California Governor Denies Clemency

WARNING: This post on my part is going to wax philosophick and religious -- those who might consider such an analysis difficult -- please consider reading another post instead.

IMO, the death penalty (which we haven't had in Canada from some years) seems, above all else, to provide a societal catharsis, allowing a certain portion of a society to believe that the State is "Dealing Out Justice".

Again, IMO, it serves to assuage a human need for Order within society. As such, it is a kind of psychological band-aid for the survivors, and really has very little to do (ultimately) with the particular convict.

If one goes even further -- one can look at it as a kind of conciliatory sacrifice. For a very brief moment, certain members of society can cast the sins of man onto the condemned's soul, and when that condemned's life is terminated, with him go those sins -- if even for a very brief flash. "He's a murdering scum," they may say. "He's vile," they may think. "He represents everything bad about society and that bad will go with him to Hell," they may mean (without always knowing that this is what they mean). In this respect, the Condemned serves as a temporary Christ figure -- albeit a rather distorted one (since Christ sinned not but was executed anyway).

Ah, yes. Christ. Touchy subject -- especially as Christmas draws near -- a celebration of Birth rather than Death. But such it is. When Christians think of Christ, born unto us -- we inevitably cannot escape, even as we celebrate His birth -- the final outcome of His brief life on Earth.

We sin -- Christ paid once and for all for those who would believe on Him. This concept is almost as baffling as the mystery of the Trinity: it's very difficult to grasp fully that someone who had sinned not even once was condemned for our sins, and that He rose again, conquering death for those who would believe on Him -- even those who denied they ever knew Him as they carried Him off to be tried by the Romans.

Even those who are not Christian by faith must wonder how it could be that a good Rabbi would be crucified amongst thieves and murderers, disowned and ridiculed for ... for what?

For those who do believe on Him, that he was God incarnate, having taken flesh to tabernacle amongst man, having sinned not, but offered up for the sins of others ... might ask: did He also die for the truly condemned? Before His act of self-sacrifice, we were all truly condemned.

The best answer to that question came from His own lips as he paid the price. He said very little on the Cross at Calvary. One of His final acts in the life He held (before He was resurrected, that is): he promised the condemned man beside him (who confessed a belief on Him) that he, too, would surely attain paradise with Him.

And that is where, IMO, the distorted catharsis that occurs when capital punishment is taken as some kind of societal catharsis for all of society's ills goes awry. The sins of mankind are tossed on the condemned -- with the vain hope that perhaps they will descend to Hell with the condemned -- when, in fact, the sins of mankind were already cast on someone who had the power to rightfully accept them and abolish death.

So can a Christian reconcile the death penalty with such knowledge? I personally cannot. In my view -- Christ already paid the price for this man -- as regards a life for a life. Permanent incarceration to protect society? Perhaps -- very likely perhaps yes.

Death for death? No.

I cannot reconcile that with how I understand Calvary's message. Others seem able, so perhaps my views on this are flawed. I do believe in personal conviction, however, and I am personally convicted that the death penalty is contrary to what it hopes to achieve. So that's where I stand on such things. Perhaps in a very tiny minority in today's world. Such it is.

A poem further to the whole notion of undeserved grace:

http://members.shaw.ca/qtj/writing/poetry/Remember.html

I know return you to your regularly scheduled societal catharsis.

 

My understanding is that the execution was basically political. The Romans didn't like rebellion and would ruthlessly try to stamp it out whenever they could. Jesus was accused of inciting insurrection, that and being in custody, was enough to seal his fate in those ruthless times. (Since your question was probably rhetorical, I guess that I shouldn't have bothered answering.

 

Apparently you didn't watch the media witnesses' news conference last night. A number of the witnesses described Tookie's demeanor as "intimidating". Ms. Cosby was by no means the only one to say that.

The subject interested the assembled reporters enough that they subsequently questioned the San Quentin Warden about it when he appeared. The Warden said that Tookie didn't seem to him to have been trying to be intimidating, but that individuals unfamiliar with the prison environment and with how prisoners habitually behave might have interpreted his demeanor that way.

I didn't see the execution, obviously, but I'd guess that Tookie was trying to maintain his dignity. And in prison, that's probably tied into the whole alpha-male thing.

 

On the contrary, I watched them live. It is from those very testimonials that I got every last bit of what I wrote here.

The only ones who said that, if you noticed, were those from notoriously conservative publications, news channels/networks, etc. That was my point. Compare and contrst Cosby's (and the guy from the FOX NEWS CHANNEL's) accounts with those from... say... for example... KQED or even the Sacramento Bee. The conservatives tried to put a spin on it that others did not notice or would not confirm. That's all I was pointing out.

 

Yeah, there was that, plus the two liquor stores he knocked over....

