I'll say one thing about President Gump: he sure makes you think
(unless you think The Fake News Network reports and lets you decide).

During his appearance concerning Timothy McVeigh's execution being postponed, a reporter asked Gump
about the need to execute McVeigh. The answer: We need to execute Timothy McVeigh to send a signal.
Now I interpret this as meaning we need to use the death penalty as a deterrent to anyone else, to nip murder in the bud.

Without going into it too deeply, I want to say a few things about the death penalty as a deterrent  and
my opinion on why it hasn't been and never will be. Statistics about murder rates are all over the
internet and in libraries everywhere, so this piece is going to be statistic-free.
Reasons why I think the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent:
 
     The death penalty is applied after the fact, after the homicide has already been committed.
     Meaning that the murderer has been caught. In the case of premeditated murder the deterrent
     value is nonexistent for the simple fact that someone planning a murder does not plan to get caught.
     The threat of being executed by the state is not a deterrent to killing another human being to such people.
     The death penalty is an incentive instead to not be caught or implicated in the crime.

     Spontaneous acts of murder are probably not affected much by the threat of the death penalty.
     When someone murders someone else in a fit of passion, at the time of the act, the only concern
     being given consideration is that the other person has to die, and right now, this minute. The
     consequences of the act are considered afterward, not before. Bodies are hidden, evidence
     destroyed, alibis concocted, etc., once again in an effort to avoid being caught. Sometimes the
     murderer will call the police or turn him/herself in when the emotion leading to the crime has
     died, but that is too late for the victim. I don't believe the death penalty deters people from
     crimes of passion in many instances. This also includes murders that happen when someone is
     trying to commit a lesser crime like assault that unintentionally goes too far.

     There are sociopaths galore out there, people. The Jeffrey Dahmers of the world couldn't give a
     rat's ass less about society's sanctions. To some of these people the threat of being executed if
     caught is a kind of turn-on. Some serial murderers have kept newspaper clippings chronicling
     their exploits and really get off on the hysteria they cause. Some seem to play a game to see
     how long they can get away with it or how long they can rub the public's face in it. Related to
     this point is this:

     Some people see murdering someone else as a legitimate way of dealing with irritations. There
     are people in this country that truly seem to see nothing wrong with killing someone who cut
     them off in traffic, put a scratch on their car or any number of situations that should be able to be
     solved with a little calm and reason. I remember a news story a number of years back about a
     teenage boy who saw murder as a way to get free cab rides. He would have the cabbie take
     him to within a couple of blocks of where he was headed then blow the driver away. He saw
     not a thing wrong with it.

Every once in a while the government gets it through its head that the way to deal with problems and
make political brownie points in this country is to make more crimes Federal crimes punishable by
death. Reagan and Bush were big on this and Clinton pushed for it after the Oklahoma City bombing.
This has the total effect of almost zero, and I believe they must know it to be so at the time that more
and more offensives are added to the list. But, not many crimes actually end up being prosecuted by
the Feds under these statutes. They're safe political gambits that don't do much to stop much of anything.

FBI statistics show that in the last several years violent crime has gone down. The decrease happened
in roughly the same proportions in both death penalty and non-death penalty states, and there is evidence
that the decrease had more to do with the prosperity of the mid to late 90's than the death penalty.

One tangible effect of the death penalty laws is that much of the rest of the world sees us as
bloodthirsty barbarians. While they acknowledge that McVeigh is a dangerous psychopath who needs
to be kept out of decent society, they don't believe we should kill him. With exceptions the death
penalty is not an option except in countries run by religious hardliners, dictators, and the United States.
For the people running around foaming at the mouth about why the United States was booted off of
the U.N. commission concerned with human rights, this was a factor.

Now obviously, most people in this country are not murderers, intentionally or not. Undoubtedly the
death penalty has deterred some murders. But it would be impossible to put a number to the murders
prevented. It does seem though, that economic well being is a better deterrent of violent crime than the
death penalty is. Studies show that people in certain lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be
violent offenders, and it goes across racial lines. Violent crime seems to be lower when more people
are doing well financially. (Note that this doesn't address 'white collar crime'.)

At this point, I want to say to the people who are thinking they need to e-mail me to straighten me out
about  the death penalty : I am not getting into the value or worth or rightness of the death penalty itself.
Although I have an opinion on it, all I'm talking about here is why I don't think the death penalty is an
effective deterrent.

I don't know of anyone who would try to defend what McVeigh did. Timothy McVeigh's case is one
of those that has even many death penalty opponents considering that maybe sometimes the death
penalty is appropriate.  My problem with using the reasoning that we must kill him as a deterrent is
summed up above and by this: the death penalty existed in 1995 and it did not deter Timothy McVeigh
from committing murder in the 168th degree. If you want to kill him, do it, but please don't try to tell
me that we're doing it because we want to prevent murders in the future. If we are going to execute
him for revenge, come out and say so. One point of view that I hear sometimes is that appropriate
revenge would be to leave him alive as long as possible and make the rest of his life a living hell.

But keep in mind the possibility that's been raised that his execution will become a rallying cry for some
of the more unstable people among us. We run the real risk of making him into a martyr, and the date
of his execution something of a holiday for certain ultra far right violent extremists. Also, please keep in
mind what a symbol Randy Weaver and Waco have become to these people (McVeigh was one), and
that McVeigh committed the murders he admitted to on the anniversary of Waco. We could be in for
some real fun on the anniversaries of McVeigh's execution.

The message we may be sending with this execution is that there's a new martyr on the block.
 

isaac peterson

This was written before McVeigh's appeal