McVeigh's execution will be on closed-circuit
April 12, 2001 3:53 AM Subscribe
McVeigh's execution will be on closed-circuit television for the families of bomb victims to watch. Now, as a person who sees dead people fairly often, even I can't imagine watching an execution. So my question is: is this public entertainment for the bloodthirsty, or some misguided idea of providing "closure"?
I half agree with you potsy. I am not against the death penalty, but I do think they should air a few executions in the hopes that it give some fear of consequence to people considering violent actions. Kind of like the law enforcement in various parts of the middle east, where they cut off your hand for stealing. Such overt gestures can not be ignored.
posted by a3matrix at 4:30 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by a3matrix at 4:30 AM on April 12, 2001
Who is it for? The CCTV narrowcast is for bloodthirsty members of victim families. It's primitive family vengeance, not justice, unless you call Mafia shootings justice.
I'm almost with Potsy:
• I'm solidly against the death penalty.
• I'm suspicious of people who are in favor of it but can't look at an execution.
• I would hope that turning executions into crass public spectacles would turn the otherwise apathetic against the death penalty.
But.
What if watching executions inures people to violence? I wouldn't want to encourage further murder (and I include executions in the murder category).
There's already no pretense of redemption, no trace of penitence left in the pro-execution camp's idea of a penitentiary. They know that McVeigh, for example, is safely in jail and won't be blowing up federal buildings anymore. They don't care. They all want him to die. Many would happily watch. Perhaps a number would happily kill him.
I wouldn't want to risk swelling the ranks of these people.
posted by pracowity at 4:57 AM on April 12, 2001
I'm almost with Potsy:
• I'm solidly against the death penalty.
• I'm suspicious of people who are in favor of it but can't look at an execution.
• I would hope that turning executions into crass public spectacles would turn the otherwise apathetic against the death penalty.
But.
What if watching executions inures people to violence? I wouldn't want to encourage further murder (and I include executions in the murder category).
There's already no pretense of redemption, no trace of penitence left in the pro-execution camp's idea of a penitentiary. They know that McVeigh, for example, is safely in jail and won't be blowing up federal buildings anymore. They don't care. They all want him to die. Many would happily watch. Perhaps a number would happily kill him.
I wouldn't want to risk swelling the ranks of these people.
posted by pracowity at 4:57 AM on April 12, 2001
I'm dubious about the deterrence value of public executions. After all, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries they were considered great entertainment--something you brought your kids to watch. We might be shocked the first couple of times, but afterwards...
posted by thomas j wise at 4:58 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by thomas j wise at 4:58 AM on April 12, 2001
"When Mad Bombers Go Gently Into The Afterlife" tonite on FOX!!!!!!!
lethal injection is no punishment. why not strap him to some 55 gallon drums of fuel oil/fertilizer mix and put a cigarette between his toes?
but seriously, he WANTS a spectacle. he should die quietly, with only the normal complement of witnesses present. Deny him his martyrdom...
posted by quonsar at 5:47 AM on April 12, 2001
lethal injection is no punishment. why not strap him to some 55 gallon drums of fuel oil/fertilizer mix and put a cigarette between his toes?
but seriously, he WANTS a spectacle. he should die quietly, with only the normal complement of witnesses present. Deny him his martyrdom...
posted by quonsar at 5:47 AM on April 12, 2001
It's a little hard to accept this as a rational debate when those against it are so fond of words like "bloodthirsty," especially since he's not going to be drawn and quartered. He's getting an injection, no blood will be spilled, all rather boring actually.
The families of those involved always get to witness an execution; it's a traditional part of the justice system. But the viewing room only holds about seven people, and if you do the math you'll quickly realize that that's a bit fewer slots than there are people he killed. Closed-circuit is the only option. To pretend this is different than any other execution is to exploit the families for your own political purposes.
If you have a need to dig up tasteless acts that have come out of this, look no further than that gigantic shrine to victimhood, the OKC Bombing Memorial.
posted by aaron at 6:23 AM on April 12, 2001
> He's getting an injection, no blood will be spilled,
> all rather boring actually.
He's only being killed, huh? Oh, how boring. I thought they were doing something momentous to him.
> political purposes.
Nope. Moral purposes. I'm talking about right and wrong. But this is all too boring for you.
posted by pracowity at 6:43 AM on April 12, 2001
> all rather boring actually.
He's only being killed, huh? Oh, how boring. I thought they were doing something momentous to him.
> political purposes.
Nope. Moral purposes. I'm talking about right and wrong. But this is all too boring for you.
posted by pracowity at 6:43 AM on April 12, 2001
Twisting my words doesn't change what I said, nor does it improve your argument. This is not going to be a wild drooling mob screaming for blood; there will be no cheer when he stops breathing. (And that's the only moment of the process that will even be mildly chilling, unless you're the type to have a nervous breakdown everytime you see someone getting an IV.) And the permission of the victims' families to witness the execution in private has no direct relevance to the death penalty debate. It's only about those against the death penalty not being able to handle the fact that others exist in the world who disagree with them.
posted by aaron at 6:51 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by aaron at 6:51 AM on April 12, 2001
I wonder how soon the video will be leaked out on the net?
I certainly hope McViegh's execution brings closure to the victims families and makes everything better for them.
And when it doesn't, I hope they eventually realize that revenge isn't a solution.
posted by bondcliff at 7:00 AM on April 12, 2001
I certainly hope McViegh's execution brings closure to the victims families and makes everything better for them.
And when it doesn't, I hope they eventually realize that revenge isn't a solution.
posted by bondcliff at 7:00 AM on April 12, 2001
> the only moment of the process that will even be
> mildly chilling, unless you're the type to have a
> nervous breakdown everytime you see someone
> getting an IV.
Or you find it difficult to see a guy dragged in, strapped down, and poisoned to death before a lot of men and women who long for his death? You wouldn't find that a bit more than "mildly chilling" to watch?
posted by pracowity at 7:25 AM on April 12, 2001
> mildly chilling, unless you're the type to have a
> nervous breakdown everytime you see someone
> getting an IV.
Or you find it difficult to see a guy dragged in, strapped down, and poisoned to death before a lot of men and women who long for his death? You wouldn't find that a bit more than "mildly chilling" to watch?
posted by pracowity at 7:25 AM on April 12, 2001
> It's primitive family vengeance, not justice
If you lost a child in that explosion and you're still ready to see McVeigh get off with jail time and counseling then you can talk and I'll listen. Otherwise your feelings on the subject are bit-bucket fodder.
Justice is getting what you deserve. If you can't see that a man who blows up a daycare center full of children deserves to die then I (correctly) call you defective -- mentally and emotionally truncated, incapable of feeling the degree of outrage that deeds like McVeigh's deed summon up in hearts that aren't full of some kind of novocaine. Prozac nation indeed.
What you have missed is that the desire for justice is primitive, by which I mean innate and fundamental. It's down there in the human race's sub-basement wiring closet along with the need for air. If you reject the desire for justice, meaning getting what you deserve, just because it's primitive, then you'll also need to reject all the other primitive needs you have, like love and personal safety and food for your children. So primitive, sniff, I'm above all that.
You live in a nation (and a world) in turmoil because your, and everyone's, innate need for fairness and equity is flouted every day. We see some people get more than their share and others get much less than their share; we see people terribly punished for things they can't help, and we see people getting away with murder. What this violates more than anything else is our innate need to see justice done, and it's the single most important thing we mean when we say "the system is hopelessly corrupt."
Just because the need to see people get what they deserve is primitive, you're going to have to satisfy it if you hope to have a functioning society. Frankly, if you're OK with letting a man who blows up children get off with anything less than what he inflicted on others then I prefer no society at all to having to pretend that you and I are "fellow citizens." You're not one of my peers, Lambchop.
posted by jfuller at 7:33 AM on April 12, 2001
If you lost a child in that explosion and you're still ready to see McVeigh get off with jail time and counseling then you can talk and I'll listen. Otherwise your feelings on the subject are bit-bucket fodder.
Justice is getting what you deserve. If you can't see that a man who blows up a daycare center full of children deserves to die then I (correctly) call you defective -- mentally and emotionally truncated, incapable of feeling the degree of outrage that deeds like McVeigh's deed summon up in hearts that aren't full of some kind of novocaine. Prozac nation indeed.
What you have missed is that the desire for justice is primitive, by which I mean innate and fundamental. It's down there in the human race's sub-basement wiring closet along with the need for air. If you reject the desire for justice, meaning getting what you deserve, just because it's primitive, then you'll also need to reject all the other primitive needs you have, like love and personal safety and food for your children. So primitive, sniff, I'm above all that.
You live in a nation (and a world) in turmoil because your, and everyone's, innate need for fairness and equity is flouted every day. We see some people get more than their share and others get much less than their share; we see people terribly punished for things they can't help, and we see people getting away with murder. What this violates more than anything else is our innate need to see justice done, and it's the single most important thing we mean when we say "the system is hopelessly corrupt."
Just because the need to see people get what they deserve is primitive, you're going to have to satisfy it if you hope to have a functioning society. Frankly, if you're OK with letting a man who blows up children get off with anything less than what he inflicted on others then I prefer no society at all to having to pretend that you and I are "fellow citizens." You're not one of my peers, Lambchop.
posted by jfuller at 7:33 AM on April 12, 2001
Justice is not the same as revenge.
Sure, McViegh deserves to live a life of misery, pain, and suffering. Perhaps he doesn't deserve to live at all.
