Volume I, Issue 15 · posted June 25, 2001
TIME AFTER TIM
My children are all young and they still like a lot of what I like. In too short a time, they will plug into contemporary culture and develop their own tastes in music and fashion and choice of slang. For now, though, they happily take pleasure in what interests their Mom and Dad.
They love to watch our DVD of Yellow Submarine and walk around the house belting out their own version of Beatles‘ songs, such as “Hey Bluedog” and “You See All Those Guys with Diamonds“. (When I watched Yellow Submarine for the first time in 25 years, I decided that the whole thing was probably more entertaining if you were stoned out of your gourd. It seems my estimation was incomplete; apparently it’s equally enjoyable if you are just six years old!) They know John, Paul, George, and especially Ringo, and whenever they see or hear a group performing, they’re likely to blurt out “It’s The Beatles!“, even if it’s just a local garage band.
Most important to me, though, is this: they don’t know what happened to John Lennon. I was under three years old when John Kennedy was shot; I have some vague memory of the grown-ups being very upset and no recollection at all of the man. I grew up knowing JFK as the Dead President. I am glad that my kids do not yet think of John Lennon as the Dead Beatle.
It is a sad truism that too many important historical figures are remembered first for the way they died, rather than how they lived. How many times have you read the phrase “slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King“? What do you inevitably think of when you hear the names Bobby Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Kurt Cobain, Lou Gehrig, Amelia Earhart, or Anne Boleyn?
These days, I find myself wondering how history will remember Tim McVeigh.
To those of us aware of what was happening six years ago, McVeigh should first be remembered as the mass murderer of 168 people. It’s possible, though, that his execution earlier this month may be remembered as the event that got our nation talking about the death penalty.
If so, it’s about time.
The death penalty is one of those squirmy social topics — like abortion, homosexuality, and the “comedy” of Whoopi Goldberg — that we generally choose not to talk about unless we know we’re in the company of those who already agree with us. Recently, though, we’ve been seeing some very public debates and, I suspect, many quiet conversations about this issue.
So please allow me to have a thoughtful dialogue with you …
DEATH BY NUMBERS
“I suppose you’re against the death penalty!?”
I am opposed to the death penalty. I am ashamed of the death penalty. I have never heard a convincing argument for the death penalty.
“You didn’t lose anybody in Oklahoma City. Don’t the victims and their families deserve closure?”
Yes, I have not lost anybody to violent crime. If I had, surely there is an irrational part of me that would want to execute their killer by my own hand. Fortunately, we are a civilized society and we have laws against that. The federal court could not, for example, have simply thrown McVeigh into a room full of his victims armed with baseball bats. Instead, we lead him into a chamber, flanked by armed guards, with no possibility of escape or of defending himself, strap him into a gurney and stop his heart. This, apparently, is more civilized.
“But we reserve the death penalty for only the most horrible of crimes, the taking of another human life.”
So we protect ourselves against violent crime through the act of state-sponsored killing? No, it makes no sense. Most people who have killed other people do not end up on death row. It is a very exclusive club. We are terribly inconsistent not only with how we apply the ultimate penalty, but why. I’m lucky, I’ve personally known only one person who was killed violently. She was on a date with her boyfriend and the two of them were mowed over by a drunk driver. I hear he lost his license.
“But that’s different, he didn’t mean to kill them.”
Is that our standard? He gets drunk, he gets in his car, and he drives down Hollywood Boulevard on a warm summer night. What did he think would happen?
“Tim McVeigh was a heartless killer who coldly planned the mass murder of hundreds of people. He deliberately struck at a time when the building would be the most full of life and was disappointed that part of it remained standing. He referred to the dead children as `collateral damage´. I’m sorry about your friend, but you can’t compare that accident to this barbarous act of deliberate homicide.”
Actually, I feel quite comfortable making the comparison, and I am furious at a society that absolves people of personal accountability because they were under the influence, but that’s a topic for another discussion.
“But don’t you think that we need the death penalty to act as a deterrence?”
