McVeigh's execution just shows that the American "justice" system is retributive in nature. Capital punishment, as "setting an example", is a failure. It's simple revenge by the state, and, of course, it's got to be totally counter-productive because it sends the ultimate mixed message. On the one hand the law says "citizens shall not kill" and on the other that it's okay if the state does it on citizens' behalf. Huh?
This is not in any way condoning McVeigh's actions, BTW.
I'm truly perplexed by the existence of this thread given the first comment within it...
CK - Nice try! Justice, by definition, unfortunately cannot be achieved with a "scoundrel" such as him (I'm assuming it's the reason for the quotes around the word). BTW, I would stand beside you with all those words, however, we can't send him off to Australia for "isolation" anymore.
Not to put too fine a point on it but... the law does not say "citizens shall not kill" it says citizens shall not murder. If someone attacks you and you kill while defending yourself, you have killed but not committed murder. (One attack I have heard made against Republicans in the states is, "How can you be against abortion but for capital punishment." I have never heard the counter argument of how can the Democrats be in favour of abortion but not capital punishment.)
Having said all of that, I am 100% percent against the death penalty. In Canada, in the past ten years, or so, there have been several high-profile cases of people convicted of murder who were later found to be innocent. In one case, the person was repeatedly denied parole because he refused to admit his guilt and he served 23 years before being cleared. At least if the person has been wrongfully convicted it is possible for the wrong to be righted.
I am inclined to agree with Rouspeteur. Those wrongful conviction cases sure are scary! All you have to do is accidentally be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and your life is completely ruined.
We have had enough of them in UK to make me wonder as well, particularly as the ones that were executed are less likely to be recognised as miscarriages of justice. While I used to be 100% against the death penalty, I have modified my views to be an arithmetician on the subject. If someone can convince me that significantly fewer innocent people will die as a result of executions, presumably because of deterrent effects and less reoffending, then I will relunctantly have to accept it. Mind you, while I find it distasteful that the state can execute people, I don't lose a lot of sleep over some of the "victims".
By the way, I still have the following article in my "Rod's Odds and Sods" folder from New York Times (??) 1984-ish on the Ronald O'Bryan execution: "Another factor that could affect executions in Texas is a ruling by the US Court of Appeal for DC ... that such injections could not be carried out until the Food and Drug Administration approved the poison used". ...as being safe for human consumption, or what?? Rod
I cannot help but writing a few words on this subject. We have got plenty of murderers here and not only terrorists. This week a junkie was arrested after letting her kid die of starvation. Those acts, specially the ones against kids, make my guts ask for revenge. My inner mind relishes thinking about how those monsters are suffering from a terrible death. But I try not to let my guts do the thinking. And, sometimes, I’ve got to try hard. I want to be a better human being than those murderers so don’t want to participate, even ideologically, on any killing.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." -- Nietsche
Yeah. Now that he's dead, we'll probably never know how many were involved.
Even if he hadn't been executed we probably would never have found out through him. He wasn't planning on talking. Now he has, in a certain sense, become a martyr, and that's what he wanted.
The thing I find most confusing about the whole death penalty issue is that American seems to be, as a people, not a government, very religious. This is purported to mean peaceful, yet we're the country with the most crime and people in jail, and we support the death penalty (about 60% do at least). UK, on the other hand, where there is no death penalty and seemingly lower crime, has had, I've heard, 48% of the population describe themselves as not believing in a god. Does anyone else find this somewhat paradoxical?
I want to be a better human being than those murderers
Exactly, juanmaria! As I listened to the radio reports of the execution this morning, the dispassionate, matter-of-fact descriptions of the mechanism of death by lethal injection, something in me said, This just is not right! We should not be doing this. It was truly an epiphany.
I do understand the desire to exact the ultimate price, and feel that some monsters do indeed "deserve" to die. But I feel more strongly that we should not participate in the killing.
Having glimpsed of the "proceedings" today I feel compelled to offer a few words. I have wavered on the death penalty, back and forth. In cases, for instance, of serial killers, why jeopardize the life of one more innocent victim or child to give these degenerates "one more chance" at parole? On the other hand, if ONE innocent person can slip though the justice system to their death (and this is now proven in multiples) then we have become murderers, and it has to be abolished, period.
