Friday, December 09, 2005
Put your money where your mouth is
I'm the last person in the world to say, "an eye for an eye"**, which makes the case of Tookie Williams difficult for me. On the one side, he says he didn't kill anyone (actually, he says he didn't kill the people he is charged with killing, but due to my rule of not backspacing - i had to leave that in). So, taking his word for it, he's innocent of the crime he is to be executed for. On the other side, what of the culture of hate that he concieved? Despite any attempts to reverse this train of violence with children's books, the gang he started is responsible for many deaths.
Would we find Hitler innocent if he himself never murdered anyone. I don't know if that's true or not, but you see what I mean.
As a citizen, I would not seek revenge/restitution if one of my family members was killed by his gang - although I would want to. So, as a government, do we follow the old testament law of 'an eye for an eye', or do the words of Jesus stand for all mankind? For me personally, this is the heart of my feelings about capital punishment. There are three directions that the government can take.
One, we could carry out the lethal injection and kill Tookie. This would be the because of the official belief on the part of the government that he did kill the people he allegedly killed. You see, there's no severe punishment for starting gangs, so the government needs some way of making him pay for the crime of instigating the crips. The old testament in effect. For what purpose though? Perhaps, it would make some victim's family member feel good to see him die, but I personally think that's counter productive to the healing process. One thing it would do is serve as a deterrent for other gang members - a sort of "cut off the head and the body will die" mentality. Then, we have to think about riots in the streets of L.A. if Tookie is put to death. Do we let the gangs run the streets?
Two, we could declare that his life has some redemptive value and release him. This would be forgiveness on the part of the government. The new testament. But, what about the families of the victims of everyone who has been struck down by a thug in a blue bandana? Or red for that matter. So, one possible rule could be that if every family of every victim forgives a murderer, then the murderer might be set free. Might be. Would that open a window for threats to family members?
None of these seem to be a good answer, so lastly we could leave him in jail for the rest of his life. This is the worst decision that could be made in my opinion. It's extraordinarily rare for a lifetime criminal to reform to the point that Tookie has. It's also extraordinarily expensive to keep these people alive. One idea I had was that if the government has decided to kill him, private citizens could come forward and pay out their after tax dollars to keep him alive. I imagine support would wain in short order.
The picture that is appearing for me while I write this is that the case of murder & execution needs to be handled on a case by case basis. In my heart, I don't believe that citizens should be paying to keep murderers alive. I also belive that some murderers have some redemptive value. I also believe that there are murderers in prisons who are simply seeking "suicide by government".
It's interesting to me that the case that Tookie's liars (lawyers) are making are the only argument that I dismiss as immaterial. This is the "reform" that he has experienced by writing childrens books about the dangers of gang membership.
Having said all that, if I were the governer, I would do this. I would ask Tookie if he is responsible for the death of anyone. That is, would an alternate universe without him be more or less violent? If he admits to his role that lead to the death of people, the government has a state constitution which allows for him to be killed. If he denies any responsibility for the death of anyone, we should release him to the public a free man. In the end, it won't be man who judges him.
Finally, and most importantly, this idea trumps anything that can be said about capital punishment: I don't think anyone should murder anyone for any reason, but our hearts are hard.
** For those who get their Bible verses second hand, "an eye for an eye" is an Old Testament verse (Leviticus 24:20) from God to leaders of nations (in this case, Moses). A later, radically different direction was given by Jesus to the citizens of nations (namely, us). "You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38)
Would we find Hitler innocent if he himself never murdered anyone. I don't know if that's true or not, but you see what I mean.
As a citizen, I would not seek revenge/restitution if one of my family members was killed by his gang - although I would want to. So, as a government, do we follow the old testament law of 'an eye for an eye', or do the words of Jesus stand for all mankind? For me personally, this is the heart of my feelings about capital punishment. There are three directions that the government can take.
