Comments on: Tookie Williams & The Question of Redemption http://donklephant.com/2005/12/13/tookie-williams-the-question-of-redemption/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jeremy http://donklephant.com/2005/12/13/tookie-williams-the-question-of-redemption/comment-page-1/#comment-4567 Jeremy Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:33:52 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1542#comment-4567 I think I'd do what that outgoing governor did a while back and grant blanket clemancy or at the very least a moratorium. The problem is that I'd make that clear during the hypothetical campaign leading up to this hypothetical situation and so I'd never get to the point of being able to do this in a state where the death penalty still existed. Like I said, it's about us, not about the criminal. I think I’d do what that outgoing governor did a while back and grant blanket clemancy or at the very least a moratorium. The problem is that I’d make that clear during the hypothetical campaign leading up to this hypothetical situation and so I’d never get to the point of being able to do this in a state where the death penalty still existed. Like I said, it’s about us, not about the criminal.

]]> By: Denise Best http://donklephant.com/2005/12/13/tookie-williams-the-question-of-redemption/comment-page-1/#comment-4556 Denise Best Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:21:33 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1542#comment-4556 Jeremy, For the sake of argument, let's say you could have been "Governor for a Day" when the decision was being made to grant or deny a clemency plea to Tookie Williams. What would have been your criteria, your litmus test, for the decision? Jeremy,

For the sake of argument, let’s say you could have been “Governor for a Day” when the decision was being made to grant or deny a clemency plea to Tookie Williams.

What would have been your criteria, your litmus test, for the decision?

]]> By: ford4x4 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/13/tookie-williams-the-question-of-redemption/comment-page-1/#comment-4551 ford4x4 Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:29:58 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1542#comment-4551 <blockquote> mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr) n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. </blockquote> The key word I notice in the definition above is UNLAWFUL. Since the state has sanctioned capital punishment, it cannot be considered UNLAWFUL, and therefore can't be murder. It may be immoral in the opinion of some, but it is not murder. Personally, I would have no problem with some of the other methods you mention being used on some of the people on death row. They <i>deserve</i> for the things they've done. But even I could see those would be inhumane, and we should keep ourselves above that level. Back to Denise's point.... The problem I see with "redemption" is that someone given the death penalty shouldn't even be around long enough to earn redemption. This guy sat on death row for 25 years! Had he been executed within a year, the question would have never even come up.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.

The key word I notice in the definition above is UNLAWFUL. Since the state has sanctioned capital punishment, it cannot be considered UNLAWFUL, and therefore can’t be murder. It may be immoral in the opinion of some, but it is not murder.

Personally, I would have no problem with some of the other methods you mention being used on some of the people on death row. They deserve for the things they’ve done. But even I could see those would be inhumane, and we should keep ourselves above that level.

Back to Denise’s point….
The problem I see with “redemption” is that someone given the death penalty shouldn’t even be around long enough to earn redemption. This guy sat on death row for 25 years! Had he been executed within a year, the question would have never even come up.

]]> By: Jeremy http://donklephant.com/2005/12/13/tookie-williams-the-question-of-redemption/comment-page-1/#comment-4542 Jeremy Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:07:00 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1542#comment-4542 That strikes me as a curiously American viewpoint on capital punishment. State sanctioned murder is not about the criminal, it is about the state. It is not something that the criminal "deserves" and that s/he should only be saved from if there is some redeeming factor. It is something that the state chooses to inflict on him/her and so the moral question to ask is not about the culpability of the criminal (which in these situations is often close to absolute) but about the morality of the state's actions. To see why this is so, ask the question "why stop at death"? Why not torture? Why not an inhumane execution? Why not hanging drawing and quartering? Once you inflict intentional, premeidated murder on the criminal there is no sound moral reason for stopping there. You've gone into a whole new ballpark from "mere" imprisonment, you're interfering directly with the bodily processes of the criminal. I wrote more on this <a href="http://modleft.blogspot.com/2005/12/picture-of-week.html" rel="nofollow">recently</a> in the context of an Australian man hanged in Singapore for drug trafficking. In short, I think your question is flawed because it assumes that the state is justified in inflicting the punishment and that escape from it must be earned by the criminal. That's the wrong way of looking at it. That strikes me as a curiously American viewpoint on capital punishment. State sanctioned murder is not about the criminal, it is about the state. It is not something that the criminal “deserves” and that s/he should only be saved from if there is some redeeming factor. It is something that the state chooses to inflict on him/her and so the moral question to ask is not about the culpability of the criminal (which in these situations is often close to absolute) but about the morality of the state’s actions. To see why this is so, ask the question “why stop at death”? Why not torture? Why not an inhumane execution? Why not hanging drawing and quartering? Once you inflict intentional, premeidated murder on the criminal there is no sound moral reason for stopping there. You’ve gone into a whole new ballpark from “mere” imprisonment, you’re interfering directly with the bodily processes of the criminal. I wrote more on this recently in the context of an Australian man hanged in Singapore for drug trafficking.

In short, I think your question is flawed because it assumes that the state is justified in inflicting the punishment and that escape from it must be earned by the criminal. That’s the wrong way of looking at it.

]]>