I just can't get this story off my mind. It's haunting me.
What are some of your thoughts on the execution this morning of Stanley Tookie Williams, the former leader of the Crips who allegedly was reformed in prison?
I'm curious to see how Christians are coming down on this issue after the circus surrounding the imminent death of Terri Shiavo last year.
Maybe we can get a good little discussion going here today. I'm at work and need frequent breaks...
29 comments:
Guilty? Sure. Deserving of death? OK.
He should not have been killed.
He could ahve done some good with what years he had left. I always believe that.
Certainly I am not for releasing him unto the public. Society needs to be protected from people who do harm. His legacy is awful.
I just don't think Jesus is in the busniness of killing people. Redemption is a better hope than death.
Fajita gets the conversation kicked off nicely. In order for this to qualify as a true "conversation", however, more of you must weigh in with your opinions.
I'll weigh in with mine once some more folks have commented.
Thanks, Justin. I'll weigh in now. I'm with you that government does not exist to make people Christian, but we're not really talking about making people Christians here. We're talking about whether or not Christians should support the ending of a life that committed a crime almost 30 years ago and has, by all appearances, changed his life.
I've got to say that I'm with Fajita on this one. The guy should still be alive. If ever there was a time to oppose the death penalty as a Christian, this was it. I'm somewhat saddened that more pro-life people weren't protesting outside San Quentin last night. Instead, it was all the "liberal nut-jobs" - the pacifists, Democrats, African Americans. I've heard lots of Conservatives say "life is life" in reference to a host of issues - stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, etc.
I don't hear many saying that about inmates on death row, even those who have gone through a life change.
I know what you're thinking, Justin - this guy was guilty. He screwed up. Really bad. Killed some folks. The penalty in our country for killing some folks is death. But the law of our land also legalizes abortion, and few Christians in our country are rolling over because abortion was "determined by the government, and we are to submit to that."
That logic doesn't hold up, in my estimation. I think that while Christ did not intend for us to use government as our primary tool in spreading the gospel, we do have an obligation (in a free society, not like in the first century) to oppose and seek to change the unjust laws of our nation. This goes for trade laws, healthcare, abortion, and, in my opinion -- the death penalty.
Death is pretty final, isn't it?
I like the sound bite I heard in the Minneapolis airport yesterday: "He's worth more alive (and in jail), than he is dead."
Yikes. first, as someone who lives in the surrounding area outside of LA, I was a bit worried about riots or extra gang shootings last night, but thus far the san fernando valley lies peaceful and delightfully cool.
Second, to the kid about Terri Shiavo, my feelings about that are still strong. The conservatives who went down there and interjected themselves into a completely private and painful situation made me sick. And so did the liberals - this was an acutely painful private legal dispute. The media and country's idealogs had no place there. And just a p.s. to anyone who thinks that her husband just wanted her dead because she was such a darned inconvenience, her post mordem exam showed her brain had shrunk to, if I remember correctly, more than half its size. She couldn't even see - she was blind. Just goes to show how a painful situation can snowball in a tragic way. it's sad.
About Tookie, good grief, the debate has been ridiculous here! To the most popular talking points: do you know how easy it is to get nominated for a Nobel Peace prize? very easy. it's the people who win who are spectacular. Also, he has never EVER apologized for ANYTHING - not just the four murders he still maintains his innocence for - he never apologized for starting an "organization" that has killed tens of thousands of people.
No, gangs aren't like the mafia. But at least he could attempt to sound remorseful.
Was he worth more alive than dead? Sure. I personally don't agree with the death penalty, but 70 % of Californians disagree with me. And discretionary clemency to me, is so contrary to the death penalty. I just wish our country would decide either way - either no one dies - or everyone who meets the statutory requriements does. This discretionary business is ridiculous. ANYWAY, from CA, all things quiet so far and lots of people are bitter and sad.
Melissa
Melissa! Miss you tons...
