[places tongue in cheek]

Oh, John, John, you poor, benighted soul.... Don't you know that people are by nature good, and only government is evil? If only we could somehow do away with the state, let it "wither away" (per the Marxists)..... why, people would no longer feel forced to act out in undesirable ways, to strike out at "The Man". People like Williams are merely victims, forced to do evil things by an evil Establishment. And even people like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were victims, too, their good natures distorted by the necessities of power. Oh, if only we could do away with the State! We could all revert to our good natures and hold hands, singing Kumbayaa......

[removes tongue from cheek]

I think for some Hollywood and media types, their lionization of dictators and death-row thugs stems from a misunderstanding of Lord Acton's dictum about power. Yes, power does corrupt, but they think it is because power is power, when in fact it is because human beings are human beings. It's comforting to them to be able to blame "the System" for such awful things, rather than to blame the people who do those awful things-- that way they don't have to face the evil that lurks in all of our hearts, to one degree or another.

Or, less charitably, it may be that the Hollywood and media types are quite aware of the evil in their hearts, but by pretending that Williams (and even Stalin, Mao, and company) aren't *really* that bad, they convince themselves that their own evil impulses are insignificant. And if their own evil impulses are insignificant, then they must truly be good people indeed. It's such a boost to one's self-esteem, y'know.....

So much for forgiveness and redemption. I guess Christ's message was lost on some.

P.S. I don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me when the State has the power to kill its citizens legally. Anti-death penalty types don't want to set murderers free, they just don't want any more killing. Remember, thou shalt not...

What the hell...are you 5 or do you just argue like an ignorant child? First off, unlike George Bush who gets a hard-on from death and killing, most people do not, including Arnie, go figure. The argument is whether the death penalty does any good, and numerous studies have shown that it doesn't help reduce crime. You have to deal with the fact that the majority of people think it is wrong for the state to kill people in our names. Also when does rehabilitation come into play...or is it once a criminal always a criminal in which case why don't we just kill all criminals for all offenses....what are you a girly man?

"The Left supports Williams for the exact same reason they supported Stalin and Lenin and Ho and Mao and Saddam and Castro and Chavez and Mugabe and Ortega and Arafat..."

Yeah, I stopped at the first lie.

These pups just illustrate my point.
"Christ's message," but none of these hypocrites has ever given a moment of Christian comfort or thought to the victims of murderers. They "worry" that the state an kill people, but care not a whit about the 10,000 killed by gangs in LA.

And I never mentioned the death penalty's efficacy or popularity (although I have in fact seen studies that show it is a deterrant, and that the majority of Americans support it.)

These people are frauds. They claim to care about deaths, but it is only the murderers that they care about. None of them have ever put any energy or enthusiams into stopping gang violence, or publicizing the terrible toll of victims murdered, robbed or raped. Their cold hearts feel nothing.

But when a monster is going to die, then suddenly they go all fake-Christian and start talking "redemption" and "forgiveness."

Since when are Rummy and Saint Ronny Reagan liberals? I know they pretend to care about life, but isn't that Rummy smiling shaking hands with Sadam as he hands over the keys to "Crop spraying" helicopters that were used to gas Kurds in the eighties?
St. Ronny pressured the congress into dropping sanctions on Sadam that Rummy's trip posible. (Al Gore faught lifting the sanctions at the
time.)

So tell me again which pot is calling which black?

A bit angry are we? Your generalizations and rantings are bizzare. You have no idea what I or anyone else has or hasn't done in our lives. "Christian comfort?"

Listen, why don't you catch up on your education. Real Christians take the ten comandments seriously. I suppose the Pope is a hypocrite and knows nothing about "Christian comfort?" Becasue he certainly does not condone killing as punishment. There is nothing to suggest comforting and caring about victims is opposed to forgiveness redemtion and not killing anymore. Your bloodlust speaks volumes about your tiny blackened heart. I will pray for you soul, as it is in danger.

Funny. My secret Moonbat Alert Device hasn't said anything about Williams. There was a blip about an innocent man who was executed in Texas though.

I seem to have hit some troll trip-wire. I shouldn't answer, but....

" You have no idea what I or anyone else has or hasn't done in our lives." Sure we do. We been seeing lefties turn out to save brutal murderers since at least Carol Chessman, back when I was a boy. If they were also caring in the least for the poor victims, it would have been noticed by now...

And the Bible does not say "Thou shalt not kill." It says, in the original, "Thou shalt not commit murder." Which should be obvious, since the various Hebraic governments executed their own criminals, and none of the Prophets complained. Jesus was executed with two thieves, and never once said there should not be a death penalty. And God himself helped the Israelites to win battles and kill their enemies.

If it means "though shalt not kill" ever ever ever, then how can any wars ever be justified? If no killing is justified, then how does one pick and choose? Who gets to be the picker and chooser? I must admit that I feel that killing is wrong and therefore it's also wrong to kill even a man who has done horrible things. It's too cold and calculating. I would make it two zillion percent impossible for such people to rejoin the rest of us, if asked. On the other hand, then the rest of us are paying for their food, education, etc. for the rest of their lives. Which is unjust, too, especially since the State is not supporting the victims' families in any way. This is one of those dreadful issues for which there is no good answer.

Go back to your bible. Jesus threw out the old laws, and replaced them with love one another, and do unto those as you have them do unto you. Look it up. It's actually in there. So for all you "eye for an eye" types, it's time do get out of the stone ages. At least get to 33 A.D. Remember "turn the other cheek"? There wasn't a caveat to that. Bloodlust is a bad thing people. LWOP is a severe punishment, and a just one. And I am SICK of hearing, "yeah, they get college, cable TV" Yeah, it's a paradise. They are not being coddled in prison. It's a filthy, depressing place. If you murder in cold blood, you should be locked up for life. The smae goes for hurting children in any way. Lock em up and get them off the streets. Why tie up the courts with appeals for clemency or a retrial? And the solution is no to eliminate those appeals. There have been far too many people exhonerated and released from DNA evidence, or obvious corruption for that to be a solution. If you eliminate appeals, you will certainly kill innocent men. I'm pretty sure we have already. But that doesn't seem to bother many on this site. They want BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD! Go back in a time machine to the 1700's. You'd love it there. Lots of beheadings, burnings and hangings. And no innocent people died back then, right? I mean, just think of all the witches and heretics the world got rid of back then! Wow! What a wonderful time!

I want criminals off the street and forgotten about. The death penalty just makes murderers celebrities for a few weeks. Think about this. Would you be hearing about Tookie if he was just sentenced to LWOP?

I apologize for the typos. I was just typing in the moment. And the person above me brings up an excellent point. I think the State should sponsor Therapy/mental health for the families of victims. They go through so much, and they have no place to put their anger. If they worked through that, the families would be much better off. Remember, I'm talking about this kind of help for the vicitm's family, NOT for the criminal.

"they go all fake-Christian"

Paging Christian Conservatives, Christian Conservatives come in please!!

"I think the State should sponsor Therapy/mental health for the families of victims." In other words, somebody else shoud do something. Or "sponsor" it, whatever that means.

The point of my post is being demonstrated over and over again. When it comes to saving a sociopathic killer who has organized a gang of killers, liberals get excited. Energetic. Concerned. They act. They come alive! But when the victims of their pal are mentioned, then, as an afterthought, they suggest that somebody--not them of course--ought to do...something.

Frauds.

Methinks you hit a nerve, John.

One poster wrote that Christ threw out the old laws. He may have, but I note that obedience to the Ten Commandments is still taught in Christian churches. So WHICH "old laws" did Christ throw out? Besides, as John notes, Christ did not protest His own execution, which indicates that for some crimes death may be an appropriate punishment.

As for turning the other cheek, I note that even Christ Himself had only four of them.

I'm all in favor of mercy. I try to bear in mind a saying I ran across in college: "Justice without Mercy is Horror." Yet Mercy without Justice isn't very pretty either, especially when "life without parole" turns out to be no such thing, and the paroled murderer kills again.