But does the government (or the American people) have the right to kill him? After all, killing people is wrong, isn't it?
posted by bondcliff at 7:42 AM on April 12, 2001
Sure, McViegh deserves to live a life of misery, pain, and suffering. Perhaps he doesn't deserve to live at all.
But does the government (or the American people) have the right to kill him? After all, killing people is wrong, isn't it?
posted by bondcliff at 7:42 AM on April 12, 2001
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave us blind and toothless.
posted by chesuta at 7:56 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by chesuta at 7:56 AM on April 12, 2001
While I don't necessarily disagree with you about capital punishment, jfuller, I wish you could express your opinion in a more even-handed manner. I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but there's no excuse for calling someone "defective" just because they don't agree with your opinion.
And unless one of you lives in another country, you and pracowity are fellow citizens, whether you like it or not. Pracowity is trying to make a reasoned argument against capital punishment and public executions. You're saying that you'd prefer "no society at all" to having to deal with people you disagree with. Whose rhetoric sounds more like McVeigh's?
posted by anapestic at 8:17 AM on April 12, 2001
And unless one of you lives in another country, you and pracowity are fellow citizens, whether you like it or not. Pracowity is trying to make a reasoned argument against capital punishment and public executions. You're saying that you'd prefer "no society at all" to having to deal with people you disagree with. Whose rhetoric sounds more like McVeigh's?
posted by anapestic at 8:17 AM on April 12, 2001
jfuller, you bring up some good points there. It is hard for someone who has never lost someone in a violent crime to grasp how devastating this is. After a crime of this nature, I feel you loose all your rights as a human.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave us blind and toothless.
Cliche statements are cute, but I haven't killed anyone
On a slight skew of the topic here, how many more years do you think it will be before an execution is televised? If it is on cable TV, I would bet that the ratings would be through the roof. I personally feel it is just a matter of time at this point. For some reason, there are a whole bunch of people out there that can't find fulfilling lives in the real world, and turn to thier televisions to "enlighten" them. I mean, sit-coms are one thing, but all this "reality" based TV is as sick as having an execution on TV.
posted by dangel low at 8:34 AM on April 12, 2001
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave us blind and toothless.
Cliche statements are cute, but I haven't killed anyone
On a slight skew of the topic here, how many more years do you think it will be before an execution is televised? If it is on cable TV, I would bet that the ratings would be through the roof. I personally feel it is just a matter of time at this point. For some reason, there are a whole bunch of people out there that can't find fulfilling lives in the real world, and turn to thier televisions to "enlighten" them. I mean, sit-coms are one thing, but all this "reality" based TV is as sick as having an execution on TV.
posted by dangel low at 8:34 AM on April 12, 2001
Just because the need to see people get what they deserve is primitive, you're going to have to satisfy it if you hope to have a functioning society.
Yes, I'm waiting for the fires of anarchy to erupt at any moment in every single one of the many, many countries that do not allow captial punishment. This is argument by declaration--especially the really nasty "I'll correctly call you defective" bit of charm.
You have a "need" to see people get what they deserve? You must not get much sleep. I see people every day doing rotten things with not much redress for their (in my mind) wrongs.
Lambchop? Oh, wait, I get it! If I disagree, I'm weak and docile and soft-headed! Ha ha! That's funny.
posted by Skot at 8:48 AM on April 12, 2001
Yes, I'm waiting for the fires of anarchy to erupt at any moment in every single one of the many, many countries that do not allow captial punishment. This is argument by declaration--especially the really nasty "I'll correctly call you defective" bit of charm.
You have a "need" to see people get what they deserve? You must not get much sleep. I see people every day doing rotten things with not much redress for their (in my mind) wrongs.
Lambchop? Oh, wait, I get it! If I disagree, I'm weak and docile and soft-headed! Ha ha! That's funny.
posted by Skot at 8:48 AM on April 12, 2001
> If you lost a child in that explosion
If you lost a child in that explosion, you might make some highly irrational decisions. If you base your government on what the least rational think, you get a screwed-up country.
But let's look at your entire proclamation:
> If you lost a child in that explosion and you're still
> ready to see McVeigh get off with jail time and
> counseling then you can talk and I'll listen. Otherwise
> your feelings on the subject are bit-bucket fodder.
If we don't agree with you, then you will think our opinions are worthless and you will not listen to us? Will you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not listening" over and over?
> You live in a nation
(etc.)
I don't, as a matter of fact, live in America.
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on April 12, 2001
If you lost a child in that explosion, you might make some highly irrational decisions. If you base your government on what the least rational think, you get a screwed-up country.
But let's look at your entire proclamation:
> If you lost a child in that explosion and you're still
> ready to see McVeigh get off with jail time and
> counseling then you can talk and I'll listen. Otherwise
> your feelings on the subject are bit-bucket fodder.
If we don't agree with you, then you will think our opinions are worthless and you will not listen to us? Will you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not listening" over and over?
> You live in a nation
(etc.)
I don't, as a matter of fact, live in America.
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on April 12, 2001
Frankly, if you're OK with letting a man who blows up children get off with anything less than what he inflicted on others then I prefer no society at all to having to pretend that you and I are "fellow citizens."
So you'd rather be in Afghanistan, China or Iran than, say, Germany, France or the UK?
posted by Mocata at 8:58 AM on April 12, 2001
So you'd rather be in Afghanistan, China or Iran than, say, Germany, France or the UK?
posted by Mocata at 8:58 AM on April 12, 2001
> there's no excuse for calling someone "defective" just
> because they don't agree with your opinion.
Well of course I haven't done any such thing. I only call people defective when they're objectively broken -- for instance if they're hemophiliac, or homozygous recessive tt and can't taste phenylthiocarbamide. Or (a better example in this instance) if I heard someone say he's never felt anything resembling love and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.
The capacity to feel intense outrage at the sight of naked, cackling evil is as necessary to being considered whole and undamaged as the ability to love is.
> unless one of you lives in another country, you and
> pracowity are fellow citizens, whether you like it or
> not.
Denied. There's quite a bit more to citizenship than just being a warm body in the same general area as other warm bodies. (Or are you ready to consider crayfish and annelids and shrubs your fellow citizens? If that's your point then how interesting! Speak on!) In a world where terrible deeds of evil are done it is a requirement of citizenship that you take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting. If you squirm out of this duty due to squeamishness ("Executing mass murders. Ew.") then you also squirm out of citizenship. Even annelids can have backbone.
> Pracowity is trying to make a reasoned argument against
> capital punishment and public executions.
Actually pracowity said:
> It's primitive family vengeance, not justice, unless you
> call Mafia shootings justice.
and also:
> I'm talking about right and wrong. But this is all too
> boring for you.
I'll just let these examples of reasoned argument stand without comment, so as not to be inflammatory. Heh heh heh.
posted by jfuller at 9:14 AM on April 12, 2001
> because they don't agree with your opinion.
Well of course I haven't done any such thing. I only call people defective when they're objectively broken -- for instance if they're hemophiliac, or homozygous recessive tt and can't taste phenylthiocarbamide. Or (a better example in this instance) if I heard someone say he's never felt anything resembling love and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.
The capacity to feel intense outrage at the sight of naked, cackling evil is as necessary to being considered whole and undamaged as the ability to love is.
> unless one of you lives in another country, you and
> pracowity are fellow citizens, whether you like it or
> not.
Denied. There's quite a bit more to citizenship than just being a warm body in the same general area as other warm bodies. (Or are you ready to consider crayfish and annelids and shrubs your fellow citizens? If that's your point then how interesting! Speak on!) In a world where terrible deeds of evil are done it is a requirement of citizenship that you take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting. If you squirm out of this duty due to squeamishness ("Executing mass murders. Ew.") then you also squirm out of citizenship. Even annelids can have backbone.
> Pracowity is trying to make a reasoned argument against
> capital punishment and public executions.
Actually pracowity said:
> It's primitive family vengeance, not justice, unless you
> call Mafia shootings justice.
and also:
> I'm talking about right and wrong. But this is all too
> boring for you.
I'll just let these examples of reasoned argument stand without comment, so as not to be inflammatory. Heh heh heh.
posted by jfuller at 9:14 AM on April 12, 2001
> I don't, as a matter of fact, live in America.
I don't recall telling you what nation you lived in. Certainly the phrase "in turmoil" does not distinguish the U.S. from most other nations.
posted by jfuller at 9:21 AM on April 12, 2001
I don't recall telling you what nation you lived in. Certainly the phrase "in turmoil" does not distinguish the U.S. from most other nations.
posted by jfuller at 9:21 AM on April 12, 2001
Maybe he should be run over buy a big ass SUV !!
We could even let the family members sit in the passenger seat ;-)
posted by a3matrix at 9:28 AM on April 12, 2001
We could even let the family members sit in the passenger seat ;-)
posted by a3matrix at 9:28 AM on April 12, 2001
> This is argument by declaration--especially the really
> nasty "I'll correctly call you defective" bit of charm.
Well, I'm a charming person. First-rate prose style, too.
> You have a "need" to see people get what they deserve?
> You must not get much sleep. I see people every day doing
> rotten things with not much redress for their (in my
> mind) wrongs.
Distinguo. If you see people committing unredressed wrongs to you, that's forgiveness. If you see people committing unredressed wrongs to third parties, and you still sleep well, that's cowardice.
>Lambchop? Oh, wait, I get it! If I disagree, I'm weak and
> docile and soft-headed! Ha ha! That's funny.