But my main question is this ...How is death a punishment? Thousands of innocent children die in the world every day? Are they being "punished"? So, to my mind, death is not really a punishment. No, far better to put someone like McVeigh into the general (not solitary) prison population where he'd be gang-raped and beaten mercilessly every other day as a baby-killer...until somebody finally bashes his brains in like Jeffrey Dahmer. Let justice work itself out. THAT is a punishment. Today he went to sleep and made us and the Federal Government into killers too...so, in a way, he got his wish. Too bad. Now, I think killing is killing...nobody wins in the equation.
Thank you for your articulate expression of an issue I've been grappling with for a long time -- and couldn't find the words to express how I feel. Something inside me says the only justification for capital punishment is that it costs us taxpayers less.
Jazz, your comments address a large issue, and one which lots of people are confused about.
Until quite recently, in the large picture of human history, there was absolutely no conflict between religion and capital punishment, since crime was seen as an affront to the gods as well as the state and/or its citizens. The Bible enjoins punishment by death, and no easy death, to those who commit certain grave crimes, and this was carried through for some 3000 years. I have a mid-19th century prayer book which contains a form for the visitation of prisoners, which has a most interesting harangue to be delivered to a prisoner awaiting execution. No one at the time saw anything inappropriate in a priest, or the Church, colluding, as it were, in the carrying out of the demands of justice. Until just a couple generations ago, only a relatively few advanced thinkers thought that there was anything wrong with punishing with death the worst crimes on the books. Indeed, it was thought to be advanced thinking when governments and rulers stopped executing people by breaking on the wheel, burning at the stake, hanging drawing and quartering, etc. Remember that the guillotine was invented as an instrument of merciful death because hangings were so often botched.
Certainly there are practical problems with the death penalty and I agree that it should not be applied where there is any doubt at all as to the guilt of the criminal. But, in the relatively few cases where there is absolutely no doubt, or the criminal has made a free and totally uncoerced confession, I think it is not only appropriate but necessary for the ends of justice. Part of the concept of justice is equitable treatment and restoring balances. Where possible, the taking of an innocent life by a criminal calls for the taking of his. I reject with horror the modern notion that the death sentence is called for in order for the victims' families to have "closure". This is only pandering to the basest of human emotions and the desire for vengeance. Far better for people, in the long run, and necessary for their spiritual health, that they get over their loss and become able to live with it, rather than letting it eat away at them for the ten to twenty years it usually takes in the US to execute a criminal, or live with it forever if the criminal is not executed. In the case of McVeigh, there was no real doubt of his guilt, and he himself did not deny that he was guilty, and his lawyers certainly gave every indication that they knew he was guilty. My only criticism of how he was dispatched is that he should not have been allowed access to the media and the whole thing should have beeen downplayed as far as anything can be in these media-dominated times.
I want to be a better human being than those murderers
My sentiments exactly, juanmaria. I'm sure many of you have seen the bumper sticker slogan "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" That makes the point quite clearly, I think. Add to that the possibilities for error in the judicial process, and the known fact that such mistakes are made, and I feel the death penalty is absolutely unconscionable.
As to AnnaS's point that it is cheaper for the taxpayers - although I don't have figures handy to back this up, I have read on a number of occasions that, due to the numerous appeals and delays inherent in a capital case (which ideally serve to ensure that the wrong person is not killed by the state), the death penalty ends up being more expensive to the taxpayer than life in prison.
There was a piece in the New Yorker recently about the death penalty, which described it as an issue where politicians who wish to appear hard on crime choose to support it, even when the majority of their constituents don't. Once again, sound-bite politics and the media's (and our own) short attention span present us with an outcome that many, even most, would wish were differerent.
Part of the concept of justice is equitable treatment and restoring balances. Where possible, the taking of an innocent life by a criminal calls for the taking of his. I reject with horror the modern notion that the death sentence is called for in order for the victims' families to have "closure". This is only pandering to the basest of human emotions and the desire for vengeance.
I agree with this sense of the concept of justice - but I feel strongly that life with parole takes away the life of the criminal (as well as keeping him out of society), and thus provides justice. Hammurabi's Code called for "an eye for an eye", etc., but I think we can implement the idea of a life for a life without killing the killer - we can take away his chance to live a life in society.
