archmichael, perhaps your passionate view on capital punishment led you to misread my post.
Nowhere have I expressed an opinion for or against capital punishment, and I have certainly not expressed one which in any way implies McVeigh was innocent.
I live in a nation which doesn’t have capital punishment, and as the OP stated, McVeigh’s execution once again brings to the fore the debate about capital punishment in general.
For what it’s worth, the last person hanged in my country (Ronald Ryan) almost certainly didn’t commit the crime for which he was executed. He was most certainly a criminal, but the death sentence was passed on him for killing a guard during an attempted escape from prison - a crime generally now believed to have been committed by his fellow escapee.
It is unlikely that capital punishment will ever be re-introduced here without a referendum, which is precisely why I asked the questions I did.
Innocent people are in our prisons here in Australia, and according to the media, DNA tests have proven the innocence of some prisoners in the USA.
My questions relate to how you build in safeguards which ensure that innocent people are not executed, or where that isn’t possible what margin of error is deemed “acceptable”.
Well, here’s the headline I read on Verizon’s home page this morning:
“President Bush reacts to the execution of Timothy McVeigh Monday morning at the White House.”
…so maybe cedwards_1976 was right after all.
Seriously, though, I’ll weigh in as being against capital punishment, no matter who the punishee. It’s a distasteful matter of posthumous vengeance, and the suggestion that it has any deterrent effect strikes me as utter nonsense.
No, not really. The simple response is, obviously guilty to whom? After all I’m sure all of the condemned people released because of DNA evidence were obviously guilty to at least the police, prosecutor, jury, applellate courts, etc, right up until they were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be innocent.
That really is the problem here. These people would have been executed had it not been for the fact that they forced the state to perform a test that demonstrated their innocence. Please, don’t try to say that this shows that the system works. These people had to fight, scratch, cajole and beg to have the state perform a simple test before it put them to death.
Didn’t the state want to be sure they were killing the right person? Oh wait, I forgot, they were obviously guilty.
State-sponsored killing is vengeance, not justice. The primary goal of any civilized justice system is to protect society from criminals. That can be done effectively through imprisonment for life. Killing criminals crosses the line from justice to revenge. I don’t believe that the government has the right to kill in my name.
In this case, there are no extenuating circumstances. McVeigh was guilty and unrepentant. Despite the FBI’s incompetence, McVeigh received a fair trial. He was not retarded or insane; he knew what he was doing when he murdered 168 people. I still don’t believe killing him was morally correct.
It’s horrifying that there are so many bloodthirsty people who wanted to see McVeigh suffer. Perhaps they’d be happy if he had been guillotined publicly; maybe he should have been tortured first. Perhaps if the executioner had lopped off his fingers and gouged out McVeigh’s eyes, maybe you people would have been happy.
Many innocent people have been killed by convicted murderers. Murderers have been released and killed again, e.g. Willie Horton. Murderers have escaped. Murderers in prison have killed other prisoners and prison workers.
The margin of death penalty error is certainly too high if the number of innocent people being executed exceeds the number of innocent people being killed by murderers left alive.
BTW to my knowledge, there is no executed person in America who has been shown to have been innocent (although there must be some.) So, we are nowhere near this upper bound.
Oh right, that makes sense. Those against the death penalty should not use an argument they consider important because they’ve got less important arguments as well? Certainly creative, I’ll give you that, but there are much more effective ways of dodging the issue.
And why should someone against executing innocents necessarily be for executing the guilty anyway? I could say that you are in favour of executing the innocent people who happen to get wrongfully convicted and it would be just as plausible: not at all.
I am against the death penalty for several reasons. Just one of those is the fact that innocent people get executed as well. Although that’s probably the main one for me. It is not an underhanded tactic, it’s what I believe. december: I also don’t know of anyone in America who was executed and then shown to be innocent. However, assuming I can believe a report I saw on TV here a while back, I know of many cases where people were saved from death row by DNA tests proving their innocence. The program also mentioned incidents where people were protesting their innocence right up until they were executed, and recent advances in DNA testing have now allowed it to be determined beyond all doubt but the government is refusing to allow the tests to be carried out. So I’d be willing to bet the numbers are much larger that you’d think. Also, a state governor was ambushed for an interview and said something like “the American justice system is designed to provide accurate verdicts and it’s naive to assume that some scientific test can override that”. I was shocked speechless for several minutes when I heard that (though in truth I think I might have uttered an expletive before said speechlessness). In any situation where the administration cares more about saving their reputations than they do about the lives of innocents, I will be opposed to the death penalty.