Don't, y'know, lose any sleep over it...
posted by jfuller at 9:35 AM on April 12, 2001
> nasty "I'll correctly call you defective" bit of charm.
Well, I'm a charming person. First-rate prose style, too.
> You have a "need" to see people get what they deserve?
> You must not get much sleep. I see people every day doing
> rotten things with not much redress for their (in my
> mind) wrongs.
Distinguo. If you see people committing unredressed wrongs to you, that's forgiveness. If you see people committing unredressed wrongs to third parties, and you still sleep well, that's cowardice.
>Lambchop? Oh, wait, I get it! If I disagree, I'm weak and
> docile and soft-headed! Ha ha! That's funny.
Don't, y'know, lose any sleep over it...
posted by jfuller at 9:35 AM on April 12, 2001
jfuller: what are you on about, son?
There's quite a bit more to citizenship than just being a warm body in the same general area as other warm bodies.
No-one suggested there wasn't.
Or are you ready to consider crayfish and annelids and shrubs your fellow citizens? If that's your point then how interesting! Speak on!
Uh?
In a world where terrible deeds of evil are done it is a requirement of citizenship that you take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting.
Resisting who? The marauding crayfish?
More seriously, many people consider the death penalty to be one of those 'terrible deeds of evil' you so portentously rant about. But when they 'take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting' - Jaysus! - you freak out. What;s your beef?
posted by Mocata at 9:35 AM on April 12, 2001
There's quite a bit more to citizenship than just being a warm body in the same general area as other warm bodies.
No-one suggested there wasn't.
Or are you ready to consider crayfish and annelids and shrubs your fellow citizens? If that's your point then how interesting! Speak on!
Uh?
In a world where terrible deeds of evil are done it is a requirement of citizenship that you take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting.
Resisting who? The marauding crayfish?
More seriously, many people consider the death penalty to be one of those 'terrible deeds of evil' you so portentously rant about. But when they 'take on the terrible and somber duty of resisting' - Jaysus! - you freak out. What;s your beef?
posted by Mocata at 9:35 AM on April 12, 2001
McVeigh will be dead, ergo the world is better off.
For those of you against it, when a psycho blows up your kids I'll come around and say you're being "irrational" when you want to see him get what he deserves.
posted by owillis at 9:56 AM on April 12, 2001
For those of you against it, when a psycho blows up your kids I'll come around and say you're being "irrational" when you want to see him get what he deserves.
posted by owillis at 9:56 AM on April 12, 2001
As far as the death penalty per se, most murders are crimes of passion, and thus people do not weigh the consequences of their actions...ergo, the death penalty is not a deterrent for most potential murderers. Not to mention that it is nothing less than state-sanctioned murder.
Maybe potsy is right, maybe we should air executions to show people the results of death by injection/hanging/electrocution, etc. ..Nahhh, they'd all just tune in for the thrill - "Survivor" where you don't get booted, you get killed.
posted by mapalm at 10:07 AM on April 12, 2001
Maybe potsy is right, maybe we should air executions to show people the results of death by injection/hanging/electrocution, etc. ..Nahhh, they'd all just tune in for the thrill - "Survivor" where you don't get booted, you get killed.
posted by mapalm at 10:07 AM on April 12, 2001
I'm reminded of the sequence from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, where the master of the strolling players talks about the theatrical illusion of death:
"I had an actor once who was condemned to hang for stealing a sheep -- or a lamb, I forget which -- so I got permission to have him hanged in the middle of a play -- had to change the plot a bit but I thought it would be effective, you know -- and you wouldn't believe it, he just wasn't convincing! It was impossible to suspend one's disbelief -- and what with the audience jeering and throwing peanuts, the whole thing was a disaster! -- he did nothing but cry all the time -- right out of character -- just stood there and cried . . . Never again."
In short, the reality of death makes for bad public spectacle, especially for a public so accustomed to the mimetic conventions of the ER deathbed scene and the death row movie. Which is why public executions were always a spectacle which mimimised the role of the condemned.
jfuller: you see execution as the sign of the state's strength of character; I see it as the ultimate admission of state weakness. And that's the schism as far as the moral argument goes. To kill someone in the name of the state, to my mind, is essentially to admit defeat: to say that judgement can only be delivered in the hereafter. It's as devastating as a suicide.
owillis: that's such a fucking straw man argument. The rule of law is meant to stop us reverting to mob rule; we got rid of personal retribution from the justice system around the time of the Renaissance.
posted by holgate at 10:10 AM on April 12, 2001
"I had an actor once who was condemned to hang for stealing a sheep -- or a lamb, I forget which -- so I got permission to have him hanged in the middle of a play -- had to change the plot a bit but I thought it would be effective, you know -- and you wouldn't believe it, he just wasn't convincing! It was impossible to suspend one's disbelief -- and what with the audience jeering and throwing peanuts, the whole thing was a disaster! -- he did nothing but cry all the time -- right out of character -- just stood there and cried . . . Never again."
In short, the reality of death makes for bad public spectacle, especially for a public so accustomed to the mimetic conventions of the ER deathbed scene and the death row movie. Which is why public executions were always a spectacle which mimimised the role of the condemned.
jfuller: you see execution as the sign of the state's strength of character; I see it as the ultimate admission of state weakness. And that's the schism as far as the moral argument goes. To kill someone in the name of the state, to my mind, is essentially to admit defeat: to say that judgement can only be delivered in the hereafter. It's as devastating as a suicide.
owillis: that's such a fucking straw man argument. The rule of law is meant to stop us reverting to mob rule; we got rid of personal retribution from the justice system around the time of the Renaissance.
posted by holgate at 10:10 AM on April 12, 2001
Killing McVeigh isn't going to bring people back to life. The world won't be a better place. He'll just be dead, like everyone he killed.
Let's kill them before the madness starts. Fetal criminal testing and abortions for all!
posted by dakotasmith at 10:21 AM on April 12, 2001
Let's kill them before the madness starts. Fetal criminal testing and abortions for all!
posted by dakotasmith at 10:21 AM on April 12, 2001
I'm solidly against the death penalty, because I firmly believe that it cannot be administered fairly or accurately in the current politicized US Justice system. However, my dad said something a few years ago, and it's stuck with me because I agree with it: "If you're going to have the death penalty for any crime, this had better be it."
It's easy to whine about the OKC National Memorial if you don't live here. That bomb ripped a hole in downtown Oklahoma City where there should be a nine-story building full of people working and children in daycare. What do you think should be there? An empty lot? A mini-mall? Yeah, the memorial is big -- the hole in downtown is big.
I was not in Oklahoma when the explosion happened, and I don't remember ever seeing the Murrah building in person because I didn't go downtown in OKC that often. But I've been to the memorial twice, including the dedication last year, and until I saw that empty lot, I didn't get it.. Until I saw the Journal Record building (now a museum) that's bomb damaged, the YMCA building across the street still boarded up, I didn't understand. I kept looking up, imagining what a nine-story building on this lot would have looked like, and what it took to make the hole in it that the bomb did.
I can step out on my front porch and see the house of Virginia Thompson, one of the 168 victims, one of the last three bodies to be recovered (only after they demolished the rest of the building). All she did was go to work. I will not accept the argument that she and 167 others, and a huge act of terrorism, should be pushed out of view and out of memory because aaron or anyone else feels the memorial is a "tasteless, gigantic shrine to victimhood." I had my own serious doubts about the thing too -- until I visited it. Have you?
I know the Internet is all about passing judgement on topics we haven't personally experienced, but you people have no idea what that bomb did to this community. Would I be upset if there was no death penalty for McVeigh? No. Do I support the death penalty? No.
Am I going to protest his execution? No. I strongly disagree with family members who believe seeing him die will bring them closure, or that every execution is "justice." But if deliberately killing 168 people, including 19 children, to take revenge on the federal government doesn't engender a punishment more severe than a crime of passion, the entire system is more of a farce than it already is.
This is not some poor minority defendant who was charged with murder, convicted with no evidence and a lawyer who slept through his trial, kept out of appeals courts because he was on death row, and executed swiftly so DNA evidence couldn't be presented. This is a man who trained to kill, whose only remorse is that he didn't bring the entire building down and kill 400 more people. The only suggestion he didn't have a fair trial comes from his original lawyer, who is now shredding attorney-client privilege to hawk his book saying it was an international conspiracy.
I understand the feeling of the families and survivors who don't want to wake up in 30 years and find McVeigh has made more pronouncements from his jail cell. Of course the man has rights -- but he forfeited most of them through his actions.
To me, the problem with the justice system is that responses aren't proportional -- everyone is in favor of life in prison for every felony committed by someone they don't know. Steal $50 from Wal-Mart? 15 years. Shoot someone as a 10-year-old? Life in prison, no parole. But it's just as much of a farce if the deliberate execution of 168 people (and attempted murder of hundreds more) for political purposes can't produce a punishment proportional to the abominable nature of the crime. Death sentences shouldn't be handed out lightly. This one wasn't.
(And, for the record, I'm opposed to a local trial for Terry Nichols just because he didn't get the death penalty in Federal court, which is the only reason the OKC district attorney, the most reprimanded for misconduct in the circuit, is trying to do it. I do not fear for my left-wing credentials.)
posted by mdeatherage at 10:25 AM on April 12, 2001
It's easy to whine about the OKC National Memorial if you don't live here. That bomb ripped a hole in downtown Oklahoma City where there should be a nine-story building full of people working and children in daycare. What do you think should be there? An empty lot? A mini-mall? Yeah, the memorial is big -- the hole in downtown is big.