As to your point about "closure" for victims' families - I have never been even remotely involved in a situation where this was an issue, so I have a hard time saying how I would feel in the reality of it, but I completely, absolutely agree with you. This kind of thinking, which seems to be more and more eagerly represented by the media, is sick and twisted.
bob-- following up on your reply to Jazz-- Human society is undergoing a change in its ideas on how to deal with people who commit capital crimes.. It was in Quaker Pennsylvania (or was it a quaker community in Maryland?) that first came up with penitentiaries-- and solitary confinment-- the thought being that a criminal should contempate in solitude and repent for his (her) evil ways.. most non-quaker went "mad"-- and the quakers soon reformed -- and sentenced criminals to "reformatories" and taught them crafts or work skills..
We as people still haven't decided whether we want to punish crimials or reform them-- to make them serve time-- or to also repent their crimes... And our attempt to deal with criminals are not very well thought out.. Our (US) constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishments-- but we don't quite agree on what is cruel and unusual... Chain gangs are still legal-- (as is the death penalty) and we take issue with china for using "prison labor" to make export goods-- but a front page article in NYTImes late last week praised US prisons setting up "industries" -- (the idea to teach inmates work skills, so the when they left prison they would also be "reformed" and have job skills..)
There are no easy answers.. It's all well and good to think pure thoughts-- and i'd like to think someone who has been convicted, and has servered time should be able to re-enter society-- but i'll be honest--I don't want a felon for a neighbor or a work mate. nor do i want them teaching in schools, or doing lots of other things (serving as corporate officers-- handling money..) I have work and developed friendships with former junkies-- and truly believe drugs (and drug use) should be de-criminalized-- Drug use is a problem- but i don't think its a crime.
I’m aware of the whole “cruel and unusual punishment” thing, but I’m sure there was a building being demolished somewhere in the area where they could have “accidentally” left McVeigh tied up in the basement. Just saying. I mean, those needles are expensive, and this way they can save the taxpayers a few bucks.
disclaimer # 1 - shamelessly stolen from I dare not say where disclaimer # 2 - shamelessly returning to original question: enough already!
Point of information: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth may be in the Code of Hammurabi, but more relevantly for us it's in the Bible, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.
Having said that, I am against the death penalty. Firstly, too many mistakes are made. Secondly, I'm not convinced that it has much if any deterrent effect. Europe's murder rate is much lower than the US's but the last execution in Europe was sometime in the 70s. (I know there are factors behind the difference in murder rates, but let's leave them for another discussion, shall we?*).
*Linguistic note: how did the question tag from let's get to be shall we?
but more relevantly for us it's in the Bible, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.
hmm, coincidentally i was thinking the same thing when this thread came up, and wondering if the New Testament offers us any opinion (since things kinda change tone a bit somewhere in the chasm between Malachi and Matthew), and according to my reliable source (Hi, S!):
Hammurabi was a Babylonian legislator, whose code makes the Mosaic Law seem positively warm and fuzzy. The NT neither endorses nor condemns capital punishment, viewing such matters as affairs of secular government, not religious faith.
i offer this just in case anyone else besides me wondered.
btw, atomica's (admittedly lacking) etymological notes on 'mosaic' provide no biblical mention at all (other than, specifically, Mosaic Law). i fail to see a connection, as to meaning, but it seems unlikely that the derivation could have been entirely separate. i wonder what the OED has to say? hinthintjoe
From the Code of Hammurabi: 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.
199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.
Exodus Chap. 21: 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Leviticus 24
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Deuteronomy Chap: 19 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
It would be a superogatory 2c worth for me to chip in my views on either the death penalty as the most American of all issues or the ancient lore of defunct primitive desert tribes – but there is a language-related point that is perhaps worth adding.
Dianna Eades* has done detailed work on the intercultural issues arising from interaction between Aboriginal and other peoples. Her findings, in a nutshell, are this: the ways two different peoples use an apparently common language base (English) can be radically different because of their different cultural roots and assumed values. In particular she has demonstrated that this results in complete confusion in legal processes, where the participants from two different cultures are actually using completely different speech codes, without anyone acknowledging that this is happening.
