Under penalty of death
Dec. 12th, 2005 11:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaktwosIn 1979, a man was convicted of murdering 4 people. Despite the trial by press presented by various folks, appeals courts seem to be unable, based on the laws of our state, to overturn the conviction. No matter what supporters of Tookie bring to light, for whatever reason, attorneys for Tookie cannot seem to compel appellate courts to overturn the conviction.
I find I am still torn on the death penalty. Part of me hates the thought of an innocent person being put to death. I believe that is wrong. However, what does it mean to me, a person being innocent? Tookie says he didn't do it. Then again, it appears to be in his best interests to say he didn't do it, especially since it helps ensure that people clamor for clemency on his behalf. And the people he was accused and found guilty of killing cannot speak for him.
The childrens books he wrote advising l'il tykes to not get involved with gangs will not bring those people back, either. And you wonder if a man who founds an organization as reviling as the Crips didn't commit other murders for which he was not tried. After all, if it is possible that he was found guilty for crimes that he did not commit, then it's quite possible that other people were found guilty for crimes he committed, especially in the line o' gang work.
But that's not so important, really. It's speculation, and not valid. However, a jury of his peers found him guilty, and numerous appeals later, he's still guilty. As a member of this society, that is sufficient for me. That is why we created our legal system.
Truth is very hard to grasp, but the legal system exists to resolve disputes in our society. In this dispute, Tookie was determined to be guilty of murdering four people.
Given that, and that our state decides to put such people to death, I really have no problem with that
So yes, he has done good things with his life since then. Was that really for society or for himself? I don't know. I suppose if he had done a number of things up to but not including killing a person, I suppose I could allow for redemption. But I see an imbalance in giving a murderer a second chance when his victims do not get a second chance. When] someone takes the life of another, I tend to think that someone's life is less precious.
When you've taken the life of another, and your reason for taking that life was not in self defense, then you've pretty solidly fucked up. Accidents happen, but not four times.
If we could ship convicted people off to an uncivilized planet where they can fend for themselves, I wouldn't mind that so much. But I don't fancy the notion of paying over 30,000 a year for a murdering jackass when we cannot afford to provide health care for people who don't murder other people, or good education for children who need to be educated and nurtured so that a life of crime and murder.
Because I've never brutally killed anyone, or started a gang organization that continues to spread violence and crime, I have a hard time understanding why someone who truly is remorseful of those circumstances would want to live, anyway. And if I were truly remorseful that I had started a violent gang organization, I would probably dedicate myself to destroying it. I wouldn't just write childrens books advising kids not to join gangs.
Writing childrens books saying "gangs are bad, mkay" while helping to solve the problem of gangs is like Philip Morris making public service commercials advising that smoking is harmful to your health, all the while continuing to manufacture cigarettes. Well, it's not quite the same, but it's close enough.
I find I am still torn on the death penalty. Part of me hates the thought of an innocent person being put to death. I believe that is wrong. However, what does it mean to me, a person being innocent? Tookie says he didn't do it. Then again, it appears to be in his best interests to say he didn't do it, especially since it helps ensure that people clamor for clemency on his behalf. And the people he was accused and found guilty of killing cannot speak for him.
The childrens books he wrote advising l'il tykes to not get involved with gangs will not bring those people back, either. And you wonder if a man who founds an organization as reviling as the Crips didn't commit other murders for which he was not tried. After all, if it is possible that he was found guilty for crimes that he did not commit, then it's quite possible that other people were found guilty for crimes he committed, especially in the line o' gang work.
But that's not so important, really. It's speculation, and not valid. However, a jury of his peers found him guilty, and numerous appeals later, he's still guilty. As a member of this society, that is sufficient for me. That is why we created our legal system.
Truth is very hard to grasp, but the legal system exists to resolve disputes in our society. In this dispute, Tookie was determined to be guilty of murdering four people.
Given that, and that our state decides to put such people to death, I really have no problem with that
So yes, he has done good things with his life since then. Was that really for society or for himself? I don't know. I suppose if he had done a number of things up to but not including killing a person, I suppose I could allow for redemption. But I see an imbalance in giving a murderer a second chance when his victims do not get a second chance. When] someone takes the life of another, I tend to think that someone's life is less precious.
When you've taken the life of another, and your reason for taking that life was not in self defense, then you've pretty solidly fucked up. Accidents happen, but not four times.
If we could ship convicted people off to an uncivilized planet where they can fend for themselves, I wouldn't mind that so much. But I don't fancy the notion of paying over 30,000 a year for a murdering jackass when we cannot afford to provide health care for people who don't murder other people, or good education for children who need to be educated and nurtured so that a life of crime and murder.
Because I've never brutally killed anyone, or started a gang organization that continues to spread violence and crime, I have a hard time understanding why someone who truly is remorseful of those circumstances would want to live, anyway. And if I were truly remorseful that I had started a violent gang organization, I would probably dedicate myself to destroying it. I wouldn't just write childrens books advising kids not to join gangs.
Writing childrens books saying "gangs are bad, mkay" while helping to solve the problem of gangs is like Philip Morris making public service commercials advising that smoking is harmful to your health, all the while continuing to manufacture cigarettes. Well, it's not quite the same, but it's close enough.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 04:53 pm (UTC)hehe that last part would be nice. then they'd just kill each other and we could forget about it and thus keep our consciences clean while still sending them to die or be miserable but not in front of us. most peopel woudl have an easier time with that.