June 8, 1997

Purpose Of Capital Punishment Is Old Fashion Revenge

Now that Timothy McVeigh has been found guilty of bombing the Oklahoma City federal building which took the lives of 168 innocent people, including 18 day-care children -- controversy shifts to the ethics of execution. The same jury that convicted him of the worst terrorist crime in the nation’s history now is deliberating his punishment -- life imprisonment without parole, or death by legal injection.

The touchy-feely crowd once again has trotted out the usual arguments against official execution: “Thou shall not kill,” and “it does not deter murder.”

The biblical quote fails to acknowledge what the holy book has to say about murderers after they have broken the commandment.

Common sense indicates that severe punishment is more of a deterrent than light punishment.

Generally overlooked in the debate is the positive value of straight-out old-fashion revenge. It is a cathartic for the emotional trauma of a victim’s loved ones, especially for spouses and children.

Notable in all cases of death-penalty verdicts is the relief and satisfaction expressed by the families. Many ask to attend the execution. Some request the privilege of throwing the switch that sends the murderer to kingdom come.

In ancient days, the leading male of a family was duty bound to avenge the murder of a close relative. This required death of the killer -- plus one or two of the latter’s relatives for good measure.

It is instructive to note the biblical view of the matter. Not for religious interpretation, but for what it reveals about human nature.

According to Leviticus 24, God told Moses: “He who killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”

Excess retaliation those days led to the remonstrance in Exodus 21-23: “Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” That is, one death for one death and no more.

In Deuteronomy 19, written centuries later, there is recognition that the law shares responsibility for revenge. Three cities in Israel were designated as places where slayers could obtain sanctuary for three days while Elders investigated.

If guilt was determined, “The Elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood (senior male relative of the victim) that he may die.”

While a good case can be made for the positive effects of revenge, a large body of law today reserves the application of justice to a disinterested third party.

Supposedly, this removes the possibility of excess revenge. In practice, however, the disinterested third party often is excessively disinterested. Only a small percentage of modern murderers pay for their crimes “life for life.”

Substitute avengers are not emotionally involved and so are inclined to delay, lose interest, quibble over technicalities, dismiss charges, allow endless appeals, and grant paroles.

Without expiation of guilt, official or otherwise, the natural hate engendered by injury to our loved ones cannot be dissipated and love rekindled. Only the lower animals are indifferent to destruction of their kin. The loving response to murder, therefore, is revenge -- whether administered personally or by an official surrogate.

When the McVeigh verdict was announced, the court audience is reported to have broken into sobs of joy. “We were holding hands and praying and crying,” declared the daughter of a man killed in the blast. “It was wonderful!”

The more than 500 people who gathered at the scene of the explosion to hear the verdict cheered and clapped.

Opponents of the death penalty have come up with a new wrinkle for sparing McVeigh -- if he is executed, we will never know whom his accomplices were.

This requires a great leap of expectation that McVeigh someday in prison will write his memoirs and name other perpetrators. Implicating others wouldn’t get him out of prison. Having taken the rap alone now, with the probability of execution, he certainly will not squeal pointlessly in the future.

If ever he would be inclined to say more, it would be in the next few days as a deal for life imprisonment instead of death. However, the prospect of decades of life alone in a cell 23 and a half hours a day -- with just a half hour of solitary exercise in an empty prison yard -- is a much worse fate than instantaneous, painless death.

In any event, those beasts circulating amongst us with plans of similar terrorism must be made aware of the direst consequences possible to them -- burning at the stake having been outlawed.

Society must be assured that just revenge will be meted out, or angry avengers will resort to ancient custom.

If the Oklahoma bombing does not justify the death penalty, what does? If McVeigh does not deserve execution, who does?

PARTING SHOTS

Gen. Joseph R. Ralston, nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is discovered to have had an adulterous affair five years ago. This on top of a dozen or so sex scandals among military brass in recent months. The new troop command is said to be: “At ease, darling!”

* * *

Secretary of Defense William Cohen says General Ralston should not be disqualified. Tell that to Lt. Kelly Flinn, the lady pilot who was discharged from the Air Force in part for dilly-dallying with a married man.

* * *

Every saint has a past, every sinner a future.

* * *

Eugene and Nora Lum, majority stockholders in the Dynamic Energy Resources pipeline company, have admitted making an illegal $50,000 contribution to Sen. Teddy Kennedy’s political campaign. It’s amazing what you can push through a pipeline, and what comes out the other end.

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers