The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Giving McVeigh death gives him liberty

A MAN WAS killed in Indiana Monday morning. He wasn't mugged and stabbed. He wasn't run over by a reckless or drunk driver. He wasn't killed at gunpoint. The man drifted off to sleep and painlessly, if not peacefully, died. His life ended in a controlled environment on a scheduled date at the hands of the state. Everyone knew it was going to happen, but Timothy McVeigh's death warrants mourning nonetheless.

McVeigh himself does not require sympathy - he had none for the 168 lives he ended. What does warrant mourning is a so-called civilized society that sanctions killing, a society led by our execution-loving president, George W. Bush.

The state of Texas last year under the auspices of then Gov. Bush set a record for executions. Bush told our disgusted allies in Europe that he does not support the death penalty for the mentally retarded. If this is true, how can he explain why six men executed in Texas during his administration showed evidence of mental retardation? Bush could have stopped each one of these killings through executive clemency.

It is obvious that it is inhumane to take the lives of those whose mental capacity precludes the proper comprehension of their actions or their consequences. But it hardly is appropriate for the government to make the decision to kill anyone, mentally retarded or not.

Bush traveled to Europe this week, a continent that almost universally condemns the practice of capital punishment. There, Bush said that the execution was a "reckoning" for all those hurt by McVeigh ("Timothy McVeigh Put To Death," Associated Press, June 11).

Bush could have meant this two ways. If he meant reckoning to mean finality and closure, this certainly was a cold way of putting it. This impassivity sums up his numbness and insensitivity to the high emotions that surround this issue. On the other hand, if he meant reckoning as a "settling of accounts," he displays the execution as retribution and vengeance for the survivors.

The feeble arguments advocating the death penalty - the "eye for an eye" adage and the statistically questionable notion that killing one man will deter another - are even less applicable than usual in the case of McVeigh.

Some hoped the families of McVeigh's victims would feel retribution in his death, and maybe some of them did. This was so firmly the goal, however, that family members of victims were allowed to view the execution, some in person and others via live feed. It is hard to believe that this event could bring the mourners much peace. Seeing even the most vile person die cannot come close to compensating a victim's family for its loss and lifetime grieving.

Also, McVeigh never publicly expressed any regret for his terrorism, which claimed more lives than any other act on American soil. He reportedly carried this attitude to death, never showing any emotion - regret or anguish or remorse. It could not have provided a large measure of comfort for the families that this man, even in facing death, did not show remorse for slaughtering their loved ones.

Death was the best thing McVeigh could have asked for. Had he spent the rest of his life in jail, he would have been a forgotten man. After a dozen years, few would bring McVeigh to mind, except for the families of victims who will think of him even in his death.

Instead, the government that McVeigh blamed his terrorism on has made him a martyr, through the first federal execution in 38 years. He died for his cause and, in some twisted way, lives on more through his death than he would have in life. Had McVeigh been sentenced to life in prison instead of death, no newsprint would have been wasted on him this week. He would have been ignored, and that is what he deserves.

Instead of gaining "an eye for an eye" retribution, we managed to reward McVeigh. He didn't care about getting caught. He was twisted enough to blow up a building, and that certainly makes him twisted enough to realize that death at the hands of the American government serves him much better than life ever would.

(Megan Moyer is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)

Local Savings

Comments

Latest Video

Latest Podcast

Ahead of Lighting of the Lawn, Riley McNeill and Chelsea Huffman, co-chairs of the Lighting of the Lawn Committee and fourth-year College students, and Peter Mildrew, the president of the Hullabahoos and third-year Commerce student, discuss the festive tradition which brings the community together year after year. From planning the event to preparing performances, McNeil, Huffman and Mildrew elucidate how the light show has historically helped the community heal in the midst of hardship.