But I disagree with you that he never showed remorse for starting the Crips. He certainly did, and then some. He showed great remorse for his "previous life" of violence before experiencing "redemption," as he puts it. He even wrote several books about the evils of gang violence. I'd say he was remorseful about his violent lifestyle.
As for admitting guilt, I've got nothin'. It's hard for me to imagine someone who experienced such a 180-degree turn (apparently) continuing to lie about his involvement in said crimes. I'd like to believe that he couldn't admit to or be remorseful about the murders because he was innocent.
I tend to be a "glass-half-full" kinda guy, though, so I could be wrong.
I still think he had much more he could have accomplished with his life, and thus shouldn't have died. Think of the witness this guy could have had to young African-American children who are "at risk" of getting mixed up in gang violence?
We'll never know, though.
comparing either teri or abortion with tookie is an apples and oranges situation. for that matter teri and abortion are apples and oranges.
teri's situation was devastating for a lot of people. however, it disgusted me the way self described conservatives totally sold out on this one... most of all dobson, who lost whatever vestige of respect i had for him. no one really wants decisions that belong to the family to be placed in the hands of the court! EVER! (no sane person anyway) there was no way to legally save teri. if we want to prevent that kind of thing in the future, the ballot box is the place... never the courts!
abortion is the wanton destruction of an innocent. there are no if's, and's or but's on this one. from a biological perspective a zygote is a living human individual... if it was capable of a crime we could use DNA evidence to single it out from every other living individual on the planet. to end the life of an innocent human, regardless of age, intelligence, size or physical capability is murder.
tookie made jokes about the way the sucking chest wounds of his victims made gurgling noises as they died. oh i know he did lots of good things after he went on death row... WHY WOULDN'T HE? IT MIGHT HAVE WON HIM CLEMENCY! geeze, to say he "messed up, he killed some people" is like saying 9/11 was a minor accident.
nobody wants to face the consequences of their actions. well, tough &@#$! when you get caught speeding, do you try to get out of the ticket? you shouldn't! if you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime. if anything, they shoulda stuck him sooner.
David didn't whine about having to pay the penalty for his crime, neither did Sampson. Peter and Paul... pick a marter... they don't whine about the laws being unfair, they stand up and face the penalty for their behavior! fortunatly, because we have another one who didn't whine, though we face the temporal consequences for our behavior, we don't face the eternal ones.
but maybe thats just me.
paul,
"So let's not, as someone up there said, compare apples to oranges."
i don't care what the law says, taking the life of an unborn child is murder.
great post BTW, much more eloquently and intelligently put than i.
peace
A couple points here:
We must decide as a country what our purpose is in having a penal system. Do we want it to act as the retribution arm of society, eye for eye, tooth for tooth? If we decide that as a society (which is our current method) fair enough. Or is there a better way? Should we aim for a system that reforms, that prevents future violence and crimes?
In Tookie's instance, we could also look at it pragmatically. Will killing Tookie act as a preventative measure to deter future people from murder? Or will allowing Tookie to continue to live in jail serve as a better preventative tool by keeping 5th graders from joining gangs? Looking at these options pragmatically from this standpoint escapes the need to determine, "Has he really reformed or is it all a facade?" Let's just look at what is best for our society (the purpose of our government, correct?).
Second point. I am against abortion, because I believe that there is a better way. I am for policies that work to help women find a better way, and that prevent their perceived need to have an abortion (e.g. poverty, etc.). But I do want to point out that the comment that "from a biological perspective a zygote is a living human individual" is not entirely correct. I have a degree in biology and I value input from that field of thought. This question of when an embryo becomes a "living human individual", however, is much more than a biological question. Sure, it is helpful to know when the embryo is a morula, a blastula, when it has a heart, brain, etc., but it is a philisophical question of when the embryo becomes a person. Something that janitors, biologists, ministers, lawyers, and waiters all have an equal right to weigh in on. Of course we need the input of our Christian beliefs here. I just want to point out that this issue is not so black and white. You will find a culture of supporting life and the weak by reading the Bible, but you will not find any easy answers as to when an embryo becomes a person. All that being said, I am against abortion and am in support of ways that will truly lower the number of abortions in our country.
