This topic was about whether this should be broadcasted via the internet.. not whether or not he should be executed! Read the last line. "What do you think about the live broadcast of an execution? Sound off in our forums... "

Now, with that said, it will be impossible for them to broadcast this, it is illegal. Everyone that enters the execution viewing will be checked for any type of camera, cell phone, video camera, microphone, tape recorder etc.. which are all prohibited.

The bad guy should be shown that good guys rule. TV is too impersonal and lacks reality. Capital punishment should do more than insure a bad guy will never again hurt someone, they should be an example to others -- don't do the crime if you don't want to pay the price. We need to make them afraid to take the chance. That is why I advocate bringing back the collesium and the lions. A few bloody bouts in the arena and thugs will become too scared to ever take anyone's life again. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Lethal injection is for pansies. Real criminals should be fed to the lions.

I believe in 'An eye for an eye', he should die in the same manner as those he killed. These days’ people in the world don't learn anything from punishment that is of another form.

If some guy stole my car, he doesn’t know how I feel. If he were put in jail because of it, he would never understand what it caused me. Until someone else steals his car, then he would know. And that’s the best cure.

this is a difficult issue and you cannot just say 'No human has the right to take the life of another.' Timothy McVeigh didn't seem to think that was the case, he had no problems in taking other's lives. Now the way law works (in just about every country...not just america! (admcs13)....i am so sick of hearing the 'only in america' s*** for so many people....and I'm not even american!) is that if a person does something deemed morally wrong they get punished for it (whatever the punishment may be). Of course law goes a lot further than morals but that's not the point here. Now many countries have had or still do have executions and many people believe that they serve their purpose as being a deterent. Other people believe in the saying 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', and who knows if everyone got punished in the exact same way that they committed a crime, maybe people would think twice about committing a crime....then again many people don't seem to agree.

And then there's people such as yourself whom believe you just cannot take the life of another person no matter what. You are free to hold this opinion, but I'm just wondering wether or not you would think differently if the crime committed was closer to you....i.e. would you think the same if someone sexually assulted your wife and 2yr daughter, tortured and killed them? That may be an extreme, but executions are only used in extreme cases.

And finally my own view is that live broadcasting is taking the whole 'reality-tv' think way too far, I for one have better things to do than watch the execution on my computer! My only opposition to the execution is that I hope that he really is the guy who committed the crime....the last person to be hung in South Australia (or maybe even Australia)...was in fact innocent....except they didn't work that out till several years later...oops!

You got me to thinking. You are right, capital punishment should only be used when we KNOW a person is guilty. If all we have is "evidence" we should not be allowed to use capital punishment. Capital punishment should only be allowed when we have an eyewitness and a confession. There is only one problem with this point of view. Criminals will go to a lot more trouble to make sure there are no eyewitnesses. Hmmmn, this is a dilemma indeed! Well, is it worth a few mistakes to make sure the REAL criminals get what they deserve? I'll have to think about it a while.

He just wants it broadcasted because he wants to look like a martyr, and so he shouldn't get his wish.

No person should take another person's life, no matter what another may feel. People wanting to watch it are "sick minded" and like to see harm done to others. The Death Penalty is the prime example of Americans persistant description as savages and it shows we are not yet "mature" people. Only God has the right to take life, since He is the one who created life.
If this offends anyone, based on religion, creed, sex, and/or other beliefs, I am sorry. I am only speaking from my own voice, and do not wish to force or infringe on the views of others.

'Only God has the right to take life, since He is the one who created life.' Which God? Out of all the religions on this planet....how many God's are there?

Since Timothy McVeigh's parents gave him life, can they take it away?

