posted 06-13-2001 01:27            

I don't understand the opposition to the death penalty, especially in McVeigh's case. I can see the point when it comes to a question of evidence, but McVeigh blatantly admitted to bombing the building; what purpose can be served by keeping him alive? He would just use up money and space --- precious commodities in the Justice system these days.

To get on with Zeb's article:

If we are to presume that Timothy McVeigh was solely or even primarily responsible for the bomb that killed 168 men, women and children in Oklahoma City, that doesn't make what he did any more "wrong" that what the US Government will do today. From a purely religeous standpoint, how can one argue? The sixth commandment God gave Moses at Mount Sinai, according to Christian and Jewish Tradition is "Thou Shall Not Kill".

The two main points here mystify me. First, the government, being The Government, has as its primary duty to uphold what has been cast as "the law". McVeigh broke that law; he had no authority to wantonly kill those 168 people. By doing so McVeigh became a direct bearer of the consequences of breaking the law. While he was in the military it might have been his job to enforce the will of the US government but as a civilian that right (or priviledge or nightmare, depending on your standpoint) was taken from him. In order for a government to operate it must be able to perform duties that are held seperately from its citizens; the populace cannot be allowed to tax itself any more than it can be allowed to kill off parts of itself. The government, however, can --- that is the whole reason "governments" were conceived.

The second point of Zeb's statement I can nearly blow off with a "seperation of church and state" evokation. I mean, I don't know Zeb that well, or at all for that matter, but he never came across as a religious type guy so I fail to see why this argument can even hold weight. True, a lot of the governing principles in most people's lives (and most government's policies) are founded upon ideas that come from religion, but they are not strict adherences of such; rather, they're comfortable interpretations that allow people to generally live with themselves or, to borrow a phrase, allow them to justify their existence.

To quote more of Zeb:

I do not say that today we are serving justice. I do not say that the man about to die is guilty or innocent of the crimes he is accused of or has admitted to committing. I say that today, like any other day in prisons throughout our "modern" country, we are killing a human being. He will die not at the hands of nature, or in the throws of battle, but on a padded gurney. His arms will be strapped in and a lethal injection fired into his veins. Today a son to a father will die. Today an American soldier who fought for his country will have his country take his life. Think not of vengeful retribution today, but whether any of us has the moral fortitude and sinless past to pull the lever.

I know for damned sure that I have both the moral fortitude and sinless past --- I've never killed anyone and would be entirely too content to push that little button that releases those blessed chemicals into his worthless veins. Fuck lethal injection. It's too fast and painless. Same goes for hanging. Electric chair I'm kinda partial too but that's just my southern roots talking. Firing squad...that's kinda cool. Ideally I'd like victims or the victims' families to be able to carry out the punishment; they have as much right as the government to snuff out the life of someone who has violated one (or more) of the tenets of the social contract, any which way you define that.

The main thing that pisses me off about McVeigh is, like Biggles said, McVeigh won. He was killed and becomes a martyr. Had he lived he'd be a symbol, a leader...for about an hour, until the general population of whatever prison he was sent to would shank him. That, too, is justice.

posted 06-13-2001 01:37         

The sad point of all this McVeigh business is that he did win. No matter what his fate would have been. He killed more than once, and we should discuss a fitting punishment for a mass-murderer, cause you can't kill a man 168 times... Right?

------------------
One for sorrow two for joy
Three for girls four for boys
Five for silver six for gold
Seven for a secret never to be told

posted 06-13-2001 08:50            

2. I do not, do not, DO NOT fucking trust the US Government with the death penalty. Dead people don't talk. DA's and cops don't like getting caught when they make mistakes. The LAST thing I want to happen is to have a bunch of damn yokel cops and a self-important DA with a tough case - or an axe to grind - pushing for a speedy execution to "wrap things up neatly".

