Question

Should the federal government have executed Timothy McVeigh and Juan Raul Garza? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Timothy McVeigh crime record includes eleven counts of evil actions that includes the use of a weapon of mass destruction and destruction by explosives. In addition to it eight counts of first-degree murder were also committed by him. Known as the “Oklahoma City bomber”, committed the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in 1995 by setting off a truck bomb, killing 168 innocent people and injuring more than 600. For this he was executed.

Juan Raul Garza Ordered the murder of three of his rivals while conducting marijuana-trafficking operation.He was famously known for his violence who didn't Even spare his own people. He murdered his 21-year-old son-in-law for losing a shipment of product. He previously had ordered kidnapping and strangling of people. He met with the same fate as Timothy McVeigh under Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

Though both of them were the perpetrators of heinous crimes and were the miscreants of the society. Execution of both of them will look justified at the very first thought and by looking at their crime portfolios. But a deeper thought will give another answer that is execution of them is wrong.

My point of view is that the Federal government should not have executed both of them rather should have given them life imprisonment where they could have been given difficult situations and conditions to live in for whole of the life until death.

My argument is based on the following reasons-

1- Capital punishment like death penalty is justified by giving the argument that by executing convicted criminals for heinous crimes will deter would-be criminals to commit capital crime. This will benefit the society by making it safe and secure.

But researches show that this argument doesn't hold true. The murder rate in states that do not have the death penalty is found to be consistently lower than in states with the death penalty. The South, which carries out over 80% of the executions in the U. S., has the highest murder rate of the four regions.

2-Even the criminologists are of the view that capital punishments do not act as deterrent to crimes. In 2009, Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado in their study found that “88% of the nation's leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime.”

3- It is inherently wrong to deprive a human being of life. Right to life is a natural right bestowed upon everyone of us and can only be taken by the nature. Capital punishment infringes upon this right. Also “punishment” is given to correct the negative tendencies of the perpetrator and make sense only when is living. Death ceases the punishment and allow the wrongdoer to escape from the prolonged cycle of suffering that would at least made the convicted realize what he did.

4-It is not just the offenders who are negatively affected but also the ones who are involved in the whole stressful process like wardens,doctors, guards and execution team members. They report “severe damage to their mental and physical health because of the stress and trauma of participating in executions and killing prisoners”.

5-Many countries including neighboring Canada have abolished the death penalty decades ago. Evidences reveal that since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, Canada's murder rate steadily declined and in 2016 was the lowest since 1966.

According to my opinion capital punishment is an old-fashioned and outdated practice which doesn't solve the ground-root problem that actually breeds the problem and it must be abolished.

References-

• M. Radelet and T. Lacock, DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS, 99 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

• Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates on death penalty information centre.

• The death penalty should be abolished

• FIVE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY