網路城邦
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇  字體:
死刑存廢的省思
2010/03/12 06:12:40瀏覽1397|回應9|推薦1

Bud Welch的愛女,在1995年美國奧克拉荷馬大樓爆炸案中不幸喪生,他傷心欲絕終日沉溺在酒精企圖麻痺自己,後來卻決定站出來為爆炸案主嫌Tim McVeigh奔走求情,希望不要判處死刑。

聽起來很不可思議吧!他們並沒有崇高的宗教情操或偉大的悲天憫人胸懷。Bud Welch只是淡淡地說:「我必須做些不同的事情,因為過去我所作的並沒有用」。(I had to do something different, because what I was doing wasn't working.)

奧克拉荷馬市政府大樓爆炸案發生六個月後,民意調查顯示85%的受難者家屬希望主嫌Tim McVeigh被判處死刑;六年後數字掉了一半;現在絕大多數的受難者家屬認為,當初判處死刑是錯誤的決定,因為即使把主嫌處死他們並沒有覺得比較好過。

以下是Bud Welch的故事...


In April 1995, Bud Welch’s 23-year-old daughter, Julie Marie, was killed in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In the months after her death, Bud changed from supporting the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to taking a public stand against it. In 2001 Timothy McVeigh was executed for his part in the bombing.

Three days after the bombing, as I watched Tim McVeigh being led out of the courthouse, I hoped someone in a high building with a rifle would shoot him dead. I wanted him to fry. In fact, I’d have killed him myself if I’d had the chance.

Unable to deal with the pain of Julie’s death, I started self-medicating with alcohol until eventually the hangovers were lasting all day. Then, on a cold day in January 1996, I came to the bombsight – as I did every day – and I looked across the wasteland where the Murrah Building once stood. My head was splitting from drinking the night before and I thought, “I have to do something different, because what I’m doing isn’t working.”

For the next few weeks I started to reconcile things in my mind, and finally concluded that it was revenge and hate that had killed Julie and the 167 others. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols had been against the US government for what happened in Waco, Texas, in 1993 and seeing what they’d done with their vengeance, I knew I had to send mine in a different direction. Shortly afterwards I started speaking out against the death penalty.

I also remembered that shortly after the bombing I’d seen a news report on Tim McVeigh’s father, Bill. He was shown stooping over a flowerbed, and when he stood up I could see that he’d been physically bent over in pain. I recognized it because I was feeling that pain, too.

In December 1998, after Tim McVeigh had been sentenced to death, I had a chance to meet Bill McVeigh at his home near Buffalo. I wanted to show him that I did not blame him. His youngest daughter also wanted to meet me, and after Bill had showed me his garden, the three of us sat around the kitchen table. Up on the wall were family snapshots, including Tim’s graduation picture. They noticed that I kept looking up at it, so I felt compelled to say something. “God, what a good looking kid,” I said.

Earlier, when we’d been in the garden, Bill had asked me, “Bud, are you able to cry?” I’d told him, “I don’t usually have a problem crying.” His reply was, “I can’t cry, even though I’ve got a lot to cry about.” But now, sitting at the kitchen table looking at Tim’s photo, a big tear rolled down his face. It was the love of a father for a son.

When I got ready to leave I shook Bill’s hand, then extended it to Jennifer, but she just grabbed me and threw her arms around me. She was the same sort of age as Julie but felt so much taller. I don’t know which one of us started crying first. Then I held her face in my hands and said, “Look, honey, the three of us are in this for the rest of our lives. I don’t want your brother to die and I’ll do everything I can to prevent it.” As I walked away from the house I realized that until that moment I had walked alone, but now a tremendous weight had lifted from my shoulders. I had found someone who was a bigger victim of the Oklahoma bombing than I was, because while I can speak in front of thousands of people and say wonderful things about Julie, if Bill McVeigh meets a stranger he probably doesn’t even say he had a son.

About a year before the execution I found it in my heart to forgive Tim McVeigh. It was a release for me rather than for him.

Six months after the bombing a poll taken in Oklahoma City of victims’ families and survivors showed that 85% wanted the death penalty for Tim McVeigh. Six years later that figure had dropped to nearly half, and now most of those who supported his execution have come to believe it was a mistake. In other words, they didn’t feel any better after Tim McVeigh was taken from his cell and killed.

