JANNIE COVERDALE is an ordinary woman whose private life Timothy McVeigh made public. Her two grandsons, Aaron and Elijah, were among the 19 children killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, and Ms. Coverdale quickly found herself an unofficial spokesman for the victims and their survivors.

Five years after the event that turned her world upside down, Ms. Coverdale was fulfilling that familiar role once again, being interviewed with a group of about a half dozen other family members by Ed Bradley on the CBS "60 Minutes."

Their conversation turned to the death penalty.

One man, who had lost his 23-year-old daughter in the blast, opined that the death penalty was too good for McVeigh, that its imposition would only turn him into a martyr. But Ms. Coverdale, speaking for the majority of the group, said that she wanted McVeigh dead so that she never had "to see his face or hear his voice again."

The McVeigh case is a particularly difficult one for death penalty opponents. It's hard to conceive of a more unsympathetic offender or a more horrific crime.

But those opposed to the death penalty on principle would do well to pay attention to Mrs. Coverdale because she represents the majority view on this most controversial subject and because her reasons for supporting the death penalty for McVeigh could provide an answer to this vexing question.

We posed a series of questions on the death penalty in our most recent survey of Maryland voters, taken May 9-13. When asked whether they "favored or opposed the death penalty in Maryland," 62 percent answered in support.

But when queried about what they thought would be "the most appropriate sentence for someone convicted of first degree murder," given a choice between the death penalty, or "life with absolutely no possibility of parole," opinion changed dramatically. Now, just 45 percent favored the death penalty, with nearly as many, 42 percent, choosing the life without parole option.

But life without parole doesn't work for Mrs. Coverdale because McVeigh would command the attention of the public as long as he would live. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that anyone could fail to understand her sentiment - the desire to never see his face or hear his voice again.

To be successful in future policy debates, it seems to us that death penalty opponents must offer society a viable alternative that acknowledges our human quality.

If it is possible to pass laws that prohibit convicted criminals from profiting from telling their stories via books and movies, it should also be possible to legislate a media blackout for people serving sentences of life without parole and even to ensure that individuals given such a punishment would never be able to see any visitors.

We haven't had the opportunity to ask the question yet, but we suspect that "life, with absolutely no possibility of parole, no visitors at all, and no interviews at any time, ever" might overtake the death penalty if voters were given the choice.

Carol A. Arscott and Patrick E. Gonzales are professional pollsters based in Annapolis.