For this reason, and this reason alone, I am a vociferous objector to the death penalty. It serves no purpose whatsoever - it takes so long to execute someone that it ABSOLUTELY fails to serve as any sort of deterrent, and for it TO serve as a deterrent, you would have to give cops and DAs and judges access to quick-foolproof-and-legal coverup methods that involved KILLING people.

posted 06-13-2001 16:47            

all im saying is that one person who is wrongfully killed in prison. ie. a story i heard from my friend that 1 in four people on death row in like texas or alabama or some shit, have been set free due to new DNA testing. I mean... cats are sittin up there waitin to die on death row that haven't even done anything. If it means keeping 30 crazy fucks alive to make sure that no injustice is done, then im for it. In McVeighs case.. fo course i dont disagree with his death, but i wouldn't pull the switch. It always reminds me of shawshank redemption. I mean, fuck, imagine yourself getting charged for rape or some shit, and being on death row for 14 years, and then your fuckin set free cuz of a DNA test when you knew you were innocent the whole time. Thinking your life is over and you didn't do a damn thing. I cant even imagine..... thats my only arguement for the death penalty, otherwise... fuck em... kill the crazy fucks... especially pedifiles... i'd pull the switch on them... sick fucks.

Peter.

posted 06-13-2001 21:27            

I'm all for putting the guilty to death, but there are far too many questions about the justice system to allow the death penalty to be practiced in this country. It may have been a better punishment to sentence McVeigh to 10 years in prison, general population. He wouldn't have lasted 10 days, and I'm sure it would have been far more painful.

posted 06-13-2001 23:50            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bitchgoddess:
Hmmm... fen, are you a Libertarian? I agree with you guys on the point that the death penalty is misused in America, I am however thrilled to have seen the last of Timothy McVeigh. He didn't quite get what he deserved, but the world is a slightly better place without him in it.

---

I have a problem, both in that he did not get what he deserved, but more so importantly: he got what he wanted. Timothy McVeigh has said, again and again, that he wanted to be caught, and that he wanted to die at the government’s command. His execution has allowed him to be a martyr, not just in his mind, but also in the nutjobs that agreed with him.

I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty, but I’m absolutely confident that Timothy McVeigh should not have been executed. Simply killing one more cannot wipe the death of 100+ people clean, and granting his wish has just made even cheaper.

He should have been kept alive, locked away in some forgotten wing of a federal prison in Alaska. Instead of being granted his martyrdom he should have been forgotten. Deprive him of his fame and make him nothing.

Furthermore, I believe that it was irresponsible to kill him while the investigation still continues. The revelations regarding just how inept the FBI can be, as well as the lists of yet-unanswered questions regarding what led up to the bombing is just going to make this scenario into another JFK situation.

posted 06-13-2001 23:50            

But to everyone:

Jesus you fuckers are harsh. I don't care what a guy did, where did we get they idea that being ass-raped in prison is a proper punishment?? Do you guys want that "cruel and unusual" clause rescinded or something? Cuz I think it's one of the most important parts of the ol' constitution, and ass-raping is (to me) cruel AND unusual.

Who the hell are we to say that a convicted child molester is so evil he deserves that kind of punishment? Putting aside the possibility that he's innocent altogether, suppose he's mentally ill, by any definition-- consider the idea that he cannot control what he does. A person like that should be institutionalized, not in prison, anyway.

Alright, abusing a kid is a terrible thing. But you eye-for-an-eye people are warped. That very phrase arose as a plea for less punishment, not more, from the days someone would be put to death for practically any crime.

After all- a child molester only hurts a couple of kids. Albert Fish- maybe a hundred, Tim McVeigh 168 or whatever. But look at something bigger, more endemic, like some corporate grafter who sidesteps laws to dump toxins on thousands or fucks with his taxes to deprive minimum social support for millions. You never hear anyone crying for them to be ass-raped.

We can never stop small-scale individual crimes like child molestation, rape, and so on. We are a big, fast, jaded society who simply is not concerned enough with paying for things like social services, public health, institutions, &c., to be bothered trying to make a dent in those problems. We'd rather keep the money in our own pockets and pay to have iron bars put over our windows.

But then someone, somewhere does something bad, and it gets on the news, and we're all so shocked that we need to call out for that guy to get executed or imprisoned for life or molested his own damn self?

Nah, fuck that, its reactionary, short-sighted, and hypocritical. It's an example of yelling about the problems we want to solve so we can ignore the problems we don't know how to solve.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

posted 06-14-2001 01:47            

Being sodomized is a bad thing?

Yes it is, I know, but how do we know that child molesters see it as bad?

"Yes sir, may I have another!"

posted 06-14-2001 02:47            

I don't have any kids, but I did teach in Junior high for a couple of years, and nobody better fuck with those kids.