( 時事評論公共議題 )
回應 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇

引用
引用網址:https://classic-blog.udn.com/article/trackback.jsp?uid=jonylee&aid=3846077

 回應文章

江山改 : 七月七日夢醒時分
等級:8
留言加入好友
廢除刑法與相關法 就沒有犯罪 天下太平 早登極樂
2010/03/15 10:20

死刑是最大罪,最高刑; 如可廢,其他小罪應先廢!
如今還有遺笑國際的妨害家庭, 通姦罪, 罰娼不罰嫖之罪....
難道該死是人民,該活是惡魔?!
廢除刑法與相關法, 就沒有犯罪,
 天下太平, 早登極樂!


聖人
聖人給別人作
2010/03/15 10:17
如果你是聖人
當然可以原諒兇手
不好意思 
大家都是凡人
不是親身經歷
少講原諒兇手的屁話
曾經自問我女兒如果是白小燕
我會原諒兇手嗎
誠實回答我不會
國家不殺兇手我會找機會殺他
因為我不是聖人
聖人...給別人作吧

路過 下馬晃晃的
等級:6
留言加入好友
以偏概全之說法 實在不可取
2010/03/14 07:35

以偏概全之說法  實在不可取

廢死刑是可以討論的是沒錯  但還是得得到大多數民眾之認同以及完整的配套措施  以求勿枉勿縱  給於大多數善良守法的百姓安居樂業的生活環境

目前法律既然尚未修改  執法人員就要依法行事  這是責任  也是法治制度   執行法律跟作姦犯科之殺人是兩碼事  不能混為一談 


tsaur
殺人者死
2010/03/13 11:48

終身監禁難道比死刑更人道嗎?

『殺人者死』,難道這不是給受害者及其家屬最起碼的撫慰嗎?

刑罰本來不就是蘊涵報復的因子嗎?

如果是你的妻子、兒女、父母被殺、被虐、被姦...你還支持廢死嗎?

反社會性格可以在獄中教化成好人嗎?如何證明呢?在證明的過程中,周邊的人是不是要活在恐懼當中呢?


首次表達
盡義務享權力,是對等平等、民主法治社會運行的根本
2010/03/13 10:04

十惡不赦、罪大惡極且罪證確鑿的罪犯,先奪走了受害者的生存權利,還奢言 "保護" 罪犯的生存權力,對等嗎?

死刑犯所受的刑責,是他奪走受害者的生存權利,所應受的代價,必須 “自食後果”。

以下是星雲法師於99/3/13聯合報投書:

...

我雖然大致贊同死刑不可以輕易動用,刑法也不一定都要人抵命,而可以採取關閉、隔離、苦役、勞工、改造、教育,何必一定要用死刑呢?

但是,有一些惡性重大的人,玩弄人命,逼人致死,甚至殺人無數。如此「有其因,必有其果」,如果全部廢除死刑,那麼許多被殺死的人難道就該死,而殺人者卻該活?這都有失因果公平的道理。

...

坦白說,在刑罰上,像過去台灣曾發生重大的白曉燕案、陸正案,死刑要用在殺人者死上,這才是符合因果的法則。如果其他的罪行,可以考慮其他的刑罰,不一定以死刑來判決。以此意見,告知於各方友道,在未來的司法裡面,能值得參考否? 

徐百川
等級:8
留言加入好友
廢除死刑的主張,中國古已有之,並非現代人權進步的人道主張
2010/03/13 08:11
廢除死刑的主張,中國古已有之,並非現代人權進步的人道主張

尚書大傳:「唐虞之象刑,上刑赭衣不純。」,以白話文來說,就是「堯舜之時的象徴性刑罰,死刑者穿赤色去緣的衣服以代之。」

看看荀子正論篇所說:
世俗之為說者曰:「治古無肉刑而有象刑,墨黥蚤(蚤加部首忄)嬰,共艾畢,菲對屨,殺赭衣而不純,治古若是。」

以白話文來說就是:
世俗的論說有曰:「古代的治世無肉刑而有象徵性的刑罰,用墨畫代黥刑,用掛草纓代劓刑,斬刈遮膝的祭服代宮刑,穿枲麻鞋代刖刑,穿赤色去緣的衣服代死刑,古代的治世是如此。」

不過荀子反對人道的象刑,也就是反對廢除死刑。

荀子說:「‧‧‧‧,而直輕其刑,然則是殺人者不死,傷人者不刑也,罪至重而刑至輕,庸人不知惡矣,亂莫大焉。凡刑人之本,禁暴惡惡(憎惡惡行,或為止惡之意),且徵(懲戒)其末(未來)也。殺人者不死,而傷人者不刑,是謂惠暴而寬賊也,非惡惡也,故象刑殆非生於治古,竝(並)起於亂今也。‧‧‧‧。夫德不稱位,能不稱官,賞不當功,罰不當罪,不祥莫大焉!」
--------------------------------------------------
廢除死刑,庸人不知惡矣,亂莫大焉。死刑所殺的人都是罪孽深重的人,廢除死刑,不知惡的庸人,所殺的人都是無辜的人。



超級不爽
等級:7
留言加入好友
樓下的
2010/03/12 23:59

就算是禽獸,你就被賦予殺死他的責任了嗎???