Power over life and death is the mark of Cain, and we've borne it since the beginning of time. We can't escape it. All we can do is conduct ourselves in the best, most just way we can. And sometimes it's simply not just to let murderers live. I don't like that conclusion, because I am not (contrary to one writer's belief) "filled with bloodlust". But then, I am not REQUIRED to like that conclusion. But I AM required to do what is just.

John,

What pray tell is a stranger supposed to do himself for a murder victim's family? You seem to confuse the moral and policy issue of whether the State should be killing people, which will naturally draw attention becasue it is a political issue, with the very personal issue of the individual sorrow and strife of the family of murder victims. All we can do is punish the wrongdoer and offer the family the opportunity to sue civily to recoup damages for their loss. Otherwise there are plenty of private organizations that do get much support from the public, both left and rigt, whose mission it is to help survivors with their loss either emotionally or financially.
Did someone you love get murdered? Your rantings are barely coherent. It is not so outrageous a proposition that the State should not be killing its citizens. It is a serious issue, and just becasue someone soes not want the state to be killing its citizens for morla or policy reasons, does not mean that person is anti-victie as you seem to suggest.
The only other countries who do it are religious third world countries, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of the viewpoint if the rest of the first world has rejected the practice. It is unfair to claim all those who oppose the death penalty hate or ignore or neglect victims. It simply isn't true, and the fact that you think it is makes me thiink someone close to youwas murered and you were left to deal with it on your own.

This seems to be the same set of trolls that infested your blog a few weeks back. I recognize some of the names anyway. These troll-storms seem to happen in cycles, as if the rest of the time they're sealed in coffins that are timed to open at regular intervals.

"What pray tell is a stranger supposed to do himself for a murder victim's family?"

You could mention them for a start. None of you supposed compassionate people ever mentions the Yang family. They are invisible. None of the Hollywood lefties mentions Miss Yee-Chen Lin, shotgunned by Tookie. These are wealthy people, but none of the HAS ever, or WILL ever, raise money for the victims. They don't CARE.

People like you donate money to save murderers, but if someone sent you a request to donate money to help the "victims of Tookie," you would throw it in the trash. At least the anti-death-penalty people I know would. They don't want to "confuse the message."

If Tookie was about to be executed, lefties would turn out with signs for candle-light vigils. But not one of those signs would say "remember Albert Owens."

You talk about "political action," but none of you will invest energy in political action to get the state to crush gangs or crack-down hard on the crime the crushes the poor. That's just too ho-hum for you.

Well I for one certainly feel for all murder victims and their families.And as for your final comment you are right. Some of us are well educated enough to realize that crushing and cracking down on the symptoms of severe poverty only makes the situation worse. You are right we'd rather the casue be adressed, poverty, than supporting misguided anger directed at the symptoms of poverty.
Likewise, you seem unable to recognize that this particular murderer has been largely rehabilitated by most reports and is working to undermine gang culture and save the children of peverty from falling into the same traps he did. I'd hate to break it to you but it is you who has the blinders on. Bloodlust is a bad thing. Anger and vengence are to be resisted from a standpoint of Christian morality. The Pope is anti death penalty (along with the rest of the civilized world) for documented reasons. Numerous innocent people have been put to death or relaesed fromf dealth row.
Retribution is not and should not be the main purpose of our criminal justice system. That point seems to escape your very angry and medicore mind.

Andrea, the jump in what you refer to as "trolls" is probably a function of whether or not people can link to this blog through the Dauo Report on Salon. Liberals read Salon.

I don't know whether or not Williams is guilty, but I think he is. My problem is that Williams seems more useful to society as a lifer than as an executed convict. Is our system about revenge and retribution or is it about redemption and rehabilitation? I know of no advocate who wants Williams set free. All they are saying is life in prison without possibility of parole. In fact, polls show that a significant percentage (close to 60%) of Americans would prefer life in prison without possibility to parole to execution when given that option. As a lifer, he has counciled troubled youths, given motivational speeches about the dangers of gang culture and served as an example of a man who can turn his ruined life into something positive. It just seems like a waste. It also seems like a message that there is no redemption.

