RIP Stanley Williams
This is a post in response to the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. For those of you who don't know, Stanley Williams, along with Raymond "Truck" Washington began the Crips gang in 1969. The Crips. Yes, those Crips. Perhaps you're familiar with the fued they had/have with the Bloods. It's the modern day Hatfields and McCoys. (Or, the Hatfields and the McCoys are the old school version of the Bloods and Crips, in case you're historically challenged.) Anyway, Williams was arrested in connection with four murders (one during a robbery of a 7-11 and 3 in a robbery of a motel). I'm not going to try and argue whether or not Williams is actually innocent of these crimes. He claimed until his dying day that he was convicted after a trial so I suppose that's one of those things that will remains shrouded in a certain amount of mystery. (I also understand that the 3 killed in the motel robbery were Taiwan immigrants, so that hits close to home.)
What I wanted to comment on was the morality of his execution. Is it right that a man is killed in the place of 4 victims? Perhaps. I do believe that the use of the death penalty is, at times, necessary. However, morally it does present a problem. It is still the taking of a life. By deciding that there are those that deserve the death penalty is essentially putting not just a value on a human life but putting a value on a life for the sole purpose of comparing it to the values of other lives. It becomes even harder to determine the just use of the death penalty when it comes to somebody like Williams.
It's hard to deny that Williams was a troubled individual. Murders aside, Williams is known to have committed some questionable acts while in prison, from threatening guards to getting into violent altercations with other inmates to mistreatment of visitors, etc.
However, after a stint in solitary confinement, Williams came out a changed man. While never renouncing his life up until that point, Williams did take many steps in trying to atone for whatever crimes he may have had, both directly and indirectly. He began to speak out against gang violence. He wrote/co-wrote a series of children's books that spoke out for non-violence (I read one for a class and it was actually an interesting read). He apologized for his part in the creation of the Crips gang. He even created the Tookie Protocol for Peace, a shaky truce between the Bloods and the Crips in California and New Jersey. He was commended by George W. Bush (normally I wouldn't consider this necessarily a virtue but it's worth mentioning because W. was the only president that was in office during this period of Williams's life so I'm using him not as a person but as the office of the President of the United States. When you read the last sentance just thinking "Williams receivied a commendation from the President").
So, I question the ethics of the death penalty applied in this situation. Is there not a better candidate for at least a temporary reprieve?
Williams has commented before that starting the Crips was not because he wanted to indulge in gang violence. He mentions that he wanted to put an end to the random outbreaks of violence in his neighborhood when growing up. He hoped that by banding the people in his neighborhood together, it would decrease the amount of violence and death that occured. For many, gang life represents the best option at the time. It provides an identity, a family, a source of income, a source of protection, a source of pride.
Also, it has been pointed out that Williams represented one of the best hopes of a peaceful solution to gang violence. His mere presence inspires a level of respect and interest that other people would be hard-pressed to duplicate. His life represents a life that still provides an immense amount of value and meaning, even after his mortality is so clearly defined. As far as morals go, this is the quintessential example of the value of human life. Williams proved in the past 5 years that his life still had meaning. He made a huge difference and would've continued to make a huge difference had he continued to live. Where are all the pro-life people now? Where are the churches? Is not his fate destined to be decided by heavenly powers, not mortal men? I'm convinced that politics and religion cannot be a good mix and this is good proof of that.
So, Williams was condemned to death by lethal injection. Expecting nothing less, I was pleased to hear that Williams died with dignity. With honor. Williams never renounced his life with the Crips nor did he ever turn in any names of other gang members. Some people use this fodder for saying the Williams had never truly changed and was still the same person as he was when he was convicted. I think this shows an immense amount of honor in Williams. I respect his inner morality, his commitment and loyalty. He never betrayed the ideals he had tried to instill into the group that he helped formed that was eventually be called the Crips. He never renounced his membership because he still believed in the idea of the Crips. I believe that he understood that there is inherent value in a gang structure. Just not in gang violence. I think that there are too many people who get written off. They lead "dead-end" lives. They represent nothing but trouble and hardship. However, Williams proved that there's no such thing as a dead-end life.
What I wanted to comment on was the morality of his execution. Is it right that a man is killed in the place of 4 victims? Perhaps. I do believe that the use of the death penalty is, at times, necessary. However, morally it does present a problem. It is still the taking of a life. By deciding that there are those that deserve the death penalty is essentially putting not just a value on a human life but putting a value on a life for the sole purpose of comparing it to the values of other lives. It becomes even harder to determine the just use of the death penalty when it comes to somebody like Williams.
It's hard to deny that Williams was a troubled individual. Murders aside, Williams is known to have committed some questionable acts while in prison, from threatening guards to getting into violent altercations with other inmates to mistreatment of visitors, etc.
However, after a stint in solitary confinement, Williams came out a changed man. While never renouncing his life up until that point, Williams did take many steps in trying to atone for whatever crimes he may have had, both directly and indirectly. He began to speak out against gang violence. He wrote/co-wrote a series of children's books that spoke out for non-violence (I read one for a class and it was actually an interesting read). He apologized for his part in the creation of the Crips gang. He even created the Tookie Protocol for Peace, a shaky truce between the Bloods and the Crips in California and New Jersey. He was commended by George W. Bush (normally I wouldn't consider this necessarily a virtue but it's worth mentioning because W. was the only president that was in office during this period of Williams's life so I'm using him not as a person but as the office of the President of the United States. When you read the last sentance just thinking "Williams receivied a commendation from the President").
So, I question the ethics of the death penalty applied in this situation. Is there not a better candidate for at least a temporary reprieve?
Williams has commented before that starting the Crips was not because he wanted to indulge in gang violence. He mentions that he wanted to put an end to the random outbreaks of violence in his neighborhood when growing up. He hoped that by banding the people in his neighborhood together, it would decrease the amount of violence and death that occured. For many, gang life represents the best option at the time. It provides an identity, a family, a source of income, a source of protection, a source of pride.
Also, it has been pointed out that Williams represented one of the best hopes of a peaceful solution to gang violence. His mere presence inspires a level of respect and interest that other people would be hard-pressed to duplicate. His life represents a life that still provides an immense amount of value and meaning, even after his mortality is so clearly defined. As far as morals go, this is the quintessential example of the value of human life. Williams proved in the past 5 years that his life still had meaning. He made a huge difference and would've continued to make a huge difference had he continued to live. Where are all the pro-life people now? Where are the churches? Is not his fate destined to be decided by heavenly powers, not mortal men? I'm convinced that politics and religion cannot be a good mix and this is good proof of that.
So, Williams was condemned to death by lethal injection. Expecting nothing less, I was pleased to hear that Williams died with dignity. With honor. Williams never renounced his life with the Crips nor did he ever turn in any names of other gang members. Some people use this fodder for saying the Williams had never truly changed and was still the same person as he was when he was convicted. I think this shows an immense amount of honor in Williams. I respect his inner morality, his commitment and loyalty. He never betrayed the ideals he had tried to instill into the group that he helped formed that was eventually be called the Crips. He never renounced his membership because he still believed in the idea of the Crips. I believe that he understood that there is inherent value in a gang structure. Just not in gang violence. I think that there are too many people who get written off. They lead "dead-end" lives. They represent nothing but trouble and hardship. However, Williams proved that there's no such thing as a dead-end life.
posted by Chris "Krang" Yang | 12:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home