I read where Timothy McVeigh is to be executed in May

The ClubHouse: General Discussions - Jan -Apr. 2001: January: I read where Timothy McVeigh is to be executed in May

Twiggyish

Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 08:34 pm Click here to edit this post

In this case I am glad to see this man die. I wish he could be made to feel the pain of those who lost loved ones that day. The picture of the fireman carrying little Bailey out of the flames will haunt me forever.

Digilady

Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 08:41 pm Click here to edit this post

ME too!! No shot, just gasoline in particular spots and... add a lighter

Grneyedladye

Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:10 am Click here to edit this post

I agree with both of you. I live here in Oklahoma and will never forget what happened. I wish it would be sooner than May that he gets executed! I knew 5 people that died that day. Between the bombing & the tornado, Oklahoma sure has alot of healing to do!

Max

Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:31 am Click here to edit this post

Sorry, have to disagree a bit here. McVeigh WANTS to die. He asked to waive all appeals and have an execution date set. Obviously, he finds death preferable to prison life.

I think a better punishment would be to let him rot in prison. It's obviously not comfortable for him. Why give him what he wants?

I'm not defending him. Far from it! I just think killing him gives him an easy out whereas keeping him locked up in conditions he obviously doesn't like is a more prolonged and painful punishment.

Mishamisha

Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:39 am Click here to edit this post

Hmmm, can we enhance the painful part?

Wink

Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:27 am Click here to edit this post

I agree with Max up to a point. There is no death penalty in Canada and rarely does anyone serve a true life sentence. I think keeping him in prison would definitely be a more profound punishment. And a true full life term with no chance of parole would be profound. The unfortunate side of that is that the people who are most affected by monsters like this (law-abiding taxpayers) are the ones who end up financially supporting him. And that is also a tragedy.

Jana

Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:57 pm Click here to edit this post

EXACTLY Max....don't mean to let the "Texas" come out in me here....but he DOES agree that he should die.....

look....i'm all for punishment, but the gov't taxing me is punishment enough...i don't want to have to pay a dime to feed, lodge, etc....this man...

Enbwife

Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 07:49 am Click here to edit this post

The whole capital punishment topic is a tricky one. I too believe the guy deserves to die, however, maybe it would be best to keep him alive and torture him (I'm mean I know)... We don't have the option of capital punishment in Canada and there are times when I belive we should, especially with the Paul Bernardo case a while back! I'll keep my eye on this story.

Tksoard

Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:23 am Click here to edit this post

I too agree with Max. What they should do is just give him bread and water, the bare necessities of life to cut expenses, and make him watch the tape of the aftermath of the bombing 24/7 with loud volumn. Just like I think Susan Smith should watch the tape of her beautiful little boys at Christmas time 24/7!! It's mean, but I don't care!! Drive them crazy!!

Enbwife

Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:51 am Click here to edit this post

I agree! That would be TRUE punishment!!!

Max

Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 08:16 pm Click here to edit this post

There was a Star Trek episode where they had a very cool device that would be perfect for these situations. If you were convicted of killing someone, they implanted a device in your brain. Every few minutes, with no set interval or warning, your brain would be stimulated in such a way that you relived the entire event. The twist was that you relived it from the perspective of the victim, complete with the sights, sounds, and FEELINGS. That was your sentence.

On OZ tonight (the HBO prison series), they started a special program to test a new drug on prisoners. The premise is that this drug would reduce prison overcrowding. Instead of serving a 20-year sentence, or whatever, the convicted criminal would be given this drug which would age him/her for that amount of time. For example, if you were 21 and were convicted of manslaugher or something with a 20-year sentence, you'd be given the drug and <*poof!*> your body would age 20 years. You'd still be free on the streets, but you'd have the body of a 41-year-old. Another interesting concept.

Of course, both these ideas have their down sides, too, but I thought they lent an interesting perspective to this discussion.

Bulltwinkle

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 08:11 am Click here to edit this post

I live in Texas, and I would prefer to see my tax dollars spent else where other than housing him. Since Texas now have 7 convicts on the run, life imprisonment only work if the prisoner stays in jail. The methods y'all are suggesting would creat a powerful incentive to get out.
Basically, I say give him his wish.

Rollerboy

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 08:40 am Click here to edit this post

Having the state execute people to show people they shouldn't kill is too stupid for words.

The cost of actually executing someone vs. life W/O parole is like 10 to 1.

He isn't in a Texas prison. He's in a federal prison and no one escapes from it.

When it comes to wasting tax dollars, housing people on death row is insignificant. The sweetheart deductions/exemptions enjoyed by big business and pork barrel projects are the true waste.

Twiggyish

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 08:47 am Click here to edit this post

Rollerboy, try explaining that to the mothers who lost children.

Rollerboy

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 09:06 am Click here to edit this post

How is killing someone going to help mothers who lost children?