One, we could carry out the lethal injection and kill Tookie. This would be the because of the official belief on the part of the government that he did kill the people he allegedly killed. You see, there's no severe punishment for starting gangs, so the government needs some way of making him pay for the crime of instigating the crips. The old testament in effect. For what purpose though? Perhaps, it would make some victim's family member feel good to see him die, but I personally think that's counter productive to the healing process. One thing it would do is serve as a deterrent for other gang members - a sort of "cut off the head and the body will die" mentality. Then, we have to think about riots in the streets of L.A. if Tookie is put to death. Do we let the gangs run the streets?
Two, we could declare that his life has some redemptive value and release him. This would be forgiveness on the part of the government. The new testament. But, what about the families of the victims of everyone who has been struck down by a thug in a blue bandana? Or red for that matter. So, one possible rule could be that if every family of every victim forgives a murderer, then the murderer might be set free. Might be. Would that open a window for threats to family members?
None of these seem to be a good answer, so lastly we could leave him in jail for the rest of his life. This is the worst decision that could be made in my opinion. It's extraordinarily rare for a lifetime criminal to reform to the point that Tookie has. It's also extraordinarily expensive to keep these people alive. One idea I had was that if the government has decided to kill him, private citizens could come forward and pay out their after tax dollars to keep him alive. I imagine support would wain in short order.
The picture that is appearing for me while I write this is that the case of murder & execution needs to be handled on a case by case basis. In my heart, I don't believe that citizens should be paying to keep murderers alive. I also belive that some murderers have some redemptive value. I also believe that there are murderers in prisons who are simply seeking "suicide by government".
It's interesting to me that the case that Tookie's liars (lawyers) are making are the only argument that I dismiss as immaterial. This is the "reform" that he has experienced by writing childrens books about the dangers of gang membership.
Having said all that, if I were the governer, I would do this. I would ask Tookie if he is responsible for the death of anyone. That is, would an alternate universe without him be more or less violent? If he admits to his role that lead to the death of people, the government has a state constitution which allows for him to be killed. If he denies any responsibility for the death of anyone, we should release him to the public a free man. In the end, it won't be man who judges him.
Finally, and most importantly, this idea trumps anything that can be said about capital punishment: I don't think anyone should murder anyone for any reason, but our hearts are hard.
** For those who get their Bible verses second hand, "an eye for an eye" is an Old Testament verse (Leviticus 24:20) from God to leaders of nations (in this case, Moses). A later, radically different direction was given by Jesus to the citizens of nations (namely, us). "You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
#1. I don't believe in the death penalty. "My bible says, "Thou shalt not kill."
#2. Writing a few children's books that no one ever heard of until now doesn't take away responsibility. Madonna wrote a few children's books, but she's still a whore. We must demonstrate that those kinds of things do not warrant "get out of jail free" cards.
#3. Charles Manson never killed anyone.
#4. We must not be intimidated by gangs or the fear of rioting. We will not give in to terrorism. And that's all it is: Terrorism.
#5. If we do kill him, I think the execution should be live on pay-per-view. The money could go to anti-gang programs. (Think: if people pay $50 for a three minute fight...)
#6. If the government was interested in following the teachings of Jesus, the whole justice system would have to be redesigned entirely. The way things are now, there really is no right answer.
Post a Comment
#2. Writing a few children's books that no one ever heard of until now doesn't take away responsibility. Madonna wrote a few children's books, but she's still a whore. We must demonstrate that those kinds of things do not warrant "get out of jail free" cards.
#3. Charles Manson never killed anyone.
#4. We must not be intimidated by gangs or the fear of rioting. We will not give in to terrorism. And that's all it is: Terrorism.
#5. If we do kill him, I think the execution should be live on pay-per-view. The money could go to anti-gang programs. (Think: if people pay $50 for a three minute fight...)
#6. If the government was interested in following the teachings of Jesus, the whole justice system would have to be redesigned entirely. The way things are now, there really is no right answer.
Links to this post:
<< Home
