Why Tim McVeigh's execution was wrong...

Great Debates
101

flowbark said:

You would trade 4 innocent people for 4 prisoners, 1 guard, and an ex-girlfriend? How gloriously callous. “Sorry Mrs. Smith, but it was either your husband or Spike the three time loser, better we kill 'em than some low-life murderer do it.” How many innocents are you willing to see executed in order to get all the guilty? Death sentences are overturned all the time for both guilty and innocent people. Does this anger you? I mean really, what’s your limit? 1000:1? 100:1? From your statement I can only assume that as long as the number of innocent people executed does not exceed the number of people murdered, you would be happy. Just FYI, 18,000 people were murdered in 1997.

I would rather McVeigh spend his life in prison, watching cable TV until he’s 90, than live with the knowledge that I, through the State, had sanctioned the execution of 1 innocent person. I realize that the world is a dangerous place and some people will probably die because some murderer got out. So be it. A society that knowingly (or through willful disregard) executes innocent people cannot be rightfully called a just one.

I actually have no problem with the death penalty in theory. As I have said, I think execution is often the easy way out for the guilty. My problem is with the application of the death penalty in a human society. Humans are fallible. We have egos, personal agendas and bigotries. Right now the Commonwealth of Virginia is fighting to prevent DNA testing that could (and likely would) conclusively prove that some of those on death row are innocent. Doesn’t it bother you that the government is trying to thwart those who would prevent the executions of innocent people? I have heard prosecutors continue to publicly condemn those whose innocence has been proven. Is this the way justice works? I mean, if not for such private groups as the Innocence Project, how many more innocent people would be executed? This is not the system working, it is people trying their damndest to make up for the failures of that system.

One comment on deterrence: How come those who argue for detterence never ask why a condemned killer was not deterred? We are condemning and executing people at an alarming (to me) rate in this country. Why? Shouldn’t we see less people accused of capital crimes?

Detterance sure worked great on McVeigh.

gEEk

102

Her risk of getting killed by someone with no previous convictions or lesser crimes on their record is even greater still. So how about we go through and round up everybody in Newark with a previous crime of any sort, and a few with no record who just look sketchy? Then we can execute the whole lot of em; after all, a few wrongful convictions don’t matter if it saves some innocent lives on the outside, right? I’m sure most of them are guilty of something.

(yes, I know I’m being ridiculous, but that is the point–utilitarian weighing of human lives is goofy)

103

Have there not been instances where courts have refused to hear testimony after the trial? Even when the evidence is compelling in nature and provides substantial reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the convicted?

104

Our lawyer friends here, I’m sure, will confirm that once the trial is over, acutal innocence is no longer an issue for the court, they are presumed to be guilty, one must demonstrate that there were procedural issues in error (and apparently a sleeping defense attorney is not considered to be a procedural error sufficient to overturn a conviction), or the evidence must not have been available at the time of the trial. This latter is how DNA evidence is now coming in.

105

I agree it’s somsewhat goofy. What’s the alternative? To focus on only a portion the impact of the DP and ignore the rest is even goofier. It’s not easy to find the proper moral basis to address the DP question, but we have to do the best we can.

106

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Myrr21 *
**

On retrial the prosecution must present its case all over again. You can’t point to old testimony and say “No change”. The defendant has the right to confront his accuser.**

Yeah…**

[quote]

Escape: well, escape is a possibility. But if it’s really that much of a problem, then we need better prisons. **

[quote]
Our corrections officials would love to hear any plans for an escape-proof prison.**

I don’t think death row inmates get much chance to kill anybody. Out in the general population, violent people including convicted killers get a far better opportunity.

Just out of curiosity, what case since '76 features the purported execution of an innocent? (Interesting that since modernization of police techniques and the advent of DNA analysis even the Stanfordites can’t come up with more than one suspected case).

I just hope they’re not giving us Gary Graham or his equivalent.

107

well, actually, the alternative can be to do away with the DP, so as not to risk state suppported murder of an innocent person.

108

I find the argument that you’re saving more lives by preventing murderers re-offending than you’re losing innocents to execution to be rather dumb, even ignoring all the stuff about it not being right to do a straight numerical comparison like that. 'Cause I don’t think you are saving more lives.
Suggestion: everywhere you see “death penalty” as a sentence, put a line through it and replace with “life without parole”.
How many of them are going to re-offend? Does anyone have any data on the number (or percentage) of prisoners sentenced to life without parole that get out (by any means, corruption, pardon, escape, whatever) and then commit another murder? Surely it’s vanishingly small.
The blindingly obvious flaw with that argument is that the murderers who are released and then re-offend are not getting life without parole because there’s no death penalty, they’re getting a lesser sentence than the death penalty, so they’re not the group that are prevented from re-offending by the death penalty. They’re going to be doing it anyway, death penalty or no. You’d have to look at what you’d replace the death penalty with, which is life without parole. Not life but got parole, or 20 years, or 5 years, or just released straight away as some of you seem to think the anti-DP crowd want to do with convicted murderers. :rolleyes:
Then just look at all the examples of people getting exonerated either on death row (still valid because it shows the number of people the justice system has already failed by incorectly convicting them, and makes you wonder how many aren’t found) or after execution that have already been mentioned in this thread. Seems to me the number of innocents actually executed is likely to be much higher than the number of hypothetical people you’re saving from being murdered via the death penalty.

