Will you be watching Timothy McVeigh die on May 16th?

androphobic

I suppose that's my question: Will you be watching Timothy McVeigh die on May 16th?
If so, why?
If not, why not?

androphobic

I should really clarify actually.. his execution will only be broadcasted to 250 relatives of the victims, etc.
But the basic idea is still there.. it'll be all over the television.. 16,000 school kids in America are getting the day off.. it's like some sort of carnival..

is this right?
should he die?
is he evil incarnate?

smoke.me.a.kipper

i dont believe in the death penelty myself, but showing it on the telly is wrong.

but, to be honest, i'd probably watch it, just to have seen it.

---

- Ciaran
smoke-me-a-kipper
S-M-A-K bottom!!™

[This message has been edited by smoke-me-a-kipper (edited 21-04-2001).]

neuro-praxis

No *way* will I be watching it. It is plain sick and morbid to have the world watch as a man's life is ended by a "civilised" society. It's appalling.

I can understand the curiosity, but I wouldn't watch it. It just isn't right, no matter what he did.

But then, I am one of those people who refused to watch Big Brother, even if I found it luring me. It just satisfies an odd curiosity we all have. Not good, in my opinion.

Winning Hand

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
16,000 school kids in America are getting the day off.. it's like some sort of carnival..</font>

Actually the only kids getting the day off are the kids who go to school in terra haute, the place of execution. And yes he should die, personally i think lethal injection is too good for him.

Anyway in america its the victims family or victims themselves who have the right to watch the execution, nothings different here. The 250 people to watch the exectuion had their lives drastically changed because of this b@stard

---

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this....
bull****

yossarin

was it his execution that some company was trying to webcast ?

watching it: I dont have sky sports, so probably not,

sorry that was in bad taste. no i wouldn't watch it. thats messed up. aside from the whole death penalty thing (which i'm not even going to touch) why would you want to watch a person getting killed ?

I'll stick to wwf thanks.

bugler

Timothy McVeigh: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example".
Firstly,I don't think McVeigh "did" it.Not in the sense presented. He may have played a part,but more about that later.
The trial was a farce really.The only jurors who were permitted to try him were those in favour of the death penalty! Thats right, all the jurors were pro-death penalty.So for a start,this made the fact that if he was found guilty,it was automatically a death sentence.
During the whole trial everyone from Clinton to Janet Réno was calling for him to be executed.This is laughable.Very many cases are declared mis-trials because of adverse media coverage/reports,and yet here almost every right winger and self pompous gimp who was trying to ride to acclaim on the backs of the deceased mouthed off,and nothing was done.In the recent Leeds Utd players trial,a mistrial was declared after the alleged victims father gave an interview to a paper claiming the attack was racially motivated. Aswell as these public figures many trashy newspapers piped up,spouting emotional and inflammatory shíte non-stop,not to mention one that claimed he had confessed pre-trial..All this in the greatest democracy in the world eh?

Cartoon for death penalty advocates


And on the subject of his guilt,there is alot of doubt.Of course it is not a fashionable cause to take up,nevertheless it is important.The star witness of the prosecution was hardly reliable,another militia man,and confessed drug taker,for what its worth....
One woman who was in the lobby of the building just prior to the bombing saw the truck pull up and a stocky hispanic man get out and go to the back of the truck(McVeigh is thin and white).She did not see McVeigh afaik.Did anyone?