I was not in Oklahoma when the explosion happened, and I don't remember ever seeing the Murrah building in person because I didn't go downtown in OKC that often. But I've been to the memorial twice, including the dedication last year, and until I saw that empty lot, I didn't get it.. Until I saw the Journal Record building (now a museum) that's bomb damaged, the YMCA building across the street still boarded up, I didn't understand. I kept looking up, imagining what a nine-story building on this lot would have looked like, and what it took to make the hole in it that the bomb did.
I can step out on my front porch and see the house of Virginia Thompson, one of the 168 victims, one of the last three bodies to be recovered (only after they demolished the rest of the building). All she did was go to work. I will not accept the argument that she and 167 others, and a huge act of terrorism, should be pushed out of view and out of memory because aaron or anyone else feels the memorial is a "tasteless, gigantic shrine to victimhood." I had my own serious doubts about the thing too -- until I visited it. Have you?
I know the Internet is all about passing judgement on topics we haven't personally experienced, but you people have no idea what that bomb did to this community. Would I be upset if there was no death penalty for McVeigh? No. Do I support the death penalty? No.
Am I going to protest his execution? No. I strongly disagree with family members who believe seeing him die will bring them closure, or that every execution is "justice." But if deliberately killing 168 people, including 19 children, to take revenge on the federal government doesn't engender a punishment more severe than a crime of passion, the entire system is more of a farce than it already is.
This is not some poor minority defendant who was charged with murder, convicted with no evidence and a lawyer who slept through his trial, kept out of appeals courts because he was on death row, and executed swiftly so DNA evidence couldn't be presented. This is a man who trained to kill, whose only remorse is that he didn't bring the entire building down and kill 400 more people. The only suggestion he didn't have a fair trial comes from his original lawyer, who is now shredding attorney-client privilege to hawk his book saying it was an international conspiracy.
I understand the feeling of the families and survivors who don't want to wake up in 30 years and find McVeigh has made more pronouncements from his jail cell. Of course the man has rights -- but he forfeited most of them through his actions.
To me, the problem with the justice system is that responses aren't proportional -- everyone is in favor of life in prison for every felony committed by someone they don't know. Steal $50 from Wal-Mart? 15 years. Shoot someone as a 10-year-old? Life in prison, no parole. But it's just as much of a farce if the deliberate execution of 168 people (and attempted murder of hundreds more) for political purposes can't produce a punishment proportional to the abominable nature of the crime. Death sentences shouldn't be handed out lightly. This one wasn't.
(And, for the record, I'm opposed to a local trial for Terry Nichols just because he didn't get the death penalty in Federal court, which is the only reason the OKC district attorney, the most reprimanded for misconduct in the circuit, is trying to do it. I do not fear for my left-wing credentials.)
posted by mdeatherage at 10:25 AM on April 12, 2001
If you really are opposed to the death penalty, then the McVeigh murder would be the true test of your convictions. It is in the extreme cases that our beliefs are most vigorously tested.
posted by mapalm at 10:32 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by mapalm at 10:32 AM on April 12, 2001
Owillis, if someone blew up my family I'd like to poke out their eyes with a railroad spike. Do you think that the we should do that to criminals, because I'd like to see it done? And as for the world being better off without McVeigh, that's arguable, but the world is certainly worse off because we have a government that kills people, and a populace that takes delight in it, such as yourself.
posted by Doug at 10:43 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by Doug at 10:43 AM on April 12, 2001
Keeping quiet is my gift to Rodii, whom I let down so badly the last time we discussed the subject.
I do find the arguing very interesting, on both sides. We are all so sure our opinions are correct, but we can't convince each other of anything. Hail Sisyphus!
posted by thirteen at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2001
I do find the arguing very interesting, on both sides. We are all so sure our opinions are correct, but we can't convince each other of anything. Hail Sisyphus!
posted by thirteen at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2001
Even annelids can have backbone.
<zoologist mode> Actually, annelids by definition do not have backbones. Hence the invertebrate designation. </zoologist mode>
This off-topic comment brought to you by the same guy who gives free five minute biology lectures at the local zoo (without being asked) because he can't stand parents misinforming children about biology.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:52 AM on April 12, 2001
<zoologist mode> Actually, annelids by definition do not have backbones. Hence the invertebrate designation. </zoologist mode>
This off-topic comment brought to you by the same guy who gives free five minute biology lectures at the local zoo (without being asked) because he can't stand parents misinforming children about biology.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:52 AM on April 12, 2001
If you can't see that a man who blows up a daycare center full of children deserves to die then I (correctly) call you defective -- mentally and emotionally truncated...
Ah, so two wrongs DO make a right, I see. I'm sorry I've been so mistaken about that so far...best I go get some therapy for my mental state over Easter so I can better judge my fellow man as you're so ready to do.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 11:01 AM on April 12, 2001
Ah, so two wrongs DO make a right, I see. I'm sorry I've been so mistaken about that so far...best I go get some therapy for my mental state over Easter so I can better judge my fellow man as you're so ready to do.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 11:01 AM on April 12, 2001
I read somewhere that it actually costs more to kill a prisoner than it does to keep him in prison for life, with all the litigation and what not that's involved. I don't know if that's true or not... can anyone confirm or deny?
posted by fusinski at 11:13 AM on April 12, 2001
posted by fusinski at 11:13 AM on April 12, 2001
I read somewhere that it actually costs more to kill a prisoner than it does to keep him in prison for life, with all the litigation and what not that's involved. I don't know if that's true or not... can anyone confirm or deny?
I've read that too, but off of nader2000.org, so I can't claim to have any unbiased insight.
posted by chesuta at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2001
I've read that too, but off of nader2000.org, so I can't claim to have any unbiased insight.
posted by chesuta at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2001
Thank you Doug for refuting the gut feeling argument for capital punishment.
As pracowity pointed out, those who have been wronged are understandably lacking in detachment from the situation. This is why, unlike civil law, criminal proceedings are brought by the state as the aggrieved party.
Just in case you thought we were making progress
posted by Octaviuz at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2001
As pracowity pointed out, those who have been wronged are understandably lacking in detachment from the situation. This is why, unlike civil law, criminal proceedings are brought by the state as the aggrieved party.
Just in case you thought we were making progress
posted by Octaviuz at 11:55 AM on April 12, 2001
Fusinski - couldn't find the details, but amnesty international has some other fascinating facts.
posted by mapalm at 12:01 PM on April 12, 2001
posted by mapalm at 12:01 PM on April 12, 2001
[quonsar] Deny him his martyrdom...
I don't see how killing him, no matter how privately, denies him martyrdom. If we kill him, he's a martyr.
[jfuller] If you can't see that a man who blows up a daycare center full of children deserves to die then I (correctly) call you defective -- mentally and emotionally truncated, incapable of feeling the degree of outrage
Ad hominem attacks do not a valid argument make. What McVeigh did was despicable, disgusting, vile, inhumane, sickening. Nevertheless, the government should not be killing him.
[jfuller] if you're OK with letting a man who blows up children get off with anything less than what he inflicted on others then I prefer no society at all to having to pretend that you and I are "fellow citizens."
So should we put him in a building and blow him up? Should we rape convicted rapists? Should we eat Jeffrey Dahmer? Should we tie those three guys from Texas to the back of a truck and drag them until entire pieces of their bodies fall off? That's not the type of society I want to be a part of.
[Much more intelligent discussion was posted while I was writing this.]
I just don't understand the argument for the death penalty. Our justice system isn't based on doing unto the criminals as they did unto others. That kind of thought degenerates into my previous paragraph. The victims' families may wish to get revenge or "closure," but is it actually satisfying to them? Does it really work? I don't see how it could, but as jfuller points out, I've never lost a family member to a violent act by a crazed individual and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything.
Thirteen, you're right, arguments about the death penalty (like abortion, gun control, and religion) will never get us anywhere. We aren't going to convince the other side, nor are we going to allow ourselves to be convinced.
posted by daveadams at 12:30 PM on April 12, 2001
I don't see how killing him, no matter how privately, denies him martyrdom. If we kill him, he's a martyr.
[jfuller] If you can't see that a man who blows up a daycare center full of children deserves to die then I (correctly) call you defective -- mentally and emotionally truncated, incapable of feeling the degree of outrage
Ad hominem attacks do not a valid argument make. What McVeigh did was despicable, disgusting, vile, inhumane, sickening. Nevertheless, the government should not be killing him.
[jfuller] if you're OK with letting a man who blows up children get off with anything less than what he inflicted on others then I prefer no society at all to having to pretend that you and I are "fellow citizens."
So should we put him in a building and blow him up? Should we rape convicted rapists? Should we eat Jeffrey Dahmer? Should we tie those three guys from Texas to the back of a truck and drag them until entire pieces of their bodies fall off? That's not the type of society I want to be a part of.
[Much more intelligent discussion was posted while I was writing this.]
I just don't understand the argument for the death penalty. Our justice system isn't based on doing unto the criminals as they did unto others. That kind of thought degenerates into my previous paragraph. The victims' families may wish to get revenge or "closure," but is it actually satisfying to them? Does it really work? I don't see how it could, but as jfuller points out, I've never lost a family member to a violent act by a crazed individual and therefore my opinion may not be worth anything.
Thirteen, you're right, arguments about the death penalty (like abortion, gun control, and religion) will never get us anywhere. We aren't going to convince the other side, nor are we going to allow ourselves to be convinced.
posted by daveadams at 12:30 PM on April 12, 2001
best I go get some therapy for my mental state over Easter so I can better judge my fellow man as you're so ready to do.
... and as you are so ready to judge him.
this is one of the more hilarious things about advocates of the "judge not lest ye be judge" mentality -- they themselves are judging those who judge, thereby breaking their own supposed creed.
while i may be making a judgement call myself here in calling such behaviour silly, i also don't make any pretenses toward being a "non-judgemental person." hell, judge me all you want if it makes you feel better.
rhetorical question: is it "right" and "just" for a killer to have life, when he has denied life to those who have done him no wrong?
posted by fuzzygeek at 12:31 PM on April 12, 2001
... and as you are so ready to judge him.
this is one of the more hilarious things about advocates of the "judge not lest ye be judge" mentality -- they themselves are judging those who judge, thereby breaking their own supposed creed.
while i may be making a judgement call myself here in calling such behaviour silly, i also don't make any pretenses toward being a "non-judgemental person." hell, judge me all you want if it makes you feel better.
rhetorical question: is it "right" and "just" for a killer to have life, when he has denied life to those who have done him no wrong?
posted by fuzzygeek at 12:31 PM on April 12, 2001
If you really are opposed to the death penalty, then the McVeigh murder would be the true test of your convictions. It is in the extreme cases that our beliefs are most vigorously tested.
I oppose the death penalty, but I can understand why the victims of the bombing would want McVeigh put to death. I don't agree with them, but I realize where they are coming from and can respect that. That does not mean that my convictions are any weaker than yours, or anyone elses for that matter. It is just an acceptance that some people have differing opinions, and until the death penalty is no longer legal, they have the right to feel the way they do, and to act upon their feelings in requesting to view to execution.
posted by JFunk2800 at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2001
I oppose the death penalty, but I can understand why the victims of the bombing would want McVeigh put to death. I don't agree with them, but I realize where they are coming from and can respect that. That does not mean that my convictions are any weaker than yours, or anyone elses for that matter. It is just an acceptance that some people have differing opinions, and until the death penalty is no longer legal, they have the right to feel the way they do, and to act upon their feelings in requesting to view to execution.
posted by JFunk2800 at 12:34 PM on April 12, 2001
a thought on An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would leave us blind and toothless.
if that's the way things really worked, perhaps people would think twice before poking someone else's eye out if they knew they would have to accept responsibility for their own actions and would be treated accordingly.
heh.
posted by fuzzygeek at 12:42 PM on April 12, 2001
if that's the way things really worked, perhaps people would think twice before poking someone else's eye out if they knew they would have to accept responsibility for their own actions and would be treated accordingly.
heh.
posted by fuzzygeek at 12:42 PM on April 12, 2001
Just a few things, really, and of no consequence.
1. To those who think watching a lethal injection is, somehow, not damaging, nor the method an effective catharsis. In my own (albeit limited, though more extensive than most) experience, most people cannot handle seeing a dead body, nor even pictures of one, and I do not imagine seeing how someone gets that way would go down much better. And the dead are dead no matter how you cut it. Pun potentially intended. Whatever fleeting satisfaction the families get from watching an execution is probably the same whether a ten-inch flame jumps from the top of his head or not.
1. To those who think watching a lethal injection is, somehow, not damaging, nor the method an effective catharsis. In my own (albeit limited, though more extensive than most) experience, most people cannot handle seeing a dead body, nor even pictures of one, and I do not imagine seeing how someone gets that way would go down much better. And the dead are dead no matter how you cut it. Pun potentially intended. Whatever fleeting satisfaction the families get from watching an execution is probably the same whether a ten-inch flame jumps from the top of his head or not.
2. Hey, some people are pro-death penalty and pro-abortion.
3. 'Right' and 'just' are in the eyes of the victor, yes?
Anyway. DO continue.
posted by methylsalicylate at 12:55 PM on April 12, 2001
Doug: yes, yes I think you should be able to poke his eyes out. I just can't see how society can justify keeping these perpetrators of murder around. To me, a murderer is no longer a human being - he's given up that right at the very moment he extinguishes a life (never mind 168 lives).
posted by owillis at 1:00 PM on April 12, 2001
posted by owillis at 1:00 PM on April 12, 2001
I really like this quote:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." - John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science
posted by owillis at 1:12 PM on April 12, 2001
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." - John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science
posted by owillis at 1:12 PM on April 12, 2001
...and until the death penalty is no longer legal, they have the right to feel the way they do, and to act upon their feelings in requesting to view to execution.
Sure, people have the right to feel any way they want...My point is that if one is opposed to the death penalty, then one should have the balls to oppose it even in the cases (such as McVeigh's) where retribution appears justified (which, I would argue, it *still* doesn't).
posted by mapalm at 1:13 PM on April 12, 2001
Sure, people have the right to feel any way they want...My point is that if one is opposed to the death penalty, then one should have the balls to oppose it even in the cases (such as McVeigh's) where retribution appears justified (which, I would argue, it *still* doesn't).
posted by mapalm at 1:13 PM on April 12, 2001
Maybe owillis, because then then society becomes a 'perpetrator of murder' itself?
I just don't understand how another killing can make up for the first one. Killing to prevent the death of an innocent can easily be justified -- killing after the fact cannot be construed as anything other than revenge.
As for McVeigh, he obviously wants to die, seemingly because he wants to be a martyr -- isn't it more of a punishment then to deny his wishes and let him live?
posted by OneBallJay at 1:22 PM on April 12, 2001
I just don't understand how another killing can make up for the first one. Killing to prevent the death of an innocent can easily be justified -- killing after the fact cannot be construed as anything other than revenge.
As for McVeigh, he obviously wants to die, seemingly because he wants to be a martyr -- isn't it more of a punishment then to deny his wishes and let him live?
posted by OneBallJay at 1:22 PM on April 12, 2001
mapalm:
> ... the death penalty is not a deterrent for most
> potential murderers. Not to mention that it is nothing
> less than state-sanctioned murder.
Ah. Somebody almost gets it. Justice demands fitting retribution for heinous crimes. No fitting retribution, no justice. Deterrence is only incidental -- nice if you can get it, but not particularly important to the central issue. What is central is the "state-sanctioned" part. Either justice can be administered by the body of citizens as a particularly nasty but necessary duty or it will, in the end, be administered by vigilante action. The state has to do this to preëmpt private retribution. Those are the only two options; there aren't any others. If the state tries to say "there will be no retribution, either state-sanctioned or freelance, if somebody dynamites your kid or lynches your neighbor you just have to smile and understand" you will, in not too very great a time, no longer have a state.
We saw an example just recently what happens when a nation becomes too "civilized" for justice. Dude bakes 58 immigrants to death in truck, gets 1.24 months per death. There's no high principle at work here, it's just squeamishness and can't-be-bothered.
iceberg273:
> annelids by definition do not have backbones. Hence the
> invertebrate designation.
Joke, son, joke. "having backbone" <> "having a backbone" Them high AH SAY them high, fast ones go rat over that boy's haid...
posted by jfuller at 1:27 PM on April 12, 2001
> ... the death penalty is not a deterrent for most
> potential murderers. Not to mention that it is nothing
> less than state-sanctioned murder.
Ah. Somebody almost gets it. Justice demands fitting retribution for heinous crimes. No fitting retribution, no justice. Deterrence is only incidental -- nice if you can get it, but not particularly important to the central issue. What is central is the "state-sanctioned" part. Either justice can be administered by the body of citizens as a particularly nasty but necessary duty or it will, in the end, be administered by vigilante action. The state has to do this to preëmpt private retribution. Those are the only two options; there aren't any others. If the state tries to say "there will be no retribution, either state-sanctioned or freelance, if somebody dynamites your kid or lynches your neighbor you just have to smile and understand" you will, in not too very great a time, no longer have a state.
We saw an example just recently what happens when a nation becomes too "civilized" for justice. Dude bakes 58 immigrants to death in truck, gets 1.24 months per death. There's no high principle at work here, it's just squeamishness and can't-be-bothered.
iceberg273:
> annelids by definition do not have backbones. Hence the
> invertebrate designation.
Joke, son, joke. "having backbone" <> "having a backbone" Them high AH SAY them high, fast ones go rat over that boy's haid...
posted by jfuller at 1:27 PM on April 12, 2001
Death penalty opponents need to be smarter than to visibly oppose the McVeigh execution ... any number of states are considering reforms which will dramatically reduce the number of executions, both by changing the standards and by significantly upgrading the guaranteed legal defense afforded those at jeopardy of the death sentence (including retroactively, barring the executions of the many, many people who had inadequate defenses for reconsideration of sentence with the benefit of a proper defense team.)
