Writer misrepresents purpose, reasons for Oklahoma trial

Miss Swan, I agree with you that the money that Oklahoma would spend on another trial for Terry Nichols could probably be better spent, but the rest of your article I find offensive. There are several reasons for such a trial. They may see legislation coming that could set Nichols free, or they may have crunched the numbers and found that the trial and execution would cost less than life in prison, and there is always prison overcrowding to consider. These are only a couple of ideas that occurred to me, and there are probably many others. That you would just assume that it is blood lust, and your failure to understand the concepts that you choose to write about are insights into your personality.

You have a grave misconception of what a trial is. A trial is not designed to prove a person guilty or innocent. A trial either proves a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or fails to do so. Trials are not designed to prove innocence. You also misrepresent the new trial against Nichols in your column. He is not being tried for the same thing. One act can have multiple offenses associated with it and the new trial against Nichols will be on offences other than the ones he was tried for previously. These misrepresentations may have been due to ignorance or by intent, but you definitely have less than good intent.

The desire to inflict pain and suffering is a base, but natural instinct. To act upon that instinct without being in the immediate emotional state caused by some offense, even if it is just writing a letter to support such action, is evil.