I hate to even make this argument because it makes people think one doesn't care about the victims. I care about the victims, but I believe life behind bars, unable to share in the benefits of a free society for your entire life, and without the possibility of ever being set free is enough punishment for any crime.

John Weidner, you seem certain that the Yang family, Miss Lin and Albert Owens would want the state to execute someone in their name. How can you be so sure of this?

If the article is correct, then Tookie has NOT been rehabilitated. He has not helped the police to bust his old gang, and he is directing gang activities from prison (which makes you an accessory in their murders). Looks like the children's book was a clever scam, to give liberals cover.

But even if it isn't, that's NOT my point. I'm not angry at Williams, (except in the general way of loathing all scum-bag criminals). And I'm not writing about the efficacy or rightness of the death penalty. My point is that I'm angry and contemptuous of liberals whose cold-hearts only get energized when they have a chance to save a bad guy and send a message of encouragement to crooks. Or to save a dictator and leave his people in chains.

And If my mind is mediocre, at least I know how to spell mediocre...

John, I thought liberals were supposed to be "bleeding hearts." Now you're saying they're "cold-hearts."

Now really, do you believe liberals only get energized for "bad guys???!!!" How about Nuns? Are they only energized for bad guys. After McVeigh was executed I sat there and saw one penguine say that McVeigh was in Heaven because he repented. Now, that made me angry. How did those victims feel about that. I wish he were still rotting in jail and set to be there for the rest of his life. That would be better than sending him to heaven.

Bill, I never said anything about what the Yang family might want.

I said they were never mentioned by the people who pose as compassionate when there's a chance to save a killer.

Who shed buckets of tears over celebrity criminals, and quote Jesus...but Jesus cared about the downtrodden and the poor.

I'm not sure what you mean about nuns? Are they required to be liberals? But anyway, yes, liberals (not all, but many) are both bleeding-hearts and cold-hearts. The "bleeding" is all for show, for trendy causes. They never get passionate about helping ordinary folks.

John, I can spell, I just can't type. But you clearly cannot think very well, which is far more serious. Your assertion that liberals get energized to help the bad guys is patently absurd. I can't figure out if you are really serious. To say that libeals, people like John Lennon, or handi, or the Pope (at least on this issue) are for the bad guys is next to nuts.

Say, do you run that bookshelf place on Sanchez and 15th? I was shocked to see you live in our fair city surrounded by hoardes of those evil liberals whoc are only for otehr evil bad guys.

Rock on my angry friend! Remember Jesus: LOVE FORGIVENESS, HUMILITY, NON-VIOLENCE. You not only have to turn the other cheek, you must love your enemy! It is all about cherishing life and having love my friend. I hope you figure that out one day, as it will save your soul.

L, you say I'm absurd, but you haven't presented one shred of evidence to contradict me. Right now liberals, including you, are energized to help the founder of a murderous gang. And conspicuously NOT energized to notice his victims or the poor people whose lives are made hellish by gangs and criminals. I'm clearly correct in this. And it is something we've seen frequently.

Mentioning The Pope, Ghandi or Lennon is irrelevant to the argument. None of them are present-day liberals, and the Pope should surely be called a conservative. (And I'm perfectly aware that many conservatives oppose the death penalty.)

Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and you are welcome to do likewise. Jesus also took a whip and scourged the money-changers from the Temple. And that came later in the story...

What's at 15th and Sanchez?

Also, conservatives are perfectly capable of enjoying the delights of San Francisco, though we have to put up with a lot of foolishness as the price of doing so...In fact I'll be leaving shortly for a performance at the Herbst Theatre of a Mozart transcription of The Messiah, so I won't be commenting much longer...

John, I'm not energized at all about this particular case. I'm anti-death penalty, but mostly because I fear state power if things should go wrong. Bad idea for state to be allowed to kill people. But I'm not sure what evidence I could give you to prove I don't support murderers or Stalin, or that I do support victims and don't hope innocents die. Your assertions are so off the wall as to be impossible to refute through any evidence:

he Left supports Williams for the exact same reason they supported Stalin and Lenin and Ho and Mao and Saddam and Castro and Chavez and Mugabe and Ortega and Arafat...

