The Execution of Timothy McVeigh Does Not Justify The Death Penalty

Before I left for work on June 11th, there was the announcement that Timothy McVeigh had died for his primary role in killing one hundred and sixty eight people in an Oklahoma federal office building (injuring many others). He left a poem ("Invictus") about being the master of one's own fate, but made no final statement, as he looked apparently calmly at those who were there to view him die. Among them, a few of the victims, his lawyers, the writer Gore Vidal (who understood and respected his hatred for the government's sins, which does not mean he justified how McVeigh expressed them), and (by closed circuit camera) many more victims. These victims by the way, of course, are the family and loved ones of those dead, who by the way are still dead. McVeigh's execution allegedly gave them closure as well as showing the nation's moral opposition (and expressing its vengeance) for his actions. Hopefully, it was of some value toward these ends, but personally I just see one more person dead.

McVeigh seemed to be a relatively typical guy, vet of the Gulf War, basic failure in civilian life, and a mainstream conservative racist type. At some point, his views geared into extremism, but his hatred of the government (nothing new to this country) went to a supreme level. Two events that in particular apparently put him over the edge was the federal government's involvement in the tragedy of Waco (several deaths, including children, when federal agents crashed on to a religious compound in a questionable raid) and Ruby Ridge (wife, son and dog of a loner killed in an attack to uphold a warrant for relatively trivial firearm offense). So, instead of killing some federal agents (as he thought about doing), Timothy McVeigh with the help of a couple others (he denied a big conspiracy was involved) decided to bomb a federal office building. As with other terrorists, he felt the victims (including the children) died for a higher good. When it was let out that the FBI didn't release all the documents in their position to the defense, delaying the execution for a few weeks, it was one final way to send his message of the evil of the federal government. As a final note, a person who killed to show vengeance against the state readily understood when the state largely for vengeance's sake killed him.

Terrorism generally seems to us something that happens in other places, so a terrorist act of this nature seemed shocking, and McVeigh the picture of evil. Nonetheless, why should terrorism seem horrible but sadly predictable in other places in the world, but have it never show itself on our shores, when there is a small sector of society almost ass extreme? Furthermore, McVeigh is clearly some kind of expression of evil, but he himself thought his actions were for a higher good. Compare this to Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed and ate people ... talk about the face of evil. The concept of a guy who could blithely kill over a hundred people (including eighteen children) seems horrible to conceive, but how about those who molest (or in some cases kill) children? Let's not make him too much of an inhuman demon. After all, before he died, he had last, which means (if he repented truly, so the doctrine goes) God forgave his sins. So, we killed him.

Why did we kill him? I personally do not think a crime of this magnitude is deterred by the death penalty, especially when dying just furthers the cause. After all, McVeigh after a fashion turned down further appeals, and welcomed death. It was also noted that his death would bring closure to the victims, though someone who loses loved ones in this fashion never truly can have closure. The murdered remain dead and buried. It is also seen as the ultimate penalty, the ultimate way to show our moral opposition to the crime and criminal, though state sanctioned death seems a poor way to say that murder is wrong. Apparently, killing people against their will (and if McVeigh supports his punishment, its value as punishment is cheapened) is okay, even if there are alternatives (namely the not so enjoyable prospect of life in prison) and various other problems with the killing. The flaws of killing to show moral distaste of killing was seen even by a few of the victims (including those dead) of the bombing as well.

If McVeigh should not be executed, one might ask, who should? The guy is not: crazy, a minority, a victim of poor lawyering, innocent, involved in a crime with mitigating factors, and so on . Horrible crimes (think Charles Manson) have been punished without the death penalty, McVeigh is definitely missing something if he has the wherewithall to kill so many people, the other key guy involved in the crime got life instead (and evidence possibly raising doubts was not shown to the jury), McVeigh saw his crime as justifiable, and so on. Nonetheless, there are two key reasons why I think McVeigh should not be executed. (1) For him, life imprisonment would have been more of a punishment and (2) Killing people is not only an inexact science, but per se is wrong unless there is a pretty good chance of direct harm (e.g. fighting off a robber). We are taught to respect life, even animal life, even the most despicable of them. We even see some hope that these people would reform in some way, surely if we truly take the teachings of Jesus to be true. "Love thy neighbor ... by killing them." And violence begets more violence.

While all of this was going on, the defendants in the attack of the US embassy in Kenya were on trial. The jury decided not to give them the death penalty, even though many were killed and injuried. I am sure the fact it was in Africa, and not on our own home soil was a factor. Nonetheless, two reasons publicly given was that executing them would make the terrorists martyrs and would do little to help the victims. The same applies here. Some degree of additional vengeneance can be obtained, though the net additional hardship to McVeigh is unclear, but overall this is rather small solace to those who lost loved ones. Some might not want the thought of him in a cell somewhere (though some did want that, what of them?), but the net loss given the general wrong of the death penalty is just not enough for this small benefit to be worth it.

We rather not completely think through such things, which is surely part of the reason the government does not want to publicly broadcast executions. There is something to be said about such a broadcast demeaning the sanctity of the event, as shown by the celebrations some past executions in the public square. Nonetheless, a public feed is different from an execution truly in public. Furthermore, there is something to be said that we should be have to see this supreme punishment that we have indirectly sanctioned. After all, we partly determine "cruel and unusual" punishments by "contemporary standards of decency," which requires a full picture of what is involved. Such decency explains why McVeigh's death can't be as horrible as so many wanted, since we are not as cruel as those we punish. A federal defendant (as well as an internet organization) wanted the McVeigh execution to be taped in hope of showing his jury that the punishment is cruel and unusual, but was turned down. McVeigh therefore died quietly, and we went on with our lives, not fully having to face just we did.

Epilogue: Less than two weeks later, after no one was killed by the federal government for almost forty years, the second execution was handed out. Convicted murderer and drug kingpin Juan Raul Garza was killed by lethal injection, though controversy was raised because international agreements seemed to be broken in the process, as well as the fact the jury did not get the option to choose life without any chance of parole. Finally, it was noted a disproportionate number of federal inmates on death row are minorities, the fact that led President Clinton to delay the execution. Garza was convicted in Texas, thus making President Bush (recently Governor Bush of Texas) probably feel like it was the good ole days again.