wfn.org | Faith & Life commentary: The strange case of Timothy McVeigh

[NewsDesk@UMCOM.UMC.ORG]

April 16, 2001  News media contact: Tim Tanton*(615)742-5470*Nashville,
Tenn.     10-21-71BP{182}

NOTE:  A photograph of the Rev. Phil Wogaman is available.

A UMNS Commentary
By the Rev. Phil Wogaman*

How are we to think of the death penalty, in light of the case of Timothy
McVeigh? 
 
Even those who are opposed to capital punishment have to acknowledge that if
anybody deserved to be executed, surely he does. In the deliberate,
well-planned bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, he
murdered 168 people, including 19 small children in the building's day care
center. Even now, six years after this foul deed, he seems utterly
remorseless -- at least according to two reporters who interviewed him for
80 hours. Could a better illustration be offered in support of capital
punishment?

Yet, what makes this such a strange case is his apparent eagerness to be
executed. Referring to this as "state-assisted suicide," he refused to allow
any further appeals in his behalf and insisted that the execution proceed.
Now scheduled for May 16, this will be the first federal execution since
1963. 

"State assisted suicide"? By executing him, are we giving him what he wants?
And if that is the case, what does that do to the theory that the death
penalty is a deterrent? In McVeigh's case, could it even be argued that the
death penalty was not a deterrent but an incentive?! 

That idea may seem strange. And yet, students of capital punishment have
long concluded that it really does work in that perverse way -- not in every
case, to be sure, but often enough to give us pause.

The strangeness of this case is heightened by the clamor of many people to
have the execution televised so they can see it. You can almost understand
the desire of some of those whose loved ones were killed by this man's deed
to see him executed. Some, no doubt, believe it will bring a kind of closure
to their spirits. I am skeptical that revenge brings such closure, but I do
not stand in judgment of those who think it will. They are deserving of
sympathy.  

Still, there is a further irony. McVeigh himself evidently wants it to be
televised. If it is to be televised for the benefit of a few hundred
survivors, he will insist, he says, that it be televised for the whole
country. I doubt he has the power to "insist" on anything, but again it
raises questions about motive. Suppose he, or anybody else, does something
terrible for the sake of personal publicity in an execution. Has the penalty
again become an incentive and not a deterrent? 

Some opponents of capital punishment advocate televising these gruesome
executions in the thought that this would increase public abhorrence. I
think that would be a terrible mistake. It could have exactly the opposite
effect of brutalizing the popular culture, giving people perverse enjoyment
of the spectacle of others dying. It happened in Rome!

Putting raw emotion aside as best we can, what stands out to me in the
strange case of Timothy McVeigh is that murder expresses disrespect for
life. That is obvious in the murderer's disregard for the lives of the
victims. Less obvious, but no less true, is the murderer's disrespect for
his or her own life. That seems true, on the face of it, in McVeigh's case.
He's prepared to die -- maybe even wants to die -- because he doesn't want
to live. Even murderers who kill for other motives, such as financial gain,
seem to have a pretty low regard for the humanity in themselves as well as
in others.

The country seems to be doing more soul-searching on this subject now. Maybe
the churches can lead the way. At the United Methodist General Conference
last May, the church's opposition to the death penalty was reaffirmed by a
97 percent margin. Surprising as that is, in light of public opinion in the
United States, the action may indicate a new kind of attitude developing. In
any case, the church's position reflects deeper spiritual insight than the
passions that are aroused when the public is outraged.

# # #

*Wogaman, pastor of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, is a
seminary professor of Christian ethics and an author. He is a clergy member
of the Baltimore-Washington Annual (regional) Conference.

Commentaries provided by United Methodist News Service do not necessarily
represent the opinions or policies of UMNS or the United Methodist Church. 

*************************************
United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org