This was posted on my mailing list and I thought it was an interesting question (or group of them):
1.Should Timothy Mc Veigh be executed?
2.Should the injection, by lethal injection, be televised? (they are actually
talking about having it available on pay-per-view!)
3.Would you watch it? Honestly, would you, if you could?
I'll post my answers in the responses, so as to minimize tainting of your thoughts.
josh said at 3:46 AM 03-07-2001: These were my answers:
1.Should Timothy Mc Veigh be executed?
Yes. Especially since he requested his execution. Even if they were no death
penalty, I believe those who are in prison for life should be able to choose death as an alternative. I know I would much rather simply die than life the rest of my life in prison. Similarly, I would like the right to legally end my life if I had a horrific medical ailment.
2.Should the injection, by lethal injection, be televised? (they are
actually talking about having it available on pay-per-view!)
No. That is going way too far. Criminal punishment is designed to protect
society, not simply mete out revenge.
3.Would you watch it? Honestly, would you, if you could?
No. Maybe if one of my family was killed, but still. I doubt I would. I
can't see how that would make me feel any better. Again, punishment should
exist to protect, not enact vengance.
Andy said at 10:47 AM 03-07-2001: I don't think that we should execute Timothy McVeigh. Why should we let the person who committed the mass murder determine how we as a society deal with the event? Why should he determine our sentencing policy?
I am opposed to the death penalty. I don't believe that executing him will bring any of those people back. In fact, every time we execute someone, we are just adding to the cycle of violence that our society is obsessed with. How can we as a society say that killing is wrong when we have state-sanctioned killings? It is the ultimate hypocracy. I know that lots of people lost their loved ones in the bombing, but we need to think about how we are going to move on and prevent this violence from happening again. Killing another person is not going to do the trick.
Many studies have proven that capital punishment is not a deterrant to crime. The New York Times did a study last October showing that states that do not have the death penalty have a significantly lower homicide rate than those that do. Also, police officers were poled as to what they thought would be the best deterant of crime. They rated the death penalty as the last option out od 12 with only 1% voting for it.
Josh said at 11:09 AM 03-07-2001: Those reasons are exactly why it shouldn't be televised, etc. But, I think that if someone wants to euthanize themselves (or have themsleves euthanized), after a psychological evaluation, they should be allowed to. I would much rather be executed than face 50-60 years in prison. I find that to be MUCH more cruel than a quiet, peaceful death. The man wants to die; I say let him.
anotherben said at 12:53 PM 03-07-2001: perhaps the states that do not have the death penalty do not simply because they do not have as high of a homicide rate. i read parts of that article in the times and they never really supported any statistical proof of which was cause and which was effect. the death penalty undeniably eliminates any future homicides by those who are executed..and that is certainly a plus (as long as they are correct in the judgement of the convicted). however, i believe the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. this is because it is not wielded decisively by the justice system. when a known murderer is captured..if he were immediately executed..then! a message would be sent to other would-be killers. dilly-dallying about for years..even decades palavering over whether or not someone is going to rot in jail or be executed serves no purpose.
Craig said at 1:07 PM 03-07-2001: I cannot believe they want to put that shit on pay-per-view. Who the fuck gets the priveledge of capitalizing off of that? The death of a mass murderer becomes just another night of entertainment on par with Wrestling and the Grammy's. Let us just elevate those who commit horrible crimes to stardom and profit off of them as well. "Is my cock big enough, is my brain small enough, for you to make me a star?"
anotherben said at 1:37 PM 03-07-2001: so that sounds like you might think that video games make people kill people too? dont get me wrong..i think it reprehensible that it even be considered for public broadcast...but then again..perhaps if there was some way to use that thing in MaxHeadroom that made people explode when they watched the wrong channel...
Andy said at 2:04 PM 03-07-2001: In response to anotherben, the death row population for black inmates is double the actual U.S. demographic. Also, 80% of the capital cases that go to trial involve white victims even though half the homicides in the U.S. are black victims. Are you saying that we should rush these executions because our judicial court system is fair and just enough to have quick trials to execute people?
Illinois instituted a moratorium on all executions last year because 13 death row inmates were found innocent after some investigative reporting. Wrongful convictions are happening all over the country. We just had two people released from the Louisiana death row after being there for 14 years. They were finally allowed DNA testing which proved their evidence. Is locking up innocent people for 14 years going to send a message to anyone?
There has been so much evidence of court misconduct in the last few years, it is sickening. We have defense lawyers falling asleep during capital trials. Gary Graham, who was executed in July, had an attorney who signed an affadavit after the trial was over stating that he did not give Gary's case any attention because he already assumed his guilt. There were 8 eyewitneses who said that he didn't do it but only one who did. The defense didn't even call any of the other 7 witnesses who could have saved Gary's life.
Again, I pose the question, do you really think that our judicial system is fair enough to let them execute people right after they are convicted?
Arnie said at 2:07 PM 03-07-2001: 1.Josh, you are correct, I think people should have the right to choose if they want to die. It's a great way to solve overpopulation.
2.Death is an intensely personal thing. When I die, I hope it is with only those I choose to be with, or by myself. No way should it be televised.
3.When I was young, I can remember my dad killing a mouse then turning around. I asked why he turned around, he said that it was to let the animal die in peace. Somehow that's stuck with me. If I can't even see a mouse die, I highly doubt that I would enjoy seeing a human die.
Ricktify said at 2:20 PM 03-07-2001: 1) McVeigh should not be put to death. If he wishes for death so much, let him order "Final Exit" off Amazon.
2) If the state is to put him to death, why not show it on television? Could it be that the state understands the essentially ugly nature of this practice? Could it be that public opinion might turn against it if people were to see it for what it is?
3) Would I pay to watch someone die? Never.
4) I must respectfully disagree with Josh on the reason for capitol punishment. It IS all about vengeance. That is very human & understandeable. It does not however make it right. The fact that it does go on despite the utter lack of evidence showing that it might deter crime is but one piece in an avalanche of proof that it is about revenge.
Interestingly, I think it is telling of the democratic nature of our society that we still do capitol punishment. It is true that no other nation on the same tier as ours does it but that was not because of the masses. Rather, the leaders in each for whatever reason decided to do away with it. Personally, I would like to see any murderer of a loved one of mine to be put to death. If I had the option of throwing the switch, I might even volunteer. While I acknowledge these feelings, I, in no way, can justify them. Surely, what is really needed is more dialogue on the issue. McVeigh's execution would be a catalyst ( although I feel he wishes to make himself a martyr to the extreme reactionaries ).
josh said at 2:25 PM 03-07-2001: re: ANOTHERBEN so that sounds like you might think that video games make people kill people too?
No. But do you think it just a coincidence that there was another school shooting today, two days into the media firestorm surrounding monday's school shooting? Crimes should be dealt with by the police, not live TV. Putting criminals all over live tv just makes other fame-obsessed criminals (or messed up, insecure kids) want to get on TV as well. This is not to say I don't think the media should report the news... Just handle it more responsibly.
Lynnr said at 2:26 PM 03-07-2001: I don't think our entire penal system philosophy is a very good deterrent to crime - I think it's better than having nothing, but I think, it would be a better deterrent to crime if we took all criminals - including murderers - and looked at their MOTIVATIONS, and their VALUE SYSTEM, and spent several years trying to give them a reason NOT to kill and a VALUE SYSTEM that jived with society, we would have less repeat offenders. Instead we send them to a house of torture to be socialized by their prison culture, and instill the value system that if they can physically overpower someone than that someone must obey their every demand. I suppose some people aren't rehabilitatable, and then I belive in capital punishment - but I think our penal system shoud make the effort to provide them with a wholesome environment and way of life, where they're not afriad that if they don't beat someone up this week, someone else will think they're soft and rape them. I probably wouldn't watch a public execution - I don't even watch Temptation Island 'cause I think it's vacuous crap that glorfies shallow, ego-centric assholes and I don't need that crap in my head. I already have enough crap in my head. But, then again, when you're in a mood - sometimes you want to see the face of death - it's facinating - even gratifying, if it's a shallow, ego-centric asshole that's getting fried (or injected). Maybe at the end of Temptation Island, they can kill them all. That would be cool. Am I alienating anybody? I must try harder, then.
Our judicial system is definitely not fair enough to execute people without giving them appeals. I don't think execution is really the best way to go, I think we should give capitol-level criminals life (as in never any chance of parole), but offer the option of euthansia.
Andy said at 3:11 PM 03-07-2001: Re: Josh
I think that this has nothing to do with Euthanasia. McVeigh didn't have an option of rotting in a prison. The prosecutors were going after the death sentence. Again, I say that McVeigh shouldn't have a choice in this situation. If we let him decide on things he would probably opt to be released. Someone who killed 187 people should not be able to decide on life or death situations. This is now not about him. This about how we move on as a society and try to stop things like the bombing from occurring.
josh said at 3:34 PM 03-07-2001: We don't know if he would have had the option of rotting, it is doubtful, but regardless, he requested the death sentence. In this case, I don't have a problem with him getting it. The man wants to die; why not let him? Again, if I was facing 60 years in prison, I would rather die. I think it's more humane to let a prisoner end it rather than sit in prison. It's crazy that we put prisoners on suicide watch so they can't kill themselves and "escape" their punishment.
Maybe we shouldn't execute McVeigh, just hand him a couple of cyanide capsules and let him take care of it himself. Again, if I was in a similar situation, I'd take the pills.
Someone who killed 187 people should not be able to decide on life or death situations.
I think an cognicent adult should always be able to decide to end their life . If you're arguing that the state has no right to end someone's life against their will, why should they have the right to extend it against their will? And if you say that he lost his right to end his life when he committed his crime, then how is that different from saying he lost his right to be alive when he committed his crime? If you want him to stay alive just to receive his punishment, how does that fall in with the concept of rehabilitation, not revenge? The goal of the justice system should be to prevent criminals from commiting more crimes. In cases where the crimes or the criminals are considered too heinous to ever be rehabilitated, they are taken away from society permanently. Whats wrong with allowing these prisoners to end their lives?
