Wednesday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
ny discussion about the
death penalty is almost
certain to make people
angry. Emotions run
high, probably because the con
versation is about life and death,
and the government.
The Emerald editorial board is
not going to argue whether the
death penalty is right or wrong.
But in the case of Timothy
McVeigh, who will (with 99 per
cent certainty) be executed by the
federal government sometime in
the future, we have an opinion:
The execution should be tele
vised.
Initially, government officials
discussed allowing TV cameras to
film McVeigh’s execution, but
once it was denied, no one
seemed to care. We think it’s im
portant, however, that a federal
execution be open to broadcast
ers. Except for C-SPAN, no station
need be obligated to show it, and
given the content of the proceed
ings, some broadcasters probably
would not.
UUI LiltJ UtJdLII JJtJlldll V lb 111
credibly controversial and tax
payer money is being spent. Tax
payers must be given the
opportunity to witness the most
final and godlike act a govern
ment can perform.
In our editorial board meeting,
we had five people with five dif
ferent opinions about the death
penalty. We were finally able to
make a decision on the question
of televising it, but only after
much argument, and we were left
with some concerns.
The immediate question, per
haps, is why would anyone want
to watch an execution? That’s
not the point. None of us wants
to watch McVeigh die. But our
money is being spent to kill, no
matter the righteousness of the
act. An ABC News/Washington
Post poll released May 2 found
45 percent of Americans would
choose life imprisonment with
out parole instead of the death
penalty, and 46 percent would
choose the death penalty. With
that close of a split, we all ought
to have the right to witness our
government in action.
But wait, citizens don’t get to
witness every government action.
This is certainly true, but we are
shown a substantial amount of
government proceedings, docu
ments and acts. Bills, laws, leg
islative sessions, budgets, con
tracts, purchase orders, plans,
wars as they happen and the most
minute details of our affairs with
regard to presidents’ sex lives are
made public, and with good rea
son.
The government is not repre
senting the people (our legislators
do that); the government is the
people. If inconsequential matters
are available without a fuss, then
so should McVeigh’s execution.
There needs to be sufficient and
necessary reasons for hiding gov
ernment proceedings, and an exe
cution doesn’t warrant a shroud.
Defense strategies that could
expose America to danger or at
tack should remain
hidden. Recipes for
weapons of mass
destruction should
stay secret. But
what cause is
there to hide
execution?
Such events
used to be ex
plicitly pub
lic, so that
leaders
could
show the
“natural”
conse
quences
of unlaw
ful ac
tions and
deter
would-be
criminals.
One reason
offered to shield
Americans
from a lawful
punishment —
Qnmcfc wm 11 rl
also say it is
“just,” but we
pass no judg
ment either way
— is that children
might be exposed
to the execution
without guidance,
and therefore trauma
tized. Perhaps this is
true. But no one would
be forced to watch.
McVeigh’s death was
scheduled for the mid
dle of the night; most
parents could easily
shield their children’s
eyes.
Some parents can’t
constantly keep their
children away from TV,
but this is a special case
with extensive ad
vance notice. If a par
ent’s concern is so*
great, then surely
arrangements could
be made to safeguard
their offspring on this '•
one important occa
sion. And some par
ents might find this a
teaching moment;
hunters often extol
the benefits of expos
ing their children to
death in a guided man
ner. Why is this not an
equal learning experi- *
ence?
To attack the issue from
the other direction, perhaps we
should all watch the execution.
Supporters of the death penalty
might find the reality of their
government’s deed too much to
bear and change their mind. Op
ponents might see that lethal in
jection is not so cruel and decide
it is necessary. Some might argue
that since McVeigh committed a
crime against the nation, this
would offer a chance to soothe
the nation’s psyche.
More importantly, people who
are undecided could see it them
(gitrVAn*4\
selves. The idea is similar to the
Vietnam War. Then, the tide of
public opinion turned against
the war once the casualties were
televised. The point here isn’t
that everyone will oppose the
death penalty once it’s seen on
TV; supporters and opponents
may both have valid arguments.
But if citizens don’t see the reali
ty of what it takes to produce the
end result, how can they know
what they’re agreeing to?
The concern that made every
editorial board member pause was
the glorification and desensitizing
that could come from seeing real
death happen live on our magic
picture boxes. In many ways, our
culture is already bloodthirsty.
Americans happily consume
more gory mayhem than any other
nation. And endless TV has
trained American minds to absorb
what they see as abstraction; it’s
not really real, right? The possibil
ity of hungry, angry people flock
ing to the boob tube to feed on the
raw meat of live, real death is dis
turbing.
But if the death penalty is so
right and justified and accept
able, as it is to many good peo
ple, then why are we afraid of
the government exhibiting jus
tice, especially for such a grue
some national tragedy? Why
can’t taxpayers witness execu
tions, if they are perfectly ration
al? That question stopped the
conversation.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.