109

Gah, did you even read my post?? Look: I think the innocents being executed is the single most convincing argument against the death penalty. There are others that I also believe in but they are quite minor as far as I’m concerned, as well as being subjective and/or highly disputeable. So I don’t mention them. Then suppose you ask me if I find it objectionable to apply the death penalty in on single case where my main argument doesn’t apply. Am I supposed to lie and then say that no I supposrt the death penalty for that case? No. I truthfully tell you that I disagree with it in that case too, and as a courtesy tell you the reasons that for me are still enough for me to disagree with it. What part don’t you understand? It is not that the killing aspect is more important than the guilty aspect, quite the opposite in fact, which is why I said that in response to your last post. There is no smoke screen. I don’t feel it’s terribly good form in a debate to assail you with a plain assertion like “it’s always wrong to kill”, to which you could only respond “not true”. Doesn’t help anyone. I also feel it good form to not attempt to say which arguments are the most personally important to another person in the debate. And I also, strangely enough, happen to feel it good form to read the post of someone I respond to.

110

Did you even read the above bit about appeals? Granted, an appeal and a retrial are different things, but–as established–it’s really hard to get a retrial (you have to appeal).

I reiterate:

A+ for ducking actual points, and responding to ones I didn’t make.

So lock up life w/o parole people with the security that death row inmates now have. You’ve just made my point for me, thankee.

111

I think this thread is getting slightly off the beaten path. The very tight OP of “Executing Tim McVeigh is wrong” has now devolved into a broad discussion of the DP and all of it’s ramifications.

The question we should be asking isnt:

  1. Is the DP a deterrent?

  2. How many innocent people are wrongly executed?

  3. What place does the DP hold (if any) in a civilized society?

etc. etc.

The question we should be asking is:

  1. Should self admitted mass murderer Timothy McVeigh (with heaps of supporting evidence against him) be legally executed?

I’m not interested in person X or Y who is on death row on a shaky conviction. In my opinion that’s not relevant to whether a specific person (in this case McVeigh) has forfeited their right to life. In my opinion he has.

The cost of the execution, whether or not it provides any emotional closure to the victims families, issues of deterrence, etc. are all beside the point. I realize that it may not always be possible to implement the DP in a practical way (the cost may be prohibitive, the court may not have adequate information to determine guilt, etc.), therefore the use of the DP needs to be curtailed until such time as we have a more accurate way of determining guilt.

This however in NO WAY changes my opinion that people who commit such atrocities deserve to die and should be executed. To put it more succinctly:

  1. The DP is not always used in an appropriate and evenhanded way.

  2. Therefore we should severely limit it until such time as it’s deemed that our justice system is performing sufficiently well.

  3. Regardless of whether the murderer is caught and/or prosecuted he/she deserves to die and should be killed.

  4. I am not willing to support the DP in a specific case unless the evidence is “iron clad” (i.e. murder act caught on video tape, killer confession and eye witnesses, etc.)

  5. Evidence against McVeigh IMHO is “iron clad”. Kill him.

Grim

112

I disagree. Deserves to die and we should kill him are two very different standards. Many have posted their opposition to state supported killing. Your disclaimers about ‘iron clad’ evidence etc. - in the US system of justice, for some one to have been sentenced to the DP, 12 must have ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ belief that the person is guilty and all 12 also must believe that the person should be punished by DP. I’m sure they felt the evidence was iron clad -including, surely, those where the person turned out to be innocent.

It’s a system run by humans, who are fallible. Defense attorneys may be lazy, poorly trained or really tired. Prosecutors may be over zealous or have other aspirations, witnesses are fallible (there’s a whole lot of scrutiny on the FBI in particular, not just in this case) for example here in which an FBI chemist misidentified evidence, sending thousands to prison and many to death row. They examined 8 of her cases, and found substantial errors in 6 of them (75%). of the 23 death row cases she testified for, 10 of them have already been executed.

And that’s the FBI. Think of the possabilities for error where you have a much more limited budget, the people connected to the case are closely identified and identifiable to the local community(increasing the pressure for a guilty verdict etc. - don’t you think the Boulder CO folk have felt enormous pressure to find Ramsey’s killer?).

Confessions, by the way, are also notoriously suspect - recall, if you will, the only case the George W. Bush took the DP off (Henry Lee Lucas) who was on Texas’ death row for the murder of “orange socks”, the evidence? his confession. However, work records demonstrated that he was in Florida at the time of the murder.