I'm truly sorry for anyone who lost anyone in this great tragedy, but how does compounding the death do anything for them. You seem to be regurgitating a standard argument used by death penalty advocates.

He will be executed, but the motivation is political, not for some great ideal or to ensure justice or enable some great healing. Killing is killing, regardless of who carries it out or what the rationalization is.

Max

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 09:56 am Click here to edit this post

I'm with you, Rollerboy. Well said.

Leap

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:00 am Click here to edit this post

I have been hesitant to post in this thread because I was blasted during game one regarding my anti-death penalty stance.

I could go on and on about why I think its wrong. I know most of you have heard those arguments and I don't want to get into another dragged out battle on the subject.

I do, however, want to make a point about the McVeigh death sentence. Most states in the country are against assisted suicide. Many religions are against assisted suicide. Yet, by McVeigh having a say in his execution date, is the state not participating in a suicide attempt by McVeigh?

I am just curious about the philosophical argument behind this. When I try to rationalize this, I find myself on a very slippery slope, regardless of my personal beliefs.

Twiggyish

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:31 am Click here to edit this post

Normally, I am not pro death penalty.. but with this one, I can't help but feel passionate. This man showed no mercy, so why should we feel that way about him? You raise some good and valid points Roller.

Resortgirl

Monday, January 22, 2001 - 03:32 pm Click here to edit this post

I am reluctant to share my views on this one but here goes...
Killing ANYONE IS WRONG.. it won't bring back the innocents.. it won't deter the evil... it won't save us money... in the long run I don't believe it will soothe the wronged... revenge is not the answer to this horrible crime... I don't know what is, but I feel in my heart that the death penalty is not the right answer...

Bulltwinkle

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 08:53 am Click here to edit this post

Leap,
To me the difference is that an assisted suicide is usually for a terminal ill person who wants to end their life. McVeigh is a convicted multiple murderer who wants his sentence carried out. He is healthy.

I'll admit part of my pro death penalty stance is vengence. I've seen the violence that some of these criminals did, and I think society is best served by having the death penalty carried out. I do think the people on death row should have the right to appeal their case and sentence. That's a safeguard.
Once the appeals have been exhausted, or in this case, when the condemned wants to die, its time to carry out the sentence.

Lancecrossfire

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 10:49 am Click here to edit this post

It takes a lot to get me to the point where I feel revenge creep in. This is one such situation. Yet to get revenge it would take subjecting him to the same punishment he subjected other to.

As it would be a waste to chain him in a building, and place explosives around it then blow it up, and do it till it happens to kill him is a big waste of money (and a decent building). So, after that, I'm not too keen on paying for him to sit in a Federal prison the rest of his life (even though he may hate it, I'd rather see my tax dollars go to someone worthy). I don't want him let back out into society. That leaves his wish. I'm for it in this case.

For those against the death penalty, I'd like to say that I respect your beliefs and I respect the reasons you have for your belief. This is a subject that will be in debate for all of time.

Sbw

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:46 am Click here to edit this post

Not all parents of those killed in the bombing believe the death penalty is the correct answer. For those of you that don't recognize the name, Bud Welch was one of those on the front row at many of the ceremonies and a very "front and center" figure in the bombing aftermath. His feelings are represented below -- (This was found on the web.)
______________________________

This past summer, at a gathering of 3,500 Catholics in Los Angeles, I heard a man speak about his own pain and suffering over the loss of his 23-year-old daughter in the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh. Bud Welch recalls his daughter Julie with the love that only a father could have for his child. Julie worked as a Spanish interpreter in the Social Security office and, according to experts, was probably only a few steps away from safety when the bomb exploded. She was one of the last victims pulled from the rubble. As Welch explains it, there were months after the loss of Julie that, given the chance, he would have killed McVeigh himself. So deep and raw were his emotional wounds that he called this period of time "temporary insanity." But there was a voice in the back of his head -- Julie's voice -- saying that the death penalty was not the answer to his loss. You see Julie had, in her young life, already come to the conclusion that the death penalty is revenge, and revenge is counter to God's message of love. On a drive one afternoon she had told her father as much. Even in her death, she reminded her dad that death is not the answer. As Bud Welch began to surface from his despair, he came to the conclusion that the hatred he was feeling toward Timothy McVeigh was much like the hatred and venom that had apparently built up in McVeigh and led him to destroy Julie and 167 others. It was then that he began his work against the death penalty. Bud Welch came to see that the answer to violence was not more violence. It was, as Julie had said, love. In this spirit of love he has even visited with Timothy McVeigh's father and sister to tell them that he does not blame them for what Tim had done and that he would work tirelessly to see that he was spared the death chamber.

Bulltwinkle

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:00 pm Click here to edit this post

Thanks, sbw.
I hadn't seen that article before.

Soeur

Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 04:34 pm Click here to edit this post

very moving article. Thanks sbw. My sentiments exactly.