Enjoy reading your blog Steve. Both interesting and challenging at times.
Matt Cope
Thanks to all for a robust and civilized conversation thus far.
I have a couple points of clarification: I did not mean to imply in my post that the Tookie and Shiavo cases were in any way connected, except for the fact that a life hung in the balance in both cases. I fully acknowledge all the differences between the two cases, and only asked what I did because both seem to be "life" issues.
Second, could someone please cite a source for the tid-bit that Tookie bragged about his murders (i.e. "gurgling chest wounds")? All I've heard so far is that he did not admit to anything but his participation in the violent Crips, which we could take as either lying or saving one's dignity.
I guess my problems with the death penalty lie mainly in the moral and systemic realms. I find it hard to justify Christians supporting an "eye for an eye" system (clearly Old Covenant) while also promoting the "upside-down" kingdom of God ushered in by Christ (in which a person turns his or her cheek when struck). I have similar views regarding war, as inevitable as it may be. Any explanation of that from a Bible scholar out there would be much appreciated.
Second, as has been mentioned in several posts above, the death penalty policy in America contains flaws too numerous to count. Whether to kill or not is often painfully arbitrary, in Tookie's case resting on the shoulders of a former action movie star. It is also very inconsistent, as Melissa pointed out -- some people die for their crimes, and some don't. I also agree with Paul that there often exists too much doubt as to whether or not a death row inmate committed the crime. The Illinois governor made the right decision a few years back in granting clemency to over 100 death row inmates because he found case after case that wasn't so "open and shut" after all. If we're going to be killing folks for killing other people, let's at least streamline the system and make it more consistent.
I'd love to hear other thoughts.
Matt,
"Let's just look at what is best for our society (the purpose of our government, correct?).
"
agreed! wholeheartedly!
i also have a degree in biology, i've also been a janitor. determining when the human becomes a person is very simple, when they become genetically distinct from all other humans in the world. there are some that would like to cloud the truth on this with their speculation. however, conciousness is not required for personhood. the ability to care for oneself is not required for personhood. autonomous sustenance of life is not required for personhood. a specific size range need not be met for personhood. a person is a person when they are no longer a genetically identical match with either of their parents despite the fact that they cannot think yet, eat yet, see yet, hear yet, or speak for themselves yet.
steve, as for the source citation... check this out.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams.pdf
on page 9 you will find this...
"Later that same day, Williams bragged to his brother Wayne about killing Owens.
Williams said, “you should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.” Williams then
made gurgling or growling noises and laughed hysterically about Owens’ death. (TT 2195-
2197)."
you said "I find it hard to justify Christians supporting an "eye for an eye" system (clearly Old Covenant) while also promoting the "upside-down" kingdom of God ushered in by Christ (in which a person turns his or her cheek when struck)."
and yet you don't like to be thought of as unpatriotic for what i think are unpatriotic views... you know the arguments as well as anyone... do you really want to rehash them?
"the death penalty policy in America contains flaws too numerous to count."
are you suggesting that tookie was innocent?
"Whether to kill or not is often painfully arbitrary, in Tookie's case resting on the shoulders of a former action movie star."
i agree, the governor should not be able to grant clemency. the people of the state and their appointed judges have determined the fate of the accused and it should not be overturned.
BTW, what does having been an action movie star have to do with anything? are you now suggesting that arnold isn't capable of making good decisions? because he was a movie star?
would you say the same about all movie stars? or is it just action movie stars? does it extend to rock stars? what about bono? what about redford?
"If we're going to be killing folks for killing other people, let's at least streamline the system and make it more consistent.
"
again, i agree... we should streamline the system and make it more consistent, probably not in the way you mean.
