One Thousand Served: Death Penalty Debate Comes Alive

Feature Article by: Hannah Stearns on December 2nd, 2005 at 2:18 PM

"We are concerned here only with the imposition of capital punishment for the crime of murder, and when a life has been taken deliberately by the offender, we cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes." -- Justice Potter Stewart, 1972.

---

Tookie to be Terminated

The Death Penalty is a hotly debated issue in this country. As the 1000th execution since the ending of the death penalty moratorium approaches, the controversy is increasing.

The man scheduled to be the one thousandth person executed was granted clemency on Tuesday by the governor of Virginia. Robin Lovitt was sentenced to death after he brutally stabbed a man to death with a pair of scissors during a pool-hall robbery in 1998. His sentence was reduced to life in prison yesterday. It takes a lot of hatred and a sincere intent to kill to be willing to stab a man to death with scissors, yet Virginia would rather have this man alive, giving him the chance to do God knows what in prison for the rest of his life.

One of the more notorious inmates on death row, Stanley “Tookie” Williams was sentenced to death in California on the charge of four counts of murder. His appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 11, 2005 and his execution date was set for December 13. It seems likely that Tookie will join the ranks of the one thousand other people put to death in the United States since 1978, and with good reason. The man is responsible for thousands of deaths; he deserves to die himself.

Tookie Williams was the co-founder of the Crips, a violent gang responsible for thousands of deaths in Los Angeles. He himself killed four people, Albert Owens, a 7-Eleven store clerk, and motel owners Yen-I Yang, 65; Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 62; and their daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 42.

Since he has been in prison, he has rehabilitated himself, apologizing for starting the Crips, and speaking out about his actions. He has written several children’s books in an effort to dissuade young people from joining gangs. He also had his story video taped and shown in correctional and rehabilitation facilities. In 2004, the movie “Redemption,” a movie chronicling Tookie’s life and apparent change of heart, starring Jamie Foxx as Williams was released. He has even been nominated for four Nobel Peace Prizes and the Nobel Prize for literature. As impressive as this sounds, it is worthwhile to note that to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize, one merely has to write a letter to the nominations committee in Norway.

Writer Barbara Becnel has been William’s number one crusader. She met Williams in 1993, while doing research for a book about gang violence. She was moved by his apparent repudiation of his former life, and set out to tell his story. It was Becnel who convinced Williams to go public with his videotaped speech, and Becnel who edited his writings, and arranged for him to speak to youth and criminal justice groups. She is also the one who garnered the movie deal. So who has been rehabilitated: Tookie Williams, or Barbara Becnel? Becnel is currently spearheading a campaign to convince Governor Schwarzenegger to commute Williams’ death sentence to life in prison without parole. She has been joined by many anti-death penalty groups as well as celebrities such as Jamie Foxx, Danny Glover, Snoop Dogg and Russel Crowe.

Despite the fact that his apparent change of heart has only been seen through the fanatic efforts of an obscure writer, and that according to California law officials, Williams has not actually shown remorse for the four brutal murders he committed, he not only killed four people, he also founded one of the leading gangs in California which is responsible for thousands more deaths. The hideousness of his acts are deserving of death, per the law of the land.

Think for a minute about the friends and family of William’s victims; do they not deserve justice? Often, the execution of a loved one’s murderer is the only closure a grief-stricken individual can get. Yet, little or no regard for the victims’ families is being observed. In fact, a group of students associated with the International Socialist Organization have organized an effort to call Governor Schwarzenegger and ask for clemency on behalf of Tookie Williams. What if it had been their parents killed? Would they want clemency then?

But going beyond just Tookie Williams, when is the death penalty justified? Is it ever? Should the government be allowed to execute those who execute others? Yes. As the old adage goes, an eye for an eye: or in Tookie’s case, an eye for several eyes.

The purpose of the death penalty has been debated over the years. Whether or not it actually deters crime has never been proven. Many studies have been done, but no conclusions have been drawn. This is due to lack of information, as well as the difficulty in conducting an appropriate study. Also, only 38 states have the death penalty, and most people do not know which states they are. It is possible that a criminal may not know if his or her state has the death penalty, so therefore it could not deter them.

The death penalty as a retributive measure seems to be the most popular rationale behind capital punishment. An overwhelming 74% of the population of the United States supports the death penalty. Even some liberals will agree that cold-hearted murderers should be put to death. It is difficult to measure, however, just how cold-hearted a convicted murderer is.

The insanity defense comes up whenever the death penalty is discussed. The court system uses a strict test to determine whether or not someone is insane to begin with. The cognitive interpretation of the McNaughten test states that the knowledge of the act committed must be a basic, physical and literal knowledge of what took place. The perpetrator must also know that the act is wrong according to the law or society’s rules. If the perpetrator meets these requirements, he or she is not considered insane.

What about criminals who do not understand the consequences of their actions? People who are a danger to themselves, as well as to those around them need to be removed from this threat regardless of their mental stability. What is the difference between sentencing an insane person to life in a mental institution and a sane person to life in prison? If an insane person cannot comprehend what he or she is doing, the retributive value of the death penalty is rendered useless, and so execution may not be the appropriate response.

It can also be argued however, that regardless of mental capacity, any murderer should be executed. Should mentally disabled people who just happen to kill someone be put to death? Are rabid dogs who attack their owners put down? Yes. As a threat to society, and the pursuit of life for those around them, there is no reason why someone should escape punishment because of a mental disorder. Anyone who is willing to take the life of a fellow human being is suffering from a mental disorder in some capacity.

Self defense is another major factor to be taken into consideration. Self defense laws are vague and difficult to interpret, making it extremely hard for women especially to plead this defense. Self-defense is a prevalent plea made by women convicted of murder; half of the women currently on death row claimed self-defense was the reason for their actions, and nearly one-third of women in prison who are serving sentences for murder were convicted of killing a husband or ex-husband.

Despite the commonality of this defense, it is often disregarded in a court of law. The self-defense defense is complicated and arbitrary. It consists of two main clauses, that the defendant reasonably believed 1) that she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; and 2) that it was necessary to resort to deadly force to avert danger. Both of these stipulations are harder to satisfy then is commonly believed, as the self-defense law was designed so that no one can plead self-defense to excuse a killing that was not absolutely necessary.

The imminent danger clause particularly comes into question when a battered woman kills a sleeping abuser, or kills her batterer after the initial confrontation. In both of these cases, the woman could have called the police, or fled. As a result, juries in this situation often sentence the woman to prison time or death.

The second condition is also problematic. It suggests that a woman can only use force that is proportional to the force being used against her. This means, that if a woman is attacked by a man using his bare hands, she is expected to fight him off also using only her bare hands. When acting in self-defense, the perpetrator is not a threat to society, he or she is merely trying to escape the threat on his or her own life.

But Tookie Williams did not kill because he was insane, or in self-defense. Instead he killed four innocent people in cold-blooded murder. He also started one of the most violent gangs in the country, and yet people still think he should be allowed to live.

So go ahead, call up Governor Schwarzenegger and see if he cares what you have to say. With 74% of the country in favor of capital punishment, I find it hard to believe that your phone call will make a difference. The death penalty: over one thousand served.

 

Comments

 

Post a Comment

Subject:
Name:	* Required
E-mail:	* Required
Enter code:
Comment: