I just read an AP news article detailing what the last hours for TMV are going to be like. At one point, they write:
So, they’ll try to protect his life until they can commit the homicide (not murder) themselves. What would happen to some gung-ho who decided to off TMV himself and snipered him during his transport? Would he be tried for murder, or rewarded for saving the taxpayers a few dollars?
Both. The DA would prosecute him for murder and one segment of society would lionize him as a hero. But why bother? McVeigh’s on the way to execution, not trial.
Good point, he would probably be proscuted but in the end would most likely get a light sentence, that is if things went smoothly. In any matter I don’t care how he goes I just want to see that sicko McVeigh die.
OK, I don’t really understand the relevance of the part in italics, since if they were trying to protect his life from wackos, wouldn’t they give him the bulletproof vest?
But beyond that, sentencing someone to death means execution by the state. It’s not just some blanket death warrant on the guy that anyone can feel free to take care of.
So opposed to the death penalty am I that I don’t even want to see “that sicko” executed. Aside from my personal moral objections to the dp, I think something could be learned by studying these people.
I’m no legal expert, for sure, but I don’t see why anyone who murdered McVeigh would get anything other than the death penalty. There goes the savings. Dang, can’t win for losing. :rolleyes:
Peace,
mangeorge
Why do you assume he would get a light sentence? If it were planned and deliberate, thought out ahead of time, it would be first degree (or the equivalent); if it was spontaneous, but with the clear intention to kill, it would be second degree.
Both of these offences usually carry heavy sentences.
The taxpayers have already spent a fortune in the trial and incarceration of Mr. McVay.
Savings at this late date would be negligible.
Jack Ruby didn’t get a light sentence for shooting Oswald. Personally, I favor capital punishment in most Murder convictions. I think McVey is an exception. If he’s executed, he becomes a martyr for the fanatical militia gun-nuts. If he is given life in prison with no possibility of parole he becomes at most a symbol like Leonard Peltier. More likely a forgotten old jailbird.
But Ruby shot Oswald way earlier in the justice process.
Although I agree that he’ll probably become a martyr, after seeing the Oklahome City Memorial, I would probably try to execute him myself if given a chance. (God, as soon as I saw the little chairs, I broke out crying.)
What people are forgetting here is that either a death sentence or life imprisonment (or imprisonment for any amount of time, at that) serves to make McVeigh a martyr in some people’s eyes.
A few dollars? Surely you jest, so far the US has spent more than $82.5M on this mercenary.
More to the point what if TM attacked someone now would he get another trial?
You shoot into a group of “guards primarily from other federal prisons” from a tree on the far side of the thousands and thousands of media vans. Call me from prison and tell me how your “light sentence” is going. Don’t forget the soap on a rope.
[Moderator watch ON]
Remember, GQ, not GD. Thanks.
How is that in any way relevant?
I’m not in favor of the death penalty either, but I make an exception for terrorists, for one simple reason: I don’t want their buddies killing more people or taking hostages in an attempt to get them released.
Have you ever noticed that when the SAS or Israeli commandos engage terrorists who are holding hostages, they almost always all die resisting? Curious. In the British Embassy hostage taking, some of them resisted so hard they had to be shot in the back of the head at close range.
Same principle. A terrorist in prison is almost as dangerous to the public as one out on the street. So in my perfect world, the death penalty would only be enacted when the prisoner posed a serious risk of retaliatory violence from associates. Terrorists, gang members who murder people, etc. Bye bye.
That’s an interesting idea, Sam, but I would think that if anyone was to take hostages and kill more people they would be even more likely to do so if their “hero” was facing death. Don’t know, though, because I don’t understand these people anyway. Not really.
Back to the OP;
If someone was to do as you suggest, I certainly wouldn’t such a nutcase back on my streets. I know some of us talk about doing it, but to actually do it, especially with TM on his way to the executioner, would be crazy.
Any legal types going to jump in on this?
Peace,
mangeorge
In the 1970s and 1980s Britain had many terrorists incarcerated for life. Convicting terrorists was very easy- the public hates them and are more than willing to convict. In the 1990s it became clear that many of these people were in fact totally innocent and had been convicted by state sponsored lies. Even on appeal, one judge implied that even if they were in fact innocent, they should still continue to be imprisoned as the negative effect of admitting the lies would bring the justice system into disrepute!
If we had killed them in the 70s and 80s, what would we be saying now.
I know that Timothy McVeigh is guilty- by his own voluntary admission, but if we accept that all terrorists should be executed, what about those that are actually innocent?
This also ignores the liklihood that terrorist organizations will often retaliate for state sponsored deaths.
As far as the extra-legal executions of terrorists (SAS and the Iranian Embassy etc.), this may seem justified and safe at the time, but the result can be negative in the long run. The British Army almost certainly operated a ‘shoot to kill’ policy in Northern Ireland in the last thirty years. As this information is slowly leaking out it is having a negative effect on the standing of the military forces among many sections of British and Irish society and calls into question any government denials of other immorality that they may be accused of.
Returning to the OP, the justice system will always bend to the most powerful and the most expedient. An assassin would, in this case, probably not face the full rigor of the law. However, by most consistent codes of morals, such an act would be not acceptable.
As far as British society is concerned, I have not seen or heard any evidence that the standing of the forces has been reduced because of any shoot to kill policy. The few times this topic has come up, the reaction has varied from ‘right policy’ to ‘Well what the hell were the republican terrorists trying to do, cause minor headaches?’ (OK, that one was mine). To me it’s simple anyway, if you pull the trigger, you expect the chap in your sights to die.
As for the standing of British forces in Irish society, I’m not sure that’s a public relations battle they ever thought they could win.
I’ve always wondered whether those Europeans who tut-tut over America’s executions would also argue that Himmler, Ribbentrop, and other major Nazis shouldn’t have hanged at Nuremberg.
This is probably more suited to Great Debates, but I will try to keep it to General Questions Format:
‘If it is shown that organs of the state (army, police force) have operated a policy of shooting and killing innocent citizens, would people in majority and minority communities be justified in resisting the legitimacy of these forces?’
The Guardian and Independent newspapers and various books and reports (including the suppressed Stalker report) have shown beyond doubt (my doubt anyway) that the army and police in NI planned to shoot to kill many terrorists; in doing so they also shot and killed many non-terrorists as the policy became a justification for shooting an anti-social person if they crossed the might of the army or police.
As this is becoming more widely known, minority communities(Irish people living in the six counties) and majority communities will find their faith in the truth and fairness of organs of the state to be called into question.
This relates to the original post, in that any extra-legal actions (such as assasinating McVeigh) necessarily cause major problems with legitimacy of the use of force. However, it should be noted that legal actions (such as executions) may also do the same.
The outcome in Britain for members of the armed forces who have used extra-legal force has been that they are let off almost all punishment or admonishment. Two soldiers who participated in shoot to kill actions and were found guilty, had their sentences reduced to a matter of a small number of years (against usual average sentence for murder in Britain of about 11 years served), and although still standing as guilty of murder, were allowed to rejoin the army!
Moral: if you are going to assasinate anyone, make sure it is with the overt or covert agreement of the state.