They pretend to care about "life," but that's a filthy lie. More than 10,000 people have been killed by gangs in LA since the founding of the "Crips," and Hollywood lefties have never shown any interest in any of them. And they pretend to care about "innocent" people being executed, but that's another lie--their outrage about an execution is always at it highest when the subject is clearly guilty of horrible crimes...

"In fact the anti-death-penalty frauds seem to prefer that innocent people get killed."

I mean, do you really think I or people who oppose the death penalty, say the Pope, PREFER that innocent people get killed? It can't be.

And as far as the Pope goes, the last Pope, along with being anti-death penalty becasue he is a true Christian, was the only other world leader other than Castro to call into question the distribution of wealth and the harms of economic injustice on this Planet. That is pretty damn liberal.

Again, all I can tell you is that neither I nor anyone I know who opposes the death penalty is anti-victim, and certainly does not prefer that innocent people are killed. I'm not sure what kind of empirical evidence I could offer to counter this aburdity other than to say I've never killed anybody. Your rhetoric needs to be toned down if you want anyone to take you seriously.

There is a great bookshelf/ woodwork shop at 15th and Sanchez.

First thing:
Hollywood only cares about murderers and serial killers, they make big money in the theaters. When has anyone ever seen a true story about a victim of a brutal murder? Has there ever been a film on one of Ted Bundy's victims? Or Henry Lee Lucas? John Wayne Gacy?
By the way, did any Hollywood actor donate anything other than "their time" to Hurricane Katrina victims? I seriously doubt that anyone in Hollywood did anything other than photo ops and "donating time" to help out. I am sure that normal blokes like myself did as much as put off bilss in order to sind cash to them, but no one in Hollywood would be willing to put off a Hummer or Farrari payment to help someone that under normal circumstances they would care less about. Of course they would be will to "show up" at a fund raiser, where they would get transportation, food and drink for free while attendees are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend. Hollywood cares for no one.

Second:
What studies show that the Death Penalty doesn't deter crime? Do they include statistics from countries like Suadi Arabia and China (who have some of the lowest crime rates in the world)?

Third:
Does anyone know that the Bible has some of the best BATTLE REPORTS recorded in biblical times? By the way, it was God who FORCED Lucifer and his followers into Hell (Forced as in "through violent means").

John, I wouldn't use China and Saudi Arabia as great examples of low-crime-due-to-the-death-penalty countries. For one thing, in those countries they execute people for many things we don't think are crimes, or at least not crimes worthy of the death penalty, and they accept and promote behaviors that we think are horrendous, if not illegal.

The "crime prevention" argument for the death penalty is the wrong argument anyway. I don't think the idea that they might be caught and executed deters more than a small fraction of hardcore criminals anyway, because most criminals have gigantic egos and don't believe they will ever be caught. I prefer this argument in favor of the death penalty, voiced by a comedian from Texas whose name escapes me at the moment: "If you kill somebody in Texas, we'll kill you right back."

Are you sure Mr. Williams is the same person now as he was 30 years ago? Few people are.

And one could argue (I do not, since I'm not in the mind-reading business), that your invocation of the pain of the victims and their families is just as insincere as you claim the witches' liberals' concern for Mr. Williams is.

Finally, as I remember mentioning to you, a careful reading of the original texts (there are many more than one version of each Gospel) strongly supports the contention that Jesus drove the animals out of the temple with the scourge, not the people. And in any case, that one story is a pretty weak reed to lean on for trying to build support for Jesus' approval of violence of any sort. He didn't say "Blessed are the violent," you know.

I don't know if williams is currently a sinner or a saint...but that's not my point.

And my sincerity in feeling the pain of the victims isn't my point either. (I do in fact tend to think of them when I hear of such cases, but you can't read my mind on that.)

My point--I'm discovering that there's nothing that clarifies a point in ones fuzzy mind like having a dozen people refuse to meet it--is my disgust at the way liberals are energized by a chance to help a bad guy (and also to send a message of discouragement to police and encouragement to crooks) and are never never NEVER energized by the suffering of the bad guy's victims...(Or the difficulties the police have in fighting crime.)

