I am not an advocate of capital punishment except perhaps in the most extreme of cirumstances, such as those who engage in genocide. It seems to only satisfy the needs of those who require retribution. Having never been the victim of the sort of crime that leads to the death penalty for its perpetrator, and hopefully to remain that way, it may be unfair for me to make such judgements, but there it is. Nothing I've ever read or heard has indicated that capital punishment is a deterrent to similar crimes. That makes sense to me intuitively, since the act is always very abstract, happening far removed from my world, to people there was no chance that I would ever meet. Would it be different if it was more gruesome and more public. Maybe, for a while, but it would eventually dull our senses and its effect would diminish.
I know 'Tooky' Williams only through the press coverage he has received over the last month as his pending execution has drawn nearer, and drawn greater attention. This man, founder of The Crips, was convicted in 1979 of killing 4 people with a shot gun in two burglaries. Not a good guy. In the intervening 26 years he has done a fair amount of outreach, from death row, to warn people away from gang life, and expressed regret for his life's path. He maintains his innocence for the crimes he was convicted, and I have no reason to believe him or not. It actually seems entirely irrelevant to me.
His last chance at clemency vanished with the determination of Governor Swarzenegger that his case did not justify clemency.
What does society gain by killing this man? It's not as if he was going to be released from prison. His only choices were death, or life in prison. Dead, he can have no benefit to society. Alive, it seems to me, he could alter the life of some wayward youth who might choose the wrong path. And with no likely effect on the crime rate, or monetary savings, society seems to lose on all counts. The only people who gain are those who demand an eye for an eye, and with that logic you end up with a room filled with blind men.
This persistent need for retribution also puts us in the company of some pretty despicable countries who also maintain capital punishment. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and China. A real who's who of authoritarian regimes, where civil rights are barely evident and with whom we should not be proud to compare ourselves.
I simply see no point to capital punishment, since teaching one person a lesson he or she can never learn from is stupidity writ large.
9 comments:
Who are we to take another's life? If we kill them, then are we not just as guilty as they are. I see no logic in it. Just lock their ass up tight. Hell, make them work on CCC projects with extreamly high security. Make them do some good for their horrific crimes. Sounds like that is what Tookie was trying to do. Only he and God knows what really went down during those crimes. That's all I have to say about that.
I see two different issues:
1. On the topic of capital punishment, I am not for it.
2. This is where the potential Supreme Court Justice Dan comes through: if it IS the law of the land-IF capital punishment is legal and has been sentenced, I do not think that you should be able to achieve a pardon any easier than anyone else that is on death row, regardless of later amends you may have made. I haven't thought this through a lot, but it's my gut reaction. I've also not looked at this particular case in detail, but if we can assume he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and he has still not admitted he did the crime; that wrinkle certainly makes it harder to feel sympathy for him, regardless of whether there's any legal ramifications to it or not.
I'm with Dan here, sort of, I think.
1. I am opposed to the death penalty mainly on the theory that is is better to let a guilty man go free than put an innocent to death (or even in prison). I am not opposed because it makes "makes us as bad as they are." I would have no problem with serial killers, Manson, Donald Blom (caught on tape) and the like being put to death. But then we get to needing and even higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and that just doesn't work. For the truly big bads of the world (Saddam, bin Laden, Milosevic) I say do 'em up Mussolini style.
2. It is the current law. I have no problem with the Governator not stepping in. Had there been evidence that he was wrongly convicted, that would have been another story, and I think the outcome would have been different. As Dan says, the fact that he was "reformed" is irrelevant. Do we know that he was reformed, or was he looking to save his skin?
I don't think that you can include the United States in the company of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Syria and China based on the fact that we use capital punishment. Our methods, courts, and requirements are a world away.
Countless overturned convictions fro people on death row might make us more similar that we'd like to admit.
The fact is that our judicial system is wildly skewed to put black people to death. An equal number of black and white people commit murder every year and something like 70% of people on death row are black.
Our system is broken, and if you believe that it's wrong to kill one innocent person then there is no way to fix it.
But that wasn't my original point. I was trying to argue it from the perspective of what does society gain. It seemed like a twist on the ususal way of thinking about the subject. It seems like all that society gains is a sense of retribution.
I don't know whether Stanley Williams had truly reformed or not. It's not like the option was between killing him or letting him go. He was going to die or spend the rest of his life in jail. So whether he had truly recanted seemed beside the point. He was doing some good alive, and can do none dead. It seems like a totally logical argument. Why should we kill him if we can get something out of him?
That was Cory's point (CCC project sort of stuff) and one Sharon made, also. Though you'll also hear that stat tossed around about how we spend tens of thousands of dollars on keeping these guys alive, in prison. So, do we subtract that amount from the total dollar value of the "good that they can do?" I think there's very few people (I hope so, anyway) that want to put the value human life into such a rigid sort of equation.
I think you either:
1. Think it's wrong. (Cory, Sharon)
2. Think it's morally OK in some instances, but impossible to apply without possibility of error (Mixdorf, Aaron)
3. Think it's morally OK in many cases, and are ignorant as to the problem in #2 (most people in this country that are for the death penalty)
4. May or may not be aware of that problem, but you really like to kill people (our president, I'm guessing)
For those that suggest the whole "turning his life around" is a big act in order to save his skin, I can say this, from the little I've heard/read: that would be one elaborate motherfucking scheme. This guy was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize, is an award-winning children's author, and gets testimonials from countless young black men who have turned their lives around as a result of being inspired by his story. I was the one that originally ventured (not in the world, probably, but in this blog) that this aspect of the case is irrelevant in terms of his sentence; particularly if we believe his guilt and he still claims innocence. If he DID admit wrongdoing-I'm not sure how that plays into sentencing; people get out early for "good behavior" and so on, I guess we recognize this sort of thing under the law. Actually, it seems a really odd sort of thing to me. Seem like you should serve your time. What's the deal with that? (look at me-some liberal...) But I digress...
Old West T-clog would hang people just to see them hang. At Christmas, Old West T-clog, would decorate a big tree with hung people.
Sick humor I know, but it was bustin out of my seems. :)
Seems like your seams are seemingly always a burstin'.
Executing people in the ppublic square - now those were the days when capital punishment was a deterrent, and was used almost exclusively to further the cause of those in power.
Witches?
Heretics?
Royalty?
Kill all them mother fuckers.
An interesting side factor to consider in the whole morality/justice in capital punishment. It's one thing to consider how easy it is to make a legal blunder that can lead to an unfortunate end, but it's a totally different thing to consider: how much do you trust the intent and motives of those who are making and enforcing the rules of society? In this country? How about in this country in 1860? How about in a rural county in Kansas in 1860? Shit.
Shit indeed.
Post a Comment