Timothy McVeigh
 

Tim McVeigh was exeucated on Monday, June 11, 2001 and was pronounced dead 8:14AM EDT. Some people may wanted him dead and some may have protested. Killing 168 innocent people because he was a "sick" man. Our government makes the killing of others illegal. However our government kills a man because he killed someone, in this case 168 people. Isn't our government killing someone too? How come they can kill people? The police could attack an innocent man because they are racist? So does this mean that when a murder is made by our government that it is OK?

Jeff Wong who is against the death penalty.

I am against the death penalty
 

I think the "a life for a life" mentality that the American government and society has should not exist. Executing Timothy McVeigh doesn't not justify anything or make it any better. His execution only added one more tragedy to the incident, and I don't think the families of the victims will actually feel "better" that the person who killed their loved one is made to cut short his life purposely. This is wrong and this practice should not continue.

P.S. I am sorry to sound like a political maniac but this really bothered me.

I came to a simple conclusion when thinking about the death penalty recently. In a civilized society, no one should be killed. As we'd like to move towards a more civilized society, we shouldn't be killing anyone. Hence, there should be no death penalty. That makes sense to me, I don't know about anyone else.

Matt

Tim
 

I think the daeth penalty is EXTREMELY situational. Would it be better for Tim to sit in an air-conditioned jail cell, watching cable television, and getting better medical care than some people may get who are not in jail. I'm not entirely for or against the death penalty, I think it depends. I personally don't want to have my tax dollars spent on some criminal to get better things than some of the people who have done nothing wrong. Some of the people living on the street were once soldiers who protected our country in war, shouldn't we spend the money on them?
C~ya,
Carolyn who doesn't want to sound like a raving politician. :(

mixec feelings...
 

When I was younger, I was sure that the death penalty was right and just.

Now I am not so sure...

Part of me worries about taking an innocent life, but that does not cover the many other cases where guilt is not in doubt and even in these cases I have found myself arguing against a death sentence. Beyond this even, I wonder about the consistency of a thought process that is concerned about killing someone while I sleep undisturbed by the fact that it is just as possible (and in fact more probable) that innocent folks are living a life of hell behind iron bars.

While I am convinced that their are some crimes that do in a sense "deserve" death, that does not obligate us to carry out that sentence.

We need not match their voilence with voilence of our own.

Let them live.

My faith tells me that there is another judge reviewing the case. I will let that judge have the final say.

Joe J.

It doesn't solve anything
 

Up until a few years ago, I believed the death penalty was appropriate, but have since changed my mind. But I'll save my moral & political speech for another time :)

I get really upset when I hear the media say that McVeigh's execution would help the healing process for victims or famliy members. It's inconceivable to me how taking someone's life can help ease the pain of losing a friend or relative. All of the relatives I've heard on TV have said that the execution didn't help at all. There is an empty spot in their hearts, and nothing can be done to relieve their pain. I wonder when people will realize that you can't fix pains caused by hatred and violence with more hatred & violence.

Mike

And...
 

Only two people have the right to take a life, but presently you can't see them. If a man takes the life of another, he should be punished by the law, but it should not lead to his eventual death. He will receive the absolute punishment in due time.

~Joel trying not to get too religious....

?
 

How much punishment was it for McVeigh to be put to death when he stated that he was ready and wanted to die? Just a thought....
Shouldn't there be a more productive way to punish someone?

-becky

P.S.
I believe that the U.S and Japan are the only two "first-world" countries that still implement the death penalty. Obviously there are other options.

i am against the death penalty...but part of me thinks that maybe timothy mcveigh deserves it...
but then again, i figure that if he got life he woulda probably been killed in jail in a couple of years anyways...

Here's something that I found interesting while listening to the radio today (I listen to NPR sometimes, so sue me :-p ): in the case against one of the bombers of American embassies in Africa (I'm not even going to try and spell his name), the jury refused to give him the death penalty because it was felt to not be terrible enough punishment. Basically, they said it'd be worse to give him life in prison without parole than to give him the death penalty. I found it interesting to say the least.

Matt

Re: And...
 

I agree with Joel. McVeigh will receive his just punishment. I am against the death penalty for that reason. Yes, he should get some punishment for his wrong, but the taking of his life just gives us too much power over other human beings.

Living in prison for the rest of one's life, from everything I've heard, is much more difficult than taking their life. Emotionally taking someone's life will always be more just punishment in my eyes.

~Angela who could never be on a grand jury in Florida

1 picture will summarize my thoughts
 

Please noone take this personally. these are my opinions. I think he should be executed and brought back to life at least 168 times for each person he killed.

Say hello to "Sparkie"


attachment deleted to save space.

Why are we so worried about punishing this guy?

Ok, maybe he's a little off the deep end and beyond therapy, I'll give you that. But why not listen to him? His views arn't unique, and he obviously belived them. Thing is, The US is very unpopular right now, both at home and globably. We should at least try to understand why.