But school kids get fucked with everywhere, every day. So do the elderly, and fetuses, and blacks, and indians... Its a tragedy every time, and I'm not defending the people who do it.

posted 06-14-2001 09:56         

------------------
One for sorrow two for joy
Three for girls four for boys
Five for silver six for gold
Seven for a secret never to be told

[This message has been edited by kokinolimoneiki (edited 06-14-2001).]

posted 06-14-2001 12:13            

Eye for an eye.

I remember reading about that a looong time ago... and I think that its a rather extreme length to be going. Even our justice system, as convoluted, delayed, and at times unfair as it can be is much better than an eye for an eye society.

Some crimes also dont transfer over quite so well. (I raped a mans goat, so then that man gets to rape my goat in turn.)

It very well could be that it would lower the amount of crime in an area, but I somehow doubt there would be a drastic change. How does eye for an eye deal with embezzelers? Cut off their hands?

People only seem to do crimes when they dont think they'll be caught anyway. Look at all the states that have the death penalty... A convoluted 'eye for an eye', but it does exist. Do states with a death penalty truly have less murders than states without one?

Many men also seem to have a secret death wish belief that they are immortal. Dont believe me? Look at the way some people drive at lethal speeds on a busy road just because Jimmy's late to soccer practice.

Plus... can you imagine being on trial for breaking a mans leg (or something worse) and being wrongfully convicted? Jesus...

Well... I guess the main problem with eye for an eye is that it would probably fall into the hands of the people who are fucking up our system now.

-Chris

posted 06-14-2001 13:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Jesus you fuckers are harsh. I don't care what a guy did, where did we get they idea that being ass-raped in prison is a proper punishment?? Do you guys want that "cruel and unusual" clause rescinded or something? Cuz I think it's one of the most important parts of the ol' constitution, and ass-raping is (to me) cruel AND unusual.

---

The thing about this is...the sentence of ass-raping isn't handed down by the courts. The "cruel and unusual" bullshit doesn't even apply. I don't know why you think it did. What everyone was saying was putting child molesters in the general population of prisons kinda guarantees that something rather unpleasant is going to happen to them. That is an appropriate form of justice because when inmates kill child molesters it justifies how John Q. Public, generally, feels about child molesters. It's street justice, something we all wish we could carry out on occassion, and to see it carried out makes me all warm and fuzzy.

Putting child molesters in jail is no more "cruel and unusual" than putting any other criminal in there. As far as I know judges have yet to hand down sentences of "15-30 years of assraping at Sing Sing."

quote:

---

Who the hell are we to say that a convicted child molester is so evil he deserves that kind of punishment? Putting aside the possibility that he's innocent altogether, suppose he's mentally ill, by any definition-- consider the idea that he cannot control what he does. A person like that should be institutionalized, not in prison, anyway.

---

*sigh* I never understand when people defend criminals, especially ones that have no real reason to be defended. Sure, people murder in crimes of passion, etc., but does anyone molest kids "in the heat of the moment"? Anyway, even if said molester is mentally ill, you know what, that's even more reason to fry his ass or put him away forever. Because being mentally ill, the chances of him responding to treatment or "rehabiliatating" are slim to none, and being a mentally-ill child molester makes him doubly-useless to society as a whole. Mentally ill child molesters serve no purpose, take up valuable time, money, space, and resources, and in an age where people are bitching about the population, why not kill them? Simple.

quote:

---

After all- a child molester only hurts a couple of kids. Albert Fish- maybe a hundred, Tim McVeigh 168 or whatever. But look at something bigger, more endemic, like some corporate grafter who sidesteps laws to dump toxins on thousands or fucks with his taxes to deprive minimum social support for millions. You never hear anyone crying for them to be ass-raped.

---

So we're now quantifying crime and/or evil? And a backwards quantification at that. What are 168 or so people compared to tax evasion? Nothing! Never heard of white-collar criminals being held in lower regards than other types of criminals. In any case, I'd like for all convicted criminals to be punished appropriately; I do not agree with white collar bastards getting posh cells and a slap on the wrist. They're as guilty as the rest. Then again, I've never heard of tax-creative accountants "depriving millions of basic social services" outside of a country such as Brunei.

Yes, the American populace, this message board included, tends to be reactionary. But there are some cases where being reactionary doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

posted 06-14-2001 21:48            

Some points to remember:

• Death sentenses do indeed cost more than life imprisonment.
  
