Goodbye Tookie Tuesday
Stanley "Tookie" Williams is responsible for co-founding what is now one of the largest criminal street gangs in the world. Even in my own little county, there are children dying and killing in the name of the organization planned and built by Tookie. Since his conviction in 1981 for murdering four people during two robberies, Tookie has done the following:
Maintained his innocence
Written a few poorly selling "anti-gang" children's books
Spoken out against gang violence
Devised rarely used "peace protocols" for gangs
Claimed (on his website) to have saved one hundred and fifty thousand lives
Been nominated for several humanitarian awards (easy), but never received one (hard)
Refused to "rat out" his former Crips associates
Nothing Tookie has ever done justifies his execution. Nor does anything he has ever done justify clemency. But the execution of anyone is still wrong, and for several reasons having nothing to do with Tookie's supposedly redemptive post-conviction life. Two reasons which are often overlooked, and which have never been addressed in a published appellate opinion are outlined briefly below.
The Death Penalty is Impermissibly Retributive
Capital punishment is constitutionally permissible only if it measurably contributes to deterrence, incapacitation, or retribution. Coker v. Georgia (1977) 433 U.S. 584. The fact that the death penalty has never been proven to have any deterrent effect or to incapacitate any more effectively than life imprisonment has never mattered, however, because few would doubt that the death penalty significantly contributes to the goal of retribution, whether or not that goal is morally justifiable.
The problem for the massed would-be killers of Tookie and his Californian ilk is that, while the United States Constitution permits states to impose predominantly retributive punishments, the state of California has chosen to prohibit such punishments. In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745 (holding that a punishment "motivated by a desire for vengeance" is "not permitted in view of modern theories of penology"); also People v. Cowsar (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 578, 580 (citing Estrada and rejecting retribution as a legitimate end for any punishment).
The Death Penalty is Religious Speech
The concept of execution as "punishment" assumes that the condemned man is able to experience a loss as a result of his punishment. That would only be the case if (1) there is an afterlife, and (2) life after death is worse than life before. Thus the death penalty is predicated upon the judaeo-christian doctrine of a merit-based afterlife, in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental advancement or endorsement of religion.
********
America is the only nation which executes primarily out of revenge. (Other executing nations, unhindered by "due process of law," are able to also reap the deterrent benefit of swift, frequent, and public executions.)
When we kill out of vengeance, we place ourselves below the most despicable of the condemned. Only when the executions stop may we dare to call ourselves civilized.
posted by brainmarket @ 2:37 PM
9 Comments:
It's an excellent start to the post; the brief synopsis you post of what Tookie's done is pretty good.
I understand the argument as to retribution; I don't think you're right, but I understand.
At that point you hit your head on the corner of your desk. Alternatively, you are not allowed to smoke evidence in juvenile cases.
The death penalty must be religiously based?
Consider two things:
1. Assume no afterlife. It's easy if you try. Nothing to kill or die for. But your life's over if you fry. Being alive is something that you enjoy. Not being alive removes that enjoyment. That's punishment.
I don't see bands of atheists leaping off cliffs. Atheists like being alive, too.
2. Some of your LWOP folk like to commit or arrange murders and other crimes. It is hard to kill people when you are dead, despite the scientific evidence provided by Patrick Swayze in Ghost, or by various George Romero movies.
How death is a religious punishment.... the mind boggles. Under some views, if Stanley's a good Christian/Movementarian/whatever, he gets a pass into heaven upon death, even with his pesky murdering problem. It's a secular penalty. If it has non-secular effects, those fall where they may.
(I also think the death penalty serves as a light deterrent; evidence on that issue is mixed.)
--JRM
"It’s not his fault that he can’t believe
It’s not his fault that he can’t behave
Society made him go astray
Perhaps if we’re nice he’ll go away." - Only a Lad, Oingo Boingo
One thing I always find interesting is the argument that the death penalty provides "closure" to victim's friends, families, etc. . . While there are no large scale studies, almost all anectodal accounts are negative or ambivalent. The myth that victims will feel that justice has been served has no basis in fact. Most studies on similar subjects indicate that forgiveness allows families to move on with their lives, whereas the lengthy process of a criminal case causes them infintely more pain.
I've known two mothers who had children murdered simply for being in the wrong place when gang members decided to start shooting. One mother forgave her son's murderers and became part of a movement that greatly diminshed gang violence in her area. Another could not and became unable to work.
People are fed with this idea of closure and these days seem to feel a sense of disloyalty to the dead loved one if not pressing for the most severe penalty.
Why do we press these suffering people to accept a benefit they are not going to receive?
jrm:
execution DOES remove the enjoyment of being alive
and strangely, most atheists DO fear death, perhaps because their feeble brains cannot grasp the cold logic of non-existence
the issue, though, is how can the condemned man experience the loss of life, other than prospectively by suffering some kind of god-fearing (or illogical atheist) pre-death anxiety?
Is it possible to punish a paraplegic by pinching his toes?
Ok, me and my illogical self fear death...as an atheist. I fear not existing (albeit as I know it to be now) I fear pain as well, (except when getting pierced or tattooed), and I am conscious of my existence and the fact that my existence will cease (as I know it) and that scares me. That does not make the death penalty a theist one, with some presupposed afterlife, although the thought does cross the minds of its executors (pardon the pun). It is a contained punishment,punishment to any being, as I know our dogs fear death (or perhaps pain) yet it is assumed that their sentience does not allow for consciousness of death oh fuck it I just think youre wrong. But Tookie's an idiot. And under present law should be punished accordingly.
juniper:
are you saying revenge is part of "closure"?
That's what prosecutor's offices are selling. Change the word "revenge" to "justice."
Was it today? Tonight? God, the dealth penalty is so wrong.
It is wrong indeed.
VERY WELL PRESENTED ARGUEMENT!
Post a Comment
<< Home