 

From a media witness: Witness to an Execution

 

Perhaps it's just my take on the matter -- but frankly -- if he did fight death to the end -- he was being a human being. I don't fault anyone for not going gently into the good night.

I find it odd that it would be held against anyone that they'd not go "stoically."

Society has a pretty messed up way of looking at it.

IMO.

 

Thank you for the civility with which all of you have been sharing your strongly held views. It's an interesting and challenging read so far. I really appreciate it.

 

I read that article, and I am shocked. It is brutality. I don´t defend the person, I am sure he is a monster, but, I think, a life sentence would have served the same purpose. This is how Camus put it.

“Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murderers, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated... can be compared.”

 

I think it's tied to that whole human being thing -- not just prison's alpha males.

Does society expect men to go broken into their own death?

Does a last minute show of complacency in the face of one's own final stroke somehow make it more palatable to the masses?

These are scary questions.

I would consider it very, very odd that a man, knowing that his time is absolutely and irrevocably near, with his still being in sound physical health, would not cry out at least once, or strain against the straps, or cry a tear, or look around in "defiance." The man here was obviously not suicidal, not ready to die. Whatever his deeds while on Earth -- he held onto his own life as if immortality had been placed into his heart.

That's what physically healthy human beings tend to do: hold onto life as if time immemorial has been placed into their hearts. They seek to live every minute, to preserve their own life. To break that out of a man so that he goes "meekly" -- is to deny the last battle -- is to try to counter what is built into the creature. And, IMO -- to expect that human spirit to be broken at that last minute is pure savagery -- and it is not the role of the state to play at being savage.

It's a dichotomy: to allow a man that last dignity even though the ultimate fate is set in stone. He may struggle to hold on, but cannot -- that is guaranteed.

Yes, I know that some feel that those who cared not for the dignity of their victims deserve no dignity in return. There is a certain amount of human nobility in allowing others what they would not necessarily allow others in the same situation. This is what (at least as an attempt, if not successful overall) separates a society seeking a form "ultimate justice" from a pack of murderers -- the ability to carry out such things without falling to the level of those they punish.

Why are "spiritual counselors" offered to such condemned at their last hour? For whose comfort and dignity that? Why "last words"? We know (societally) that such ought to be offered, even the condemned. We don't care to know what goes on between the spiritual counselor and the condemned in that last act of confession ... but we (society) offer it still.

We do this because we know that (even though some say otherwise) a human life is being taken. And we still (as a general rule) have high respect for the value of all human life.

Dichotomy of dichotomies.

This stuff is too deep for me to ponder further today.

 

One useful piece of information that came out of the Tookie circus is the nomination process for the Nobel Peace Prize.

It turns out that your humble writer, David Boyd, is a qualified nominator. (As a university rector)

Right now I’m leaning towards Vince McMahon of the World Wresting Federation for bringing the “Iron Sheik” and the mad Russian Nikolai Volkoff to the United States but I’m open to suggestions.


(Nobelprize.org)

 

Can't you nominate yourself?

Speaking of Tookie Williams, do you have any feel for how many Taft grads end up in criminal law? I'd bet it's a goodly fraction.

 

Tookie a real fine fellow who during 1979 did not mind scattering the souls of a few people with a shotgun. So now some want to use him as a benchmark against captial punishment....real good choice, heck why not Christ, afterall he too was executed or is it simply to hard to square the love for everyone executed to those who dont always fit a personal political agenda.....damn.
Williams was a predatory killing machine, he deserved much worse.
Anti-captial punishment is something of a oddity, many who subscribe to the theroy would have use go to sleep in a room and do nothing while a man was murdering a third in the bed next to us. So now we have become so consumed in seeking that evasive utopian society that we treat victim and aggressor alike? Once again,....damn. I hope hell burns a little brighter with Tookie!
Gavin

 

No one is advocating doing nothing about murderers. And no one is suggesting treating the victims and the aggressors alike. These are false arguments.

Some do feel the pre-meditated destruction of a human being without the need for self-defense is state-sanctioned murder. How was the public threatened by Williams while he sat in prison?

Yes, Tookie Williams was an unsympathetic example, and yes, the Governor was probably right not to single Williams out for clemency. But neither circumstance is a rational argument in favor of capital punishment. Neither is a distorted straw man like the one posted above.

There is no need to kill more people. Period. It serves society not one whit, and revenge is a bitter dish.

But I am refreshed to see that revenge continues to be the only rationale offered up in this thread. Good, because it is the only defensible one.

 

Dr. Douglas,

I think that what bothers me isn't the death of the convict. We ALL die eventually, after all.

But we DON'T all have the experience of KILLING someone, especially in the coldest of blood.

I don't like this. I don't like what it says about our society. I don't like the coarsening effect it has on our sense of empathy.

