well not really back to sleep, but that's another story, lol)

Just before I puke, let me get this straight: the thought of him being executed by a poison injection actually turned you on sexually?

This explains some of your other fascist messages in this thread. It is no wonder you have such an insane crime rate in the US, with yoru sick fetish for death and killing. What you consider the cure, is actually what was the disease in the first place.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

LDH

JanH,

Sorry that was poorly worded. The truth is, I'm pregnant and my hormones are flying....the point I was making, it was 'snuggling up' to my husband. Up at 5 am, I couldn't think of a nicer way to wake him up, actually.

Had nothing to do with the McVeigh thing.

LOL don't take it so literally.

The thought of him being executed sent waves of relief through my body that those 12 innocent children and 160 adults have had their deaths avenged. Period. It was NEVER about the criminal. It was about the VICTIMS and don't you forget it.

One had nothing to do with the other. I'm surprised you took it that way.

McVeigh vs Death Penalty

Share this