Is he evil incarnate? No.McVeigh said that he was angry and bitter after fighting in the Gulf War, where he won several medals for heroism.
"I went over there hyped up, just like everyone else," he said. "What I experienced, though, was an entirely different ballgame. And being face to face close with these people in personal contact, you realize they're just people like you."
Hardly sounds like someone with no respect at all for human life.He is an odd one,he does believe violence against the government is acceptable,but I do not think he was the mastermind/perpretator of the bombing,if he bombed it at all.Alot of my information has come from americans who expressed a very keen interest in the case,I might go look for links/urls from them and their posts.I know that the claims of the state of the type of bomb used don't add up,and as far as I know they changed from claiming it was a single bomb to multiple bombs or vice versa.My explosive knowing acquaintances claim it all adds up to dodginess,the fact that the government finished off the building and then impounded the rubble behind closed doors leads them to suspect that things don't add up.McVeih had been under surveillance for weeks,yet they couldn't stop him doing this? One theory,and its supported by many of the victims families is that it was a sting gone wrong...that the FBI botched a trap set up to ensnsare them.There are claims that some of the men who are being "sought" still for the bombing are actually government agents ,perhaps who were working undercover?
Also claims that state authorities briefed their charges that it was necessary in this case to give some mis-information to the public.Unfortunately,as in many alleged cover up cases,alot of this is from "sources", apparently too afraid/unwilling to come forward and be named.Such is life.

I think that whatever McVeigh may have believed or done,there is alot more to this case than meets the eye,and alot of high up people who are worried.I believe an eagerly awaited book "American Terrorist" on the subject is out now or out very soon, I might buy it
Sorry for the long one,you just hit on something that has caught my interest!
And I know i didn't answer the question about whether it should be televised or not,but I think thats the least important issue here.Executions are always semi-carnival affairs,groups praying for his death on one side,another group praying for the opposite a few yards away



[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 02-05-2001).]

Paladin

Perhaps not meant, but Andro's question hints at a much wider philosophical question, which so far in mankinds growing enlightenment and civility has not been answered.

Should a society show its intolerence of murder with murder? And the killing of Timothy McVeigh is murder, but is that definition a moot point?

If people support the death penalty, should they not be willing to view the consequences of their choice? Will they be too white bred to actually witness a mans execution? Some certainly are, not all of course, but some.

Then, if you dont support the death penalty are you willing
a) To pay extra taxes to keep murderers incarcerated
or
b) Tolerate them in society

Somehow I doubt many people would support b, but then if they dont tolerate them in society are they themselves too whitebred to face the problem, that they would agree to lock them up and 'forget about the problem'.

My personal views?

I would be willing to pay extra tax to see that jail sentences in this country are increased by about 2 fold for offenders of violent crime, the result being I would slightly less money, but a better world in which to spend it.

I support the death penalty and though I have no experience upon which to base it (except my supposed desensitized view towards violence because of video games tv etc. ) I would say that I would be quite willing to watch the result of my views.

To the question that society is hypocritical if it punishes murder with murder, I say that if someone is willing to murder, then they have given up their right to a free life.

Sometimes murder has extinuating circumstances and some murder cases might not deserve the death penalty. Am I then willing to live with the possiblility that my choice may result in a death that I dont agree with? To be honest this question forces me to reconsider my views. However after some thougt, I would still support the death penalty.

However, showing an execution like some sort of pay per view special is not something I would agree with (and I know this is not actually what is happening, but a web company wanted to broadcast it just like that).

Excelsior

Edited for duplication

[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 21-04-2001).]

Excelsior

I don't endorse the death penalty. And I have to say that I don't endorse the fact that it is going to be watched. The groups behind it hope that it will serve as some kind of therapy and act of closure for victims.
I doubt it will. It will just give McVeigh an opportunity to spite them. They won't get an apology. They will either get
a) McVeigh quietly dying having ignored their prescence.
b) Worse, McVeigh mocking them and pointing out that their blood lust and desire for revenge are very similar to his feelings when he blew up the Alfred P Murrah Building.

Plus, the actual death is ridiculously anti-climatic. He won't shriek, he won't gurgle or spit and he won't writh in pain - which is what they think he deserves. He will just lie there and then be dead.

So it won't even make very good TV.

The problem is that it is actually unconstitutional to prevent that company from webcasting it. It is a government operation and therefore the people have a right to see it. Meaning, it won't be long before they are televised.

What do you think Andro? You offered no opinion.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

amp

I do believe in capital punishment for serial rapists, child molesters and mass murders but only in a system where justice is perfect. Because capital punishment is absolute the system that intiates it must also be absolute. And therefore because I don't believe any judicial system to be perfect I don't believe in the death penalty.

