Redstate

Thanks for bringing this up.  Do you have a link that goes back to the original source for your quote about the facts of the story?

Thought this had made it in the original post :0)

Here

is the purpose of the death penalty.

It's commendable that Tookie has used his interminable wait on death row to do the positive things he has done. Let that be a lesson to others who may find themselves on the same path that led Tookie to his current state - don't wait too long to do the good things you could do.

If the death penalty conviction appeals wasn't so long and drawn out, and seemingly even more so in California, then Tookie might never had the time to do those works that his advocates point to attempting to subvert the will of the people.

I say fire up sparky, we have a backlog here in CA.

Why is rahibilitation not the goal of our post-conviction justice system? Is it worth ending a life that seems to be contributing to society for something that happened 20 years ago? It's true that he would not have had the oppurtunity to turn it around were it not for appeals, but he has so it is a moot point. If anything, that the time allowed him to have a positive contribution seems to vindicate the notion that we shouldn't terminate their lives but try to enrich them instead.

Albert Lewis Owens

Tsai-Shen Yang

Yen-Yi Yang

Ye-Chen Lin

Tookie has never admitted his guilt or showed any kind of remorse for the murders.

You can never redeem yourself for murder. It does not matter how much time has passed and what you have done since. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder.

It doesn't bring them back, will it help the families? I think most studies are at best inconclusive but tend to conclude that it doesn't really ebb their remorse.

Why can't you redeem yourself for murder?

too little.

He's not sentenced to die for a burglary, manslaughter or chronic jaywalking. He's sentenced to die for callously taking the lives of five other human beings for his own shallow, selfish reasons.

The people have determined that type of crime is so heinous and crude that it deserves the punishment of death. There should be no leniency just because he's changed his ways on death row. Or has done some good works. He killed five people. The people of CA have spoken. Bless his soul. Now, gas him.

20 years ago. Is there an acceptable mechanism for letting them speak again given the new facts of his life?

Not revenge, justified punishment.

if the Governor feels compelled, he may commute his death sentence to life imprisonment.

Before that, the people's representatives have spoken in denying his appeals.

And you advocate what? The people continuing to support this cold blooded killer until he dies a natural death? Or do you feel he's paid his debt to society and his body of good works justifies his parole at this point? Are you only advocating for leniency in the case of Tookie? Or are you against the death penalty in general?

the definition of revenge:

"To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult)"

If it makes you feel better to call it justified punishment instead of justified revenge, fine. My question still is, what end does it serve and is it the best act for society at this juncture? Who is better served by putting him to death now?

I was just wondering whether there was such a mechanism or a point at which we would choose to let him continue the good work he is doing. You are right, the governor holds the power to do so. As i am not privy to all the information I don't want to make that judgemetn, but I would hope the governor would consider his current life as much as his past when making his decision.

As for the death penalty in general, I do have a systemic problem with it because of the potential for error and the relative cost (last time I saw statistics it cost more to go through the death penalty process, inclduing appeals etc., then to lock up the criminal for life).

Murder is the act of intentionally taking someone else's life. You have deprived that person of the right to do anything ever again. Why should you have the right to "make up for it" by doing some community service or laying off the killing for a while?

I am just asking if there is a point at which he ahs made up for it, or at least enough such that we don't deem it neccesary to intentionally take his life.

Revenge is not applicable here, as the families are NOT the ones imposing the death penalty, the state is.

The cost argument is weak IMO... much weaker than the error argument. Many things we do are expensive. There are cheaper ways to do just about everything. Any jail sentence can be made much less expensive by shortening it or by putting the criminal in a less secure facility. We don't make those kinds of decisions based on cost.

I sympathize a bit with the error argument, but I believe our system is failsafe enough at this point that it is a non-issue. Also, potential future victims should be factored into the equation. Some people are too dangerous to be kept alive.

Even if you put someone in jail for their entire life (assuming it is a state where that is possible), there is still the real possibility of escape. Criminals that are serving life sentences don't have much to lose with escape attempts. And there is no way you can build 100% escape proof facilities to keep them in.

but the better question is: Do you feel there is a point at which he has made up for it? and why you feel that way?

