What a coincidence. I rarely start threads but enjoy whacking other people's threads into weird tangents. I give this thread 20 responses before it becomes a heated debate on the topic of nature versus nurture. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
no, yes, yes. I agree w/ haven, except I want the guy to fry. Oh wait, I don't want him to fry, I want cruel & unusual punishment to be inflicted upon him. Killing his loved ones ought to do the trick. Does he have any progeny? ROAD TRIP! ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
What did the new evidence bring to light? A brief delay of Execution is reasonable until the new evidence is sorted out No, he should be executed if guilty. Maybe- but there seems to be no substance to the mixup so in effect, no. hey haven: 1.5 out of 3 is pretty good for us. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 06, 2001).]
Err, I don't think we're allowed to just say "Well he didn't get a fair trial but we know he's guilty as hell-- so fry him". Evidence was withheld from McVeigh's attornies. Whether it's earth-shaking evidence of further accomplices or whether it's a Burger King receipt, it's my understanding that evidential malfeasance on the prosecutor's part requires a new trial. Stay the execution. Retry and re-convict him. Then stick him in jail for the rest of his life. ------------------ "It's a funny thing, 'friends' You got beginnings and you got ends I guess I'll see you when we're ashes again-- Chris Robinson
I prefer to think of myself as a simple man, a stickler for consistency, and a real pain in the ass when I want to be. I guess what this issue boils down to is, should teachers be able to count your math problems wrong if you 'show your work' and it was done wrong...? If the question is 2x+4y=461, I get the correct answer using convoluted Kagy Algebra, and the teacher marks it wrong, should I get credit for the problem or not? It's obvious that in this case, McVeigh is guilty as sin. Fine. He should be convicted and punished. The question is, with the admission that the FBI withheld evidence, did he receive a fair trial? Can we execute him knowing that it's still debatable whether or not he did? I vote no on that one. Apparently the judge(s) in this matter have wide discretion in interpreting the seriousness of the withheld evidence, as yesterday's denial of stay indicates. I think what we'll see is, this ends up in the Supreme Court, and the conversative-leaning justices will outvote the court's radical-socialist/anarchist demons (kidding kidding) 5-4 in granting a stay. We'll get another trial, another conviction, and ultimately, the death penalty. And we'll be secure in the knowledge that McVeigh did receive a fair trial. As a side note: is anyone else appalled by the bloodthirstiness of the relatives of the bombing victims? The attitude among many of them seems to be, "I don't give a damn if he had a fair trial. Kill him and kill him in a painful way so that he suffers!" I understand the effect tragedy has on judgment, but I don't think there's ever an excuse for that attitude. That sickens me almost as much as the media's complicity in promoting it. Jeez, after the news broke that McVeigh would appeal based on the new evidence, the media sought out the family of the victims and happily goaded them into making emotional, irrational cries for vengeance. I just don't get it. From McVeigh's point of view, doesn't the admission that thousands of related documents were withheld consitute grounds for appeal? He's doing what's legally smart, and the media's reaction seems to be "HOW DARE HE INTERRUPT THE MOMENTUM OF VENGEANCE!" Pretty disgusting, and the objectification and exploitation of the affected families is sickening too. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 07, 2001).]
If you listen closely, you can barely hear Kagy's heart starting to bleed. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
The integrity of the criminal system is on trial here....so I think it's necessary to give the guy a new trial. Given the fact they already have his admission, his conviction is a foregone conclusion. Then he will be subject to the death penalty again. Ultimately this all just extends the agony of McVeigh who thinks, but isn't sure just yet, that he's going to die soon. Given the fact that he bombed a building with small children inside and later referred to them coldly as "collateral damage", I have no problem with him agonizing a little while. ------------------
Well, I hope to never be in the position to understand what they are going through. I certainly expect that if I lost my loved ones in a calculated, murderous act I would be exceptionally angry and at least initially demand retribution. But it would be a strange system if the victims were allowed carte blanche in determining the punishment. So while I don't blame the survivors for their feelings, I do question a government that would be pressured into making this a public spectacle to appease them. Why don't we just hold a public stoning (where each victim gets to throw a rock) and be done with it? ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
Exactly. It's been more than six years. There is no longer, in my opinion, an excuse for harboring a bloodthirsty desire for vengeance. Initially, sure, tear down heaven and earth until the thirst for vengeance is sated! At some point though, emotion has to subside, and you have to approach matters in a bit more rational way. The same goes for relatives of any murder victim. I'm always shocked by people who say things like "I'm here to watch that b*stard burn. I hope he suffers and it's painful." From my perspective as a Christian, obviously I don't believe that evil should be repaid with evil. But even non-Christians, in my opinion, have a gut feeling that the proper response to a crime is not "an eye for an eye" in all circumstances. By that I mean, we shouldn't have set up a series of extermination camps for Germans after WWII was over. At some level, if you consider yourself part of the solution and not the problem, I think you know that calling for suffering and revenge is unhealthy. As for RM95, I wish I could insert a sample from Stand By Me... You wish. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 07, 2001).]
Yeah, use your Christian fly by night morality. How quickly we forget. I'm using the morality that kept us fine and dandy in numerous domestic scale societies during our evolution. Revenge killing. It's not about McVeigh. It's about his wife... and kids. ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
Exactly. It's been more than six years. There is no longer, in my opinion, an excuse for harboring a bloodthirsty desire for vengeance. So there is a statute of limitations for bloodthirsty rage? I just know from personal experience that there are plenty of things in my past that I have a hard time being rational about. And the worse the event, the harder it is. Strong emotions cloud your judgment. That is why an impartial jury, and not a collection of the victims, is chosen to decide punishment. I'm not advocating the death penalty. Far from it. I just can't look down at the victims of this crime because of their strongly held feelings, even 6 years later, since I've never been in their shoes. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
Yeah, use your Christian fly by night morality. Would you like to apologize for this now, or spend several posts explaining it first? I'm going to assume you were kidding, in which case it's in really poor taste. My Christian morality is not fly-by-night, and it's not so inclusive as to allow for revenge killings no matter what you might think you know about it or who you might have heard say otherwise. So there is a statute of limitations for bloodthirsty rage? LOL... I just mean I can certainly understand that mindset initially, but after time I don't think it pleases God to indulge a desire for revenge.
Ugghhhhh... that wasn't an attack on you and your new found faith. I was making a geological/anthropological joke about the temporalness of religion and cultures. When you hold a hominid skull (okay a plastic mold) in your hand from 3mya, everything's put into perspective rather quickly. ------------------ girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