Whether McVeigh is innocent or not is irrelevant, the US needs a sacrafice to be made. Which in this day and age is a little pathetic.

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

Winning Hand

Reminds me of the classy film from the eighties with sean young (chick from blade runner) who is a journalist who is trying to get an execution shown live for ratings. I suggest you check it out.

BTW afaik you wont be able to watch the execution, only the hype around it

---

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this....
bull****

Paladin

Actually ya know what amp, thats exactly right. I have to agree.

Perhaps the chance of mistake is too much. I still rekon the penalty for violent or pretty much any awful crime against humanity shoult be doubled (jail terms ppl).

Bucon

If it is on terrestrial TV, i would watch it.
It's a good thing to see a mass murderer die, it won't exactly be entertaining TV, but it will be interesting to see what he says in his 'last few words' speech.

I dont think it will be broadcast though, the 250 relatives have been invited to the prison to witness it, and thats fair enough, I'd want to see it if he had killed my loved one, not in the hopes that he will scream and squirm in pain...but to know that he's gone.

There was also a mention of a pay-per-view thing on the internet, with the money going to some fund for victims families..I think?
This is another good idea in my opinion...if people do want to watch it and are willing to pay then the money should go somewhere worthwhile.

As regards whether or not the death penalty is a good thing...I personally agree with it on the basis of saving tax payers money. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to keep these criminals locked up. Even with the death penalty being enforced in America they still have criminals sitting on death row for years...they should be disposed of a lot quicker, and spend the money on more deserving causes.

Bucon.

bugler

Its not so much a perfect justice system is needed,its that its the poorest of society that always will get the bum judgement.All those detah row inmates who are freed from death row having been found innocent,they are represented by some disgracefully bad lawyers.The free ones of course,who get the same fee no matter what happens...its just not fair in a matter of life and death.
Being wealthy means you can afford a good lawyer,which in turn means you have abetter chance of getting off.This is wrong.You should not be able to buy justice. I'm not really opposed to the death penalty on any moral grounds,its just too many innocent people would be killed,and there can be no greater injustice in society.
Also,mental retardation,25 states in the US allow mentally retarded people to be sentenced to death.Don't agree with this either.

SantaHoe

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Topic: Will you be watching Timothy McVeigh die on May 16th?</font>

Not if I can help it... but TV stations being what they are - I'll probably stumble across some images on the news. <<shudder>>

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
What do you think Andro? You offered no opinion.

</font>

I don't know - I'm in two minds about it.
One part of me doesn't agree with the death penalty, particularly with the fact that in America people have been executed who have committed their crime while under the age of 18.
(Though then there is the whole argument about whether they knew the difference between right and wrong etc etc but hownever.)

I was interested to see what you all thought though. At the same time, I think it is very hard for anyone to say outright that, if they lost a loved one the way the people of Oklahoma lost theirs, they wouldnt want to see McVeigh die.
You know, I think I would, but I've never lost a loved one to murder, so I really and truly can't say.

But when you do lose someone, the anger is unreal.. and I suppose it is natural to want revenge, so who can blame the people of Oklahoma?
However, the whole televised thing is a bit surreal (it's being televised to the 250 relatives who have chosen to watch it.. I dunno about this whole showing it on the internet thing though). Paladin made a good point about watching it - if someone killed one of your parents, would you be able to watch the killer die? I don't know if I would. The actual psychological part of witnessing this event will not HELP the relatives imo. It will only add to their trauma.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think the death penalty is morally wrong but I haven't lost a loved one to murder so I can't say what I would do or think if I was in that position.
In general, I think America is wrong to endorse it (though it's not endorsed in all states afaik). As far as I know, there's only 3 countries in the world who have not signed some human rights bill (sorry can't remember its exact title) which states that they will not execute juvenile offenders - USA, Iran and Rwanda (not 100% certain if it's Rwanda or another African country.. pfft it's a Saturday night and it's late:)

On a more individual level, Timothy McVeigh scares me.. not because he killed 168 people including the children in the day care centre in the building (though..uhh.. that's a good reason for him to scare me:), but I think he will taunt the relatives when he is executed. And that would be a truly evil thing to do.