Tim McVeigh knew that there is a death penalty. It didn’t deter him. Seriously, this argument makes no sense. What are we implying here? That without the death penalty, there would be more homicides in our nation? Let’s look at some numbers…
According to information compiled from The Bureau of Justice Statistics the regional American South (Virginia to the north, Florida to the south, and Texas to the west — you know, “Bush country“) has the highest murder rate, repeatedly higher than the national rate, and accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.
In fact, according to a 1999 New York Times survey reprinted at the Death Penalty Information Center webpage, states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. During the last twenty years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% to 101% higher than in states without the death penalty; ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average. Further, a 1995 national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs in the United States revealed that our local law enforcement leaders rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime and the least cost-effective method for controlling crime. Other studies cited indicate that the death penalty may actually increase the number of murders. Called the Brutalization Effect, one study in California found that the average annual increase in murders was twice as high during years in which the death penalty was carried out (1952 to 1967) than those years in which no one was executed by the state (1968 to 1991). Another study of murders in New York during a period when that state was executing more than any other state (1907 to 1963) found that, on average, homicides increased in the month following an execution.
In the past fifty years, our nation has made great strides to protect our citizenry and confront social ills. The overall annual death rate for U.S. children aged less than 15 years has declined substantially, mainly due to advances in medicine and health care. However, according to a 1997 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, child homicide rates in the U. S. from 1950 to 1993 have tripled when compared to other nations. The CDC reports that “the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries.” Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty.
Frankly, I think the issue of deterrence is a smokescreen to distract us from the real reason for the death penalty: revenge.
“All right, what about that? Isn’t that justice? Tim McVeigh killed 168 people, including babies, in a shower of heat and screams and shattered concrete? Surely he deserved to die?”
Yes, those people did not deserve to die, and McVeigh did. But killing McVeigh did not bring anybody back, and our nation is not safer, our future is not brighter, and we should not sleep more soundly at night. We, the people of this country, deserve better than to be a part of a government that executes its own citizens. I say that calmly and rationally even as I recognize this sad irony: Tim McVeigh felt the same way. But he was insane, and I am not; I choose to protest with my words and my vote.
“I’m not convinced, and neither are most Americans. According to many polls, people in this country support the death penalty by 60 to 70%.”
Actually, a lot of those numbers vary widely depending on what questions are asked. Many people support the death penalty in the abstract, the idea that if you kill someone than you deserve to die. Even I supported the idea that McVeigh deserved to die, but it’s a far leap to go from that to actually killing him. It’s the old “an eye for an eye” idea, but we are terribly inconsistent about that too. What do you do if you catch a homeless man stealing your TV? Steal his cardboard box? Maybe you could force him to get a job, earn money to buy a TV, and then steal it from him? What if you catch someone smoking marijuana? Is the only apt penalty to eat all his food and then pass out on his couch?
In fact, as soon as you move away from the abstract and discuss specifics, support for the death penalty falls away. Should we execute children who were tried as adults? (Seriously, think about this. Suppose the Columbine killers had survived? Would you support their being executed?) Should we execute the mentally retarded?
“President” Bush was asked about this during his recent trip to Europe, and as reported in Salon.com, a senior White House source is quoted as saying “(the president) has always believed we shouldn’t put people to death who are incompetent to understand the charges against them or the difference between right and wrong,” and admitted that “there is some confusion” because Bush believes that I.Q. is not the only measure of retardation and that someone can learn to understand the difference between right and wrong regardless of I.Q. (the article fails to mention whether the source cited George Bush himself as a recurring example of this ambiguity).
“Don’t you agree that this should ultimately be in the hands of juries to decide?”
Nope. Juries are not infallible, and the death penalty, once executed, is irreversible. There have been too many cases recently where further evidence was later found that has exonerated prisoners already on death row. For that very reason, Illinois Governor George Ryan — a death penalty advocate — halted executions and ordered an extensive review of state court procedures after determining that his state had released more prisoners from death row than it had actually executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977. Oklahoma also may be facing a similar dilemma following the revelation that a forensic chemist with the Oklahoma City Police Department is being investigated for decades of wrongful testimony that may have helped send two dozen people to death row and several thousand to prison.