OK now, i'm just sparring, i have some strong feelings on this stuff and am just speaking my mind and staying engaged... i mean no offense (although i'm sure i have given some) apologies for offense...
wait for it...
NOW
Justin, under that logic, Saddam's government was ordained by God, and we had no business upsetting it. We should have accepting that God placed Saddam in power, along with all the laws of Iraq, if one were to take Romans 13 in the way you are interpreting it. I don't think that's the point.
The point I'm making is that we don't have to support everything the government offers up as law if we believe it is contrary to the call of Christ. That DOES NOT mean that we don't submit to it, but I think we can oppose it. Our society is vastly different from the society in which Paul wrote to the Romans -- there likely were Christians refusing to pay taxes and really disrespecting the Emperor because they didn't think they could be ruled by anyone but God. Like many passages in the Epistles, Paul was addressing a specific issue.
Miller - I'm not really sure what you meant with this statement:
"and yet you don't like to be thought of as unpatriotic for what i think are unpatriotic views... you know the arguments as well as anyone... do you really want to rehash them?"
or what it has to do with my statement about the disconnect (in my mind) between the call of Christ to turn the other cheek and the mode of punishment that many Christians support. The last time I checked, we ALL are deserving of death, but God through Christ has given us a chance at a new life. I want my life (and the laws I support) to reflect the merciful act of God through Christ.
Also, I'm not really sure what you were getting at with your questions about "action movie star" Arnold (or even if you were serious), but I was simply making the point that our system will delay a man's death for 30 years (probably a blessing, as Tyler pointed out), going through numerous appeals and investigations, but in the end, the man's life rests on the shoulders of one man (who happens to be a former action movie star -- no offense to action movie stars or the Governator).
Finally, Miller (because I love you), I assume you are implying with your final statement (about streamlining the system) that you would prefer a system that more consistently ended in death rather than clemency for convicted murderers and the like. (If I'm wrong there, let me know) At the risk of sounding way cliché, I just can't see Jesus Christ supporting that system. I'm sorry, but I just can't.
first, i love you too steve... you know that.
regarding my comments on patriotism. we had this argument one time and you resented being thought unpatriotic because of your stance on the war...
well i resent being thought unchristian because of my stance on capital punishment.
then i responded to your call for scripture supporting my stance. it was this, "you know the arguments as well as anyone... do you really want to rehash them?"
you said, "Justin, under that logic, Saddam's government was ordained by God"
are you suggesting that God never places despotic dictators in control of his people? are you suggesting that God never puts evil men under a crown? better read some more scripture. he does and has allowed millions of people to die under them.
you said, "We should have accepting that God placed Saddam in power"
whats to say that God isn't using the governments involved to bring Saddam down and establish a better government. i know if offends people's sensibilities that God allows horrible things to happen, but to suggest that it can't be God's will that Saddam was in power or that if it was we should have left him there is perhaps evidence of a need for further theological reflection.
does my life fail to reflect the merciful act of Christ because i believe the Government should follow its God given responsibility to maintain an ordered society? earlier you threw the old covenant remark in there pretty flippantly, do you believe God has somehow changed? that he isn't the same person he was before Jesus? i see no biblical evidence of that. Romans 13 absolutely applies because Paul is talking about the governing authorities maintaining social order, "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." tookie found out about that the other night. (by the way, society hasn't changed that much since Paul wrote that, technology has changed, not society... society hasn't changed much since the garden of eden)
"I'm not really sure what you were getting at with your questions about "action movie star" Arnold "
what i was getting at is this. what the hell does his career in action movies have to do with it? why bring it up unless you are implying somthing you believe will support your argument? i'm saying that if a redford of bono were in there swinging your way, their status as "stars" would never have come up.
and yes, i am in favor of putting to death all those on death row who have exhausted their appeals! i am in favor of the government abiding by its own rules! if you don't like the rules, there is a way to deal with it. i value your opinion, probably more than you know... but i disagree with you on this one.