As previously stated, there is no way the murderer can make up for it. I don't care if he developed a cure for cancer from his jail cell. If we were talking securities fraud or shoplifting you may have a point. But we don't execute people for that.

the state from taking revenge? why would it only be applicable to the families?

that the life sentence argument isn't sound as many "lifers" end up murdering other inmates precisely because they have nothing to lose

is a relative one. I am not suggesting we should minimize cost, but if it is cheaper to keep him in a maximum security prison for life, what is the added benefit of killing him to justify the added cost (economics is my livelihood).

also, I don't know what the escape rate is, but how high can it be? I don't hear about enough fo them to think its that significant.

Finally, with regards to errors I may disagree. Particularly in cases from the past where we now refuse to do DNA testing. Or in any conviction resting on eye witness testimony alone.

"in return" - that would be the families returning the violence against the Williams. The state has the laws and imposes punishment. We don't have vigilante justice in this country.

the honest truth is I ahven't really though through it. I generally don't see much value in killing murderers myself, so I would imagine my threshold to be low on saying the merit surviving.

is not a abd idea, I'd bet that would be a far greater detterent than executing for murder (I'd hazzard to guess most murderes are more desperate and less rational than most shoplifters).

your view is noted, though I disagree.

is a crime against the state, not just relatives or friends of the deceased. As such, the punishment is still 'in return' for the act.

crime - an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

I think you are, for whatever reasons. Be they moral or economical. And there likely is no way to change your mind on this issue. This particular case just presents some added arguments for leniency which gives it added weight for the anti death penalty groups.

The number one reason for the sentence is that it is a punishment. The added benefit may be that it acts as a deterrent to other people committing the heinous act of murder.

If you don't think it has a deterrent factor, then consider the desperate measures those convicted to death will go to appeal the sentence.

If it was a detterent they would not wait untila fter the crime to work to to avoid punishment. I haven't seen a single statistical analysis back up the position that it is a detterent for murder.

On the other hand, leniency may encourage other death row inmates to clean up their lives before the final day. If it gives them a positive road to walk down to avoid being killed and leads them to cotnribute to society, is that a bad thing?

My faith tells me he can. Even if I believe I cannot.

It is clear it is a deterrent. There is no way you can prove it one way or the other. There's no statistical evidence that sentencing murders to having to watch a 90 minute educational movie instead of sending them to prison isn't more of a deterrent either.

The only evidence you need is all the effort people spend fighting for a life sentence over death. Not to mention the people who plead out just to have the death penalty taken off the table.

is not the main issue. It's only an added benefit if  capital punishment in fact does act as such. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

A death sentence is PUNISHMENT. It's a sentence that  says a person has committed a crime that is so anti-social, so detrimental to the rule of law and good order, that a death sentence is the elective course of the people. It says you have violated the social pact to such a degree you no longer belong within that society.

You and I are coming from really different places WRT this case, but I promised myself I wouldn't get into another death penalty thread here for awhile.  I'm glad to see the Williams case addressed, though, and appreciate you doing it.

look at the effect of changes in punishment rules on murder and attempted murder rates. Ideally you want to doth longitudinal and latitudinal analysis.

For a look at some examples you can check out Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A critical Review of the Econometric Literature, by Robert G. Hann 1976. Unfortunately I haven't really kept up with the ltierature in this area so I don't know what the more modern studies are.

If anything, your arguments logically suggest it is a lousy deterrent since the specter of the death penalty did not prevent (or deter if you will) them from murder.

I say we arrange the meeting.

it will certainly deter him from any future murders.

a death sentence on you would deter you from commiting future murders, so what?

I believe it is Jesus' perogative to make the arranges. By putting a man to death we blaspheme against the infinite forgiveness of the Christian god.

Glib retorts are unnecessary. I can come up with them myself.

Peace be with you.

try to dress up your personal preferences as theology.

Christianity, and Judaism for that matter, have always recognized the legitimate authority of the state to put criminals to death.

The fact that we do that has nothing to do with whether or not God grants them forgiveness.

and you were his next victim, you would see his prior execution for prior murders to have been beneficial.

There's no statute of limitations because we don't want people thinking they can succeed by hiding evidence for long enough to beat the statute.

How does executing a man contravene Christ's redemptive power? Isn't redemption only operative on death? Christ can still forgive or not if the State executes; the State cannot arrogate to itself the power to give or deny eternal forgiveness.