• I see the problems of a corporate asshole sidestepping laws to dump toxins as a worse problem. (murder one person, or cause thousands to get sick and die...)
  
• Normally I would be all for anything that caused there to be a few less people on this planet, but dammit... I just wouldnt' be able to bring myself to kill someone unless I was in danger myself.
  
• There is always a chance that a person was innocent.
  
• Just because this one person truly may deserve to die, who are we to carry out the judgement and kill him? Are we some sort of Gods? Since when is the power to take human life ours to use on a whim? That makes us little better than the crazy psycho wacko that just killed your little sister.
  

posted 06-14-2001 22:27            

Mon- You're right practically across the board, and I agree with a lot of what you say, and you found a lot of weakness in what I said. Let me try and distill a bit--

Well, for one thing, of course the justice system doesn't hand down a sentence of ass-rape-- it's kind of a systemic reality. What I meant was that I seem to be the only person in this thread who doesn't think that's a good thing. It seems to me that if someone thinks it "just" for a child molester to be ass-raped in prison, then that person should be in favor of "ass-raping" being added to the mandatory sentencing guidelines for child molesters, but I don't think anyone in here would go that far.

I probably came off defending criminals more than I meant to. I happen to be against the death penalty, but its not because there isn't anyone who deserves to die (but rather because I don't think the govt should have that much power). But it seems like any time people discuss punishment everyone thinks that a harsher punishment is by definition better.

And on that subject, when we talk about what punishment fits what crime, aren't we locked into "quantifying crime and/or evil"? That's the name of the game, isn't it? The question of "is rape worse than murder or child molestation" and so on. You can't have every violent crime be a capital offense, after all.

So I guess what I meant was: If you accept capital punishment, then surely Tim McVeigh was a prime cantidate. But I'm more worried about large-scale crime that isn't committed by a single guy you can hang the blame on afterwards. And the punishments there are apt to be fines, if it ever gets to that point at all. So sometimes I wish people would stop lobbying for more violent punishments for the stuff on the news, and start thinking about any kind of punishment for the stuff that really ruins so many of the lives in our fair little country.

posted 06-14-2001 23:27            

There are other crimes however, in which rehabilitation is completely possible. In my husband's experience, murderers would be the easiest to rehab. He says that those he met while working as a prison guard were some of the nicest people he has met. Their source of frustration and anger is gone, and they can be put in therapy to learn to control future anger management problems. Murder is of course a terrible crime, and should be punished, however, if your only goal is to make sure they won't kill again, then a lot of them can be put back on the street immediately.

I agree that rehabilitation should be attempted for most criminals while serving time in prison. I do not however agree that imprisonment is too harsh a punishment for most crimes. In a lot of cases it's not harsh enough.

I don't think that drug related crimes should be punishable with prison terms, those can be sent to long term rehab centers. Prison is not where you want to go if you wish to quit using drugs, it's probably easier to get them there than in the hood anyway.

Again, I haven't been totally coherent, but it's been a long day, and this topic tends to make me less than rational at times. Being a parent makes you see things with a totally different perspective. I no longer hear about stories of abuse and think that it's not really my problem, or that it's not really a big deal. I see my 5 year old, and how much things affect her, and the length of time they could affect her for, and think that if that were to happen to her I'd probably lay down and die. My children are the most important people in my life, what affects them affects me, and I will keep them from danger in any way that I possibly can. That goes for most parents that I know, and those who have children who have been abused would do anything to erase the scars that it causes, butthe truth is that it can't be done.

posted 06-15-2001 00:56            

Compare that throughout Africa, about 40,000 kids die from hunger or malnutrition per day.

Which is worse, being abused, or dying slowly from hunger? I don't know. Probably no-one does. You don't want your kid to be abused? Fine. I bet there are lots of moms in africa who would rather their kids not die slowly and horribly. You have your kids and they have theirs.

Now, if you meet the guy responsible for the kids in africa, introduce me to him, and I will pound that fucker until he's not even recognizable as a human.

As a parent, (if I was one) obviously I would be worried as hell about the safety of my kids. But as a member of society, I'm less worried about crimes committed by one specific person than the ones that span a class, an economic group, a race, or an entire population .. even a black one.

fen