Poll: McViegh's execution..how do you feel

[MrMojo]

If you're going to have the death penalty, everyone involved from the Judge to the journalists to the jury to the politicians should have to watch a someone walk into a room, then come out a few minutes later dead on a stretcher.

"If everyone believes in an eye for an eye, the whole world will be blind'

 

[igiveup]

Mr. Mojo: I would volunteer for this one if they needed somebody to do the dirty work.

"If everyone believes in an eye for an eye, the whole world will be blind'

Yeah, but nobody would be poking out any more eyes, and this animal needs killing in the worse way. When you kill like he did you don't put yourself in the "human" category any more. Lethal Injection is just too humane for him. I say drag the biatch behind a car. A little justice goes a long way.

 

[mastertech01]

Im my mind I have to live with the torture of what the last moments of my dear daughters life must have been like..no mercy was accorded her..no matter what you think you feel right now, look your child in the face and try to tell yourself you could be merciful to someone who could savagely and unmercifully slay your child for little or no reason.

I have been to numerous of those countries you speak of who do not have the death penalty. Thier police act swiftly and brutally, and IF you should manage to get to trial alive your life in prison is one of absolute misery and life is often very short anyway..if you do survive you remain mentally ill the rest of your life. There is no motel 6 behind bars there.

 

[bmd]

Let's just put it this way: I know I won't have any trouble sleeping the night he's executed.

 

[kami]

I say they should shoot him in the stomach, then put him in a room and vacuum out all the oxygen. That is extremely painful when you can "breathe" but can't breathe. Lots of bad stuff happens to your body...and the gunshot wound to the stomach wouldn't help either.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Can I push the button?

 

[Netopia]

I worry about people who could truly support or even wish to be engaged in torturous death penalties. The fact that many seem to be very cavalier and gungho about it, makes me wonder what they are deep inside. If we indeed did have some horribly painful death penalty, like casting of the bowels or racking, I would have serious concerns about allowing the executioners out into society, since they, themselves, could stomach committing that sort of cruelty.

Joe

 

[mithrandir2001]

After reading some of the more outlandish posts, I'm beginning to think people aren't posting how they really feel, but are simply trying to outdo each other in devising the most brutal execution plan.

 

[Azoth]

I think the the state should not waste the money for a lethal injection... I say if they want a just death penalty, let the families of those killed pass judgement by locking them in a room with him. I have a strong suspicion that they may injure him, but would show him much more compassion that he has been convicted of showing their families. The worst punishment for anyone would be to have to live with the guilt of matching faces to an act.

Also, umm, I hate to ask, but I thought he attacked a federal building.. why is he still in state custody?

 

[Tiger]

<< regardless.. i dont think anybody has the right to ever decide the fate of somebody else's life.. especially deciding to have somebody killed... i know.. i know.. &quot;timothy mcveigh decided to end the live's of all of those people&quot;.. yes its true.. he did a horrible thing and should be punished accordingly. >>



If you use this logic we the people have no right to punish anybody for any crime. We as a society make judgements about punishing criminals that affect the rest of their lives every day.

Where is the cutoff point? How bad does a crime have to be before we decide to exterminate the criminal? Life in prison without the possibilty of parole may sound bad but it's a comparative cake walk when you look at the crime committed. Somebody explain to me how, in this case, life in prison is punishment.

 

[WoundedWallet]

I have this feeling that people that are not supporting his death would not support any form of punishment on him either. Cause if they do think he should be punished but not killed then their sense of proportion would allow rapists to walk freely in our society.

While I don't agree how capital punishment is handled in many states (TEXAS for example), I think this is a clear cut case why it needs to exist.

What other punishment can be proportional to his crimes? How many people must one kill before we think that death is the only response? Under some of you guys' views I doubt that even Hitler would get capital punishment?

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< I have this feeling that people that are not supporting his death would not support any form of punishment on him either. >>


What on earth are you talking about? Do not equate people who are opposed to the death penalty as soft on crime. We want McVeigh to pay - and pay mightily. But simply we believe that state-sanctioned executions are abhorent and inexcusable in any case. My convictions are consistent: No capital punishment ever.


<< What other punishment can be proportional to his crimes? >>


Your logic suggests that punishment should be a form of revenge. You are suggesting that if somebody crosses some threshold, death is the only remedy. We do have to assign fair and just punishments to the degree of the crime committed, but executions are never acceptable.

Can you imagine that we have a legal justice system where a judge can - legally - order another person to death? One man as an extension of the law orders the death of another. The Law is charged with protecting each and every one of its citizens, yet declares itself mighty enough to eliminate someone's life. Where's the logic? On execution day, the condemned is wheeled into the death chamber, surrounded by objects of civil society: law enforcement, prison staff, chaplains, press, witnesses, doctors. In a form of extreme irony, the doctors may not administer lethal injection because the Hippocratic Oath forbids a doctor to willfully kill another. As a result, a volunteer has to perform the task. The whole operation works in such an orderly, businesslike matter that we are made to believe that killing a criminal is somehow routine. After the condemned is murdered, the time of death is announced and the body is wheeled away. It doesn't matter that the life eliminated was a criminal; it matters that the state believes it has the power to kill without remorse, mercy or leniency. When the state kills, it has lowered itself to the level of the criminal. I cannot, in good conscience, allow my government to act in this destructive way.

What should happen to McVeigh? He should spend the rest of his life in prison, without any hope whatsoever of parole or release, denied of any freedom or liberty short of the natural right to life and reasonable safety. No one in their right mind would ever want to live that kind of life, so this sentence is very severe. However, it preserves the diginity of society and the honor of the victims by preventing the shedding of any more blood.