Just a few thoughts on this, since most of the salient points have already been addressed on both sides of the issue.
Although I haven’t seen it happen in this thread, I personally know several DP opponents who try to use “Thou shalt not kill” as a basis for addressing this issue. The death penalty fulfills a biblical need for revenge. To the people who trump out the commandment card, I’d like to point out that the book also mentions “an eye for an eye.” In other words, let the punishment fit the crime. McVeigh killed 168 people. My only regret concerning this is that we (I’m using the collective since I’m pro-DP AND I live in Indiana) could only kill him once. Personally, I’d have used a firing squad. Shoot him in both kneecaps, then once in the kidney.
“Sanctity of Life” is complete and utter crap. Despite what most people think, life is not sacred. The human race arbitrarily kills all sorts of species. As George Carlin once asked, “If everything that’s ever lived is dead, and everything alive is going to die, where’s the sacred part come in?”
As a taxpayer, there’s NO way that I wanted to keep paying for this bastard’s imprisonment.
Tim McVeigh was an embarassment to this country.
While the death penalty may not be as strong a deterrant as was originally thought, it does offer some sense of security in that people who take it upon themselves to execute 168 people of their own free will are removed from society. No matter how you feel about the death penalty, you have to admit that you wouldn’t want this man living next door to you. Or dating your daughter.
You and I see things a little differently here. Imprisonment for life? Pardon me while I think about the prison overpopulation problems that exist as it is. Not to mention the costs associated with keeping these people locked away. I will agree that the cost of executing someone is too high. But that’s why I favor bringing back firing squads. Bullets are fairly inexpensive when compared to the costs of the chemicals used in lethal injections.
My only problems with the death penalty are that it takes too long from conviction to death, and that we don’t do it often enough.
One of your main arguments for the death penalty seems to be the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail. I’m always amazed that no nation has yet managed to produce a prison system that runs at a profit - I mean, if ever there was a captive workforce, with low wage costs…
The U.S. has used convict labor in commercial manufacturing for quite a while now. At first, they just made license plate, but now several states use convicts for telemarketing and as phone banks operator for airline and hotel reservations systems.
That has to do with asinine zero-tolerance drug convictions.
I don’t think keeping Tim McVeigh locked up would swell the prison population that much.
Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. Bear in mind that this is just an opinion, but it seems to me that we are far too worried about being humane when it comes to capital punishment. If we were a little less humane in the procedure, perhaps the death penalty would be more effective. For example, use convicted drunk drivers who have killed someone while under the influence in automotive crash tests.
Well, I wouldn’t say that it’s one of my main arguements. Just one of the points that I opted to bring up. On a personal level, I agree with the death penalty. Cost is a secondary issue. But, to me, the death penalty makes sense. We’re assuring that these people can’t kill again.
Wait a minute, let me get this straight–as long as the number of murder victims exceeds the number of innocent people killed, you’re OK with the government strapping innocent people to a gurney and purposefully killing them? That’s perfectly alright with you, that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is purposefully killed for it, while the real perpetrator goes free, as long as it’s only a couple per year?
Stop the ride, mommy, I want off.
Superdude, isn’t it a shame we hve that pesky Constituional prohibition against inhumane punishments? Golly, what a bother. If we could just dispense with that, then maybe we could start the end run towards completely eroding all of our rights.
Of course if they didn’t keep non-violent drug offenders locked up, jails probably wouldn’t be full. Also, don’t forget inane “3 strike” laws and minimum sentencing that tie the hands of judges and prevents them from exercising judgement.
I have just one simple question. What idiot let a convicted killer out of jail? Charles Manson was sentenced to death was he not? When California repealed the death penalty Mansons’ penalty was commuted to life in prison. The fact that this Massie was let out speaks of bureaucratic problems more than anything else.