Sorry for the length of this and I hope it's comprehendable.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I certainly do not believe in the death penalty- in fact, if the state in which I practised in had the death penalty- I'd have disbarred myself the day I left law school and moved house. Seriously. Gladly, Washington state neither has, nor has ever had the death penalty- Voorhagen, Holland being the only other province in the world where this is the case.

Amp is absolutely correct- there is no justice system that is perfect- and even sending one innocent person to their death doesn't bear thinking about. And as for broadcasting it on television- the thought makes me nauseous- it really does. It harkens my thoughts to the days when court-house lawn hangings were the norm, and bodies were left swinging so the public could cash in on the spectacle as a deterrent. Little else can be as barbaric imho.

Tim McVeigh is not a cold-blooded killer- he sought nothing more than vengeance against a government that he felt had abandoned him and his fellow vets. He was in fact a former corporal, and winner of one of only the 5 infantry Silver Star's given out during the Gulf war- awarded for successfully rescuing his platoon commander and two other wounded men from the bombed out shell of an Iraqi bunker (and great personal risk to himself).

The US government have painted him as a heartless babykiller- his trial and assured conviction (with a federally sequestered jury hearing a charge of treason there can be no other outcome) were two other PR operations that went smoothly from the US government's point of view. He certainly wasn't the mastermind behind the explosion- Dan Russner the Oklahoma City DA concedes that material evidence was a problem- McVeigh was Army Special forces- if he wanted to build or acquire an explosive device he wouldn't simply fill a truck up with fertilizer and leave it parked outside. A small amount of Semtex would have done the job- and he knew how to get it (or make it) from the right-wing militia group he was a member of. Material evidence points well away from McVeigh. More likely he was the scapegoat of both sides- the militia can protect its member, and the new member McVeigh takes the fall. Perfect deal for both sides- and one DA's frequently make.

Only one thing is clear out of all of this- McVeigh won't taunt the victim's families- and those families will only deepen their pain by watching him die. He won't suffer either- hydroxyalamine is near painless. So what's the point of broadcasting it? Because it can be- there need never be any other reason for publicity in the US.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:

Only one thing is clear out of all of this- McVeigh won't taunt the victim's families- and those families will only deepen their pain by watching him die. He won't suffer either- hydroxyalamine is near painless. So what's the point of broadcasting it? Because it can be- there need never be any other reason for publicity in the US.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=</font>

has he said he won't taunt them?
oh yea and does anyone if the book is available in ireland yet?

GreenHell

hmm death penalty in modern society is a bit of a contradiction to all this perserve life we're fed.

I won't watch the execution not even for curiosity because its sicking to make a show out of the ending of this mans life.

If not the death senctance then what?
Well life and bt life I mean leaving prison in a coffin.

azezil

ok i now this is gonna hurt me later but i hav no idea who he is!!!

but i do believe no man has the rite to take the life of another, and as for broadcasting it thats the sinister thing i'v ever heard! omg sick ppl!

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by azezil:
ok i now this is gonna hurt me later but i hav no idea who he is!!!

</font>

oklahoma bomber azezil.. well that's what he's being executed for anyway

azezil

oh rite ya .... cheers!

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by azezil:
ok i now this is gonna hurt me later but i hav no idea who he is!!!

but i do believe no man has the rite to take the life of another, and as for broadcasting it thats the sinister thing i'v ever heard! omg sick ppl!

</font>

No man has the right to kill another - McVeigh had no right to kill 168 people by blowing up the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City either. Among the facilities he destroyed was the building's creche (40 children dead).

I would support the death penalty if it is the desire of the victim's relatives to have him executed. However, due to the imperfect nature of the legal system and police forces in various countries, it's impossible to give broad support to capital punishment in all cases.

