Executions

[jewels6567]

I saw on the news last night that they are really leaning towards having a closed-circuit television viewing of Timothy McVeigh's execution.  I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on it?



 

[msmarieh]

My personal opinion (and I realize this may seem harsh to some) is that if he is going to have lethal injection it's not even worth watching. Oh goodie, watch the man that blew up an entire block and killed hundreds of people go to sleep. I don't think the families will get any real sense of closure from watching, but I think they should be allowed to do so. I'd rather see a painful death and I'd rather have it broadcast on national television in the (futile) hope that it would make others think twice before committing such a heinous act. I have no sympathy for any individual that can create such devastation intentionally. It is for people like this that I hope there is a hell and that it is as bad as Dante's Inferno describes it.



There is more than enough difficulty in the world from natural disasters and accidents without people going out and creating more destruction on purpose.



Marie

 

[kitchenwitch]

One thing that bears mentioning is that Timothy McVeigh himself is in favor of having his execution televised.

I think that a televised execution made available to the American public, by pay-per-view, webcast or network broadcast, painful or not, will only serve to make an unconscionably evil person into a martyr among the fringe element of society that he once belonged to (militia groups and fanatics), and will only serve to further belittle the value of human life in our society.

What makes us human is our ability to reason and make moral choices.  Televised violence (and yes, that does include "painless" death) only serves to desensitize all of us, especially children and adolescents, to death and killing, and will serve no good whatsoever.

Just my humble opinion,

Kitchen Witch

[djpcps]

In my opinion, killing is too good for these people.  A nice quick death, whether painless or not, is not what they deserve.  In this case, McVeigh wants to die, and he wants his execution to be televised.  Why should we give him what he wants?  I do agree that it will only make him a martyr among the fringe element.  If we are going to use capital punishment, we need to do it quickly instead of after numerous appeals, and the only witnesses should be officials and those victims' family members who wish to be there.  Something like that should never be televised or made available to the public, because it does indeed trivialize killing.



However, if we don't use capital punishment, I also don't believe in the current version of "prison" - why should killers be exempt from cruel and unusual punishment when their victims weren't.  Why should taxpayers carry the burden of providing inmates with better medical care, food and shelter than millions of others can afford?  Just giving up your freedom is not enough - I say bring back some versions of that "cruel and unusual" punishment - like chain gangs, road crews, etc.  Hard physical labor to earn their support isn't unreasonable - maybe some of the methods used to punish them for infractions were, but the work itself isn't.  Or for non-violent prisoners - half-way houses where they have jobs and pay restitution either to their victims or to the state that supports them - instead of receiving free room and board, free lawyers, free access to law libraries for their appeals, etc.



 

[yankeestarbuck]

As a society, we are trying to rehabilitate criminals.  We are supposed to feel that since we are enlightened, we should act better than the criminals did.  Yes, the victims suffered, but are we supposed to stoop to the level of criminals, be their equal and do to them what they did to others?  Or shouldn't we show them how to act, how civilized people act?  We put them in jail to get them out of public circulation, but they continue those and worse crimes in jail, yes.  Now, with the death penalty, is that really fair?  Anyone who though OJ Simpson was guilty will tell you it is not.  If he supposedly murdered two people, shouldn't he receive the death penalty?  We he won't because there are those who feel he bought his freedom.  If you look at the statistics, more African American men end up on death row than Caucasian American men.  Why?  Prejudice, whether we like it or not, is the reason.  Economics is another.  If you have a great lawyer, you get plead down.



I studied law and the legal system of this country.  Do I think we should have the death penalty?  Depends.  Right now, it isn't used correctly.  In Texas, a young African American man was executed and he was not given another hearing when new evidence was uncovered that he could be innocent.  He case wasn't allowed short-term clemency to be reviewed. That was GWB's call.  Do I think that's fair?  No, not really.  It should have been investigated.  Now, the man who murdered Medgar Evers was retried many times.  Do I think he should be executed?  Well, that's not my call.  As I said, we are supposed to be an enlightened society, above retribution, which is all the death penalty is.



We are a violent society.  We are the only species on the planet that kills for fun.  When I say fun, I also mean any reason other than direct survival (eating or escape).  These are big issues not answered quickly.

[laundryhater]

Yankeestarbuck: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."... and in my opinion a kill for a kill. And sexual abusers should have their private parts desensitized.



To all the people who want to see a televised execution: YOU ARE SICK, SICK PEOPLE!



I want him to fry too, but I don't think it should be televised for all to see.



And for those who argue that "but then the proceeds from a pay-per-view could go to help the victims' families" - there is a better way to raise money for them, like holding fund raisers or perhaps pay them directly with a personal check.