And the Good Book also states to “turn the other cheek,” at least in the Christian faith. That said, Biblical arguments won’t get us anywhere, since we all have selective scriptural memory, it seems. And screw this “eye for an eye” stuff. Have we not at all progressed as a society? We no longer cut off the hands of people who steal; we don’t rape rapists. As far as I can tell, this is the only instance in the American justice system where this Middle Ages mentality persists.
Nor do I want my money to pay for his blood. I do not want his blood on my hands. Hmmm…my taxpayer money to keep someone alive, versus my taxpayer money to kill someone? My moral choice is easy.
Agreed. But so is this execution fiasco – at least to Western Europe. I just loved the AP report about the death penalty supporters who held 168 seconds of silence for the victims, said the Lord’s Prayer, and then some woman at the end yelled out “Die McVeigh.” Can we say “Irony?”
Wait a minute, let me get this straight–as long as the number of murder victims exceeds the number of innocent people killed, you’re OK with the government strapping innocent people to a gurney and purposefully killing them? That’s perfectly alright with you, that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is purposefully killed for it, while the real perpetrator goes free, as long as it’s only a couple per year?**
I didn’t quite say it was OK, only that it was an upper bound. However, I did intentionally raise the concept. I will stop being sneaky and throw out a challenge to DP opponents.
Suppose that the use of the DP results in the execution of 2 innocent people per year, but prevents the murder of 20 innocent people a year. How can you justify opposing the DP? Do you simply focus on the 2 inncents executed and ignore the 20 innocents murdered?
So the question has to be what are you hoping to achieve. From the above you seem to be looking for a punishment system which[list=1]
[li]acts as a cautionary example to others[/li][li]prevents criminals reoffending.[/li][li]is cost effective to the state[/li][/list=1]
Would I be safe in saying that the above lists what most people want from a punishment system. If so, couldn’t this be achieved through other means than state sanctioned executions (which don’t neccesarily meet points 1&3 anyway).
But it diminishes him a hell of a lot more, and often deservedly so.
I object to characterizations of those of us who believe death is the only appropriate penalty for planned murder as vengeance-minded, bloodthirsty, lusting for retribution, and so forth. That isn’t necessarily the case, and it doesn’t advance the debate. Few of us adults, I believe, feel any sense of victory or elation, just the satisfaction that something necessary was done.
Speaking for myself only, the reason has more to do with reestablishing the control over our lives that the murderer took away from some of us, confirming for all of us that our rights in our society do take preeminence over those who reject them. Someone willing to take away another’s right to live has shown that he himself does not believe there is such a right, and is therefore should not be considered entitled to it himself. By letting him live while his victims’ families must suffer, we never let them particularly, or us generally, regain our sense that we are in fact in control and that our rules do prevail.
Yes, I know the argument that says we’re violating our own rules by killing someone else. But we’re acting in accordance with his own rules, the rules of someone who did not wish to be bound by society and is therefore not a part of it.
That said, it’s only a moral and emotional argument. I do oppose the death penalty for any crime less than the planned murder it equates to, or if there is any doubt at all about guilt, “reasonable” or otherwise. Further, I’ve been startled by the Northwestern U. findings in Illinois (which I have no reason to believe is atypical) about the inaccuracy and capriciousness with which it is applied. There’s no argument I’m aware of that the system doesn’t need fixing, even by those of us who agree that there was zero doubt of McVeigh’s guilt or deservingness of his execution.
Yeah, it’s such a corker. But what I’m getting at is that my compassion lies ONLY with the victim of the crime. And, as far as cruel and unusual punishment goes (my guess is that that’s what you mean by “that pesky Constitutional prohibition”), that’s one of the problems with this country. If we were more radical in our punishments for crimes, then perhaps the streets would clear up quicker. I think the Middle Eastern nations that will cut off a hand for stealing have the right idea. But that’s just me.
Bit of a hypothetical situation isn’t is? I could equally say “suppose the use of the DP results in the execution of two innocent people per year, but prevents no murders. How do you justify supporting the DP? Do you simply focus on your revenge and ignore the two innocents murdered?”
Shouldn’t we try to find a system that prevents murders without the risk of executing the innocent? Surely the only way to do that is to look at punishment systems other than the death penalty.