 

Where your argument falls down is when you characterize the death penalty as "state sanctioned murder." In carrying out the death penalty, society is doing no more than defending itself against animals who obviously cannot be expected to honor the social contract to respect other people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

 

Permanent incarceration already does that, so killing him is not necessary to provide that protection.

No one was threatened by Tookie Williams' incarceration. He wasn't going anywhere. If he did, it would be through the negligence of the state prison system. Hardly sufficient reason for killing a man: he might slip through our fingers, so let's kill him. If that was really true, we'd have to kill all inmates who pose a future threat when, in fact, the vast majority of them are returned to the streets.

Someone convicted of assault and battery is a much bigger threat to society: that person's getting out someday. Again, Tookie Williams wasn't going anywhere.

No, this is about exacting revenge. Fine, if that's someone's stance. But dressing it up as something else is disingenuous.

 

I agree. Hence, my comment, "It soils us all."

I have no sympathy for Tookie Williams. He was murdering scum, and I'm not at all convinced he was remorseful. This is about killing people we don't have to kill.

It isn't about the dead inmate. It is about us.

 

What's wrong with killing people? That's not a rhetorical question. What's wrong with it?

The kind of answers that people give reveal the philosophical presuppositions that they are using.

I made an argument in the other thread (which promptly died) that revenge is essentially moral. What it does is demonstrate that acts indeed have consequences. The death penalty demonstrates that ultimate acts have ultimate consequences.

There's a principle that punishments must fit the crime. If we accept that principle, then presumably it's true at the top end as well as at the bottom.

After all, isn't that what all the religious mythology about divine judgement (and doctrines of karma, for that matter) are all about? Evil acts do have their consequences, if not in this life, then in the next.

I think that the death penalty can be defended on pragmatic grounds. By 'pragmatic', I mean arguing not in terms of the inherent moral principle involved (see my remarks above), but instead in terms of whether punshment in general and the death penalty in particular work in furthering some other social end.

One defense is deterrance. I'll speculate that if the "death" penalty was actually executed in a predictable and timely fashion, if murderers had a realistic expectation of being caught, convicted, sentenced and executed within a relatively short period of time (not 26 years), probably more potential killers would connect the consequences with the crime. Murder would be conceptualized in people's minds as a form of suicide.

People conceptualize jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge as suicide because it predictably ends in immediate death. But people don't think of sky-diving as suicide because death isn't the typical result. It actually appeals to adventurers (just like murder). California has had 12 executions in the last generation. How many murders has California seen during that time?

Another defense is that deterrent or not, death is a very simple and cost effective way of eliminating social predators once we have them. Just put them down. There's absolutely zero recidivism and if you don't warehouse them on "death row" for decades on end, society saves the high cost of their prison confinement.

I suspect that some people reading this will object to my talking about putting killers down as if they were animals. But that's a moral objection, not a pragmatic one.

If we center our rhetoric on moral arguments, then vengeance can stand on its own. But if we dismiss moral argument and insist on pragmatic justifications, then how can we appeal to humanity when we are talking about rendering criminals physically incapable of crime?

After all, Islamic-style judicial mutilation is probably justifiable on pragmatic grounds. It creates a sobering deterrent effect. It dramatically reduces the tremendous cost of prison systems. And there's the simple fact that disabled men make less effective criminals, which addresses recidivism and public safety. One can easily argue that it would work. It's the purely moral aspect, the impression that it isn't humane to cut off hands and put out eyes, that turns Western stomachs. But that's a moral principle, it's not hard-nosed pragmatism.

I'll conclude by saying that the fact that both sides in this debate move so easily and so inconsistently between pragmatic and moral justifications, without any awareness that they are doing so, suggests that all this high-toned intellectual rhetoric is ultimately just that, rhetoric. Everyone is going with their gut, then trying to justify it after the fact.

 

"Make the punishment fit the crime."

Oh yes; the criminal justice principal closest to the heart of the Mikado. Of course, Gilbert and Sullivan used the expression as SATIRE.

You are really talking about proportionality, (actually, "cardinal" proportionality.) "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" by which we meant that claiming a life for an eye was forbidden.

But proportionality in our system does not survive the slightest careful scrutiny...how, for example, can anyone claim that a term of three years' incarceration is properly proportionate to the offense of aggravated battery? There IS NO logical connection between the two.

But taking a life, even for a life, also is not logical. How do you adjust the execution, the taking, to be "proportionate" to the offense? Do you torture the torture-murderer to death? What about a child killer? You cannot kill him in his own childhood; besides, at best, his life might "make up for" his act in taking the child's life but what about the awful damage he did to the victim's parents? Shall we also execute the murderer's child?

No; this is about blind rage and revenge and the power of society to determine in a completely arbitrary fashion what the "tariff" will be for a given offender and offense. Capital punishment satisfies blood lust, nothing else. It is nonsense to speak of "justice" in this connection.