 

[UG]

Why aren't we stuffing him with C4 and blowing him up?

 

[Clinotus]

Can you imagine that we have a legal justice system where a judge can - legally - order another person to death?

Absolutely.


One man as an extension of the law orders the death of another.

&quot;One man as an EXTENSION OF THE LAW...&quot; you answer yourself here.


The Law is charged with protecting each and every one of its citizens, yet declares itself mighty enough to eliminate someone's life. Where's the logic?

Laws are sets rules of conduct and procedures set by a society to protect itself and the sum of its parts; the citizens. These rules allow such society to thrive and/or maintain itself through customs, documented principles and a general acceptance of these ideals within and by it's parts. The upholding and adherence to these principles and the repercussions that they may amount to and merit is called Justice. I also point you back to your prior sentence that, &quot;The Law is charged with protecting each and everyone of its citizens...&quot;, once again you answer yourself. The protection of its citizens is not limited to the removal of that which works against the whole. (please don't link this to a political argument, that is not it's intent, I mean this solely as was said earlier that, his existence puts the well being of innocent people in jeopardy, therefore the threat must be neutralized.)

On execution day, the condemned is wheeled into the death chamber, surrounded by objects of civil society: law enforcement, prison staff, chaplains, press, witnesses, doctors.

Hmmm...the condemned in this case will be surrounded by representations of the offices and the presence of the same people whom he willed dead through his deeds. The citizens are represented by the witnesses, the government is represented by the law officers and legislators present, the media is there for the people must be told of what has taken place, the chaplains are there to offer him solace and aid him to seek the forgiveness and peace with his god; for he is still a man, the doctors are present for nonetheless he is still a man and also, a doctor can take an active role in the execution as he may be declared as &quot;non-Doctor&quot; by the state for a set amount of time. Illinois Case- Amnesty Intl .

In a form of extreme irony, the doctors may not administer lethal injection because the Hippocratic Oath forbids a doctor to willfully kill another. As a result, a volunteer has to perform the task.

The better irony here is that one who is not wearing a cloak of office or draped in a veil of remorse or hatred for the man is the one that sets him free of the society that he scorned. No irony here, just the sum of our parts acting out as an extension of the law.

The whole operation works in such an orderly, businesslike matter that we are made to believe that killing a criminal is somehow routine. After the condemned is murdered, the time of death is announced and the body is wheeled away. It doesn't matter that the life eliminated was a criminal; it matters that the state believes it has the power to kill without remorse, mercy or leniency. When the state kills, it has lowered itself to the level of the criminal. I cannot, in good conscience, allow my government to act in this destructive way.

That paragraph is loaded. &quot;...I cannot [sic] allow my government to act in this destructive way...&quot; those are strong words in regard to what we are discussing and lead me to I hope the false conclusion that you are sympathizing with the man, his cause and his methods? This is the same line of thought and reasoning that has him there in the first place. I hope that I am just reading too far into your statement.


My 2kb!

 

[AdamDuritz99]

today is the day..right?

 

[Aceman]

Today WAS the day. Hopefully the almighty court has judged him and damned him to Hell.

 

[AdamDuritz99]

oh so it happened alreadY? i thought tonight it was... oh well

peace
sean

 

[TheKidd]

There have been many studies that have proved that the death penalty does absolutely NOTHING to deter criminals from performing capital crimes. In fact, on average, the states that use the death penalty have higher murder rates than the states that don't. Not to imply that the death penalty encourages murder, but it doesn't discourage it. And even though Timothy McVeigh was a monster and one of the most horrible human beings in the world, I still felt sick to my stomach when I saw the headline that he was pronounced dead at 8:14am and had a warden describing in detail the execution.

 

[StormRider]

I'd prefer to see criminals imprisoned for life, rather than executed. I don't think that there's ever an appropriate time to kill someone. There's definitely a more primal part of me that would like to have McVeigh obliterated, though.

But with life imprisonment, isn't there the possibility where the prisoner escapes and goes on a killing spree? Didn't this happen recently in Texas when a group of men broke out and killed a security guard at a shopping center? From what I understand they brutally killed a female guard.

 

[StormRider]

What on earth are you talking about? Do not equate people who are opposed to the death penalty as soft on crime. We want McVeigh to pay - and pay mightily. But simply we believe that state-sanctioned executions are abhorent and inexcusable in any case. My convictions are consistent: No capital punishment ever.

How should McVeigh pay for his crimes? To live his entire life in a prison?

Here's my problem. Right now, I hate the way prisons are run. It's a hell hole. In many cases it seems like it is the prisoners who are in charge because of all the prison rapes and violence going on inside.

No one should live like that -- even criminals. Rape and assaults are crimes and it's logically inconsistent to allow these things to occur in prisons.

So, some can argue that living a life sentence is worse than the death penalty. Maybe it's more humane to end his life with lethal injection than to live the rest of his life getting raped and assaulted.

Now, I would prefer than prison conditions improve to the point where no more rapes and assaults are occurring (this is especially important considering that innocent people sometimes go to jail). But if this was the case, how would living life in prison be just punishment for a crime of killing over 138 people?

I reluctantly support the death penalty but only for those cases where there is no doubt on guilt.

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<I reluctantly support the death penalty but only for those cases where there is no doubt on guilt. >

ok, i usually dont support the death penalty... i find it very wrong. But man life in prison is not a decent punishment for mcviegh. Man, death isn't even appropriate for him.

ok about the quote, i just want to say, in law, it should be no doubt about guilt before one is put in prison not just for the death penalty. unfortantly it's not.


peace
sean