Two wrongs don't make a right (RL)
Dec. 13th, 2005 08:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thistlechaserNote: This is a "political" post. Some on my flist might not like it or agree with it. I don't for one minute believe that one LJ post from me will change anyone's opinion on the subject, but this is my LJ and I'm rather disappointed by this mess, and so I'm writing about it.
One of the earliest lessons my mother taught me was "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because my sister hit me did not mean it was okay for me to hit her back. Why do people forget that lesson once they grow up?
Last night Stanley "Tookie" Williams was killed. He's the person who founded the Crips gang and was convicted of murdering multiple people. I'm not here to argue his guilt or innocence in those matters, I'm commenting on the fact that California did the exact same thing last night: They killed him in cold blood.
Williams did the murders 25 years ago, half his lifetime ago (he was killed at 51). And since then? He's been writing books to try to keep kids out of gangs, books aimed at gangs to try to bring peace back to the streets. If he were still alive he could perhaps do more to help, to change the problems he helped bring about, but what's he going to do dead?
Arnold Schwarzenegger (as if I hadn't already had enough reason to think nothing of him as a person or a government official) had this to say:
Williams has written books that instruct readers to avoid the gang lifestyle and to
stay out of prison. In 1996, a "Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence"
children's book series was published. In 1998, "Life in Prison" was published. In
2004, Williams published a memoir entitled "Blue Rage, Black Redemption." He
has also recently (since 1995) tried to preach a message of gang avoidance and
peacemaking, including a protocol for street peace to be used by opposing gangs.
It is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms, but the continued
pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams'
message.
So what Schwarzenegger is saying is: Since Williams hasn't single-handedly stopped gang violence, his efforts are useless?
If it were up to me, I would not have put Williams back onto the street. He did bad things and for those he needs to be punished. But murder him? Do the exact same thing you're punishing him for? That makes no sense.
It embarrasses me that America still uses death as a punishment. From Amnesty International:
In 2004, 97 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Viet Nam, and the USA.
Nice company we're keeping there, huh?
I've (sadly) said it before and I'll say it again: We're a nation of children. "He hit me so I'll hit him back!" "I hate X! It's not enough that I don't have to do X, but I don't want anyone else to be permitted to, either!" "I believe in X, so everyone else better as well! Or else!" I really wish we'd all just grow up. Live and let live. You want to believe in God? Knock yourself out, but don't make entire schools include "under god" in the Pledge. You don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Fine and dandy, but why in the world would you think that you should be able to force your opinion onto everyone else?
One of the earliest lessons my mother taught me was "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because my sister hit me did not mean it was okay for me to hit her back. Why do people forget that lesson once they grow up?
Last night Stanley "Tookie" Williams was killed. He's the person who founded the Crips gang and was convicted of murdering multiple people. I'm not here to argue his guilt or innocence in those matters, I'm commenting on the fact that California did the exact same thing last night: They killed him in cold blood.
Williams did the murders 25 years ago, half his lifetime ago (he was killed at 51). And since then? He's been writing books to try to keep kids out of gangs, books aimed at gangs to try to bring peace back to the streets. If he were still alive he could perhaps do more to help, to change the problems he helped bring about, but what's he going to do dead?
Arnold Schwarzenegger (as if I hadn't already had enough reason to think nothing of him as a person or a government official) had this to say:
Williams has written books that instruct readers to avoid the gang lifestyle and to
stay out of prison. In 1996, a "Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence"
children's book series was published. In 1998, "Life in Prison" was published. In
2004, Williams published a memoir entitled "Blue Rage, Black Redemption." He
has also recently (since 1995) tried to preach a message of gang avoidance and
peacemaking, including a protocol for street peace to be used by opposing gangs.
It is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms, but the continued
pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams'
message.
So what Schwarzenegger is saying is: Since Williams hasn't single-handedly stopped gang violence, his efforts are useless?
If it were up to me, I would not have put Williams back onto the street. He did bad things and for those he needs to be punished. But murder him? Do the exact same thing you're punishing him for? That makes no sense.
It embarrasses me that America still uses death as a punishment. From Amnesty International:
In 2004, 97 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Viet Nam, and the USA.
Nice company we're keeping there, huh?
