As we write, Timothy McVeigh’s lawyers are deliberating whether to seek a stay of execution
for their client because the FBI withheld information that might have been helpful in their
defense of McVeigh or might have weighed upon the sentence phase of the trial.

Should there be no stay, on May 16, the federal government plans to kill Timothy McVeigh in
the name of all citizens.  This is a backward step.  After 38 years of restraint from federal
executions, the United States is reinstating a violent practice.  Yes, McVeigh committed a
monstrous act of violence.  Yes, all of society needs to surround his victims, all those families, in
a spiritually and materially supportive embrace.  Yes, we need to protect our public safety.  Yes,
McVeigh must be held accountable and should probably be incarcerated for life.  However, a
government pay-back killing is not a good response to McVeigh’s crime.

          •         The wisdom of ages concludes that violence does to cure violence but tends, rather, to perpetuate it.  As the Greek dramatist Euripides pronounced, “Violence begets violence in an endless chain.”

          •         Not a single empirical study validates a conclusion that judicial killing diminishes criminal killing.  In fat, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Statistics consistently show aggregate murder rates higher (nearly double) for states with the death penalty than for states without. Internationally, the same holds true.

          •         Nearly every major religious denomination in the United States – Christian and otherwise – has adopted a strong position against using the death penalty.

Craving for revenge killing is an understandable response to murder and – not incidently –
politically potent.  Promising to gratify that craving can yield tremendous political profit.
However, gratifying that craving is also politically irresponsible in view of society’s overriding
need for nonviolence.  Recognizing that overriding need, the majority of the world’s nations –
and all of our Western allies – now reject the death penalty.  They work to maintain public safety
and hold murderers accountable but also to hold the line against the violent impulse to revenge.

ACTION
Write President Bush who has the power to stop the pending execution, be that on May 16 or in
the future (Sample Letter below).

president@whitehouse.gov
Even as Timothy McVeigh’s lawyers deliberate seeking a stay of execution for their client, the
federal government

SAMPLE LETTER
Dear President Bush,

I am calling upon you to stop the execution of Timothy McVeigh scheduled for May 16, 2001, or
in the future should a stay of execution be granted pending review of information withheld by
the FBI.  Please allow me to explain my reasoning.

The federal government plans to kill Timothy McVeigh in the name of all citizens is a backward
step.  After 38 years of restraint from federal executions, the United States is reinstating a violent
practice.  Yes, McVeigh committed a monstrous act of violence.  Yes, all of society needs to
surround his victims, all those families, in a spiritually and materially supportive embrace.  Yes,
we need to protect our public safety.  Yes, McVeigh must be held accountable and should
probably be incarcerated for life.  However, a government pay-back killing is not a good
response to McVeigh’s crime.

          •         The wisdom of ages concludes that violence does to cure violence but tends, rather, to perpetuate it.  As the Greek dramatist Euripides pronounced, “Violence begets violence in an endless chain.”

          •         Not a single empirical study validates a conclusion that judicial killing diminishes criminal killing.  In fat, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Statistics consistently show aggregate murder rates higher (nearly double) for states with the death penalty than for states without. Internationally, the same holds true.

          •         Nearly every major religious denomination in the United States – Christian and otherwise – has adopted a strong position against using the death penalty.

Craving for revenge killing is an understandable response to murder and, it seems to me,
politically potent.  Promising to gratify that craving can yield tremendous political profit.
However, gratifying that craving is also politically irresponsible in view of society’s overriding
need for nonviolence.  Recognizing that overriding need, the majority of the world’s nations –
and all of our Western allies – now reject the death penalty.  They work to maintain public safety
and hold murderers accountable but also to hold the line against the violent impulse to revenge.

Mr. President, we can do better than this.  Again, I call on you to commute the death sentence of
Mr. McVeigh.

Sincerely,