June 11, 2001

 

SPEAKING OF MC VEIGH

  Mike's Comment
of the Week
     
  Cool Site of the Week
     
  Comment Archives
     
  Industry Links
     
     
     
     
     
 
SEARCH
  Send us e-mail
    Mail Us
 

Most death penalty opponents have been relatively quiet regarding the execution of Timothy McVeigh. After all, someone who has killed 168 people is hardly their ideal poster child. Yet, a few voices from that side would not be stilled.

As a Catholic, it grieves me to relate the remarks of two of the princes of the Church, that betray errors in logic as well as theology. These comments frankly seem better suited to a San Francisco love-in, circa 1968.

Cardinals Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and William Keeler of Baltimore, in a May 2nd statement, noted that "This execution will not bring genuine healing or closure. It will not bring back to life those who died. It will be just one more killing."

Bear in mind that the Cardinals are begging the very question of what would constitute "healing" and "closure." One would have to believe, based on the quotations recorded from the bereaved in this case--and in ANY case of murder--that just punishment of the guilty is a big part of the healing and closure process. The prospect of McVeigh spending 50 or more years in relative comfort, on the taxpayer's dime, does not seem to constitute reasonable punishment.

Moreover, rehabilitation is pointless, because he would never be allowed to leave prison. Indeed, the only argument in favor of not killing him, which, ironically, is virtually never invoked by the anti crowd, is that the years spent in custody would allow him time for repentance and conversion, to ultimately save his soul. Of course, that process could also occur during the lead time between conviction and execution.

Thus, cries for mercy without calls for repentance and conversion, at the very time when repentance and conversion would be most urgent, expose a strange and inappropriate degree of worldliness from these two clerics, and can be dismissed as nothing more than flower child sentimentality. There are few things that I dislike more than flower child sentimentality, a pretense which serves only to make folks feel better about themselves temporarily, but establishes no truth, and produces no good. Certainly, this is nothing new. Remember Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time"?

If you have any doubt regarding the moral validity of capital punishment, you need only consider the following situation.

Imagine that a school is under the control of a group of five heavily armed terrorists. Negotiations have been ongoing for several hours, but have been fruitless. The perps are becoming desperate, and are threatening to kill three hostages if their demands are not met.

Three terrorists are each holding a gun to the head of a hostage. Two of these are children, and one is a middle-aged teacher. The negotiator is pleading with the criminals, but to no avail. All seems lost.

Suddenly, a squad of highly trained commandos bursts in, and with surgical precision, first kills the three gunmen threatening the hostages, and then the two others, who were acting as look-outs.

Two commandos are wounded in the attack, but all the hostages emerge unharmed. The operation is termed a great success by all!

Now, consider a slightly different scenario:

There are still five terrorists, and three of them are holding a gun to the head of their own hostage. This time, though, the negotiations break down, and each of the three hostages is killed by a terrorist.

Knowing that hostages have now been killed, the authorities become a bit more aggressive. Tear gas is lobbed into the building, a squad of commandos enters the facility, and is able to overpower and capture the perps alive. The terrorists are put on trial, and are eventually given the death penalty, although this is protested by some.

What is the logic?

In the first instance, the commandos were able to save lives by acting as judge, jury, and executioner. No one objects to this course of action, even though one might speculate whether or not the murders would have actually taken place. In the second case, the perps already killed innocent people, so there can be no doubt whatsoever as to their guilt. Additionally, there will be an endlessly long appeal process, in which every possible detail will be ferreted out.

Are we to infer that the rash action of the first scenario, taken in the heat of the moment, is somehow morally preferable to the long, drawn out, carefully considered legal process of the second? Hardly. No rational individual would hold this point of view.

The inescapable conclusion is that since we have licensed the commandos to kill, as we license all police agencies to kill, then opposition to capital punishment is inconsistent and absurd. It reflects nothing more than flower child sentimentality, and an effete detachment from the gritty realities of this world, quite along the lines of liking hamburgers, but not coming to grips with the notion of abattoirs.

And while we're at it, what is liberalism, other than flower child sentimentality and an effete detachment from the gritty realities of this world?


 

Last Update:
Copyright ©1996 - 2002 Interscan Corporation. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.