So we Americans are such savages eh? What about the countries that still mutilate their women with "clitoral circumcisions", or that lob off body parts for offenses, cainings, hangings, firing squads, how about countries where it's still publicly acceptable to lob your daughter's head off if she loses her virginity out of wedlock or dump her down a well. You think we're brutal now look at where we've been and where other countries still are.
Lethal injection is probably the most humane way to perform what is in essence an inhumane act (murder). I personally feel no pitty whatsoever for this poor excuse for a man. He admittedly committed this crime and understood everything he did. In the end it did little to stir negative sentiment toward the government and was little more than one man's petty revenge and we want to repay that with an even more petty revenge.
That said though nothing is gained by putting the man to death. I doubt seriously that it will act as a deterent to others. Now IF (big IF) I had my way about the punishment I'd tattoo his a** head to toe with the words "Child Killer" and release him back into society. #1 how long would he last? #2 every moment of the rest of his probably short life he would spend looking over his shoulder waiting to see who was there. The stares and jeers that he would receive would be enough to make him want to take his own life in the end. Revenge is a tool of the week and ultimately the death penalty is just that "revenge". What I want to see is punishment, good old fashioned biblical style punishment with irony and all. Something that makes the person think about what they did, feel sorry that they did it, come to the realization that it was wrong, be weighed down by the consequences of his actions, that's punishment.
By killing McVeigh we're simply playing to his petty fantasies of being a martyr to all the anti-government slackers out there. The problem with these people is that they can sit around and spin their wheels with elaborate plots against the government and training and recruitment ad nauseum. But the one thing they can't seem to do is make logical valid and intelligent arguments about why their way is "the right way". Most of the arguments end up trying to bolster opinion, prejudice, or play off of peoples emotions and sense of loss about some inadequacy in their lives. In the end it comes down to them wanting to replace what they see as the existing totalitarian regime run by the enemy, with their totalitarian regime run by them. Oh but of course they will be much more fair to people and we'll all live in peace and all, with a gun in every house, and two slaves for every free man, won't it just be grand.
So for the record I don't think we should kill McVeigh, but that's not out of some high and mighty notion that "we're better than that", it's based of the notion that we shouldn't do what McVeigh expects and wants and seeks. The last thing we should be catering to is this man's desires. But my question is at what point in the system is the ultimate penalty valid/invalid? I've heard alot of people say that the death penalty is inhumane or barbaric, but I wonder exactly what they would do with these people that's not barbaric do we just lock them up in a seven by five room for life, counseling, prayer, love, what do we do. At what point do we say a person is irredemable, is it 1 murder, 10, 50, 168, 1000. At what point do we say enough is enough and invalidate a human life?

Im neither for or against Capital punishment but if its purpose is to dissuade others from committing similar crimes, then it certainly doesnt work that well.

Schoolchildren dont seem to mind carrying guns or killing people.
People who are fired from their job seem to think its ok to get angry and go back to shoot people where you worked.

Doesnt America realise that something in their system is fundamentally flawed.
In UK for example, the police dont carry guns, civilians dont all have guns and they dont have school shootings.

Anyway Im detracting from the point.....

What kind of society is it that wants to or will pay to watch an execution ? Isnt that kind of primal and barbaric ?
Surely knowing he will be put to death is enough without the need to make it TV viewing.
I think its appalling.

The earlier comment about other countries laws is a valid one. But if you had a choice between losing a limb or having your clitoris pierced (if you have one) or a lethal injection, I know which one I wouldnt choose.

Wouldnt mind watching some piercings though (kidding) :)

Put McVeigh down, he deserves it but lets not have it on pay per view !

The live broadcaset of an execution via internet is quite disgusting. In some middle eastern nations, criminals are publically executed, however this is vastly different to being *internationally* executed (via web). The purpose of a public execution is for the government to show that they will not tolerate crime, and that crime carries with it a consequence. However, even in these nations, it would appear that such public executions do little to deter would-be criminals. It is then obvious that execution in general does not deter crime.
As research shows, American states that have capital punishment do not have significantly lower rates of crime or murder. Since we have now established that capital punishment is not a crime deterant, why then should we continue executing convicted criminals?

It seems to me that execution is an easy 'way out' in the case of Timothy McVeigh. Am i the only one that thinks he'd suffer more spending his life in a tiny prison cell? At least then he'd have time to reflect on what he did.
Either way, when he dies, he'll answer to God for his actions.

Ok this is not an America issue, this is a moral issue, that effects everyone differently. An emotional issue that holds a lot of power to push peoples buttons, and make them act like they never would normally. When we as a race think of the death penalty we associate it to what we think is the most heinous act in our mind. I mean what could cause someone to get the death penalty. For some it could be harming a family member others spitting on the side walk (extremist).

