Timothy McVeigh Wins
by Peter Herrick

The death penalty does not work. It has been endlessly debated on a number of fronts, but in mid-February, as Timothy McVeigh allowed a final deadline for appeal to pass, one of the most central arguments, that of retribution, fell to pieces. Nevertheless, he is scheduled for execution in two weeks.

What are some of the other main arguments surrounding the death penalty? There is, of course, the issue of deterrence. While supporters claim the death penalty decreases crime, studies have consistently stumbled across the inconvenient fact that there is none. To the contrary, some studies show that violent crime rates are actually higher in many capital-punishment communities. In early 2000, former Attorney General Janet Reno said, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."

Then there is the cost argument. The fact is, it is more expensive to put an inmate to death than it is to give him life without parole. Studies quoted by the Death Penalty Information Center in New York, put the cost at well over $2 million per execution for some states. That amount is far more than what it would cost simply to house the inmate in prison for life. The Department of Justice reports that, in 1996, the average Federal Prisoner cost $23,500 per year. Even if McVeigh lives another 40 years, he won't even cost taxpayers half of what his execution will.

But even this is predicated on having the correct person behind bars to begin with. Last summer, James S. Liebman, a professor at Columbia Law School, released a comprehensive study of errors in capital cases. Looking at every capital conviction and capital appeal from 1973 to 1998, he found "serious, reversible error" in 68 percent of them.

These are all fine and strong arguments for banishing the death penalty, but in Timothy McVeigh's case, they are ancillary to the primary question: What does he deserve?

The death penalty is intended to be our ultimate punishment, and, therefore, is final and retributive: If you kill someone, you will be killed yourself. But is this a just punishment? Are we punishing someone to satisfy the public's perception of justice, or are we applying a punishment intended to extract suffering in sufficient measure to the crime committed?

We built prisons and jails to incarcerate people who commit crimes, people who have endangered or harmed others in society. But we build these houses of correction not only to protect us, but to punish them. This punishment is applied in both physical discomfort as well as emotional discomfort, and its duration is ostensibly commensurate with the severity of the crime. But what sort of punishment is death? Is death really such a bad punishment, or might living in prison for decades be worse?

Timothy McVeigh wants to die. In December, he waived all further appeals, while leaving open the possibility of applying for a Presidential Pardon. In February, the application deadline for pardons slid quietly by with nothing filed by McVeigh's lawyer, leaving McVeigh in the home stretch of his voyage to a death penalty. But this isn't sufficient punishment for him. Shortly after the last deadline expired, his lawyer, Robert Nigh, Jr. said "having nothing to look forward to but solitary confinement in a Bureau of Prisons facility does not appeal to Mr. McVeigh."

If his actions deserve the ultimate retribution and the most severe punishment, then Timothy McVeigh wins if he is put to death. He will be martyred by the extreme right wing, which only lends credence to the unsound arguments that caused him to build that bomb in the first place, and from his own perspective, he avoids the worse punishment of life imprisonment.

Timothy McVeigh should not be put to death. The ultimate act of societal hubris, that of taking a life, does not punish him, nor does it dissuade further acts by others with similar motivations. Indeed, it will probably encourage those who believe our government to be overtly controlling and conspiratorial. There are other reasons to oppose the death penalty, but most importantly in McVeigh's case, execution will not sufficiently punish him. Even the most die-hard proponent of the death penalty can see this: He wants to die, and the proper punishment is to make him live.

E-mail Peter Herrick at pbh at peterherrick dot com.