Justice dictates that since this man callously shed the blood of others, his blood must be shed by man as well.
Innocent blood, even if it's by proxy, is an indelible stain.
Posted on 12/03/2005 5:52:39 PM PST by bikepacker67
THE celebrity rush to save the life of convicted murderer and gang founder Tookie Williams may be the best argument yet for eliminating the death penalty. Dead, he's a martyr; alive and confined for life, he's just another nobody.
I have no wish to further elevate Williams in the public eye, but the circus surrounding his Dec. 13 execution date forces reflection.
First my bias and other disclaimers: I'm a relatively recent convert from the slow-gas-leak solution to death row crowding to a reluctant capital punishment opponent. I oppose the death penalty for one reason: The state makes mistakes, and one innocent murdered by the state is too many.
Do I think Tookie is innocent of killing four people? No, I don't. All appeals to higher courts, including the reliably liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, confirm that his trial was fair and his verdict just.
Does he deserve to live? My emotions say "no." My reason skips to a different question, one that National Journal White House correspondent Carl Cannon posed in the National Review (June 19, 2000) article that helped shift my thinking:
"The right question to ask is not whether capital punishment is an appropriate — or a moral — response to murders," Cannon wrote. "It is whether the government should be in the business of executing people convicted of murder knowing to a certainty that some of them are innocent."
That certainty has been established by DNA tests showing that many death row inmates did not commit the crimes for which they were convicted. Case closed.
The painful part of this position is that we who oppose capital punishment on these grounds have to breathe the same air as the celebrities, political panderers and other hankie-twisters who materialize every time a "Tookie" runs out of options and faces a far more humane death than that which he delivered to others.
To refresh your memory, Tookie — who founded the notoriously vicious Los Angeles gang the Crips — was convicted of killing four people during a murder-and-robbery spree in 1979 that netted him roughly $250.
His first victim was Albert Owens, a store clerk in Whittier, whom Tookie murdered to eliminate witnesses and "because he was white." The others were an elderly Chinese couple and their daughter, whom Williams referred to as "Buddha-heads." All were shot at close range with a 12-gauge shotgun. Williams' defenders insist he is reformed and point to children's books he has written in prison urging kids to stay away from gangs. They also point to his 1997 statement apologizing for his role in glamorizing gang life, though he never apologized for his crimes.
The usual suspects have mobilized on his behalf, including Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover, Jesse Jackson, Snoop Dogg (a fellow former Crip),'60s radical Tom Hayden and Mario Cuomo.
Perhaps some of these celebrities share the same concerns I've expressed. But others, including an activist visiting California schools in recent days to enlist children in a "Save Tookie" campaign, make it difficult to steady one's hands and stick to one's convictions.
Stefanie Faucher, projects director for the grass-roots group Death Penalty Focus, stopped at an Oakland high school, where she told students there was little evidence to convict Williams, despite what all those courts and judges had to say. Faucher left with 29 letters petitioning the governor for clemency.
It seems clear that the courts have done their job and that Williams is guilty. But it is also abundantly clear that the dramas surrounding such executions grant celebrity status to the least deserving among us.
Our first principle should be never to kill an innocent person, and thus err on the side of life. We thus liberate ourselves from involuntary servitude as audience to those for whom death row has become a stage.
Finally, killers such as Tookie Williams, condemned to life without parole, vanish into the hell of obscurity where they belong.
"Dead, he's a martyr"
Nope, he's just a dead piece of human fecal matter.
I'm absolutely against the death penalty - unless it is applied by an individual protecting his life, liberty, or property. The state, on the other hand, should not be in the business of taking ones life. The state is too fallible and errors do occur; one innocent person being put to death by the state is too many!
So let him be a martyr. He'll still be dead.
Case closed.
Dead, Justice and Judgment are appeased.
A martyr for what?
Dead, he's dead. The "celebrities" will forget all about him and go on to their next "cause celeb".
Nice theorizing from Ms. Parker, whose writing I always enjoy, but as for Tookie, let him fry. Not just for the murders committed by his own hand, but for the hundreds, thousands maybe, of murders committed by his gang banger followers.
"Life without Parole" can always be commuted by some about to be indicited governor hoping to taint the jury pool. Death on the other hand is permanant at least in this life. If Tookie has a clemency request, he will have an opportunity to present it in the next life.
Justice dictates that since this man callously shed the blood of others, his blood must be shed by man as well.
Innocent blood, even if it's by proxy, is an indelible stain.
I read an article once about a "judge" sentencing a murderer to "Life in prison without parole for 20 years." ROTFLMAO! What the heck does that mean?
With the exceptions of sedition and espionage, I really don't think the state has any business killing citizens. That said, as long as we have a criminal justice system that allows thugs and murderers to write books, hold interviews and "profit" (not just in a monetary sense) from their crimes, maybe it's the only viable alternative at this time.
I've got no problem with clemency, provided there are certain conditions.
#1 he is placed into a cell without windows or views into the hallways.
#2 he is given zero recreation time outside the cell.
#3 he is not given any food, again.
I oppose driving, because one road death is too many.
The death sentence IS a deterrent...I don't care what any freakin university study tells us...The bank robber, WILLIE SUTTON himself told me to my face that the only reason he didn't kill anyone is because he knew he would be killed by the death penalty. So there you have it.
Surely his grovelling victims would have loved those options too, given the choice he forced upon them - their sudden terrified deaths without mercy.
However difficult to face, it is the right thing that must be done.
This man deserves his fate. He and his prodigies have destroyed thousands of lives. They have turned the streets of LA into killing fields and have shown no remorse for their carnage. The death penalty exists in this nation for men like this. To say that we should end capital punishment because someone innocent might be put to death is fine. Lets debate it after they bury this piece of garbage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.