Today's system of capital punishment, the legal infliction of the death penalty on persons convicted of a crime, is fought with inequalities and injustices. The commonly offered arguments for the death penalty are filled with holes. "It was a deterrent. It removed killers. It was the ultimate punishment. It satisfied the public's need for retribution. It relieved the anguish of the victim's family." (Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty is expensive and time consuming. Morally, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence and "...degrades all who are involved in its enforcement, as well as its victim." (Stewart 1)
             Next month Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to be put to death for his part in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed over 160 people. In a recently published book, he freely admitted his own guilt and even defends what he did. This would appear to be a good test case for the debate over capital punishment. The question might be put this way: Are there crimes so horrendous that the only civilized response is for the state to say that the persons involved should be put to death?
             At approximately 9:02 am on April 19, a car bomb went off, destroying the Alfred Murrah Federal Building. Anyone within a thirty-mile radius of the building felt the shock of the blast and some were even faced with injuries of their own. "The actual bomb left a crater twenty feet long and eight feet deep outside the Federal building." (Isaza 15) McVeigh was suspected from the very beginning and when the FBI researched his background, they found that as a child he was shy and frequently picked on. Classmates even went as far as sarcastically voting him "most talkative." However, he changed substantially over the years. "He became extremely right-winged after the incident at Waco, Texas, where dozens were killed during a federal raid on the B...