In a recent poll, it was
found that of people who say they are against the death
penalty, 25% say they oppose the death penalty in most
cases, but not for terrorists who kill Americans. CUADP sees
this as a reversion to the gut reaction we all feel when a
brutal crime touches us personally. For most Americans, the
Oklahoma City bombing is as close as we have come to the
reality of terrorism.
CUADP recently received
the following letter from such a person. We wanted to share
our response with others as a way of explaining our position
in this case. Your response to <cuadp@cuadp.org> is
invited and welcome, but due to the overwhelming number of
messages we receive, please do not expect an immediate
response.
DEAR CUADP,
FOR THE MOST PART, I BELIEVE THE DEATH
PENALTY TO BE WRONG. HOWEVER, HOW DO WE COMPARE WHAT MCVEIGH
DID WITH ANY OTHER MURDER CASE ON THE BOOKS? THE MURDER OF
NINETEEN CHILDREN BY McVEIGH, REFERRED TO AS
"COLLATERAL DAMAGE," STANDS THE VIEW OF NO DEATH
PENALTY ON ITS EAR. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH A PERSON SO CALLOUS?
PERSUADE ME THAT THE DEATH PENALTY ISN'T THE RIGHT REMEDY?
THEN, LOOK THE PARENTS, RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND THE COMMON
JOE IN THE EYES, AND TELL THEM WHY McVEIGH SHOULDN'T FORFEIT
HIS LIFE?
MY MIND IS OPEN FOR NOW. I HOPE SOMEONE AT
YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL TAKE THE TIME TO PERSUADE ME ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER.
THANK YOU,
JEFF X
LOS ANGELES, CA
X@aol.com
Dear Mr. X,
Thanks for writing:
At 03:25 PM 3/30/2001 -0500, X@aol.com
wrote:
>MY MIND IS OPEN FOR NOW. I HOPE SOMEONE AT YOUR
ORGANIZATION WILL TAKE THE TIME TO PERSUADE ME ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER.
In McVeigh's mind, he was engaging in an
act of revenge when he bombed a United States installation.
In his mind he was "at war," and much the same as
when we bomb Iraq or send more than a billion dollars in
weapons to Colombia, innocent civilians die and countless
lives are changed forever. The "collateral damage"
from McVeigh's "war" or any other is the same:
Innocent people die.
Of course McVeigh's thinking was
horrifically wrong. I am simply saying that we must attempt
to understand his mindset, and recognize that WE must choose
to stop the cycle of violence! Killing Tim McVeigh only
continues the violence. And, killing McVeigh makes him a
martyr in the eyes of those who supported him and share his
beliefs. We should not be surprised if one or more of his
supporters tries to avenge for our killing McVeigh. Will May
16 become the next April 19? We should ask ourselves: How
much killing and how much revenge are we prepared to live
through?
It's not about McVeigh. It's about us. You
challenge us to look into the eyes of the victims and their
families. You should know that not all of the victim's
families want the death penalty, although most won't talk
publicly about their opposition. Bud Welch, whose daughter
was one of the 168 killed, does speak out. Read his
statement at http://www.abolition.org/budwelch.html
Then, take this challenge: Will you look
into the eyes of Bill McVeigh,
Jennifer McVeigh, and Tim's other sister, as you pull the
switch?
Or is it enough to let him rot in jail,
thinking every day about why he can't walk more than three
paces, will NEVER touch a woman, and will eat "food
loaf" for the rest of his life?
For me, I'll choose the latter, and not
reduce myself to his level - the level of a person who would
kill a defenseless human being. I wish you peace.
--abe
Mr. X responds:
>In a message dated 3/30/01 12:39:14 PM
Pacific Standard Time, abe@cuadp.org writes:
>Or is it enough to let him rot in jail, thinking every
day about why he
>can't walk more than three paces, will NEVER touch a
woman, and
>will eat "food loaf" for the rest of his life?
SO LONG AS THE MEDIA DOESN'T CONTINUALLY
MAKE HIM A SUBJECT (MEDIA DARLING OF THE WORST KIND), I FIND
THIS OPTION FAR MORE PREFERABLE. THE MERE FACT THAT HE (McVEIGH)
HAS OPTED (REQUESTED) FOR THE DEATH PENALTY RATHER THAN ROT
IN JAIL, IS ALL THE MORE REASON TO KEEPHIM ALIVE FOR THE
REST OF HIS NATURAL LIFE.
>For me, I'll choose the latter, and
not reduce myself to his level - the
>level of a person who would kill a defenseless human
being.
>I wish you peace.
WHILE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CATEGORIZING
McVEIGH AS A "DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING," I DO AGREE
WITH YOUR STAND ON NOT REDUCING YOURSELF TO HIS LEVEL.
IN SUMMATION SIR, YOU'VE ALTERED MY THINKING, AND I NOW FIND
MYSELF IN YOUR CORNER. THANK YOU.
SINCERELY,
X
LOS ANGELES, CA
X@AOL.COM
Dear Mr. X,
You wrote:
>WHILE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CATEGORIZING McVEIGH AS
>A "DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEING," I DO AGREE WITH YOUR
>STAND ON NOT REDUCING YOURSELF TO HIS LEVEL.
Not too long ago, my fellow activists Bill Pelke & George White
(see <http://www.journeyofhope.org> were on a radio call-in program when a
caller challenged them as "bleeding heart liberals," saying that anyone who
opposes the death penalty surely is a pacifist who would not defend the
country. The caller suggested that the death penalty is an important
weapon in the war on crime, and therefore anyone opposed to the death
penalty was "not defending the country." Big mistake! Bill and George
explained that they had both served in the U.S. Army: Bill carried a radio
in the infantry in Viet Nam and George served as a drill sergeant during
the Viet Nam era. Bill explained that when he was in Viet Nam, if there
was a battle, it was a soldiers' duty to try to kill the enemy. But if
they captured enemy soldiers, according to the Geneva Convention it was
illegal to do any harm to them. In fact, Bill was once ordered to guard
prisoners of war - not from escaping, but from fellow U.S. Soldiers!
The point is this: When I call McVeigh "defenseless," I am not saying "Poor Timothy McVeigh." McVeigh is in a cage. When they move him,
he is shackled. He is completely unable to control his situation, and even
if he were to struggle, he would quickly be subdued. When we kill him, he
will be totally restrained. It's not about what he was or did when he was
free. A prisoner in restraints cannot physically defend him or herself,
despite basic human instinct to do just that. This is what I mean when I
say "defenseless." Just keep in mind that regardless of McVeigh's
horrendous acts, WE are now committing the act of homicide on a person who
cannot defend himself even if he chooses to do so. I think that is
cowardly, driven by vengeance, and I will not be a party to it.
paz!
--abe
************************************************************
************************************************************
Abraham J. Bonowitz
Director
Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (CUADP)
PMB 335, 2603 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy,
Gainesville, FL 32609
800-973-6548 <http://www.cuadp.org> <abe@cuadp.org>
************************************************************
************************************************************
Dear Mr. Y,
You
wrote:
>From: "Mr. Y" <"Y" @broadband.att.com>
>To: "'cuadp@cuadp.org'" <cuadp@cuadp.org>
>Subject: Kill Tim
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 22:32:00 -0600
>
>There is no argument on the planet that can come
to the defense of McVeigh.
>To come to the defense of his life is laughable.
This guy would have caused
>more "collateral damage" than what he
had, if he were given the choice. It
>could have been you, me, your sons, your
daughters, babies, handicapped, or
>whatnot. His aim was to cause death and
destruction, regardless the cost to
>others. The fact he had said he wanted to die in a
shootout with police
>only confirms his want to cause yet more death.
This is not a case of
>impulsively purchasing a firearm and then
aimlessly murdering others for no
>reason at all. This was a carefully thought out
plan to cause mayhem,
>death, and destruction with a high degree of well
thought out malicious
>intent. Tim deserves to die a more violent death
than that being afforded
>him. He is no longer a human being. He is
incapable of being a human
>being. Because of this, he needs to be put down.
>
>I don't view it as vengence or violence
reinventing yet more violence. Tim
>put himself into this position. Tim only has Tim
to blame for his heinous
>act. As I had mentioned earlier, Tim wanted to die
violently. Too bad we
>can't accomodate him, rather than "putting
him to sleep". When Tim became
>hell bent on destroying lives, Tim destroyed his
life. Let his life end.
Dear Mr. Y,
First, thanks for writing.
We have never suggested that what Timothy McVeigh did is
defensible. We do not defend his actions, nor do we condone
them. We are as shocked and outraged as anyone else, not
only in this case but whenever we hear of violent deaths.
But it's not about McVeigh. It's about us, and what killing
him says about us and does to us. When I say "us,"
I mean us as a people, a nation, and us as you, me, and
every other tax payer. I am no killer. I abhor killing, and
I will not contradict myself by saying "killing is
wrong" and then turning around and killing! Tim McVeigh
may deserve to die, but I do not deserve to kill him.
Silence is complicity. Therefore, I must vocally and visibly
say "NO!"
Sincerely,
--abe
