In a state where the death penalty is carried out infrequently–its last execution was in 1967–lawyers have had little trouble finding prospective jurors willing to sentence Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh to die.
After three days of jury selection, 19 people have been questioned, and only two have said they could not impose the ultimate penalty, primarily for religious reasons.
Opposition to the death penalty is one of the few reasons that prospective jurors will be excluded automatically from consideration for serving in the trial of McVeigh, 28, accused of conspiracy and use of weapons of mass destruction in the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building; 168 people died and more than 500 were injured.
Beginning Monday, each prospective juror has faced the same question from U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, who will preside over the trial:
“As a general matter, not considering the evidence in this case because we don’t know what it is yet, do you have a personal, moral or religious view either against or for the death penalty?”
It is an important question because the jury, if it convicts McVeigh, would then hear evidence on whether the one-time drifter should be executed or sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Under the law, only those individuals who agree they are willing to impose the death penalty may be seated in such a case.
Many of those questioned clearly have given little previous thought to the question and their internal struggles have been apparent through their hesitations and strained voices as they have confronted their own feelings, as well as their religious beliefs, in attempting to respond.
“I feel like Jesus Christ offers life and gives it to everybody,” said one woman. “The Bible says, `Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ I don’t feel capable of throwing that first stone.
“There may be crimes that deserve death,” she added. “I don’t think I can be the person (who decides).”
Another prospective juror, however, found justification for the death penalty in the Bible. The man–a systems analyst for a Denver suburb–said he reads the Bible frequently and teaches a Bible class for teenagers.
He said he believes the Old Testament justified the death penalty with its words: “An eye for an eye.” He added that, although the New Testament teaches “us to turn the other cheek . . . I believe that, even in the New Testament, you could find support for the death penalty.”
Under questioning by Matsch, the man added, “There are certain situations that almost require us to give the death penalty . . . extreme cases.”
Justice Department prosecutor Larry Mackey probed the man further, asking, “How do you walk the line between man’s law and God’s law?”
“I haven’t noticed a difference in the United States,” the man replied.
Many of the jurors have mentioned their religious affiliation or backgrounds in discussing the death-penalty question and have said that no matter the view of their faith, they would be able to impose the supreme sanction.
A rancher-turned-philosophy-professor said that, as a Roman Catholic, he was aware that the pope and church oppose the death penalty. “The finality of it causes me great concern,” he said.
But, after further thought, the man said he would consider sentencing McVeigh to die if he is convicted.
One of the strongest religious views came from an unemployed pipefitter who was reluctant to even take the oath because of a religious objection to swearing.
“God only reveals the truth,” the man said, explaining why he could not vote the death penalty or even decide McVeigh’s guilt or innocence.
“I haven’t had any revelations from God as to how things should go,” he said. “If truth is not given to me, I don’t think I can make a judgment.”