 

[yankeestarbuck]

Are you sure you believe a kill for a kill?  Do you honestly believe that a man who shoves another man swinging punches at him into a wall, the punching man hits his head and dies, and the shoving man should be executed for that?  He didn't intend for the punching man to die.  But your view is all encompassing.  It doesn't seem that there is any grey area.  Sexual abuse also can be construed as a person who pinches another person's behind.  In Italy, this is common practice and some Italian women find this complimentary.  Is that meriting losing your genitals?



It's fine to be angry, and we all should be.  The loss of life is heinous, by any standards.  But my point is, aren't we, as a law abiding society, "better than that"?  Shouldn't we set the example and not follow suit?  People who want to watch the execution aren't sick, they're angry.  Anger shouldn't be the deciding factor in matters of law, truth should be.  Like I said, the idea is to be enlightened and treating the convicted criminals as they treated their vicitms does't show enlightenment, it shows retrobution.



I'm not a Christian, but from reading the bible and listening to my mother's favorite priest, my take on Jesus was he was a forgiving man.  He turned the other cheek.  I internalized this and keep it in my practices.  Our society was begun by Christians who brought this forgiving nature into their law-making and their punishments.  One of the amendments (I forget whoch of the top 10) guards against cruel and unusual punishment.  In some modes of thought,  death is cruel and unusual.  I also find it an easier punishment than life in prison.



But my point is, whether or not we have the death penalty or not available, it doesn't deter the crimes people commit.  Men and will will commit crimes no matter the punishment, so it's not working.  The statistics that say it costs much more to execute than to life a person is fact.  As I mentioned before, the death penalty is not being used as it should.  Many more African American men are being executed in our country than Caucasian men, and those statistics are available online.  If that isn't the biggest sign of racism, I don't know what is.



As a society, I think we need to reevaluate how our children are raised, how our elderly are cared for and how our criminals are punished.  These are the difinitive reviews of societies.  I believe we make our own monsters by hurting our children, punish our elderly parents for hurting us and turn evil to the criminals for going ahead with actions we wish we had the courage to perform.



And for anyone who truly thinks an execution is worth watching, she/he should watch one live and in person.  I turned down this rare oportunity in college because I didn't see how this would help my education.  After speaking to my classmates who did watch, they told me it was a life-changing experience to watch a human life just disappear before your eyes, like a candle going out.  I'm glad I said no.

[laundryhater]

Yes, I believe in gray areas also. That's why we have jurys to decide the appropriate punishment. However, when it is an out and out intentional murder, that person should be taken out of society via the death penalty.



Yes, Jesus and God are forgiving deities if you ask for forgiveness and believe in them. However, not everyone believes in them and asks for forgiveness when they sin. That is why there is a hell. Hell is Jesus'/God's way of punishing sinners. So, yes they believe in punishment. Hell is punishment in the afterlife and prison and death penalties are punishment during the bodily life for those who sin against society.



We are not "above" punishing those who wrong society. It is our duty to see to it that criminals learn right from wrong. We need to set them up as examples of what happens to people when you infringe on others' constitutional rights. There are consequences.



The death penalty also ensures that criminals don't just get life in prison. AKA free meals, free cable T.V., free housing. That's why there are so many repeat offenders. They get out of prison into the real world and can't make it on their own. They can't get a job because, let's face it no one wants to hire an ex-con. So they figure, "Heck, commit another crime and I get free room and board and food again and I get paid for the work I do in the prison soup kitchen!"



I'm not saying prison life is easy and enjoyable, but for some people it is an alternative and it shouldn't be.



That's just my opinion.

[registeredrepublican]

I would agree that prison life is too easy for convicts.  I would argue that it is unfair for someone who  took away the constitutional rights of others to be given 3 meals a day, shelter, and respect, while the people who were wronged have to struggle to support themselves and their families!



Example:  my ex-boyfriend went to prison for nearly a year.  We had broken up, and were only on speaking terms.  We have a son together.  While he was in prison, he was fed, clothed, and sheltered.  He was educated, earned his GED.  He had access to a fully loaded workout facility.  He had free medical treatment.



I was a single mother, making $9.50 an hour trying to support my infant son.  Out of that $9.50, I had to pay rent, car insurance, and health insurance for both of us.  I lived with my brother, so I paid rent on a weekly basis, and it was pretty cheap - $75/week.  Health insurance was about $45/week.  So right off the bat, I had $120 gone from every paycheck.  Then you have to add in food, formula, gas, diapers, wipes.  I can't tell you how many times my mother saved my butt.



 Bring back the chain gang!  Make convicts work for their food - put them on work farms!  Don't let them sit around with better amenities and LUXURIES than we do!  They  took away someone's constitutional rights.  That's why they're in jail.  Make them really pay.



Now, I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, and I respect the opinions of others.  My life has not been a cakewalk, but I've adapted, improvised, and overcome a lot.  If I were a politician, I don't think I'd last long because I'm too opinionated when it comes to real life issues - I can't be wishy-washy like the people in Washington seem to be.