As for the broadcasting, I don't understand what people are riled up about. He's being executed anyway, he won't be any less dead then if it wasn't broadcast, therefore I find that irrelevant.

bugler

Bleh,lazy argument.We have no right to take a life - "Well he had no right to take lives either,and he did,so its ok!"

I don't think many would dispute the oklahoma bombing was wrong, that doesn't mean its ok to respond in kind.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
I would support the death penalty if it is the desire of the victim's relatives to have him executed.
</font>

Castor,thats a very Islamic viewpoint

azezil

ok i see ur point ct but still i don't say he should die! granted i'd fell differently if my family were there, but why let him get away with it by kill him now, why not let him suffer for the rest of his life!

[edit] didn't read who'd be watching [\edit]
well i can see how families may feel the need to c justice done, but the idea of it being broadcast is what desturbes me, what if some person see's it, feels excited by it and wants to c more...

---

"just because ur not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after u!"

[This message has been edited by azezil (edited 22-04-2001).]

androphobic

the broadcasting is somewhat limited but dunno final details as such.. etc

po0k

It's sick. It's also frighteningly similar to what has been envisaged in many sci-fi stories, publicly televised executions to dissusade the populous from commiting these crimes. Anyone remember that bit in 'Starship Troopers'? That film seemed to be taking the pi$$ out of a federal/facist regime, but I'm not so up on those matters, so I won't venture there.
The webcasting company was called 'entertainment Network' I think. I laughed when I first heard that. But was alos sickened at the thought of it.
And Bugler, you are absolutely right. But perfection, as we as a predominately Christian state are led to believe, doesn't exist on Earth. it is utopian to think taht one could exist. our human nature is predispositioned to violence. Prehaps that will change, but for now violence is ever-present. Unfortunately.
I have lost the plot of this post so i'll finish with this.
George W. (dubbya?) Bush stated ( and I'm paraphrasing here) 'I am against abortion.' ' I am in support of the death penalty'. Not meaning to slag your country, Bob, just it's curent head of administration as he makes himself such an inviting target, but that is one fúcked up country, musch like ourselves and the North.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bugler

He's on suicide watch as they couldn't have him cheating them out of their viewing pleasure

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 22-04-2001).]

sam

define "right" and "wrong"

sam

put it another way, if you say "killing is wrong", then im asking "what makes it wrong?"

before you draw any conslusions and start posting crap ill remind you that you wouldnt be here if you hadnt killed something, at some time or other (plants, bacteria, whatever)

Paladin

Utilitarian theory
It has its interesting points.

Mind you, this question sounds remarkable like socrates you plageriser

Chubby

Sam:
killing is not a black and white issue, it’s all about justification the society accepts. Individuals might not agree with the given justification but as long as society says it’s wrong then it’s wrong. Freedom is just an illusion. The society we live in decides what is right and what is wrong and punishes those who do things they shouldn't have like little Timothy here.

What you should be asking is not why killing is wrong but why killing other humans is wrong as we have double standards. I'd answer that except it's late and I am sure each individuals will have different views on why it's wrong. I'll post some more at work tomorrow if I am bored enough


[This message has been edited by Chubby (edited 23-04-2001).]

sam

yup, thats more or less what i was trying to get people to acknowledge wing, so they wouldnt throw a big hissy fit every time they are dealing with crime (OH MY GOD HES A MURDERER!! etc)

Lucy_la_morte

The media has to play a large part in the punishment of some 'murderers'.

---

J'ai dormi sous l'eau.

Lucy la morte.

[This message has been edited by Lucy_la_morte (edited 23-04-2001).]

Excelsior

As far as I know the 250 relatives and viewers are not going to be at the execution, but they will be provided with a satellite link to wherever they are.