It strikes me that, given the extraordinary imbalance between black and white citizens I know to exist on US ‘death rows’, perhaps more thought might be given to how far language issues may be compromising fair and equal access to justice before this most dreadful of sanctions.
References in case anyone’s more interested: *EADES, D.M. (1988) ‘They don’t speak an Aboriginal language, or do they?’ in KEEN, I. (ed) being Black: Aboriginal cultural continuity in settled Australia, Canberra, Aboriginal Studies Press
EADES, D.M. (1998) ‘Communicative Strategies in Aboriginal English’ in MABIN, J. (ed) Using English: from conversation to canon, London & New York, Routledge
LIBERMAN, K (1981) ‘Understanding Aborigines in Australian courts of law’, Human Organization, vol. 40 #3
Talion is a new word to me too Max. I've seen an eye for an eye etc. referred to using the Latin phrase lex talionis , but I didn't know it had been taken over into English.
Seems to me that the way to get ahead in this society was to learn to swim, then steal a trinket from the richest person in the vicinity - "call me a thief, and I'll have your house after you are executed"!
Ah, these stupid desert tribes - they thought life was black and white even then!
<<McVeigh's execution just shows that the American "justice" system is retributive in nature. Capital punishment, as "setting an example", is a failure. It's simple revenge by the state,>>
Good folk from rock bottom to the attorney general himself corked yet another perverted screw in the prim rose glass of psychologistic by insisting on the need to execute "closure" for the victims' families. According to that argument, it is not the state's retribution, but the families' for whom the state is proxy.
When asked what he would do if his wife were raped in front of him, Dukakis flubbed the answer, which should have been, "I'd kill the mother f_cker--and that is why the state would be bound intercede on behalf of justice." Retribution is the natural--not the just--response.
" the American "justice" system is retributive in nature."
This is inaccurate in that it is not the system that calls for retribution. The system is composed of laws proposed and passed by representatives of the people, and approved by the majority of the people. Note how many people favored the execution. The government merely applied the laws.
Since we 'punish' people for not following laws, why aren't we *insisting all participate in voting (as we do taxes). This would reveal the true nature of the political landscape and not the island of those that, even in 'heavy' voter turnout years, are representing only 25 percent (if we are lucky) of the populus.
... and the statistical arguement that enough of a sampling has occurred to represent the full mass is clearly b......t in this case.[/rant]
I treasure my right to choose not to vote... As do I, Max, as do I!
...at a loss to understand how any country whose system of government is built on respect for freedom of choice and freedom of expression can attepmt to compel its citizens to vote.
I'm at the same loss when it comes to having to pay taxes for programs for which there is no *true popular mandate!
...should be viewed as an indictment on the political process... It is, even the 'media' cries 'wolf', but is has no *effect when the laws are changed by the people voting...
It is time for a law that says either there is enough voter turn out... let's say '51% of the population'... or the election is deemed the political equivalent of a 'mistrial', all the candidates are loosers, and it is time to start over... no deadlines. Why come up with such a rigid structure anyway (here it's Jan 20th every four years - 'or else').
JazzO - Since your quote is from Max (and I'd imagine he's a bit busy today) and thread response to me... However, I speak for myself (as usual)...
When there are no candidates that represent my opinion enough for me to vote for them, my vote is to change the process. This why the effect of not voting needs to have some legal influence. There is no doubt about the effect that not voting has, and if freedom of expression is to be maintained, logically, this form of expression must be acknowledged.
Max's feelings on patriotism and nationalism are noted. I must chime in, though, by publically stating that I think the most pernicious evil can be found in commercialism. I have more respect for groups who fight over religion, feelings of independence, or statehood. But to see peoples, cultures, and whole languages destroyed for commercial enterprise gets me going.
There is no doubt about the effect that not voting has
Right-o, musick!...it gave us Clinton and W. Bush, respectively (and I use that last term loosely)!
And, while Max presents a convincing arument for not voting, I agree with JazzO on this point. If you choose not to vote fine...but then don't complain about the political situation, either.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
Justice, by definition, unfortunately cannot be achieved with a "scoundrel" such as him (I'm assuming it's the reason for the quotes around the word). BTW, I would stand beside you with all those words, however, we can't send him off to Australia for "isolation" anymore.
– but there is a language-related point that is perhaps worth adding.