So, since I cannot conceive of a system that is not subject to the inherant flaws and fallibilites of the humans who are charged with its operation, and as such, cannot condone the state killing any individual.

(newsflash, the embassy bomber responsible for the deaths of 213 people, will serve a life sentence. The jury found, among other reasons, that the bomber acted out of a religious belief, and they were concerned that the DP would encourage other acts of terrorism)

113

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the Judge determine the sentence?

Yes, which is why I said use of the DP should be severely limited to only “iron-clad” cases. I should think that multiple witnesses to the event in addition to the confession of the accused should be plenty. And when I say multiple witnesses I’m not referring to someone who half glimpses the perpetrator in the dark, a second person who sees the perp from behind, and a third person who is so near sighted as to be legally blind and who isn’t wearing corrective lenses. I’m talking about multiple people who have clearly seen the act (i.e. the maniac who comes to the office with a gun and kills a half dozen people in the middle of the day in plain sight).

Let me give a hypothetical situation (which considering our current society is certainly a real possibility). A man walks into a store with security surveillance cameras and proceeds to keep the store occupants (employees and consumers) hostage at gunpoint. Police arrive, big stand off occurs. Man proceeds to torture and kill store occupants and succeeds in killing 3 and torturing 5 more before the police are able to break in and subdue him. Man has no record of mental illness and is determined sane by a number of experts in psychology. Man confesses to having committed the crimes. Now we have surviving eyewitnesses and video surveillance tapes of the entire episode in addition to the criminals confession. Do we execute this SOB?

Grim

114

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Grim_Beaker *
**

**=

In many cases, you are wrong. Each jurisdiction has varying laws, but most I’ve seen have the same jury go on with a “DP” hearing. The cite I posted for the embassy bomber displayed that.

** Tim McVeigh wouldn’t qualify under that. (his confession came after the trial, there were no direct witnesses to him setting the bomb, just links to the truck that, purchases etc.)

I agree that your example is a world class SOB. My answer is ‘do we become a SOB in order to show our displeasure at what he’s done?’ You want it to be available in those rare and special cases where the act is totally heinous, callous etc, and that the knowledge and proof of guilt is irrefutable. It doesn’t happen like that in the real world here, where the DP is enacted, it isn’t just used in those truly heinous situations.

Doesn’t the huge errors we’ve seen of late of even the FBI give you pause? Again, I assume that those who sentenced all people to death in the past, did so believing they were certain beyond doubt, iron clad, and yet… mistakes were made.
And, I personally go back to the concept that it creates in us, the same thing we abhor, the cold, calculating dispassionate decision that this person should not live and that we will take their life from them. I can’t do it. Sorry.

115

So wait. In the McVeigh case, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime itself, and he did not confess to the police or in court. Any confession attributed to him is second or third hand through the media and would not be admissible in a trial court.

So based on this latest post, you now appear to be saying that he should not have been executed.

Color me confused.

116

I realize that. Haven’t you been reading my posts? I specifically stated that I knew that the DP hasn’t been administered in an even handed way and therefore must be severely limited except in those cases where there is irrefutable proof. Such as my hypothetical.

It seems to me that this is the real reason for your objection to the death penalty when we get down to it. When provided with irrefutable proof of heinous crimes it’s the only objection that still has legs. When someone is executed in such a situation (heinous crimes, clear proof, etc.) who exactly in your opinion is being dehumanized here? The person who actually pulls the trigger/injects the chemicals/flips the switch? The legislators who passed a DP law? The people who elected the legislators? Everyone in the country? The world? Who?

Grim

117

What if that one actual death was Adolph Hitler? Would you still feel the same way? And would you still feel the same way had your mother or sister or wife or someone close to you been killed in the concentration camps?

118

** yes, perhaps I should have put in "I don’t believe that you can ever achieve the sort of purity that you say you’d be in favor of, and because I don’t believe that it’s achievable, I believe there will always be a chance of an innocent executed, and I find that an intolerable and unapprovable situation.

Fair enough. I am proud to live in the only state of this country that has never had the DP in its constitution. there’s been some movement every now and then to bring it up, but so far, nope. I believe that all of the people who have to physically go through the process (the executioner, the priest, the guards who lead the condemned to the site, the warden who has to pronounce sentence, the judge, the jury etc.) all may have specific feelings on the subject, but the generalized ‘we’ - all of us who stand and allow it to happen are diminished by this. Others disagree, it is certain. But obviously, there are alternatives to execution. [Captain Kirk moment] we don’t …have to kill… today [/captain Kirk moment]

who is it that says (paraphrasing) one can judge the society by how it treats it’s prisoners?

119

New from Cap’n Crunch: Oops, all Nazis!

Now repeat after me: the Holocaust is not a rhetorical device. The Holocaust is not a rhetorical device.

120

Appeal to emotion is a very poor debating tactic.