The AG, Ashcroft and his cronies claim that they provide this service as a means of "closure" for the victims families. The state acting as private psychiatrist, how lovely.
The problem with this is that the death will be the biggest anti-climax you could imagine. He will just pass away. He will feel no real pain and it won't take long. In terms of retribution (and lets not mince words, it is retirbution) this will be a hollow revenge.
Furthermore, there is every chance that McVeigh will point out that in turning up or tuning in, these victims are merely sanctioning the same type of violence and the same kind of pain as McVeigh did in 1997. You may argue that their revenge is wholly justified, but to this day McVeigh believes that he made a heroic attempt to stop what he believes to be a tyrannic government. He feels justified.
There will be no closure. The cycle of pain will just be perpetuated.
The broadcasting of executions will happen. The companies involved have a constitutional right. But it won't last long. They're just too damned boring to make good tv.
And that is a damning indictment of modern culture. That the reason people won't take to this isn't because it is brutal, amoral and disgusting, but because it is not as exciting as Temptation Island.

It really is a question of compassion and standards. I don't agree with the argument that victims should be able to call for death penalties. In fact, I think that is appalling. They, more than anyone, should understand the great violation that murder is. They, more than anyone should understand that taking human life is inherently wrong. And as a result they should look with mercy and not blood lust.

I am with Bob here. If the place that I lived in ever introduced the death penalty, I would move.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Bucon

Quotes from Excelsiors post :

Its "A damning indictment of modern culture" that people don't want to watch an execution because it will be boring. Does this imply that if the authorities made it into an entertaining spectacle it would be ok to broadcast and watch?
and who the hell said Temptation Island was exciting?

"They, more than anyone, should understand the great violation that murder is."
Im sure that they do, and maybe they agree with the death penalty for this very reason.
They have suffered such pain and loss, why should McVeigh get to reside in a prison, living off tax-payers money?!


Bucon.

astrofool

McVeigh's last words will be "168 for 1"

168 = people he killed, number maybe different. He shows no remorse at all, just to add that to the mix.

anyone watch "A Time to Kill" ??

thoughts on that?

Chubby

Excelsior:
the execution of Timothy McVeigh is not murder (go look up the definition of murder). You could of course try to change the world and the definition of murder as killing other humans no matter what the circumstances.

I agree with yas though that its a hollow revenge. They should really bring back public hangings and beheadings . It's "a damning indictment of modern culture" that those public events are no longer acceptable. (and yes I am being a sarcastic)

Jak

They are Executing him in accordance with the law. Not Murdering him.

**** him. Absolute waste of space and will be no loss to society whatsoever. Why keep him in prison? To give him some quality of life?

Quite simply he does not deserve it.

Whether it is a deterrent or not (there is no proof to support either argument as there are too many factors which cannot be accounted for), it works wonders for re-offence rates.

JAK.

C B

Can anybody tell me why the execution shouldn't be broadcast?

If a state deems execution to be virtious why not broadcast it?

DadaKopf

I don't know about the justification in the States but here and in Britain, it has a lot to do with gravitas and prevention of turning the legal system into a source of entertainment. The legal system is there to make all men equally accountable before the law. Television turns that into entertainment and I suspect the real motivations for televising McVeigh's execution is money - imagine the ratings! That's presuming it's going to be shown on channels other than C-SPAN or PBS (but even they have to make a profit).

Like I said before, I'm worried about other cultural motivations; are we to understand the televisation as a statement saying, "This is what happens if you have strong convictions". Look at Mumia Abu Jamal, Noam Chomsky or John Lennon. Each have been closely spied on by the government, the first allegedly being imprisoned illegally. I worry about the state of 'liberal' democracy in America - as a friend of mine said, it's the "tyranny of liberalism". It's ok to speak your mind so long as it's not TOO extreme; everybody has a duty to 'be nice'.

It's pretty depressing. It's not true, reactionary, revolutionary liberalism of old nor is it democracy - it's not even Mexico!

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Excelsior

Bucon: "Its "A damning indictment of modern culture" that people don't want to watch an execution because it will be boring. Does this imply that if the authorities made it into an entertaining spectacle it would be ok to broadcast and watch?
and who the hell said Temptation Island was exciting? "

Well, if you read the full paragraph you would have seen that I don't think "it would be ok to broadcast and watch" if it were more dramatic.
"the reason people won't take to this isn't because it is brutal, amoral and disgusting..."