For Tim McVeigh, to be a warrior in a comfortable, commercial, bourgeois culture was to be profoundly out of place. So in his mind he started a war. That someone could be unhappy with both the culture and the government of America seems not at all odd to me; I am, frequently. What we should be doing is trying to understand what drove him to do what he did were most people would protest, or imagine this, vote.

But of course we can't now, we killed him. We sat him in a cell for years telling him every day that we were going to kill him, and then we pumped his body full of drugs. Theres nothing humane about killing. It is Cruel. Sadley, its not unuseal at all in this country. I think this we need to learn the diffrence between justice and vengence.

I don't know who said this, and if anyone does please say so:

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. -?

-Andy

Mohandas K. Gandhi

sources:
some poetry site and Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...world+blind%22

:: sigh ::
 

I have never understood how the government can say, "it's wrong to kill someone" and yet do it themselves. I remember, back in Junior High School, I had signed a petition, to not have the death penalty return to New York State. I have never believed in the death penalty. I don't see how it solves anything by killing someone. Killing Timothy McVeigh will never ever relieve the grief those familes are feeling, nor will it ever come close. And if there is someone out there, that feels so much better now that he is dead, does that make that person any better than Tim? Doesn't that make them hypocritical? I mean, Tim obviously believed in what he did, and he had his reasons. And so would the grieving relative or friend. And really, that puts them on the same wavelength. If someone killed one of my family members, I wouldn't want that person dead. Yes, I'd want them to pay for their crime, but it doesn't make me any better than a murderer to want that person to die because of it. It wouldn't bring me any "peace of mind" nor would it make the hurt stop at all. Timothy did a horrible thing. I will agree with that. He deserves to be punished. But, who are we to say, he deserves to die? Who is the government to say, he deserves to die? I don't know, I just don't see how this can be considered "just punishment."

~Christina ºoº

I'd say be rid of the death penalty if I saw a better option, the only true and better option.. a simple "truth in sentencing"..

If someone is given life in prison.. they should get it. If they are given 15 years.. they should spend 15years.. etc etc..

If I believed America would keep him there even second of his life... Don't kill him... but we here seem to have trouble keeping criminals in prison because they are 'over-crowded' and we don't want to spend the money on more..

In any case-- shortened babble = I only go for it cause I see no better option...

And sure, maybe a criminal sits in a jail cell with a roof & food for the time being.. maybe even gets a free college-like education.. or maybe some free psychiatric treatment.. maybe they are allowed out to supervised work when typically they would be let out on parole..

And no, it's not fair that we have to pay to live, for food, and I have to cough up $32k/year for school.. and it's not fair they can get it for free... but if they are going to be let back on the streets, they have to learn to interact with the regular society that they can't without those things.. so give it to them... give them the education and help to get a decent job when they get out so that they don't resort to selling drugs and corrupting society..

Money spent on that electric chair can power some poor person's house.... All the money the nation paid for his lawyers and court time could be better spent elsewhere.

It's all crazy. I think.

it costs more to execute someone then to keep them in jail for life

and colleen: do you really think he wouldve gotten parole eventually. no he wouldntve, because 1 i doubt he wouldve survived in prison long enough, and 2 if he did, and if he got parole, there would be hell to pay, and the politicians would get a ton of heat for it, and their whole existance is based around getting elected and re-elected. if timothy mcveigh got parole, the politicians running the country at the time would not get re-elected...so naturally they would do everything in their power to keep him in

also, an argument for executions is it gives the victims families closure...but there are theories that say that it doesnt: think about it - the criminal sits around on death row for years before his execution, all the while various appeals are being filed, meaning that basically his trial is still ongoing, or at least in some sence it is.
however, with life, theres the trial, the man gets convicted, sentenced to life without parole, and its done. end of story. if timothy mcveigh got this, nobody would know who he is right now

I believe the jury had the choice to sentence him to death or life without parole. When you get life without parole, you're going to be in jail for life, no if's and's or but's about it. When they say without parole, that's without parole. And in all likelyhood, he would've been held apart from other inmates for his safety (and I believe he was before his execution). The only people who have a reputation for not surviving prison to well are child molsters from what I've heard....Even criminals can't stand them.

Matt

I dont know, guys...all I keep seeing in my head is pictures of Albert DeSalvo (suspected Boston Strangler) in prison before he was killed..pictures of him making choker necklace sets for ladies & dancing with older women...

yeah, but i dont think criminals are fond of terrorists, either. especially ones who are proud of the fact that they killed 168 people. and how far out of their way do you think the guards would go to protect him from the general population (they are, after all, human). imho i think that if timothy mcveigh had gotten life without parole, at some point a couple of years from now the guards would conveniently not be looking for a minute and that would be the end of mr. mcveigh.

isnt that what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald?