And then there is this: the constitution guarantees us a fair trial by a jury of our peers. Even if we accept the notion that 60% to 70% of the people support a death penalty (a number I dispute), then by logical extension that means in a jury of twelve people, 4 or 5 of them will be against the death penalty. In a capital case, however, if you state that you are against the death penalty than you are barred from sitting on the jury. How is that justice?
“So what do you suggest we do?”
Stop killing our prisoners. Look at how much additional emotional damage Tim McVeigh was able to create under the spotlight that a federal execution gave him. Do you really believe that the witnesses to his execution sleep better now? And those who share his lunatic beliefs have a new martyr to their cause. I had no problem with the idea of dropping him down the deepest, darkest hole in the most remote federal penitentiary, cut off from all human contact and never to be heard from again. The best revenge that I could think of was to show him that our country and our people will endure. It’s even possible that one day, when he was a very old man, he might live to regret his actions. A more apt punishment I could not imagine.
Instead, we were treated to the spectacle of a twisted, insolent “soldier” in an imagined war, his chosen last words a monument to defiance (INVICTUS by William Ernest Henley, which I will not reprint here but which you can find at Bartleby.com).
What can we do, you and I? Simple: talk about it. To our friends, our associates, and most important, to our children. They, more than anybody, need to understand.
what do you think? email me
THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW
Who is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent?
Well, if you added “and straight as a line of coke going up George Bush’s nose“, then you know right away that we’re talking about the Boy Scouts of America!
SEMI TRUTHS has been on an unplanned sabbatical for a few weeks. Had I been more timely, I would have brought to the attention of my readers a documentary recently aired on PBS as part of their P.O.V. series entitled Scouts Honor, an inspiring look at one 12-year-old Boy Scout named Steven Cozza and his grassroots campaign to overturn the Boy Scouts’ anti-gay policy.
The airing of this documentary has apparently caused quite a stir and is sparking a national dialogue. I find it interesting that all this should happen during the same week that the U.S. Army announces its new Uniform Policy which includes a snappy black beret. I was never in the army, but I was in the Boy Scouts, and I have many fond memories of traipsing through the woods with fellow Scouts, dressed in our short pants, sashes, and stylish berets. Thank goodness both these institutions make clear their policy of discouraging homosexuality!
If you would like to see more about the new Uniform Policy, go to the website for the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel. In addition to a PowerPoint presentation with instructions on how to wear the new chapeau, you can get documents on the Improved Physical Fitness Uniform (or IPFU … pronounced “I PEE EF YOU”) with “moisture-wicking trunks”, directions on the proper way to wear your standard issue pullover parka, and important information on the new White Unisex Cardigan Sweater which replaces that nasty old black one.
And remember: “Be All That You Can Be” but “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…” (why is it every time I hear that, I picture Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes saying “I know nothing! Nooooothing!“?)
A REINTRODUCTION
I began SEMI TRUTHS earlier this year as a forum to rant and wax about those little things that vex me and amuse me. I aim to be provocative, strive to be entertaining, and hope always to be worthy of your attention.
This is a labor of love more than anything else, the result of a life long aspiration to write and to be read. I have tried to keep it on a semi-regular schedule, though this month — due to family illnesses and other distractions — has been more semi than usual. I actually began writing this column before Tim McVeigh was executed and was forced to go back and change the tense of many of the verbs to reflect the times. So many more interesting events have happened since I began this piece — the sentencing of Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-‘Owhali (found guilty of bombing the United States Embassy Compound in Nairobi, Kenya, he could have been sentenced to death, but was instead sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole), the federal execution of Juan Raul Garza (the first federal prisoner scheduled to die in nearly forty years, his execution was postponed last year by President Clinton to allow the Justice Department time to study “racial and geographic disparities in the federal death penalty system” and so they could kill the white guy first), and the Yates family tragedy in Houston (which is so mind-bogglingly horrible that reportedly even some Texans are questioning whether the mother should be considered competent enough to face the death penalty) — that I could write much more, but I need to stop somewhere and get this thing out in the open. Please, though, if you have thoughts or comments, I’d love to hear them.
