The response that a group of people with a strong ethic who are prepared to
stop and think and speak about the other things of life is very important,
is true.
I don't agree with the death penalty as I also believe life is sacred, but
when I wrote in response to Niven I was agreeing that if it had to be done,
it should not have been done as a public entertainment. We think we are
more sophisticated than our forebears - but are we?
What would have helped McVeigh? What could have prevented the terror? I
saw somewhere that he had recognized he was damaged from the Gulf War.
Perhaps he declined something or asked for help, but whatever - our society
has not been able to find a solution that satisfies everyone for any question.
Incarceration for life? Terrible.
For a set period - would that satisfy all those whose loved ones died
innocently?
Set free? so some one else can take revenge?
Death - we hate the word - we fear it, and we reject the idea of it.
I have no answers, I can only regret that he killed, and that our society
has no other answer.
Jean Sinclair Stokes.
At 10:59 12/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Cousins,
> It seems that I will be a minority on this one, but that is a
>position I find familiar.
>We (society) were wrong when we killed Timothy McVeigh. We did to him
>exactly what he did to others, we killed him in cold blood. This is
>murder, plain and simple, and in some ways it is a more horrific crime
>than the one perpetrated by McVeigh in that we (society) formulated a
>plan, wrote this plan down so we can do it again(!) and then we killed
>him. We killed him to show that killing people is wrong.
> Cousins, when will we catch a clue that the death penalty is not
>justice but simple revenge? What we do in killing these criminals is
>the same as hitting our children to show them that hitting is wrong.
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html