I think that it is murder. It is, in my highly subjective view, the pre-meditated and malicious killing of another human. Murder is defined as unlawful killing but that includes manslaughter and all kinds of scenarios that don't fit it.

Executions will be shown CB. As they are actions performed by the government they have a right to be aired.

This however, is indulging in blood lust and base retribution and I think this can't really satisfy the victims.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

bugler

Seems too many people will be just too keen to say "right,he's dead,thats all dealt with",when in fact of course it has not.The US government would like you to think so,but this kind of thing will happen again.
Killing McVeigh will make a martyr of him(which is perhaps more of a good reason to keep him alive than many others) and I can picture future bombings on May 16th in the years to come,just like McVeigh picked the anniversary of the Waco siege to execute his.

Jak

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
I think that it is murder. It is, in my highly subjective view, the pre-meditated and malicious killing of another human. Murder is defined as unlawful killing but that includes manslaughter and all kinds of scenarios that don't fit it.</font>

Regardless of your highly subjective view, let's not go toying with the English language. It is an execution - It is a lawful punishment.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excelsior:
This however, is indulging in blood lust and base retribution and I think this can't really satisfy the victims.[/B]</font>

I would wager they would rather this man died than walk free without penalty.

And since when has retribution become a bad thing? This extreme tolerance/pacifist outlook that people seem to hold is a lovely little PC feather to hold onto, however when you or your family encounter some criminal who has no respect for your views and takes a life, you may find the challenge of holding these views somewhat more taxing.

JAK.

DadaKopf

It just takes someone to be right.

That Waco siege almost certainly was a calculated massacre by FBI and ATF teams - they knew full well that CS gas when ignited turns into cyanide gas. That's why they demolished parts of the complex which created a cross-draft through the house and thats why the charred corpses found afterwards are completely bowed back on themselves. Cyanide produces extreme muscle spasms which can break bones.

I don't blame McVeigh for his convictions, only his ways of espressing them and you're right Bugler, the execution will make a martyr out of him and will act as a perpetual image of interior terrorism. Personally, I think the state is so terrified of these extremists (their own highly militarised section of siciety) that they see no recourse than to execute them - like the A-Team (no joke). Think about it

It is all definitely tied up with America's inability to deal with it's problems rather than overcoming them.

I don't accept the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment - it's far more effective to callously curtail someone's liberty than to take their life. It's not responsible.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Excelsior

If you don't agree with something call it left-wing or Fascist propaganda, or politically correct preaching and that will deal with it? My views do not arise from a concept of political correctness.

Retirubtion is wrong. The death penalty is wrong. And no hard talk is going to get around the fact that McVeigh's feelings had a logic to them. It wasn't the act of a blood thirsty psycho. His actions may have been reprehensible but he is a human and he does not deserve to die.
Jak, when did I ever imply that he should walk free? He should be fairly tried and then deal with the consequences that a jury decides to place on him.
This really hasn't happened.

And you make a presumption that me or my family never have been the victims of crime.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 23-04-2001).]

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daveirl:
Why would you support the death penalty? It makes no sense! It definitely doesn't achieve its said aim of being a deterrent to criminals.
</font>

Apparently, the GWB we all know and love was thanked by someone in Texas because the death penalty saved his life. He said to his attacker "If you kill me, you'll be executed in this state" (paraphrased) and the man hesitated. GWB felt content with this.

Obviously, this does nothing for those people on death row who are actually innocent, and are having their lives terminated by a government that seems to think revenge is just punishment for specific crimes.

---

And God said to Adam: 'I am root, FOO.'

It rained in San Francisco Wednesday evening, but the penguins were
still there Thursday morning, smiling broadly.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bucon:
As regards whether or not the death penalty is a good thing...I personally agree with it on the basis of saving tax payers money.</font>

God, that's great. A real heart-warming thing to say. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Terminating someone's existence to save you money. That's nice.

I would say more, but I don't want to start a flame war.

---

And God said to Adam: 'I am root, FOO.'

It rained in San Francisco Wednesday evening, but the penguins were
still there Thursday morning, smiling broadly.