December 08, 2005
Clemency
As the debate over Tookie Williams' death sentence has roiled, I've hesitated to publicly register my opinion. I've shied from the dangers of using my experience as the daughter of a murder victim as a moral trump card. And yet the classic hypothetical in the capital punishment debate is "What would you want if a member of your own family had been killed?"
Since childhood I've been able to answer this question without pause. I would not want whoever murdered my own father killed. I have chosen to find my own ways of reaching resolution and peace without calling for revenge. I believe threats to society should live out their days behind bars, and that horrifying crimes deserve just punishment. But I would never want blood on my hands.
I want to say this with absolute respect and caring for others who have lost family members and friends to murder. It is a harrowing experience those untouched by murder cannot fully understand. The daughter of one of Stanley Tookie Williams' victims, Albert Owens, has said she wants Williams executed. Her brother wants to see his father's murderer live, granted he continues to live in prison. These are deeply personal feelings to be accorded the utmost empathy. But capital punishment is not a personal decision; it defines not an individual's moral stance, but a society's. And as the execution date nears, I am in absolute agreement with this Los Angeles Times editorial, published in October:
"STANLEY "TOOKIE" WILLIAMS is a charismatic symbol of what's wrong with the death penalty — and of what's wrong with the debate about the death penalty. His story of sin and redemption powerfully illustrates the unfairness of capital punishment. But to argue that capital punishment is unjust for some defendants is to concede that it may be acceptable for others.
The reason to oppose capital punishment has to do with who we are, not who death row inmates are. The death penalty is inappropriate in all situations because it is unbefitting of a civilized society. Williams' case, though poignant, is irrelevant to this argument . . .
California, which has executed only 11 people since 1976, should give up on capital punishment altogether, like 12 U.S. states and most of what is often referred to as the "civilized world." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should cancel Williams' execution, scheduled for Dec. 13, and Williams should spend the rest of his days in jail. So should everyone else on death row — even those who haven't had their lives turned into a TV movie. "
UPDATE: It has been difficult for me to read the coverage of Stanley "Tookie" Williams's execution, not because I believe his life should have been spared--although, as a death penalty abolitionist, I do--but because I feel the full horror of the murders he committed has been lost in the hoopla over his purported redemption. It seems I read only of two camps: Those who want state-sanctioned vengeance, and those who believe he was a hero. I do not believe he was a hero. I can picture the reality of the murders he committed only too clearly. I wish the media would clear space in this debate for those remain unconvinced of Williams' redemption and yet oppose state execution. I believe the deepest argument against the death penalty acknowledges the full horror and pain of a murderer's actions--and yet still chooses not to kill in revenge.
Posted by Rachel at December 8, 2005 04:14 PM
Comments
Well written and I agree.
Posted by: Tony Fischer at December 8, 2005 09:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
