On
this date, April 19, 1995, 168 people were killed in the Oklahoma City Bombing. In
loving memory of the victims, I will post an article from Don Feder.
NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them.
PAGE TITLE: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
ARTICLE TITLE: McVeigh puts capital
punishment in focus.
DATE: 25 April 2001
AUTHOR: Don Feder
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: Don Feder is a media consultant and free-lance writer.
He is also World Congress of Families Communications Director. Feder operates
Don Feder Associates, a communications firm for non-profits with a message
(those promoting faith, family, freedom and national security).
 |
|
The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building two days after the
bombing
|
THE
execution of Timothy McVeigh, three weeks from today, puts the capital
punishment debate into sharp focus.
That's
why opponents of the death penalty are uneasy talking about the Oklahoma City
bomber. For the vast majority of us -- those who aren't ideologically rigid --
it's hard to feel anything but loathing for the terrorist who's admitted to
killing 168 people in cold blood.
McVeigh's
total lack of remorse is chilling. His characterization of the 19 children he
murdered ("collateral damage") is reminiscent of the way the Nazis
dehumanized their victims. McVeigh challenges the dogma of death-penalty
opponents as no other execution since those of the Nuremberg defendants. They
respond by changing the subject.
On
Fox News, I recently fenced with Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch. As soon
as the mass murderer's name was mentioned, Fellner launched into an oration on
the likelihood that we are executing the innocent -- because some death-row
inmates have been released, supposedly proving their saintliness.
Fellner's
pleading is a ploy, though slightly less inept than that of the show's host,
who stated: If we execute McVeigh, we'll make him a martyr. Right -- like
they're are millions of militia types out there who'll be lighting candles
before McVeigh shrines.
When
pressed, death-penalty opponents usually admit they oppose capital punishment
on principle -- as Fellner did reluctantly. But since there's so little public
support for that position, they immediately switch to another approach with
more appeal.
Either
55 or 86 death-row inmates (depending on whom you talk to) have been released,
abolitionists argue. They neglect to mention that most have been freed on legal
technicalities or granted executive clemency.
Since
1977, the first execution after the Supreme Court authorized the death
sentence, slightly more than 700 people have been executed in this country.
Among the experts, there is no consensus that any of them were innocent.
On
average, it takes over 10 years to execute a convicted murderer, more than
enough time to weigh every shred of evidence, examine DNA, appeal on perceived
errors at trial and so on. Though, for prohibitionists, a century would hardly
be time enough.
However,
as I was saying, the argument is a diversion. If you could prove with absolute
certainty that an individual is guilty, abolitionists would still oppose his
execution. They believe it's inhumane to execute cop-killers, child-killers,
the sadists who torture their victims for hours and mass murderers like
McVeigh.
How
does the state teach respect for life by taking a life? they ask. The murderer
shares our common humanity. Surely even he can be rehabilitated. When the state
kills, it does irreparable damage to our institutions, they plead.
Dead
wrong.
 |
Executing a murderer is
the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent
life. Nothing else suffices. To equate the lives of killers with those of
victims is the worst kind of moral equivalency. If capital punishment is state
murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping and restitution is state theft. –
Don Feder [PHOTO SOURCE: https://quozio.com/quote/hnc8kmpgdjcf/1174/executing-a-murderer-is-the-only-way-to-adequately-express] http://soldierexecutionerprolifer2008.blogspot.com/2013/04/mcveigh-puts-capital-punishment-in.html |
Executing
a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an
innocent life. Nothing else suffices. To equate the lives of killers with those
of victims is the worst kind of moral equivalency. If capital punishment is
state murder, then imprisonment is state kidnapping and restitution is state
theft.
A
murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can
still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do
the thousand and one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his
victims.
A
life sentence tells victims, and their loved ones: We don't care enough about
you. Because we're too squeamish to take the life of a monster, we are
implicitly stating that your life (or that of your loved ones) means less than
your murderer's.
Again,
McVeigh is instructive. Families and survivors of the Oklahoma bombing don't
just demand his death; many want to watch. More than 250 of them will view the
killer's execution on May 16.
They
need to know that the man with blood on his hands will draw breath no more.
They are driven by an innate urge for justice.
Like
all punishment, that's what the death sentence ultimately is about -- the quest
for justice. In the case of McVeigh, clearly nothing else is appropriate. But
ethics isn't a numbers game. If a man who murders 168 deserves to die, why not
the killer of 25, or 12, or one?
No comments:
Post a Comment