"These people don't even want McVeigh to die" is probably the most persuasive argument one could possibly muster against listening to the advocates of these reasonable reforms.
posted by MattD at 1:52 PM on April 12, 2001
"These people don't even want McVeigh to die" is probably the most persuasive argument one could possibly muster against listening to the advocates of these reasonable reforms.
posted by MattD at 1:52 PM on April 12, 2001
Joke, son, joke. "having backbone" <> "having a backbone" Them high AH SAY them high, fast ones go rat over that boy's haid...
hey, i thought you were serious too. in the context of other such ignorant assumptions, i don't think that a complete contradiction in terms would have been particularly out of place.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:58 PM on April 12, 2001
hey, i thought you were serious too. in the context of other such ignorant assumptions, i don't think that a complete contradiction in terms would have been particularly out of place.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:58 PM on April 12, 2001
owillis, McAdams is basically restating Pascal's Wager, which is all very well if you're looking at it from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Doesn't work for me: I'd still oppose the death penalty even if there were concrete proof that it had a deterrent effect, because I simply don't think the state has the right to kill. I think that sometimes these arguments turn into flame wars because it's not easy to separate the utilitarians from the moral absolutists: or perhaps that those with strong moral positions both ways feel obliged to defend themselves with utilitarian arguments.
jfuller: is it squeamish to think that the state has a responsibility to account for its murderers, rather than simply to despatch them with the familiar refrain that "he was a one-off, he wasn't human, let's carry on until the next one-off carries out the next atrocity"? I think it's the really hard choice, the unsettling choice. The one that involves acknowledging that murderers don't come out of the darkness like Grendel to prey on us: they come from homes like ours, towns like ours, families like ours.
(And I don't see impending social collapse across Europe, whatever you think of its "civilisation".)
posted by holgate at 2:04 PM on April 12, 2001
jfuller: is it squeamish to think that the state has a responsibility to account for its murderers, rather than simply to despatch them with the familiar refrain that "he was a one-off, he wasn't human, let's carry on until the next one-off carries out the next atrocity"? I think it's the really hard choice, the unsettling choice. The one that involves acknowledging that murderers don't come out of the darkness like Grendel to prey on us: they come from homes like ours, towns like ours, families like ours.
(And I don't see impending social collapse across Europe, whatever you think of its "civilisation".)
posted by holgate at 2:04 PM on April 12, 2001
Justice demands fitting retribution
And who's definition of "fitting" shall we use? This brings us full circle, with the "eye for an eye" folks on one side, and the "opposed to murder" folks on the other.
posted by mapalm at 2:07 PM on April 12, 2001
And who's definition of "fitting" shall we use? This brings us full circle, with the "eye for an eye" folks on one side, and the "opposed to murder" folks on the other.
posted by mapalm at 2:07 PM on April 12, 2001
> And who's definition of "fitting" shall we use?
I'm entirely willing to consider yours. What do you think is an adequate response to a case like this, where we have an unrepentent mass murderer and there's no question of his guilt or of his mental competence to defend himself in court?
posted by jfuller at 2:46 PM on April 12, 2001
I'm entirely willing to consider yours. What do you think is an adequate response to a case like this, where we have an unrepentent mass murderer and there's no question of his guilt or of his mental competence to defend himself in court?
posted by jfuller at 2:46 PM on April 12, 2001
jfuller, you're full of crap, and you're being needlessly condescending to iceberg, whose post was meant to be lighthearted. As stated before every other industrialized nation has banned capital punishment, and they are very much states. In fact, your argument about the immigrants is contrary to your premise, because in that instance you have a person who has seemingly not been punished sufficiently for his crime, and yet that nation is as healthy (with a lower crime rate than ours) as always.
Owillis, I was rude to you, and I apologize. I think we're coming from the same place here, which is that human life has an intrinsic value. You want to protect that life. But so do I. If we kill Mcveigh, or any criminal, we just increase the number of dead people. Nobody is helped. Nobody is better off. We'd like to think that it makes things better, but an eye doesn't equal and eye. And ultimately it weakens the very argument that life has value, because it is something that our own government can take away from us. We complain about taxes, cause god forbid anyone take our money, but we seem to be fine with the fact that that same government can kill us, if it so desires.
posted by Doug at 2:47 PM on April 12, 2001
Owillis, I was rude to you, and I apologize. I think we're coming from the same place here, which is that human life has an intrinsic value. You want to protect that life. But so do I. If we kill Mcveigh, or any criminal, we just increase the number of dead people. Nobody is helped. Nobody is better off. We'd like to think that it makes things better, but an eye doesn't equal and eye. And ultimately it weakens the very argument that life has value, because it is something that our own government can take away from us. We complain about taxes, cause god forbid anyone take our money, but we seem to be fine with the fact that that same government can kill us, if it so desires.
posted by Doug at 2:47 PM on April 12, 2001
jfuller: since you asked, my punishment would be life in prison, no parole.
posted by mapalm at 2:53 PM on April 12, 2001
posted by mapalm at 2:53 PM on April 12, 2001
On a disgustingly lighter note, my husband found a website at work filled with tasteful, appropriate cards to send to people on death row......i am certain we will be inundated with this sort of morbid humor during the countdown to McVeigh's execution......
As to my own opinion of the death penalty......I actually had the opportunity to tour Central Prison in Raleigh, N.C. back in the late 70's......we were even taken through a cell block.
I can confidently say that death would seem preferable to much time in a place such as that...........of course McVeigh seems singularly unprepared to meet his Maker....
posted by bunnyfire at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2001
As to my own opinion of the death penalty......I actually had the opportunity to tour Central Prison in Raleigh, N.C. back in the late 70's......we were even taken through a cell block.
I can confidently say that death would seem preferable to much time in a place such as that...........of course McVeigh seems singularly unprepared to meet his Maker....
posted by bunnyfire at 3:09 PM on April 12, 2001
and yet that nation [has] a lower crime rate than ours...
Bzzzt! Incorrect. The UK's crime rate is not only higher than ours, but their rates are increasing as ours are dropping. The question of so-called civility vs. the rights of citizens to be safe is a very legitimate one.
posted by aaron at 3:34 PM on April 12, 2001
Holgate says
> jfuller: you see execution as the sign of the state's
> strength of character; I see it as the ultimate admission
> of state weakness.
and also
> murderers don't come out of the darkness like Grendel to
> prey on us: they come from homes like ours, towns like
> ours, families like ours.
No, I'm with you on this, I think execution is the ultimate admission not just of state weakness but of human incapacity -- but I also think that what's true should be openly admitted, not denied. Tout comprendre, tout pardonner, certainly and beyond doubt. But we don't understand all, and with eightish billion of us there's not the remotest possibility that we will ever understand all. Therefore when a McVeigh comes along, though in logic it's not (from some hypothetical tout-comprendre God's-eye-view) a case of Grendel leaping upon us from the darkness without cause or motive or explanation, it is (from the only point of view available to us) exactly as if it were. I can diagram that sentence for you if you need it, but I think you don't.
I assume (another of those ignorant assumptions pikachoulolita took a little swipe at) that we owe the victims and survivors of the Oklahoma blast the best we can do for them before any other consideration (not excluding other considerations, merely first,) and I conclude that the best we can do is 1) to admit that the state is weak and can't pass humanitarian miracles, all it can do is clean up the mess and end the episode; and then, having admitted this, 2) to choose the best response we find on a very poor menu, which is to put a clinically correct point final to this horrendous criminal's existence. Leaving McVeigh around to give magazine interviews in 2025 isn't the best we can do.
posted by jfuller at 3:39 PM on April 12, 2001
> jfuller: you see execution as the sign of the state's
> strength of character; I see it as the ultimate admission
> of state weakness.
and also
> murderers don't come out of the darkness like Grendel to
> prey on us: they come from homes like ours, towns like
> ours, families like ours.
No, I'm with you on this, I think execution is the ultimate admission not just of state weakness but of human incapacity -- but I also think that what's true should be openly admitted, not denied. Tout comprendre, tout pardonner, certainly and beyond doubt. But we don't understand all, and with eightish billion of us there's not the remotest possibility that we will ever understand all. Therefore when a McVeigh comes along, though in logic it's not (from some hypothetical tout-comprendre God's-eye-view) a case of Grendel leaping upon us from the darkness without cause or motive or explanation, it is (from the only point of view available to us) exactly as if it were. I can diagram that sentence for you if you need it, but I think you don't.
I assume (another of those ignorant assumptions pikachoulolita took a little swipe at) that we owe the victims and survivors of the Oklahoma blast the best we can do for them before any other consideration (not excluding other considerations, merely first,) and I conclude that the best we can do is 1) to admit that the state is weak and can't pass humanitarian miracles, all it can do is clean up the mess and end the episode; and then, having admitted this, 2) to choose the best response we find on a very poor menu, which is to put a clinically correct point final to this horrendous criminal's existence. Leaving McVeigh around to give magazine interviews in 2025 isn't the best we can do.
posted by jfuller at 3:39 PM on April 12, 2001
> you're being needlessly condescending to iceberg, whose
> post was meant to be lighthearted.
As was mine, difference being that mine hit the 10 ring.
posted by jfuller at 3:43 PM on April 12, 2001
> post was meant to be lighthearted.
As was mine, difference being that mine hit the 10 ring.
posted by jfuller at 3:43 PM on April 12, 2001
Bzzzt! Incorrect. The UK's crime rate is not only higher than ours, but their rates are increasing as ours are dropping. The question of so-called civility vs. the rights of citizens to be safe is a very legitimate one.
Ah, very good aaron. You have mastered the ability to make your argument by posting a tiny piece of the evidence. Now if you'd care to push the next button and look at more serious crimes, you'd see that your argument doesn't hold up.
Perhaps you'd rather have fewer robberies and more murders, but most of us would rather switch that around.
posted by anapestic at 4:09 PM on April 12, 2001
Ah, very good aaron. You have mastered the ability to make your argument by posting a tiny piece of the evidence. Now if you'd care to push the next button and look at more serious crimes, you'd see that your argument doesn't hold up.
