|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
More thoughts on Tookie
As many of you know, I have spent a lot of time writing about the Stanley "Tookie" Williams case. Some would ask why - why the death penalty? And why Tookie? First, if you don't know why I am passionate about the need to abolish the death penalty, read through some of my posts on the subject. To get a foundational perspective on what I believe, start here: As for "Why Tookie", I am not completely sure. To be honest - this case has hit me harder than other death penalty cases. I think that there are several reasons for this. The biggest reason is that it hits close to home - literally. This is the first execution in California in several years, and it is obviously a bigger deal because it is happening in my own state, with my own elected government (that I did not vote for!!). There is something about your own government killing someone that makes it that much worse. I feel partly responsible. This is my state, my judges, my politicians. And they have chosen death over life. The second reason that this case has really hit me is that Williams is a perfect example of redemption. Williams has used his unfortunate situation (that he placed himself in) to make a difference so that others do not place themselves in the same situation. While some write this off as a ploy, there is no doubt in my mind that Williams has "turned the corner" and has done everything that he can to make a difference. What this really shows is that our criminal "justice" system is solely punitive. Our so-called justice system has little care for rehabilitation, and this is proven in a case where a man has been rehabilitated into a "functional member" of society, yet we still kill the man. It baffles me that we have a system that is more interested in punishing the individual than helping them return to society as a rehabilitated individual. The third reason why this case has bothered me so is that it has become so political. Of course - every other case of execution tends to be political. No politician wants to alienate their base - whether right or left. Nor does any other politician desire to be seen as "soft on crime". But come on - a man's life is at stake, and that life is significantly more valuable than the political career or Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is sad to me that such an important decision - the life of a man - is made in the context of the political ramifications involved. Let us be honest - killing Williams this evening will do nothing. It will only perpetuate the cycle of violence in our society. It will not bring back the four victims that died 25 years ago. It will not end the gang violence that has partly resulted in Williams' founding of the CRIPS. It will not make the family members of the victims feel better. It will not discourage others from killing. It will do nothing but end a life of a rehabilitated man. With that said, we need to use this as a stepping stone, not a one time cause. As I posted a few days ago, Tookie is not the only person on death row. As Smijer pointed out, it is an important step to bring this discussion into the national spotlight. The more people talk about it, the more they begin to see what is wrong. There are many out there that need our help. In California alone two people are expected to be executed in the next two months: :
We cannot stand silent. We cannot allow this to continue. This campaign to save Williams' life has motivated and mobilized me. And I hope that it has had even some of the impact on you that it has had on me. Allen said it well in the comments of a previous post:
We have no choice to stand up and fight for the untouchables. As Creighton University Professor Joseph G. Allegretti said:
We must stand up and do it more often. Because no one else will. Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 12/12/05 @ 17:42
 Permalink
a man's life is at stake? What about the hundreds of thousands of lives that were affected by the Crips? This guy was not just a bad guy, he is a symbol of everything that is sick and wrong with society and the sooner he's gone, the better.
Every breath that he continues to draw is an insult to all those thousands of victims. Good riddance. Now let's find the guy who founded the Bloods.
Roland...just shut up.
This execution has nothing to do with the CRIPS, and you know it.
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 12/12/05 @ 17:50
Permalink
It has everything to do with the Crips, which is probably the main reason he was denied clemency. He's a bad man. He doesn't deserve clemency.
He was not found guilty for founding the CRIPS. He was found guilty of killing four people.
Sure, I also believe that his founding of the CRIPS has added to the media attention and possible related to why he was denied clemency. As for being a bad man - not so true. He was a bad man. It amazes me that you don't believe that people can change.
Roland, tell me what you know about the founding of the CRIPS and why? And tell me what you know about the Tookie's involvment in the CRIPS, because if you want him dead for his involvment, you better figure out the original purpose behind the gang. Next, you neglect any sense of rehabilitation. I think that the Christians should have stoned Paul the second he converted if you utilize this understanding. That wicked Saul, so what if he changed his name, he had many people murdered and headed the gang of the Sanhedran, a religously oppressive and murderous group.
Your lack of compassion, though doesn't suprise me, is appauling and is THE "symbol of everything that is sick and wrong in this society." Christ commented about it all the time how those who lack compassion are the ones who bring demise upon the world. My last question for you Roland is what you see is the good of this.
bringing up the crips is just a handy talking point, that's all. i commented on this earlier and took this piss out of his argument.
it's hard to say that nothing else would've existed after the black panthers because there were splinter groups shortly thereafter. it's easy to play the blame game. most important of all is the united states' inability to apply the death penalty equitably. you're not making much sense these days roland.
I have been on the fence on this one.
He doesn't deserve clemency. I am not sure anyone deserves clemency. To me, clemency is a form of grace bestowed by the government. Just like none of us deserve Christ's grace, none deserves clemency, as if it were some right that one earned. Does president Bush, by the good things he has done, make the bad things he has done go away? Or is he still accountable for them? Where is the vaulted compasion for him? Similarly, do the good things that christians do out weigh the sins we commit? Are we still acountable for them? Yes. And it is by the gift of God that we are forgiven, not by anything we do ourselves. I think this paralles this case. Assuming for the moment that he was guilty for the crimes he was convicted for. At the base level he should be held accountable for them. Does Tookie's good deeds out weight and cancel out what he has done? I don't think so. He still did what he did and needs to answer to that. That is all what one side of me thinks. On the other side, it seems that Tookie is the poster boy of redemption, if what I hear and understand is correct. Yes, he stared the crips, but later renouced his affiliation with them and been an anti-gang activist. It seems that if anyone did deserve clemency, if we base it off of turning one's life around and trying to make up for his actions, it would be him.
I am not sure if we should leave the Crips issue out of it.
If we are going to allow
Then shouldn't we also allow
Either allow his gang and anti-gang activates out of the debate or disallow both of them. At least if one wants to be consistent
Honzo...your premise is wrong.
One of your bullet points occurred pre-arrest. One occurred post-arrest.
He still did what he did and needs to answer to that.
Right...and no one says he should not have been punished. No one (that I know of) is saying that he should have been pardoned. They are simply saying that he should have been given a life sentence without parole instead of death.
Comment from: gringo [Visitor] 12/13/05 @ 14:15
Permalink
i'm of the opinion he should have a fair trial like everybody else and that the death penalty is a bad idear (i.e. counterproductive).
was he convicted of founding the crips or murdering? what were the charges? was he executed for founding the gang or murdering? it's open for discussion sure but it wasn't the reason for his conviction.
I agree with Honzo in consistency for bolstering the case. His turning around is primarily explained in his anti-gang activities, which probably also include anti-murder activities. I think that people do bolster the CRIPS charges because they don't know what the CRIPS is about. Most of the people who comment on this case are from an area of life where the CRIPS is a figment of imagination directed by the lyrics of Snoop Dogg. Hell, in fact, most of the CRIPS are directed by the lyrics of Snoop and Dre.
Leave a comment:
|
Support
the mindful mission friends recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