I've (sadly) said it before and I'll say it again: We're a nation of children. "He hit me so I'll hit him back!" "I hate X! It's not enough that I don't have to do X, but I don't want anyone else to be permitted to, either!" "I believe in X, so everyone else better as well! Or else!" I really wish we'd all just grow up. Live and let live. You want to believe in God? Knock yourself out, but don't make entire schools include "under god" in the Pledge. You don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Fine and dandy, but why in the world would you think that you should be able to force your opinion onto everyone else?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:02 pm (UTC)The states don't put to death speeders, or shoplifters, or tax evaders. They put to death people who are violent to society and negatively impact a large group of people. Beacuse you feel sorry, or "find the Lord", or write books to try to keep kids out of gangs; this does not negate the crime that was committed. This is another step of the punishment as deterrent. Anyone can feel bad seeing what consequences they are about to face... but the purpose of the death penalty isn't repentance...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:13 pm (UTC)Spending 20+ plus years on death row is the result of that system. Which in turn is the reason it's more economical to put a person away for life, rather than adminster a death penalty.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:21 pm (UTC)According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%.
A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
I could quote on and on. Using it as a deterrent doesn't work. Do you really think that people who could murder someone would also have the forethought to wonder "What if I get caught?". If two gang members are shooting at each other on the street, do you believe that they'd pause, think about the death penalty, and just stop?
And if it really did work, why would so few countries be doing it?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:44 pm (UTC)It doesn't do anything as a deterrent. Tons of studies all conclude this. People just don't think about the consequences when they're murdering people. The kind of people who would, are plenty deterred by life in prison. I sure would be.
It costs more to execute someone than to lock them up for life. So, the death penalty isn't economically smart.
No other western nation executes people. Not one. It's a black mark on our humanitarian record. This isn't enough of a reason by itself, but it's on the scales.
So, what does it accomplish? It makes the loved ones of the victims feel a little better. And that's worth something, sure. Just... it doesn't tip the scales for me. I'm just not a huge fan of Revenge.
But, ultimately, this isn't one of those issues that gets my ire up.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:49 pm (UTC)For me, personally, it wouldn't even do that. I'd rather see the person in prison for the rest of their life. Prison is anything but fun, and death would be an easier punishment...
People just don't think about the consequences when they're murdering people. The kind of people who would, are plenty deterred by life in prison. I sure would be.
Heck yes. I'd actually be more deterred by life in prison than by death.
But, ultimately, this isn't one of those issues that gets my ire up.
In general I don't think much about it. I don't like it, but then I don't like so much of what goes on in this country. It's just this case... he was trying to do good, trying to make up for his past. And when we killed him, we also killed any positive changes he could have made. That makes me very, very sad.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:51 pm (UTC)As for not granting clemency, the NYT article on it being denied revolved around Arnold's statement that Stanley Tookie Williams refused to admit to the crimes (the 4 murders) and thus did not show remorse. Clemency is traditionally granted when convicted murderer shows beyond a doubt that he/she is sorry for his/her actions and is a changed person. Showing remorse for actions is one way (evidence) a person can show that they are redeemed. Whether or not you support the death penalty, in the eyes of the law and within the bounds of a clemency hearing, Stanley Tookie Williams did not fulfill the criteria for clemency.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 05:58 pm (UTC)Yeah, true, that would control for more (but not all) of the random factors.
As for not granting clemency, the NYT article on it being denied revolved around Arnold's statement that Stanley Tookie Williams refused to admit to the crimes (the 4 murders) and thus did not show remorse. Clemency is traditionally granted when convicted murderer shows beyond a doubt that he/she is sorry for his/her actions and is a changed person. Showing remorse for actions is one way (evidence) a person can show that they are redeemed.
Hmmm. I did see that part of Arnold's statement, but for me it wasn't the important part. I don't care if he's redeemed or not. I don't think it's possible for him to become a "good person" at this point. He can become a better person though, and he can still have (...eh could still have had...) a good effect on others and on this whole gang problem he helped bring about. He doesn't need to have been redeemed to do that.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 06:02 pm (UTC)It's because other countries are usually much more rigorous and stringent on their incarceration of criminals.
In the US we are hung up on this idea that criminals still have the same rights as law abiding citizens. This is pure and utter crap.
When we have criminals that complain that they don't have enough access to the TV... or that they don't like the music that is played in the excercise yard... and people actually care, that's where prison stops being a deterrent. In many cases our prisons in the US are like resort homes for the down and disorderly. If we implemented the prison standards of many of the European or Asian countries, we most definitely woudl not need a death penalty. Fear of true criminal punishment conditions would be enough.
