Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
American Public Overwhelmingly Favors McVeigh's Execution
Aired June 09, 2001 - 17:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: McVeigh's execution is the first by the federal government in 38 years, and despite the national debate over the death penalty, a new poll finds that some opponents actually support the McVeigh execution, given the nature of his crime.
According to the CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup survey of 1,000 American adults, 80 percent believe McVeigh should be executed. The poll also found that of those who oppose the death penalty on principle, 23 percent still believe McVeigh should be executed.
Joining us to discuss the McVeigh case, his last-minute appeals and death penalty politics in general is Michael Gerhardt, constitutional law professor of William and Mary College. Welcome.
MICHAEL GERHARDT, WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE: Hi.
SAVIDGE: There is a bit of a contradiction there in that poll, that those that may have been opposed to the death penalty seem to favor it in this particular case. How do you explain that?
GERHARDT: It does strike me as a rather unusual stance for people to take, but I think what it reflects is the following: that if there is any case that would seem to justify the death penalty, any possible or conceivable case in which the criminal has simply shown such horrific disregard for life and deserves the worst kind of penalty the state can impose, this would seem to be it. I think that's what the poll suggests.
SAVIDGE: And how has the McVeigh case in any way shaped or firmed up American opinions regarding the death penalty?
GERHARDT: Well, it appears as if people might be becoming somewhat more comfortable with the possibility of the death penalty being imposed in a case in which it seems to be justified.
This is not a case where there is a claim, ultimately, I think, of innocence. There is not a claim that somehow the state unfairly railroaded this person. There's no suggestion ultimately that there's a fundamental flaw in the proceedings in this case.
Instead, we really have quite excellent evidence, including the confession of the defendant, that he's guilty, and guilty of just a heinous crime. Under those circumstances, I think most Americans seem to be expressing the opinion that they can -- that they are comfortable with the death penalty. If they have got to have a country that has the death penalty, this might well be the circumstance in which it's appropriate.
SAVIDGE: We already know that Timothy McVeigh has said he wants no more appeals to try to prevent this, but we have now seen an application made to the United States Supreme Court. Can anyone, someone, file, even though McVeigh does not want that, to try to prevent this from happening when it's scheduled?
GERHARDT: No, I think the execution is going to take police as planned, and I don't think that this current appeal, which really deals with another case's arguments relating to whether or not the death penalty or the lethal injections are consistent with the Eighth Amendment. That's what's really -- it's a separate case, and so there's nothing about a separate case that would in any way influence judges here or officials here to delay McVeigh's execution.
SAVIDGE: Like it or not, this has become a showcase for the federal government regarding the death penalty. How well do you think the federal government has handled it?
GERHARDT: I think it is very much a mixed bag, and I say that really with regret. This is a case, again, in which the federal government had of course its enormous resources, not just to sort of find the guilty party but to prosecute the person fairly, in the fairest possible proceedings.
Everyone was on notice about the importance of this case, and about just how horrible the crime was. And they found the guilty person, and in fact, I think ultimately he's confessed. The difficulty, of course, is with the FBI's ham-handedness, or to some degree incompetence in handling documents. The case ends on a rather unfortunate note, in which the government appears to be somehow responsible for really not conducting itself in the most professional manner possible.
And it's just -- it's regrettable that that would happen in such a high-profile case, where you want to make sure that this person, in a sense, meets his fate after the fairest process possible, not after a process that seems to have been somewhat defective, or tainted in some way.
SAVIDGE: Michael Gerhardt is a law professor of William and Mary College. Thank you very much for joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