Perhaps you'd rather have fewer robberies and more murders, but most of us would rather switch that around.
posted by anapestic at 4:09 PM on April 12, 2001
Aaron, did you actually just write out "Bzzzt!"? That's so...something.
Anyway, the information you provided doesn't include statistics on murder. Because it can't, of course, since it was done through victim interviews. Now, even if those statistics WERE a valid measure of violent crime in england as opposed to america, they still wouldn't validate jfuller's argument, as his point is that the state will somehow crumble. Which england hasn't done, and will not do.
We're the only industrialized nation with capital punishment, and we have some of the highest rates of violent crime. Maybe, just maybe, the death penalty doesn't equal a utopian land of human respect.
posted by Doug at 4:20 PM on April 12, 2001
Anyway, the information you provided doesn't include statistics on murder. Because it can't, of course, since it was done through victim interviews. Now, even if those statistics WERE a valid measure of violent crime in england as opposed to america, they still wouldn't validate jfuller's argument, as his point is that the state will somehow crumble. Which england hasn't done, and will not do.
We're the only industrialized nation with capital punishment, and we have some of the highest rates of violent crime. Maybe, just maybe, the death penalty doesn't equal a utopian land of human respect.
posted by Doug at 4:20 PM on April 12, 2001
I'm been watching this thread all day and noticed that it's one of the largest I've seen in terms of comments since I joined MeFi about 1 month or 2 ago. I'm noticing that a lot of the people posting are totally against the death penalty. I know it's late in the game, but didn't have much time to post at work, but here's my question then...
What do you think a rightful punishment would be then instead of death for McVeigh? Do you honestly believe that having him spend his days in heating/air conditioning with cable tv is a fitting punishment? You're talking about a person that killed 168 people including children and did it without no feeling whatsoever.
So, to someone like me who totally supports this guy dieing in the most horrible way we are allowed to kill him, what do you say is a good punishment other than death?
And I'm sorry to the posts that believe that killing him is vengence or revenge from the family. If this guy did this to my son or anyone in my family, I'd say let him out because then he's mine. My family is worth dieing over or having to go to jail for and I can say that that piece of shit bastard would be dead way before this death penalty thing happened.
So, I can guess that you're noticing that I have no qualms about him dieing in a few days. :)
That's just the way I feel, you can agree or disagree.
posted by the_0ne at 4:45 PM on April 12, 2001
What do you think a rightful punishment would be then instead of death for McVeigh? Do you honestly believe that having him spend his days in heating/air conditioning with cable tv is a fitting punishment? You're talking about a person that killed 168 people including children and did it without no feeling whatsoever.
So, to someone like me who totally supports this guy dieing in the most horrible way we are allowed to kill him, what do you say is a good punishment other than death?
And I'm sorry to the posts that believe that killing him is vengence or revenge from the family. If this guy did this to my son or anyone in my family, I'd say let him out because then he's mine. My family is worth dieing over or having to go to jail for and I can say that that piece of shit bastard would be dead way before this death penalty thing happened.
So, I can guess that you're noticing that I have no qualms about him dieing in a few days. :)
That's just the way I feel, you can agree or disagree.
posted by the_0ne at 4:45 PM on April 12, 2001
anapestic: the key to the disparity in crime rates between the UK and US, I think, is on the one hand population density, and on the other hand gun ownership. I'd make the political point that 18 years of Tory rule has had the cultural impact of making a dispossessed generation of impoverished young men think it has the right to take what it wanted, but I'll leave that judgement to history.
jfuller: I'm with you that the justice system isn't really capable of delivering what could be considered justice when we're confronted with acts that shake our sense of human decency. It occurs to me that were McVeigh to remain incarcerated for the next 40 years, he'd eventually assume a kind of mythical status similar to that of Myra Hindley in the UK. And we can't afford to mythologise such people, and yet, the fascination with aberrance being what it is...
It would be helpful, I think, if the news networks in the US were to display an iota of dignity in the coming weeks, and not scrabble around for interviews with McVeigh. Of course, that's not going to happen, and the media circus that surrounds his death will be a greater indignity to those who died in Oklahoma City than if he were to rot in splendid isolation like the Unabomber.
posted by holgate at 5:11 PM on April 12, 2001
jfuller: I'm with you that the justice system isn't really capable of delivering what could be considered justice when we're confronted with acts that shake our sense of human decency. It occurs to me that were McVeigh to remain incarcerated for the next 40 years, he'd eventually assume a kind of mythical status similar to that of Myra Hindley in the UK. And we can't afford to mythologise such people, and yet, the fascination with aberrance being what it is...
It would be helpful, I think, if the news networks in the US were to display an iota of dignity in the coming weeks, and not scrabble around for interviews with McVeigh. Of course, that's not going to happen, and the media circus that surrounds his death will be a greater indignity to those who died in Oklahoma City than if he were to rot in splendid isolation like the Unabomber.
posted by holgate at 5:11 PM on April 12, 2001
If you want to kill McVeigh out of anger, how are you any different from him? He was angry too, that's why he did what he did. I would hope that society aspires to be better than the lowest of its members, not their equals.
I'm not defending his actions in any way. They are truly despicable. Other than folks like Hitler & Friends and Stalin, there is no person lower than those that kill innocent people to make political statements. It is an absolute necessity that they are punished as much as society will allow. In America, unfortunately, that's the death penalty. I'd like to see him in prison -- forever.
From what I understand of it, prison is not all that and a bowl of grits. Heating, check. Air conditioning, check. Cable, check. Three squares a day, check. Anal rape, check. Hard work, check. Solitude, check. Undesirable company, check. No freedom, check. If it's so great, why don't people want to go there. McVeigh would be in solitary confinement for most, if not all, of the rest of his life. That's probably 45 years of seeing nobody but your guard and being out of your cell for 1 hour/day. What greater punishment for an intelligent being could there be other than the deprivation of sensory stimulus? That's plenty of punishment in my book.
Yes, your family is worth dying over or going to jail for -- if their alive and you're protecting them. If they're already gone, what is the rationale behind killing their killer? It's not going to bring your family back. And you've done no better than they have, maybe for better reason, but you've still taken a life that posed no immediate threat.
posted by OneBallJay at 5:25 PM on April 12, 2001
I'm not defending his actions in any way. They are truly despicable. Other than folks like Hitler & Friends and Stalin, there is no person lower than those that kill innocent people to make political statements. It is an absolute necessity that they are punished as much as society will allow. In America, unfortunately, that's the death penalty. I'd like to see him in prison -- forever.
From what I understand of it, prison is not all that and a bowl of grits. Heating, check. Air conditioning, check. Cable, check. Three squares a day, check. Anal rape, check. Hard work, check. Solitude, check. Undesirable company, check. No freedom, check. If it's so great, why don't people want to go there. McVeigh would be in solitary confinement for most, if not all, of the rest of his life. That's probably 45 years of seeing nobody but your guard and being out of your cell for 1 hour/day. What greater punishment for an intelligent being could there be other than the deprivation of sensory stimulus? That's plenty of punishment in my book.
Yes, your family is worth dying over or going to jail for -- if their alive and you're protecting them. If they're already gone, what is the rationale behind killing their killer? It's not going to bring your family back. And you've done no better than they have, maybe for better reason, but you've still taken a life that posed no immediate threat.
posted by OneBallJay at 5:25 PM on April 12, 2001
I imagine you're right, holgate. But I was mostly pointing out what aaron was up to. I'm pretty sure that he knew what the broader statistics show and chose to ignore them. That is the mark of an ideologue. Ideologues don't seek the truth. They think they know it already, and they don't mind misrepresenting the data in order to make their points.
And I don't totally disagree with him about capital punishment. My problems with it are more practical than philosophical, however. Like mdeatherate, I usually don't think that the death penalty is administered in a fair manner in the U.S. However, in this case, there is absolutely no doubt of McVeigh's guilt. I honor what everyone else is saying about the barbarism of capital punishment, but I respectfully disagree, even if that puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with people who rely on ad hominem attacks and willful distortion of the data to make their case.
In the end, I don't think there's a compelling logical argument on this issue, either way. It seems to me more a question of whether you find letting a killer live or killing another person less abhorrent. And we can come down on either side of that issue without demonizing the people on the other side. Or at least I hope we can.
posted by anapestic at 5:38 PM on April 12, 2001
And I don't totally disagree with him about capital punishment. My problems with it are more practical than philosophical, however. Like mdeatherate, I usually don't think that the death penalty is administered in a fair manner in the U.S. However, in this case, there is absolutely no doubt of McVeigh's guilt. I honor what everyone else is saying about the barbarism of capital punishment, but I respectfully disagree, even if that puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with people who rely on ad hominem attacks and willful distortion of the data to make their case.
In the end, I don't think there's a compelling logical argument on this issue, either way. It seems to me more a question of whether you find letting a killer live or killing another person less abhorrent. And we can come down on either side of that issue without demonizing the people on the other side. Or at least I hope we can.
posted by anapestic at 5:38 PM on April 12, 2001
Second time I'm posting because my damn router had a fit all-of-a-sudden. :)
I agree with your assessment of the prison system accountingboy. I didn't mean to come across that they are all vacation places. It just irked me when I heard an interview with McVeigh's attorney the other day and he said that he sits there and just watches cable tv all day. Betcha some of those 168 people he murdered in cold blood might just be doing the same thing.
