Your recent AP story on the trial of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols ("Prison conversion may have gained Nichols sympathy," June 13, A8) mentions that he "may have been spared the death penalty for the second time because a jailhouse conversion to Christianity gained him sympathy from the jury. . . . Defense witnesses testified that Nichols had worn out four Bibles through prayer and research, and that he wrote an 83-page letter to a prayer partner in Michigan while trying to make a point about Christian faith. 'Terry Nichols' belief in God is so firm that he believes if the rapture occurred today he is going to heaven," defense attorney Creekmore Wallace told jurors."
Excuse me? Help me out here. Didn't Nichols identify himself as a Christian patriot BEFORE he helped kill 161 people? And if he wasn't a Christian before, is it less of a crime if you kill 161 people and then convert to Christianity? If he had happened to convert to Islam or to Atheism, would his punishment have been greater? I probably know more about the Bible as an Atheist than most Christians and wore out four or five copies myself writing a lengthy paper about the quotes from scripture that have been used to justify the money of right-wing millionaires. If I were the one on trial, would my paper win the same sympathy from the jury?
I mean, what are we talking about here? Are we doling out punishment on the basis of someone's crime, or is punishment being decided on the basis of someone's religious belief? This is truly troubling stuff and runs completely contray to any claim of Freedom of Religion made by this country.
.For the record: I am opposed to capital punishment as it only seems to effect those who can not afford Johnny Cochran as an attorney. Thus capital punishment is not the issue here. Fairness and equality in sentencing is.
David L Johnson
6/15/04