Miller - (insert cat noise here) just take two deep breaths...OK, now keep reading. You keep bringing up "order" and "control" in this debate about the death penalty. Look, the death penalty does not serve as a deterrence for future murders (see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168).
It can at least be said that the death penalty is NO MORE of a deterrent of violence than a sentence of life in prison. The following passage is from http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm:
Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.
I'd have a much easier time supporting capital punishment under the rationale of justice, but there really has been no research to support that there is a correlation between the re-instatement of the death penalty and a decrease in the murder rate (though the murder rate has decreased since 1977, it is lowest in the states without a death penalty). I realize keeping a person alive in prison is expensive, but why don't we grant clemency to some of the prisoners who are less violent and have proven themselves responsible while in prison? That way we could give more (or all) convicted murderers life in prison.
As far as deterrence goes, the death penalty is shaky ground.
As for the discussion of Romans 13, I just don't see how the passage authorizes us to simply "accept" everything every government throws at us, including one as ruthless as Saddam's. I'm also not ready attach God's name to the reason why Saddam is in power, except in the way that He (God) allows stupid people to do stupid things.
Justin, to answer your question from above: Yes, a policeman absolutely has the right to shoot a convict who presents an immediate and direct threat to himself or others. There's a difference, however, between the "immediacy" of threat from a convict with his finger on a trigger or a bomb and a convicted murderer in chains surrounded by five armed guards.
I know there are lots of questions I'm leaving unanswered, but maybe someone else can jump in the ring for a few rounds. I'm spent.
By the way, here is a pretty interesting document summarizing death penalty statistics in 2004, put together by the Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org):
Click Here
justin,
still didn't answer the police question.
i believe that law enforcement is to do what the name implies... enforcement, i expect those officers to, using discretion, do whatever it takes to take into custody those who are breaking the law. frequently there is not time to think about what a person might be about to do, they only know that, being unwilling to comply with a duly (sp?) appointed officer of the law, they might do anything. the key word is discretion!
Steve,
Look, the death penalty does not serve as a deterrence for future murders
no doubt this is true! if you look at its effect on those not being executed. (it is 100% effective on those who are!) furthermore, it is not effective as a deterrent because nobody is allowed to see the pictures or video of the execution. i don't think that you could quote that same statistics for public hangings.
however, even if you could... the same statistics can be used for any form of state mandated punitive action. there is no good deterent for crime if you measure the results of one persons consequences on another person. thats even true for smoking or seatbelt use or anything else... we all think it won't happen to us. but if you measure the effectiveness of the consequences on the person who is sufferning them... the one they are intended to effect, the stats are entirely different. there are far more non-capital repeat offenders than there are capital repeat offenders.
I'd have a much easier time supporting capital punishment under the rationale of justice
one thing i can agree with you on is this statement. but this statement is not excluded by my remarks on maintaining social order. justice is inherent in any desirable form of social order. any society without justice is quickly reduced to something nobody in this discussion wants. when i talk about social order, justice is implied.
I just don't see how the passage authorizes us to simply "accept" everything every government throws at us,
of course it doesn't and that is not what i meant... (i think you know that) the passage says that rulers rule only by permission from God, and he uses them to accomplish his purposes, including but not limited to corporal punishment. i believe Paul is saying that we should obey the governing authorities in the Lord. just because we don't like the law doesn't mean we should flaunt it. look to the Chinese brothers and sisters for the example here.
God has allowed many evil rulers and governments to exist. Paul says, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." God actually places some despotic rulers in place to serve his purposes. who is to say what purpose saddam served, that part has not yet been written. i think one would be hard pressed to say that God has not used the communist government of china for his purposes, the church has grown there under persecution while the church here worships in freedom... to what end?
peace bro,
i love ya.
God has allowed many evil governments and rulers to exist, and many good governments and rulers to exist (that sometimes pass legislation with which we disagree).
