Timothy McVeigh deserves to die-of that, there is little doubt. The horror of what he did, the continuing grief and sorrow he has left in his wake, the complete innocence of his victims, his apparent lack of any remorse or repentance, and the possibility that he would do it again if ever given the chance-all of these factors make McVeigh a prime candidate for the death penalty. Moreover, none of the standard doubts about the death penalty apply here. The question of racial bias does not arise, and there seems to be no reasonable doubt about his guilt. If anyone deserves the death penalty, McVeigh does.
             The only question is whether we deserve to kill him. What does it do to us as a country to execute another human being, even one like McVeigh who clearly deserves it?
             Those who argue that we should execute McVeigh are not wrong. Their position is reasonable and certainly morally acceptable in this case. Timothy McVeigh really does deserve the death penalty. But there is a higher moral standard, one that beckons us in the same way that the standard of nonviolence beckoned Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the turbulent and often violent 1950's and sixties. It is a standard that takes respect for human life as its cornerstone. Its prohibition on killing is a consequence of that respect. It is the standard that motivated Gandhi, even in the face of the most violent and bloody provocations, to refuse to use violence or to condone its use by his supporters. It is the standard that motivated Nelson Mandella to invite his former jailer to his inauguration, giving him a place of honor. It is the standard that motivates Sister Helen Prejean, the author of Dead Man Walking, to minister not only to the men on death row, but to the families of their victims. It is a standard that seeks, time and again, to meet violence with love, suffering with compassion.
             This standard reminds us that, as a society, we have increasingly turned to meet...