That is not what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby as he was being transported from one location to another (prison to court house?). The only "celebrity criminal" I know of that was killed while in prison was Jeffrey Damer. If there's that large a threat to a prisoners life, they will be put in solitary confinement for their own safety. In fact, if they had tried to release Timothy McVeigh to the general prison population, I would not have been suprised if his lawyers went to court to prevent that from happening.

Matt

which would make life without parole an even worse punishment

First, I disagree with the wording with your polls. Like virtually all media polls, the reader is asked to choose a reason along with their answer. In a case where the reader doesn't really understand their own opinion, they will choose whichever reason seems to sound more favorable to them. What if I did believe in the death penalty, but not because it is a suitable form of punishment? What if I believed in the death penalty because I believe it saves innocent lives? What if I don't believe in the death penalty because I think it makes the executioners mentally unstable?

That being said, I truly do not know whether we should execute people or not. In our type of society, a republic, we choose to live be certain laws, and accept the restrictions associated with these laws. In return, we have a more "civilized" society and gain more control over what we want to do with our lives. We gain certain protection from others. I believe laws and morals are arbitrary but necessary. Without common morals, chaos results and it becomes very difficult to choose how to live your life. Likewise, I don't think it matters if we have a death penalty or not. However, let's be consistant. If we're going to execute people, make sure it becomes known that if you commit a serious crime, we have no obligation to feed you and keep you alive, and you will be killed. If we're not going to execute people, then let's come up with a solution that locks up these people for good, and let's make sure every law is enforced completely.

My feelings on the Matter can be best summed up by a quote from Robert heinlein:

"Concepts such as 'state'
and 'society'and 'government' have no existance save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. It is impossible to shift blame,share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else."- Robert Anson Heinlein

That quote means, basically, that an immoral act is still immoral irrespective of the organization the perpetrator belongs to.
think on that for awhile.

Hmm... to kill or not to kill... do not interpret the following as exceedingly cold:
My opinion is that we should adopt the policy of solitary confinement instead of the usual jail cell. The fact that a criminal is even given a bed, something some who have committed no crime can't even manage to afford is slightly sickening. As for killing him, don't take this the wrong way, but he was going to die anyways; why should we pay for him to live further? I see no reason why it was not justified, considering the damage he's done to so many.

To those who say a person has no right to judge whether or not another should live or do: According to your logic, who are you to say someone does not have that right?

As a taxpayer, had McVeigh gotten away with life, I would resent the fact that my grandchildren could still be paying to keep alive a man who had murdered over a hundred other taxpayers.

Also for anyone who hasn't read Heinlien extensively, he was definitely a supporter of corporal punishment in all it's forms, including the death penalty. I thought the way he was quoted left that ambiguous or possibly even turned that around. I believe it was from "Starship Troopers" which you should read for yourself, ESPECIALLY if you saw the movie, and read the whole quote in context.

Personally I like the idea of flogging for "minor" crimes like petty theft. As long as it's done "by the numbers" and the "debt to society" is considered payed when it's over. It's a little more painful than a year in prison, but it's over faster (if done properly) and I believe the lesson would be more lasting. Unfortunately I also think it has great potential for abuse, and I hate to think what it would do to the guy who had to deliver the sentence regularly, so I'll leave it as a nice thought.

ChrisH
Whose politics are so far to the right he's left

It costs more to execute someone than to hold them in prison for life.....

Matt

I'd like to see the numbers for that, and sources. The actual execution can't be that expensive. The costs for trails and appeals (which I don't object to by the way) I can see being pretty high. After all this isn't something we can undo, so we want to be sure we got the right guy or gal and every possible precaution should be made to be sure we're right.

But I can't see how it's more expensive to imprison a guy for a couple of years and then have a lot of expense for a couple of days or weeks around the execution than imprisoning the same guy for 50 years. Those few weeks must be awful expensive ...

ChrisH

It's not the actual execution costs but instead the trial costs. There are automatic appeals involved with a death penalty case as well as other expenses. I believe you have to have multiple lawyers then and there are all kinds of extra procedural iniatives that have to occur. I'm not too certain on the specific rules but if anyone wants a Poly Sci project, here's one. ;)

Matt

Some info...
 

Found these two sites:
Site One
Site Two

last night on the news i believe i heard that it cost the government $14 million in taxpayers dollors just to DEFEND timothey mcveigh...thats before what it cost to investigate, to prosecute, and all that...how much do 3 small meals, a blanket, bed and water cost compared to that?
and jason: i believe that everyone has a basic right to a bed, to food, to shelter, and the other basic nessessities needed to survive. youre logic confuses me: you seem to be saying that the homeless problem needs to be resolved, but in the same sentence you say that the government shouldnt give a criminal a bed, since there are people who cant afford one. shouldnt the government give the criminal, AND the person who cant afford one, a bed?