Disagree with you on the death penalty thing though, I don't consider what Timothy McVeigh is anymore as human. He's a shell of what used to be human and what better to do to that shell than to bury it and let it burn in hell.
posted by the_0ne at 6:24 PM on April 12, 2001
I agree with your assessment of the prison system accountingboy. I didn't mean to come across that they are all vacation places. It just irked me when I heard an interview with McVeigh's attorney the other day and he said that he sits there and just watches cable tv all day. Betcha some of those 168 people he murdered in cold blood might just be doing the same thing.
Disagree with you on the death penalty thing though, I don't consider what Timothy McVeigh is anymore as human. He's a shell of what used to be human and what better to do to that shell than to bury it and let it burn in hell.
posted by the_0ne at 6:24 PM on April 12, 2001
I don't consider what Timothy McVeigh is anymore as human.
Hate to break it to you, but he *is* human. A society that dehumanizes *anyone* is a society that frightens me, because many things then become justifiable. A forgiving society is much healthier (and safer, I would argue), than a blood-thirsty one...
posted by mapalm at 7:21 PM on April 12, 2001
Hate to break it to you, but he *is* human. A society that dehumanizes *anyone* is a society that frightens me, because many things then become justifiable. A forgiving society is much healthier (and safer, I would argue), than a blood-thirsty one...
posted by mapalm at 7:21 PM on April 12, 2001
Ok, we'll all agree to disagree on this.*
*(but McVeigh will be dead in only a few days, yipee!)
posted by owillis at 7:47 PM on April 12, 2001
*(but McVeigh will be dead in only a few days, yipee!)
posted by owillis at 7:47 PM on April 12, 2001
but McVeigh will be dead in only a few days, yipee!
geez...it's sentiments like that that scare me the most: the fucking *glee* at seeing someone die.
posted by mapalm at 7:53 PM on April 12, 2001
geez...it's sentiments like that that scare me the most: the fucking *glee* at seeing someone die.
posted by mapalm at 7:53 PM on April 12, 2001
A blood-thirsty society? Me, the blood-thirsty one? He killed 168 people, some of them children and I'm the blood-thirsty one? This has nothing to do with blood-thirsty, it has to do with this horrible in-human thing being put to death. I just wish there was a little more pain for him in this earthly body before he burns in hell for eternity.
I certainly won't be crying for that immoral bastard.
posted by the_0ne at 8:51 PM on April 12, 2001
I certainly won't be crying for that immoral bastard.
posted by the_0ne at 8:51 PM on April 12, 2001
You know, I had a really good night out this evening; still have a few drinks in me, and I'm thus in a very good mood. So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, anapestic, and presume you were not intentionally leaving out the information that, if posted, would have insured that your attempt to slime me with the negative term "ideologue" would have instantly backfired upon you.
I'm pretty sure that he knew what the broader statistics show and chose to ignore them.
"Pretty sure?" In court, attempting to convict someone by being "pretty sure" of their guilt is a good way to get you laughed out of the courtroom. That's a great thing about being online; you can convict someone without any real direct evidence. Another great thing is that the defendant can come right back at you, like so....
That is the mark of an ideologue. Ideologues don't seek the truth. They think they know it already, and they don't mind misrepresenting the data in order to make their points.
And that's just what you did in your post: Misrepresent the data in order to back up your belief.
You have mastered the ability to make your argument by posting a tiny piece of the evidence. Now if you'd care to push the next button and look at more serious crimes, you'd see that your argument doesn't hold up.
1) You claim I did this because you "were pretty sure that" I knew the broader stastics and chose to ignore them. Well, first, what you posted were not the broader statistics, so your entire argument is voided right there. You merely posted the next page of statistics, which were more categories of the same survey. The only way to get the true broader statistics is to put the data from all the pages together. And this is where I invalide your argument again by pointing out that I had not seen the page you linked to. I had originally done a very specific search for statistics, and was taken to the page I ended up linking here. But before I linked it, I did check other pages of the report randomly, including - and this is most important - the Highlights page. And on there, the very first sentence of the very first paragraph, is the main broader summary of the report:
Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England.
Thus, I DID know the overall stats when I posted. I just thought the page I linked had the most direct evidence. The overall rates are higher in England, period. And in the areas where we do score higher, ours are dropping. And those higher categories are in areas where the crimes occur so infrequently that we're talking of differences between .02 and .10. In the ones where England leads, the differences are more like 21 to 9, 22 to 9, even 80 to 40.
In summary, I could easily take all this and use it to just say flat out that you, anapestic, are the ideologue. Instead, I'm going to do the decent thing and just suggest perhaps you mistakenly mistook the next page for the overall statistics.
And I don't totally disagree with him about capital punishment.
What do you think my stance on capital punishment is, anyway? I don't recall saying much about the DP in this thread. I only spoke of the rights of the victims' families to witness the execution if they so chose.
posted by aaron at 10:27 PM on April 12, 2001
I'm sorry, aaron, but I just don't believe you. If you go back from the page you originally linked to the highlights page you mentioned above, the discrepancy in murder rates is highlighted. And if you go forward one page, the higher US rates for murder and rape are featured. In a discussion on capital punishment, you linked a page that didn't show any capital crimes. If you didn't know, then you were reckless.
As for being laughed out of court, we're not in court, are we? I think people can consider my opinion in the light of your entire record of postings and determine for themselves whether you're an ideologue.
And go ahead and call me an ideologue if you like, but just what ideology am I promoting here?
posted by anapestic at 11:31 PM on April 12, 2001
As for being laughed out of court, we're not in court, are we? I think people can consider my opinion in the light of your entire record of postings and determine for themselves whether you're an ideologue.
And go ahead and call me an ideologue if you like, but just what ideology am I promoting here?
posted by anapestic at 11:31 PM on April 12, 2001
Holgate wrote:
> the key to the disparity in crime rates between the UK
> and US, I think, is on the one hand population density,
> and on the other hand gun ownership.
That's what it looks like. Many of the assaults in the UK might have become murders but the UK doesn't make it easy to carry a gun. In the US, where gun ownership is promoted as a patriotic right and duty, and where the government advocates killing as a valid form of retribution, a drunken street fight that would have ended with a punch in the mouth and been mostly forgotten the next week becomes instead a fatal shooting.
As for what McVeigh deserves:
If you want to hurt him for what he did, why aren't you arguing for torture? Why are you for killing him quickly and painlessly and not for killing him slowly and painfully? You want to punish him, right? And you want to make the punishment fit the crime, right? Why are you holding back on what you really think?
posted by pracowity at 11:45 PM on April 12, 2001
> the key to the disparity in crime rates between the UK
> and US, I think, is on the one hand population density,
> and on the other hand gun ownership.
That's what it looks like. Many of the assaults in the UK might have become murders but the UK doesn't make it easy to carry a gun. In the US, where gun ownership is promoted as a patriotic right and duty, and where the government advocates killing as a valid form of retribution, a drunken street fight that would have ended with a punch in the mouth and been mostly forgotten the next week becomes instead a fatal shooting.
As for what McVeigh deserves:
If you want to hurt him for what he did, why aren't you arguing for torture? Why are you for killing him quickly and painlessly and not for killing him slowly and painfully? You want to punish him, right? And you want to make the punishment fit the crime, right? Why are you holding back on what you really think?
posted by pracowity at 11:45 PM on April 12, 2001
It occurs to me that were McVeigh to remain incarcerated for the next 40 years, he'd eventually assume a kind of mythical status...
One that the "martydrom" he wants so badly won't give him?
posted by harmful at 6:33 AM on April 13, 2001
One that the "martydrom" he wants so badly won't give him?
posted by harmful at 6:33 AM on April 13, 2001
I think people can consider my opinion in the light of your entire record of postings and determine for themselves whether you're an ideologue.
Example: "You're an asshole. I think people can consider my opinion in the light of his entire record of postings and determine for themselves whether you're a asshole." That would be out of line, don't you think? Labelling is always out-of-line, no matter what the label might be.
It's even worse when you do it through lying, which is what you are doing. The original quote, by Doug:
and yet that nation is as healthy (with a lower crime rate than ours) as always.
A lower crime rate. I show this is not true, so you respond by changing the definition of "crime rate" to be "the rate of only those crimes that occur more often in the US than in the UK" in order to falsely portray me as an ideologue and a liar. Perhaps you have some projection issues?
And go ahead and call me an ideologue if you like, but just what ideology am I promoting here?
What ideology am I promoting here? You never bothered to say. And again, since you did not answer the first time: What are my views on capital punishment that you "agreed with" above? If I am the ideologue you claim me to be, you should be able to answer the question quite easily.
posted by aaron at 2:15 PM on April 13, 2001
Aaron, get off it. Either you tried to manipulate the information to fit your view, or you're stupid and didn't actually understand the argument being raised. I don't think you're stupid.
posted by Doug at 4:03 PM on April 13, 2001
posted by Doug at 4:03 PM on April 13, 2001
> Aaron, get off it. Either you tried to manipulate the
> information to fit your view, or you're stupid
One doesn't rule out the other.
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on April 16, 2001
> information to fit your view, or you're stupid
One doesn't rule out the other.
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on April 16, 2001
« Older Kidnapper's cabin surrounded | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Before people call me all sorts of nasty names, I should point out that I'm very much against the death penalty. But if we just have to have executions, they should be public. People should be allowed to see what happens when the death penalty gets carried out. Most people who say they're in favor of the death penalty have never seen an execution, and might change their minds if they did.
posted by Potsy at 4:14 AM on April 12, 2001