The issue is should this be televised, the answer is no and never. This is not something that should be glorified. It is something that should be done in accordance to the laws be which it was demanded and then it should be remembered, but not for revenge. The death penalty is not and never should be about revenge but instead looked at for the pure and simple facts. One this person will never do it again, and two the person is being sent to which ever god that maybe his judge whether you believe or not. I think that the fact that he will not be around to do it to any one else is the main thing. For all that think this is barbaric, and that god doesn't want this. Then if we can make his life pass easily, and he is innocent then what ever god may judge him will take care of him.

If you are god fearing then to take revenge is to go against most religions, and the eye for an eye is old testament and was revised for the new testament to love thy neighbor. If you are not god fearing understand that to seek revenge only makes you waist time on a person that can bring only more hurt or disgust into you life. Why dwell on some one like Timothy McVeigh. Don't get me wrong the people he and or all the people involved in the bombing will never be forgotten by the loved ones of the people killed and hurt by there actions.

Basically this should never be televised, and that solves the issue of the cost to watch. I truly think that the person that is trying to profit from this has got some issues themselves.

ok... so youre saying Love Thy Neighbor no matter what? Say he comes over daily to sleep with my wife or beat my dog or something? Love that? Never.

What ever happened to punishment fitting the crime? We're too weak against individuals like this. Death is too good for most of these people. The biggest guilt like stated a few comments ago was to make them live with their guilt. The Mayans did not tolerate crimes. They would torture criminals and slaves. Why not make criminals pay for what they do? Do I sound barbaric for wanting people pay the price of a wrong doing?

Im sure I will get a lot of replies to this but:
"then what ever god may judge him will take care of him" providing he exists. Im not going into religion but its the principle of the thing. I understand both views and personally I do think it should be viewed the world over.

I know.. Im an a******, right? Sorry, I feel that people should pay for their crimes. You kill my family member, sorry... you dont deserve death, you deserve worse. If I had my way I would do something to punish you a lot worse than death could. Torture and make him live out the rest of his days either hideously disfigured.

Or what about that move Escape from LA? Or No Escape? I dont get this crap about criminals on death row for 20 years when Im paying taxes for them to eat and have a roof over their head. How about we drop them on an island all by themselves. They can fight amongst themselves. There they will only be able to harm the people that deserve it anyway. Or how about putting guns on there so they can kill themselves off? Down goes inmate population, down go taxes on prisions and guards, etc. No more criminals to worry about.

I know it sounds cruel, but what did he do? Was it not cruel? Just my 2 cents... sorry to rant so long. =]

Thank you Scarecrow, an example of my point. Obviously this subject pushes your button. I don’t think you are wrong in stating that you are disgusted with Timothy McVeigh. I don’t think you are an A$$hole as you stated. I think you are excitable and don’t hold back what you think, no big deal.

By the way if you wife is having an affair with the neighbor, then it probably is not all the neighbors fault, might want to look closer to home. I agree if your neighbor beats your dog we should kill him and make sure the whole world witnesses it. LOL My point about the first and second testament was that although the first testament preaches a strict guideline the second is less extreme and more open for the less extreme measure.

Nowhere in my post did I state that I was happy with what Little Timmy did. LOL The thing is I don't agree that you treat someone as they did there victims, if you can do that then you are no better then they are. It takes a sick person to do some things, if you can do it back to them then are you any less sick. If someone raped your sister, could you personally rape that person. I would want to kill him, or see him dead, but if you could do such a nasty atrocity in person, then I might suggest a good shrink.

To want someone to suffer for doing something to a loved one, I think is natural. If someone was to do something to my family, I would want them to suffer, but I would also except the death penalty as punishment. Do you think he is partying, and having a good time waiting to be executed. The main thing is that he is never going to get the chance to do what he did again.

One last point does anyone think that this is a deterrent to anyone. Think again these people knew if they got caught that they would be in some very serious trouble. People that do these things are not worried that they might get the death penalty. Understand this they were driving a bomb that if it went off would have killed them instantly. In my mind they were of the mind-set that they were fighting for something and willing to die for it. Timothy McVeigh still is willing and is going to die for it. Do we want to show all of his groupies/compatriots that by blowing up a building they will get world wide publicity.

Not to mention that it is no ones business but the families of his victims. If they want to set it up for those people to see they should have specified secret locations and have the feed controlled to those sights and only family members of the victims should be allowed to view it. It should not be shown like Saturday Night Live. The fact that he is dead will be in every newspaper, that should be good enough for the non-family members.

Just making a hypothetical situation bro, Im not married or even have a dog. =P