Tweet
Stanley "Tookie" Williams was convicted of 4 murders in California and his date with the Grim Reaper grows near. But alot of people want the Guv to grant him clemency based on allegations the trial was less than conclusive and the work Williams has done since in jail, 9 books, etc., to reduce violence.
If he's guilty I wouldn't be too upset at his demise
but that "if" doesn't make me feel too comfortable. "If" he's innocent and we kill him, negligent homicide is still a sin in my book. It's bad enough we cage people who are innocent without making our sin worse by killing them, but is there additional reason for clemency? Redemption? If he is working to redeem himself, assuming he is guilty of course, should we allow the process to continue?
It would appear that he is a positive force now inspite of what he may have been and killing him would kinda defeat the notion of "rehabilitation" which is a stated goal of the legal system. How far would you go? What if Saddam was allowed a decade to redeem himself and by all appearances did so? Clemency for him too?
Since I think much of life is about sin and redemption, I lean toward clemency. We see plenty of sin and not enough redemption... But if he's guilty, he murdered 4 people! Letting him live at all seems unfair to his victims, he'd likely be dead if they had successfully defended themselves.
On a sidenote, I was watching the actor Mike Farrell (MASH) debate this with Sean Hannity and Hannity pointed out how many of those opposed to the death penalty are pro choice on abortion. Is that hypocrisy? Opposing the death penalty means opposing the state killing people, for hypocrisy to apply the DP opponent would have to support the state aborting people, true? And on another level babies cannot be compared to people convicted of murder.
And yet many people dismiss pro lifers who support the DP based on the rationale that killing a murderer means one cannot be pro life.
If he's guilty I wouldn't be too upset at his demise
but that "if" doesn't make me feel too comfortable. "If" he's innocent and we kill him, negligent homicide is still a sin in my book. It's bad enough we cage people who are innocent without making our sin worse by killing them, but is there additional reason for clemency? Redemption? If he is working to redeem himself, assuming he is guilty of course, should we allow the process to continue? It would appear that he is a positive force now inspite of what he may have been and killing him would kinda defeat the notion of "rehabilitation" which is a stated goal of the legal system. How far would you go? What if Saddam was allowed a decade to redeem himself and by all appearances did so? Clemency for him too?
Since I think much of life is about sin and redemption, I lean toward clemency. We see plenty of sin and not enough redemption... But if he's guilty, he murdered 4 people! Letting him live at all seems unfair to his victims, he'd likely be dead if they had successfully defended themselves.
On a sidenote, I was watching the actor Mike Farrell (MASH) debate this with Sean Hannity and Hannity pointed out how many of those opposed to the death penalty are pro choice on abortion. Is that hypocrisy? Opposing the death penalty means opposing the state killing people, for hypocrisy to apply the DP opponent would have to support the state aborting people, true? And on another level babies cannot be compared to people convicted of murder.
And yet many people dismiss pro lifers who support the DP based on the rationale that killing a murderer means one cannot be pro life.
Comment