You're the same way. You are energized when you have a chance to slam the Iraq campaign or our troops or the fall of Saddam. But the plight of the hundreds of thousands of poor wretches he killed and tortured never (whatever your secret sympathies may be) puts a gleam in your eye or fire in your blog...

You are probably right about the Temple; and the story is rather atypical of Jesus. But I get sick of His message being used to justify lefty causes that appear to me to be really aimed at undermining society to soften it up for control by...lefties. Jesus also did not say "Blessed are the appeasers..."

OK – I’m really late to the party here, but this has been a really interesting (not necessarily in a good way) series of comments. John, I think the reason that no one is addressing your main point is that it is self-evident, and I don’t even think many liberals would dispute it.

Liberals pretty much always have their antenna up looking for injustices against the little guy or the underdog. That’s what liberals do. It’s what makes them liberals. They can’t wait for a chance to “fight the powers that be”, and the police, the military, and America are the “powers that be”. Thus they get charged up when there is chance to do it.

Their world-view is that “The Man” (white, affluent, western) has intentionally structured society as to stack the deck in favor of himself and against “the little guy” (poor & usually minority). So when there is a questionable shooting by a police officer they almost instinctively believe the officer is in the wrong. When there are allegations of abuse by military personnel their instinct is to believe it’s true. And when Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro stick their thumb in America’s eye their instinct is to smile. That is the common theme and it drives conservative crazy (which is probably part of the point too.)

It's not the looking for injustices or underdogs that I object to, it's being energized when the subject is a bad guy, and they can send a message of encouragement to evil

The real underdogs here are the poor people in LA who have their lives blighted (or ended) by crime. Also among the underdogs are the police, who are struggling with inadequate resources while the power of Hollywood and the press is arrayed against them.

Them underdogs liberals never champion...

Here's a case (via Glenn R) if what looks like a genuine miscarriage of justice. A black man on Death Row, white jury, etc etc.

I predict that he will never become a liberal cause celebre, and no Hollywood stars will agitate on his behalf, and no "candle-light vigils" will grace his demise..

Why? Because he's not a crook.

John, your last comment proves my point. With so many cases coming to light that there are innocent men on death row, how can you say that the death penalty is a good and proper thing?

Listen, I think there are two separate arguments. The first being: should the US have the death penalty? My contention is that the current system is so flawed that it needs to be put to a halt. As to fixing it, I'm not sure we can. And what can we do for a man we execute that turns out to be innocent? Not much.

The second argument is whether or not criminals can be rehabilitated. My contention is yes and no. There are certain people who will never change; will always be evil, dangerous people. And those people need to be put away for life. Throw away the key. And there are people who can change, yet have done such a horrific crime that they need to pay with their lives, and by that, I mean rot in prison. And, of course, there are some that make a mistake, and they should be able to get out and start a new life. Where does Tookie stand in this? My contention is the second. There are rumors back and forth about how good/evil he is. But there are indicators that he has done some good in the community. So he should be put away for ever. Trust me, he's never getting out.

I'm going to re-iterate a point I made earlier. If there were no death penalty, Tookie would not be in the news right now, and there would be no rush by anyone to try and save him. If there were no death penalty, most people wouldn't know his name. Except the victim's families, who should gain some small comfort that the man will be forever locked away from society. And if they are still grieving, then the State should have something in place to let them go to counseling for no charge. And before you say I'm trying to let someone else do something, not me, don't forget, when I'm talking about the State, I mean it will get paid with my tax dollars. If I were a counselor, I'd give my time for something like that.

And this is where I'm a little perplexed. Some people on here claim that "liberals" (progressives) don't care about the little people. If that's so, why is it I'm all for giving more money to create social programs that deal with grieving victims, abused children, and homeless people, but SOME Conservatives response (Unlike some on this board, I REFUSE to lump averyone into the liberal/conservative mold; the world is far more complex that black and white) is "Cut those programs! Let them fend for themselves!" Which is the literal interpretation of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." I'll give another 5% of my paycheck to help the underdogs/little people/hurting people. How about you?

