Capital Punishment Debaters Have Reasons Wrong

As the saying goes, justice has been served.

Timothy McVeigh – guilty of 168 deaths by his own confession – has been executed painlessly.

Presumably surviving family members have gained “closure” of their grief over the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that included 18 children.

Nevertheless, the touchy-feely crowd once again has trotted out the usual arguments against capital punishment. “Thou shalt not (also) kill” and “It does not deter murder.”

These bromides miss the purposes of legal execution.

The fractured biblical quote fails to acknowledge what the holy book has to say about people who break the Sixth Commandment.

Common sense argues that severe punishment is more of a deterrent to murder than light punishment, but this is irrelevant.

Generally overlooked is the positive value of straight-out revenge. It is a cathartic for the emotional trauma of a victim’s loved ones – especially by spouses and children.

Notable in cases of death-penalty verdicts is the relief and satisfaction expressed by families of victims. Many ask to attend the execution – 232 such requests were granted via closed-circuit television for Oklahoma City family survivors.

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 family 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: “Thou shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” That is: one death for one death, etc., but 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 the slayer may die.”

A good case can be made for the positive effects of revenge. However modern law reserves the application of justice to government.

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

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

When the McVeigh verdict of guilty was announced four years and one week ago, the court audience was said to “break into sobs of joy.”

The 500 people who gathered at the scene of the explosion to hear the verdict cheered. It is reported that those survivors who watched McVeigh die on a prison gurney “demonstrated fierce satisfaction.”

Opponents of capital punishment had a new argument for sparing him – “If he is executed, we will never know who his accomplices were.”

Four years ago, I wrote in this space: “Implicating others won’t get McVeigh out of prison. Having taken the rap alone, with the likelihood 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 to think endlessly about what brought him to that miserable condition – is much worse than instant, painless death.

“In any event, those beasts circulating amongst us with plans for similar terrorism must be made aware of the direst consequences possible to them – even though burning at the stake has been outlawed.”

Both sides of the capital punishment controversy have their arguments on backwards. Execution is not “cruel and unusual” – death is natural and comes to all of us. Cruelty is to be shut up, alone, in a box until blessed death overtakes you.

To be consistent with the natural feeling for revenge, aggrieved families should plead that killers be locked in solitary confinement without parole for the rest of their lives.

Capital punishment protesters would be more consistent with their compassion by marching for lethal injection – thus sparing killers from cruel imprisonment.

Unfortunately, consistency is a state of enlightenment few people have attained. Maybe the biblical patriarchs have it right.

PARTING SHOTS

The 2004 political campaign has begun with distribution of bumper stickers: “Re-elect Gore/Liberman.”

* * *

A delegation from U.S. Greenpeace flew to Sweden to block the arrival of President Bush. They chained themselves to a set of airport traffic lights – but the wrong set.

Lindsey Williams is a Sun columnist

Williams – cap-punish

Sunday – june 17, 2001

6 col head and byline logo for editorial column