You could argue for the side of the convict - what about the person who is innocent, but is wrongly convicted of a crime?  YOU KNOW WHAT, CHANGE THE SYSTEM AND CRIME RATES WILL GO DOWN.  And personally, I would prefer the system that errs on the side of the people, not the side of crime.

[yankeestarbuck]

First off, Prison life is not easy.  Oz, on HBO and "The Shawshank Redemption" were pretty pictures of life filled with daily violence, rape, and murder. This is not an exageration.  Why should we teach the criminals right from wrong when it was their parents duty in the first place to do that?



I am certainly not against the death penalty.  I have walked the line of death too many times, by the hand of illness and others, to think that life is precious gift and that those who have no regard for it do not deserve it.  That said, the idea that "changing the system" will reduce crime is rediculous and simplisticly utopic in its idea.  Hamurabi had a code, posted it in the town sqaure, publicly instituted the punishments (which meant cutting off a hand for stealing) and that did not stop the human machine from doing the things we call crimes.  Bring back chain gangs, absolutely.  But most convicts work daily.  So they are working, but that money either goes to their families (some states do that) or for commissary items in addition to their daily fare.  And they get paid at a wage incredibly lower than minimum wage.  That $9.50 one poster was making is a weekly salary in some cases.



My point, anger and fear doesn't solve this issue.  Looking at the situation and learning about the specifics will.  I think we're focusing on the wrong thing.  All the money that we spend giving the people on death row all their appeals should be spent improving the educational system, the social services system and the overall child care ifrastructure of the country.  We make our own monsters.  These bad people have to come from somewhere and any mother or rational person who has looked into the eyes of a happy, healthy, beautiful baby knows that evil isn't born, it's created.

[laundryhater]

I like your idea about using the appeals money for education and human services and stuff! Some convicts get way too many appeals and it should be limited.



I also agree that we should bring back chain gangs. When my mom grounded me as a kid I also had to do extra chores as part of the punishment.

[yankeestarbuck]

This is the fundamental problem with the death penalty.  Thousands of documents not given to the defense.  That is one of the biggest rules, disclosure.



Did anyone think that maybe Tim McVeigh was just a kook on the fringe and didn't do it, but will take the fall for immortilization in death?  That popped in my head, but the evidence was clear.  Now, it may not be so clear.  And they won't give him an appeal.  So maybe, the wrong man is going to die, again.



There was a case in Texas that a young man was convicted of murder and sentenced to die.  He claimed he did not do it and his story never wavered.  The unfortunate thing is I cannot remember his name.  The problem: a witness that could not previously be reached was located with exhonerating testimony.  She was in Europe at the time.  G.W. Bush, as governor, did not grant temporary clemency to hear the evidence and possibly and innocent man was put to death for a crime he may not have committed.



That's the problem with the death penalty.  Here in New York, two men were convicted of killing a livery cab driver back in 1987.  The real murderer stepped forward.  Now, that they're alive, they can be let out, if they are innocent.



I know that there are many reasons to put to death murderers.  Yes, life is presious and beautiful and wonderful.  You can see that in the eyes of an 8 year old child getting her chemo.  But the death penalty is a punishment you can't take back and say you're sorry.  That's not justice, that's retrobution.  And as a nation, I'd like to think we're better than that.

[goldenearring]

I was amazed to see President Bush demonstrated against on tv this morning by European picketers protesting the McVeigh execution and the others in Texas while he was governor of that wonderful state.  I applaud his answer, something to the effect of "democratic nation/will of the people," not "gee, whiz, I'm sorry y'all feel that way."  I'm standin' by mah man on this one.  His job is to represent the people he serves.  To my knowledge, we don't know what his personal feelings regarding the death penalty are.  Those who disagree strongly with the death penalty need to get involved in the political machinery, as frustrating as it can sometimes be.  Unfortunately, we (including me) have little in the way of a leg to stand on complaining about things if we're not willing to be part of the effort to change things, that includes stuff like this as well as the day-to-day trials and tribulations of being in the administrative field.

[elleny]

I was impressed by his reaction too.  I'm very satisfied in the out come of that exicution.  I do not agree with capital punishment in general, but in this case I'm glad he is gone.  This is an exception to the rule for me.  Too many children died, and he admitted it.  I sure hope he is getting his.



Ellen (begining to like Mr. President) in TX  

[donnap99]

GE - I couldn't have said it better myself!



My DH ran for office... geez, 8 years ago (!) to make his stand.  He lost by few votes.  Which is why I'll always harp that EVERY vote counts!  Also, if you vote for state representatives as we do in Maryland - where you get 3 votes to cast in the field of 5 or 8 or 10 and the top 3 vote-getters win the 3 seats for the district, and you really want to see that one person win, vote ONLY for that one person.  If you vote for a 2nd and 3rd choice, it will dilute your candidate's chances of winning.  This is what we believe happened with DH's campaign.  You can't coach the public to vote in this manner, so we didn't.  Come to find out later that other candidates did...