Odd religion, there.

can be said of preemptively killing anyone who then goes on to murder. If only we abort every fetus, imagine the potential murders we would stop?

the way executions generally can contravene redemption is that they artificially cut short the time a person has on this earth to come to Christ.  Whether that applies to Tookie Williams, I don't know.

Which was the statement in question.

I suppose you have a point, but then again, an imminent dance with the Reaper has a way of clarifying things, too.

I was referring to the statement I thought you should have made, not the one you actually did.  I'm a liberal, what can I say?

A man executed in a state of sin is beyond forgiveness. Killing a sinner therefore denies Christ's redemptive power time to work.

I cannot imagine forgiving a Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Nevertheless, my faith in Christ teaches me that given genuine contrition--una lacrimissa as Dante suggests--He is capable of such forgiveness. This is for me one of the greatest mysteries of Christ and one which American Christians seem generally to overlook in what I would suggest is a pessimistic zeal for punishment.

Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.

Peace.

don't believe in predestination or that God is all powerful.

We are all in a state of sin when we die. We know that.

It is sort of heretical to propose that your salvation depends upon you and not Christ or that Christ can redeem pretty much whomever he wishes.

A man executed in a state of sin is beyond forgiveness. Killing a sinner therefore denies Christ's redemptive power time to work.

Christ is not so limited. A man contemplating contrition, killed in mid-contemplation, might indeed be granted grace. Or not. Christ is not subject to your de novo review of his decisions. I'm also sure that even my Church has backed away from Limbo, and those children die by definition in a state of sin.

Incidentally, your statement, taken literally, closes the door on salvation for folks who are not Christian, and have denigrated Christ, but who have not actually heard or could have heard his Gospel. A curious position.

I cannot imagine forgiving a Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

Such a failure of the imagination is truly un-Christian.

Nevertheless, my faith in Christ teaches me that given genuine contrition--una lacrimissa as Dante suggests--He is capable of such forgiveness.

Yes, but the "but for" component is on your end; there is no limitation on the power of the Almighty.

This is for me one of the greatest mysteries of Christ and one which American Christians seem generally to overlook in what I would suggest is a pessimistic zeal for punishment.

Or alternatively, praying even for our condemned, we nevertheless make a prudential judgment to send the condemned to their Maker, praying for their souls and hoping for their salvation, even as we hope for our own. But you clearly have your own narrative running here.

Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.

And it is sometimes just to forward the target of that Vengeance to the Lord. I mean, four thousand years of Jewish and Christian teaching might be wrong, but I wouldn't put markers down on it.

 Forgiveness is not infinite. See Matthew 12: 31-32. Since I'm not a Christian it would be impertinent of me to lecture one on scripture, although I'm curious about Williams- to what does he ascribe his talents found in prison?  

The bliss of self-righteous ignorance even unto "Christian" capital punishment:

[Jewish law] make[s] it clear that the death penalty was only used in very rare cases. The Mishnah states that "A [court] that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: a [court] that puts a man to death even once in 70 years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the [court] none would ever have been put to death" (Mishnah, Makkot 1:10).

...

As such, the death penalty was effectively legislated out of existence. Today, the State of Israel only uses the death penalty for extraordinary crimes. The last - and only - execution in Israel took place in 1962 against convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.

Christians are divided on the issue of capital punishment--some are in favour, some are against it under all circumstances. As a matter of practice among Christians, there are two broad patterns. Firstly, there is a tendency for Christian opinions to match those of the countries they live in; many Christians based outside the USA are against capital punishment, while some Christians of largely American denominations are in favour of it. Often overlooked is the fact that virtually all of the mainline Christian churches in the United states have maintained official positions against the death penalty since the 1950s and early 1960s...Secondly, various Christian groups, including the more liberal members of the Roman Catholic Church, tend to oppose it while most conservative Protestant groups support it--exceptions to this rule include the Amish and Mennonites; they oppose the death penalty.

Pope John Paul II described capital punishment as part of a "culture of death". Many Roman Catholics, especially in America, tended to agree with his view, which is a clear testament to his influence over the Roman Catholic Church of his time. However, the Church as a whole is not completely opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances as a matter of doctrine; rather, John Paul II, as an individual, was opposed to it. Catholics are called to oppose the death penalty if the condemned can be successfully kept behind bars to protect soceity. If, however, the condemned poses a threat to the well-being of society and is not likely to be able to be kept behind bars then capital punishment is permissable. However, this last exception in the mondern day world seems extremely rare.