Also... it's interesting to read articles that constantly say... crime rates are down and yet prisons are still being continually overcrowded. Ummm... hello, put criminals in prison - crime rates go down... seems like a perfectly logical outcome to me. I can't understand how that escapes people...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 06:18 pm (UTC)*boggle* Um... Wow. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point. And I hope neither of us ever end up in prison and thus able to prove or disprove that point. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 06:29 pm (UTC)but, honestly, when I list luxuries like:
Cable TV
Internet Access
A bed
3 square meals
Laundry service
Library Access
Planned group activities
Supervised Excercise
Visits from friends and family
Mail service
and all paid for my you and me.
I'm not talking about a retirement home in Florida...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 06:56 pm (UTC)And seriously, would you like to see prisoners not have a bed? You're not picturing something like you sleep on, are you? Are you upset about them getting three meals a day? Mail?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:00 pm (UTC)It was my understanding that granding clemency was more of a personal choice, though hopefully one based on facts, not a cut-and-dry, black/white decision.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:09 pm (UTC)Of course I know they don't sleep on Sealy posturepedic... I imagine them on what I slept on when I was in Army basic training.. a wirey bunk with 2 sheets and a blanket. In fact that is sleeping better than I did when I was deployed to Bosnia in my sleepingbag and a cot for 7 months. It's not a tragedy to be uncomfortable... is, hmmm... a punishment!
I'm not upset about them getting meals... I'm upset about them having the audacity to complain about what's being served and people actually listening!!! These are criminals. They committed crimes.. they do not deserve to be picky and choosy over their diets. They do not deserve to be upset that the channel on the TV is something they don't like... They do not deserve to be mad at being only able to send one letter instead of 2... I'm upset that there are constantly stories about criminals that think they deserve something in Prison that I work hard for every day.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:13 pm (UTC)Book, libraries, newspapers and that can stay. Get an education while you have nothing else to do.. read something intelligent, learn to read, write, and anything else you failed to do growing up.
It is prison. Not a daycare center/campout.
When you're not learning. You should be working on a chain gang, digging ditches, making little rocks from bigger rocks, or some other labor intensive task. That's your exercise program.
Mail... you get mail if you've been good.
America is far to lax on the punishment of crimes. That's why there is so much of it. Why do we have "repeat offenders" its because their original sentence wasn't long enough.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:14 pm (UTC)IMO, the Death Penalty should only be used on repeat offenders, for the more violent crimes or VERY repeat offenders of lesser crimes that are just problems for society.
As it was, Stanley "Tookie" Williams, never admitted guilt, and therefore never repeanted or showed remorse.
Given that, the govenator, had little recorse, despite his attempts at redemption.
If Stanley had actually said I'm sorry and I know what I did was wrong, I really think his sentence would have been comuted to life without paroll.
-p
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:19 pm (UTC)You are awesome Thistle... no one else makes me think as much as you do.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:19 pm (UTC)That view on it is so simplistic it's almost criminal.
(I crack me up!)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 07:41 pm (UTC)You're talking about people, "innocent", "nice", or "otherwise".
No, they don't need to watch CSI, but they don't need to be chained to the wall by their ankles either.
I'm upset about them having the audacity to complain about what's being served and people actually listening!!! These are criminals. They committed crimes.. they do not deserve to be picky and choosy over their diets.
That depends what you mean. They have a right to demand healthy food. They don't have a right to be pissy because their pizza doesn't have their favorite toppings.
I'm upset that there are constantly stories about criminals that think they deserve something in Prison that I work hard for every day.
Everyone complains about stuff, everyone thinks they deserve more than they have. Look at the current mess on FFXI with everyone wanting this One New Shiny Toy. No one wants to wait on line, no one wants to take turns. That's how people are. Inside prison, outside prison, rich, poor. Everyone bitches. (The next book in the Everyone Poops series: Everyone Bitches!) If you think people in prison are having a happy, easy, good time, then I hope to end up in your prison if I ever break the law.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 09:44 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think complaining you don't like the toppings on your pizza (hypothetical) is over the top, but asking for your religious dietary restrictions to be followed it not. Ditto for being given a prosthesis so you don't have to wallow in your own feces.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-13 11:19 pm (UTC)I personally think that his dying sent more of a message to would-be gang kids than his book ever would.
Kids? Believe they're anything other than immortal? Or that they'll get caught if they do something wrong? Doesn't sound like most of the kids I know. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 06:40 pm (UTC)What published guidelines that appear readily available: http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/rights-restoration/California.pdf
As for the granting of clemency, several right to life websites and death penalty websites state that in the history of pardons in the US, no commutation of the death sentence has ever been granted for redemption. President Bush (as governor of Texas) refused to grant a pardon for a woman on death row who claimed that she had found God by stating that he was unable to determine her sincerity and would instead allow God to judge her.