I think this is the key issue: We live in a nation where we can disagree with the laws of our land and still live in submission to those. In fact, we can even be vocal about those things we disagree with, unlike the early Roman church (if they wanted to stay alive).
I'm just not ready to lay down and accept every law of our land. For instance, I don't like some of our trade laws, so I signed my name to a petition asking for fair trade with third-world importers. The issue on the table here is no different. Because I have moral problems with the death penalty, I am proud to live in a nation where objecting (and even acting on that objection...all the while submitting to the law) to legislation of our country is not only allowed, but encouraged. I don't think that's "flaunting" anything.
I am against the death penalty.
We are told the wages of sin is death. Let God deliver this brand of justice. Give Tookie life without parole.
As for his reformation, what many people fail to see is all of the gang activity and violence he enacted in prison while supposedly being some King of peace to the community.
But, no one should be put to death by us...and I am ashamed that I didn't say anything about this since I was very outspoken for Terry Shaivo.
Then again, she didn't murder 4 people and then laugh about it.
Me thinks I will go post something about this.
I'm just not ready to lay down and accept every law of our land.
nor do i think you should be! i am certainly not. i do think you should continue to voice your opinions. i also believe we should be very careful about implying ones Christian credibility is in question because they don't agree with us!
i have a bad habit of doing this! it is usually when i am losing the debate. its the equivalent of hitting below the belt. i have attempted to avoid that in this discussion but i'm not sure how successful i've been. sometimes i play "Christian" card whether it applies or not. i apologize for this; unfortunatly i believe this is part of the reason the world tends to lump all Christians in the hypocrit sack.
peace bro,
keep signing those petitions! but vote with your dollars!
i agree with priest. not only should we cage them, but we should let them bugger one another repeatedly. then maybe we could arange for them to get their hands on drugs and pornography...
oh, oh, why don't we give the birds a library where they can use law books to learn about filing frivalous law suits making their stay in the cage even more expensive... and vastly more valuable in terms of their rehabilitation.
:)
What has been left out of this whole equation is the victim.
Ask their families what Tookie's path in life should be, let that stand.
in reference to hoots musings, I know that it is a horrible thing to be a victim of brutal crimes--however,
I am glad that Jesus(the victim) did not decide to give us what we deserved as far as our path in life.
steve, I appreciate you posting on this and all of the conversation...what an amazing thing it would be if we as Christians could step up in advocacy of the grace that has been so richly lavished upon us.
I don't think I have witnessed more pityful expressions of the enslaving sense of revenge than those of Miller and Hoot. So sad.
Now, now, Anonymous...I can't speak for Hoot, but Miller is one of my best friends in the world, and I know him to be someone who is a mirror of God's grace and love to everyone he encounters.
Let's be careful with absolute statements like your last comment. Thanks for reading and chiming in, though.
I'm totally against the death penalty due to certain religious convictions. Anyways, would it really be that difficult to keep the small amount of people executed over the last 30 years in prison for life. Still though, if this guy had been allowed to live it would of been mainly because of his high profile (gang founder) and media attention. What about the unknown death row inmates who might have reformed but couldn't get the media attention? It would of been another victory for being a celebrity in the US.
For clarity, the post above is by a new anonymous, lets call him Cheech.
-Cheech
steve said,
I know him to be someone who is a mirror of God's grace and love to everyone he encounters.
an overstatment but much appreciated.
back atcha buddy.
Flush what you've known your entire life and what might seem like the obvious choice upon first glance and truly examine the Gospel.
so i suppose you've actually done this yourself. i mean it is hard for me to tell, you sound so much like sombody else i know.
peace
my sincere apologies mitch.
that was not intended as an attack, it was an honest question. i hear people talk about their enlightened views, people that don't realize how much they sound like their dad or mom or brother of youth minister or whoever...
incidently, your post sounded personal too, but i chose not to take it that way.
peace
Post a Comment