But it is my own fault for responding to you two. I should have learned by now that no good ever comes from it.

Peace.

Both citations from Wikipedia.

In trying to discuss Catholic theology based on a Wikipedia entry, and taking two data points and extrapolating the whole.

Have fun with that.

If you're incapable of having the discussion, don't start it. Please don't continue it through the use of blasphemy.

instead of the substance, whose incapable of having the discussion? I can't speak to the second entry but the first is an accurate repreentation of the jewish view of capital punishment.

</snort&gt

As I mentioned, is a, let's be generous, incomplete take on Catholic teaching in this matter. The first, admittedly not my area of expertise, may or may not go back the full 4,000 years to which I was originally referring, and at any rate, doesn't say that the death penalty was forbidden under Jewish law.

to follow the discussion you would that any substance that was presented, and it was a very thin gruel, was dealt with.

If you look further you'll see that the second entry in this post, BTW you do know how wikipedia is compiled don't you?, actually refutes his entire contention.

and not adding a whole lot to it.

To the several people upthread who referred to the Christian points of view in the debate, I strongly recommend this article by Joseph Bottum. My own feelings are similar to RetNAV's. As a Christian, I found much food for thought in the Bottum article, a shorter version of which recently appeared in First Things.

This may be "old hat" here but that doesn't diminish the importance of the debate, does it?

I believe this is an issue, not necessarily

for politics, but for rational people to talk over and debate from all sides

that being said push the meds!

I didn't say "old hat," I said "old as history." In no way did I mean to diminish the debate or devalue the arguments presented here (except for the obviously nonserious ones).

I do think that capital punishment, like abortion, presents an issue on which no agreement is ultimately possible. We can't debate our way to agreement because the first principles are in dispute.

If you know the story of "Dead Man Walking," you can see the problem. There is a halfway-decent movie version which I recommend (in which the nun who wrote the original story, Helen Prejean, appears in an easy-to-miss cameo). I had a minor personal involvement in the opera version, by Jake Heggie.

There will always be a case so evil and so depraved that the offended blood's heartbreaking call from the ground is almost impossible to deny. And at this point, the decision has to made whether to obey. And the heart of each person will speak, and the reason will be silent.

is on children who learn that society values life so much that anyone that takes life unjustifiably forfeits their's. This is the lesson taught in the Old Testament.

I also think that the death penalty does prevent many abusive men from killing their wives and girlfriends.

and deters many would be killers who do prefer to live even if in prison.

I do not think the deterrent effect can be tested due top all the other factors and since one cannot go back in time and see how many more murders would have occurred.

so common sense will have to do

this may be a foreign concept to some libs

... you should show us, if you can, evidence that the likelihood of committing future murders of those who have already committed the crime of murder and those who have not are equal.

If you can do that, I might consider supporting your otherwise absurd contention that the two positions elaborated above are "equally logical".

statistical likelihoods but individual cases. It is more statistically likely that a poor black male will commit murder than a rich white female; does that make it somehow mroe okay to preemptively kill the poor black male?

We do not kill people for some theoretical crime they may commit becuase of their demographic, whatever it is.

... that the notion that executing murderers prevents them from committing more murders was "equally [as] logical" as the idea of preemptively executing fetuses in order to prevent their future murders.

I refuted that point, specifically with respect to equality. In what way did you find my rebuttal non-responsive?

If you'll take a moment to abandon your absurd and offensive comparison, we can continue discussing this particular case.

the statistical likelihood of the future event occurin is not relevant to the moral consideration of the statement (as should have been clear from the poor black vs. rich white example).

As a rule we do not punish on the basis of future potential crimes of an individual as a result of statistical likelihood. A recent study showed that about 1% of released murderers were rearrested for homicide in the next three years. It does not matter if only .05% of everyone else will be arrested for homicide, we don't punish the 99 for the future actions of 1.

... related to the "logic" of the practices, not their morality.

You shouldn't chide me for failing to respond to points you haven't made or to ideas you haven't expressed.

You are attacking as illogical an aspect that is not a relevant premise of my argument, as such it does not attack the logic of the argument. If I did not make the premises clear enough I apologize.

for the last comment seems the champaign and orange juice(s) got the better of me that morning.