人類只有阻止他的權力

並沒有殺死他的權力啊!



等級:
留言加入好友
假衛道
2010/03/12 16:55
 

日首例18歲殺人姦屍判死刑
兇手福田孝行殺害了一對母女,甚至姦屍子,儘管人權律師大聲疾呼槍下留人,但日本輿論卻強烈支持被害人家屬,經過纏訟9年,少年終於被判死刑,這是日本第一個未滿18歲判死刑的案例.
而在開庭當中,福田也曾向被害人家屬道歉說,「真是對不起,我做了無法寬恕的事。」,卻在法官做出無期徒刑的判決時,對著旁聽席的被害家屬,比了一個勝利手勢。官司從一審打到三審,纏訟9年,21位贊成廢死刑的人權律師,加入替福田辯護,甚至宣稱福田是因為欠缺母愛,所以才緊抱彌生不放,是過失致死,而非計畫強姦。還有律師替福田辯稱,福田是認為只要將精子送入被害人的體內,被害人就會起死回生。至於用繩索勒斃夕夏小妹妹,也不是心存殺意,因為他想讓夕夏停止哭泣,所以在她的脖子上綁上蝴蝶結而已。

檢察官得知被告在獄中曾經寄出幾封信件給外面的友人,讓人震驚的是福田孝行竟然在信中寫道:「不過就是一隻公狗走在路上,碰巧遇到一隻可愛的母狗,公狗自然而然的就騎上去了……這樣也有罪嗎!?」信中甚至充滿了侮辱被害人及其家屬的言論,其中還有藐視司法的部分,他寫著:「這世界終究是由惡人獲勝的~7、8年之後,等我出獄時,你們要舉辦盛大的party歡迎我啊!」
對於捍衛人權廢除死刑的假衛道人士,面對這種不是人的禽獸,要給他多少人權來傷害別人的人權 ?


Tomas
等級:8
留言加入好友
支持王清峰為堅持理想而辭職的作為!!
2010/03/12 08:21
台灣民粹當道的政治大環境及普羅大眾價值觀的現實認知下-----要想做對的事----是要能對"理想和權謀的實踐措施"進行管理。


王清峰的理念太超越"普羅大眾的價值觀"-----能不惜辭官講出理念-----不容易啊!!


**********


生命權----是與生俱來的,是大自然賦予的,是"絕對的"-----不應該有任何人或組織可以"強行剝奪"。


現今檢驗文明的標準-----就是檢驗對”絕對的生命權”的尊重程度-----不僅及於”人類”,更逐步廣被到動物。


國家的成立,人民不應該授予國家有剝奪人民----擁有財產,思想,言論,著作,信仰,居住行動等的人權------這是普世人權的價值!!


生命權,是"絕對的",沒有生命權的保障,那麼,這一切依附於生命權的人權是沒有根基的"漂流物"!! 當我們要求國家組織,不能且不可實施剝奪這些"普世標準人權"的權力,但,卻能接受,甚至於”懇求”國家公權力擁有且實施剝奪人民"絕對生命權"的權力了?


能自我圓滿的解釋嗎?


當人民能授權國家擁有剝奪人民"絕對的生命權"的權力,又有何正當性去阻擋國家公權力侵犯因伴隨"絕對的生命權"而來的人權了?


任何的行為導致"生命權"的消失,都不能不被譴責!!


"故意殺人的行為"是"絕對的錯誤"-----不僅在道德上該被譴責,更是要被國家公權力追訴刑責的!!


當國家公權力,不能理性的節制不犯這個錯誤,那麼,國家公權力行使公訴追究"剝奪他人生命權"的措施如何具有正當性!! 運用公權力"殺人的行為"也是"絕對的錯誤",是應該要停止的!! 不應該授權國家組織擁有這個權力!!


國家組織應該是理性的,才有正當性去制止”自然人不理性的行為”,不可有”替天行道”的思維,行剝奪絕對生命權之實-----國家組織的暴力必須被節制!!


因人民的無知及非理性,會使公權力成為利維坦(Leviathan)----國家怪獸!!


*****************


王清峰的堅持意義-----不是白冰冰之流的”微觀感覺”層面------台灣人民,要想真正的在民主法治的政治結構下”當家作主”,那麼,還要努力學習建立深刻的理性思考,積極及想法子的人生價值觀!!
Tomas