For my last column (“WHO’S ON DRUGS?”, Semi Truths No. 14), I set out to openly create a piece that would be amusing and contemporary and beseeched my readers to send it on “to every single person that you’ve ever met in your entire life!” I did this not without a certain amount of trepidation — anyone who has had email for more than six months gets more than their share of unsolicited “humorous forwards” — but I was certain that I had created something that might garner my writings some attention.
My disingenuous humility aside, I am both happy and a little overwhelmed to report that it worked. I have received an embarrassing amount of positive messages letting me know that my article was posted on various message boards and disseminated through many different emails. Most gratifying of all, my subscriber base has gone up over 50%. In addition, SemiTrue.com has been linked at several prominent websites, including Democrats.com, BuzzFlash, and FringeFolk. I’ve also made some new friends in the wide world of web writers, and I’ll highlight a few of them in upcoming columns.
So to all of my loyal readers who saw fit to pass my article on, to those who read my article elsewhere and thought to drop me a line, and especially to those new subscribers, a very heartfelt Thank You. Now put in your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride…
WORLD WIDE WEB WORDS
As usual, all definitions have been liberated from Dictionary.com. This week’s words all have to do with executions.
hanged\hanged\, v.t.; Past and future tense and past participle of hang.
These derivations can be particularly troublesome. You can say someone “is to be hanged” if they are scheduled to be executed or that they “were hanged” if the execution took place, but you would not say they are” to be hung” or that they were “hung”. To say something is hung implies that it is an object and that it is currently in that state, such as a door upon a frame or a coat upon a hook. Although this usage is generally agreed upon, I have yet to find a reasonable explanation why this should be so. Therefore, in the sentence “my ancestors were properly hung”, one infers that the speaker is referring to portraits of their forebears, or that they are referring to their progenitors genitals.
(Yes, that entire paragraph was constructed so I could use the phrase “progenitors genitals”…)
Nor can one avoid embarrassment by simply using the colloquial lynched, since that actually means “to execute without due process of law”. Dictionary.com provides the following usage:
lynch law (after William Lynch, 1742-1820)\, n.; the punishment of persons suspected of crime without due process of law.
“In the late 18th century, Virginia was troubled by criminals who could not be dealt with by the courts, which were too distant. This led to an agreement to punish such criminals without due process of law. Both the practice and the punishment came to be called lynch law after Captain William Lynch, who drew up a compact on September 22, 1780, with a group of his neighbors. They agreed `to respond to reports of criminality in their neighborhood by repairing immediately to the person or persons suspected … and if they will not desist from their evil practices, we will inflict such corporeal punishment on him or them, as to us shall seem adequate to the crime committed or the damage sustained.´ Although lynch law and lynching are mainly associated with hanging, other, less severe punishments were used. William Lynch died in 1820, and the inscription on his grave notes that `he followed virtue as his truest guide´. But the good captain, who had tried to justify vigilante justice, was sentenced to the disgrace of having given his name to the terrible practice of lynching.”
Finally, I recently heard a radio news report that referred to someone as having been “electrocuted by lightning (but) miraculously survived…” I didn’t think that was right, so I looked it up and, just as I thought:
electrocute\e*lec”tro*cute`\, v.t.; to execute or put to death by electricity.
So to survive being electrocuted would necessarily have been miraculous, since the subject would have been quite dead.
WRITERS ON WRITING
There are two literary maladies — writer’s cramp and swelled head. The worst of writer’s cramp is that it is never cured; the worst of swelled head is that it never kills. — Coulson Kernahan
All Contents (except the stuff I stole) Copyright © 2001 S.M. McCord.
Redistribution allowed, provided you cite http://www.semitrue.com.