I support the death penalty. In an age when technological advances in forensics and other crime investigation work is solid and advancing by the year, it would appear more theoretically justifiable.
From a moral persepective, the only way to mete out justice to unrepetent killers is to have them executed. This sends a strong social message: We won't tolerate the taking of innocent life and we, as a society, will protect our own.
Having said this, I believe the recent execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams to be wrong.
The key to applying capital punishment is to establish whether the murderer is truly sorry for his crime and if he's repeatedly demonstrated remorse. I cannot, in good conscience, support someone's execution under these circumstances. True repetence is the key.
Williams, although he murdered four people during robberies in 1979, turned into an anti-gang activist in prison. The fact that he turned against his former lifestyle and cohorts and urged the rejection of it by young people showed that he had a guilty conscience. Although, at first, he continued to reject his guilt
and refusing to apologize, he committed a drastic about-face in 1993. This is why, I believe, a sufficient amount of time in prison is required in order to establish a killer's remorse.
If Williams had continued to brag about his lifestyle in prison and showed no remorse for the life he led, then his execution would have been justified. However, at a time when we are concerned about tackling gangs and their crimes, this sends the wrong message. If we have our minds made up about fighting gang activity, how much sense did it make to kill a high-profile example of an anti-gang activist?
In a truly excellent Blogcritics piece by attorney Julizzette Colon-Bilbraut, she makes her stand for the death penalty largely by using Williams as an example. This, I believe, is disingenuous.
Article comments
1 - Scott Butki
Good, well thought out piece.
Thanks for sharing it with us
Tookie's case would have been a better one for clemency if he expressed some remorse for the killings. He expressed remorse for his lifestyle but not enough in the way of apologies to the families of the four he allegedly killed.
2 - Michael J. West
A piece that defied my expectations to the end. Nicely done.
But my views are the same as Scott's. Whether he found remorse or not, he never expressed it to the only people to whom his remorse was truly necessary: the families of the four victims.
3 - Dave Nalle
I question the legitimacy of Williams supposed remorse and of his distancing himself from the Crips. He was clearly still involved with the gang as recently as 6 years ago, and his books come off more like boasting about his gang activities than like remorse of any kind.
Dave
4 - sally apokedak
I'm a little confused about why a guilty conscience would affect the sentence.
Is punishment of criminals to train them? to rehabilitate them? or to maintain justice in the land? I thought we punished criminals because we have laws. If you do X you are punished with Y. Is it fair to say if you do X but are sorry afterward you don't have to be punished with Y?
If we are not just, then there is no need for laws. Every man should live as he sees fit.
5 - beadtot
With the interest of common humanity, everyone on San Quentin has been looking out over San Francisco Bay to find the drowned children who went into the water from Pier 7. And, felt handicapped by the prison walls which contained their search instincts. On the other hand, most also wished that peanuts were growing in the foliage near the promenade and bow-n-arrow sculture.
6 - Scott Butki
A guilty conscience would show remorse for the crimes committed.
Sally, the question at hand wasn't whether to punish more but whether to reduce punishment and that's a whole different ball of wax.
You raise the larger question, which is a good valid one: Is prison for deterrence, for rehabilitation or what? Well, if we kill them we're not too worried about rehabilitation then,I guess. But when's the last time you heard of someone opting not to do a murder because of prison.
But this is a whole different ball of wax. This guy has had plenty of time to reflect on his crimes and while he's managed to apologize for his lifestyle and gang leadership the tricky question for the terminator is whether to cut back his punishment for these particular crimes for which he never showed remorse.
Personally I never thought he'd give clemency regardless of the situation. I mean, look at this guy - his whole fortune comes from playing action stars that blow away bad guys.
Could you imagine the "soft on crime" charges that would be thrown at Arnold if he became one of the few Republicans to give a criminal a break?
But his wife is a catholic? some said. So, when's the last time that the catholic church successfully stopped an execution?