Darn it! I thought I caught all of the typos!

Will, I didn't say, "the death penalty is a good and proper thing." I might say that, but that's a complex and difficult subject, and not what I'm complaining about in this post. In fact, even if I were an anti-death penalty conservative, I might make the same complaint, which is about the sort of people who rally to criminals but never show any interest in the victims.

I can't look in people's minds, but where they put their energy tells me a lot, and I don't like it.

Also, if you were familiar with conservative debates on welfare and government programs, you would not suggest that "Cut those programs! Let them fend for themselves!" is the conservative attitude. Our usual position is that much of the poverty and under-class pathology we have is caused by welfare, which weakens people spiritually and morally, and destroys the incentive to solve their own problems. (I think there is good evidence that we are right in the results of Welfare Reform in the 1990's, which has been followed by--and a conservative would say has caused--increased employment and self-respect and lowered crime among those removed from the welfare rolls.) We say that it is you who don't care about the little people.

More specifically, I'd say that your prescription for "grief counseling," etc, is exactly the wrong medicine.

What victims really need is to be surrounded by a strong and supportive community of family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and church. (Would you not want that yourself, if you were in trouble? Rather than an appointment with a social worker two weeks from Tuesday?) Your proposal reveals the unconscious--I don't think you are really proposing this--expectation of a liberal that people should be atomized, that there should be nothing standing between them and the state, and they should look only to government for guidance and help.

Mike has the right of it. A gross overgeneralization is that liberals assume the authorities are wrong, while conservatives assume that they are right. It takes all kinds.

I haven't blogged about Williams because I'm not particularly energized by his case, except that it's another opportunity to oppose the death penalty, in particular because one can claim that this case exposes the injustice of killing a man who is no longer the criminal he was. I say "can claim" because, like you, I don't know whether or not he has changed, but the possibility is there, and the idea that the State may cut short a man's journey to redemption and his ability to make restitution to the extent that he can, does not sit well with me, even apart from the fundamental unacceptability of capital punishment.

You are right that the case pointed to by Balko is much more worthy of attention, and I will blog on that.

But I am curious, and would request your participation in a gedankenexperiment. If you were authorized by the state to kill Mr. Williams, would you do so? Would you be willing to look him in the eyes, one human being to another, and then pull the trigger or press the button and watch him die? I realize this is somewhat orthogonal to your point, but I'd like to know.

P.S. Mr. Williams was a customer of a store I worked at back in the 70s. I never met him (although I may have seen him in the showroom), but the people who made deliveries of video equipment and tapes to his home went armed, and reported that he was one scary dude.

Dave writes:

"But I am curious, and would request your participation in a gedankenexperiment. If you were authorized by the state to kill Mr. Williams, would you do so? Would you be willing to look him in the eyes, one human being to another, and then pull the trigger or press the button and watch him die? I realize this is somewhat orthogonal to your point, but I'd like to know."

For my part, by way of response I'm going to re-post some of what I wrote further up the comment thread:

"I'm all in favor of mercy. I try to bear in mind a saying I ran across in college: "Justice without Mercy is Horror." Yet Mercy without Justice isn't very pretty either, especially when "life without parole" turns out to be no such thing, and the paroled murderer kills again.

"Power over life and death is the mark of Cain, and we've borne it since the beginning of time. We can't escape it. All we can do is conduct ourselves in the best, most just way we can. And sometimes it's simply not just to let murderers live. I don't like that conclusion, because I am not (contrary to one writer's belief) "filled with bloodlust". But then, I am not REQUIRED to like that conclusion. But I AM required to do what is just."

Dave, that is what it boils down to: the necessity to do that which is just. Would I push the button on Williams? Yes. Do I quail at the thought of doing so? Yes. Would I have trouble meeting his gaze? Yes. But for all that, for all the fact that I would not LIKE pushing the button, I am still REQUIRED to push the button, if I am to do that which is just.

Does that make me a better, more meritorious person than you, or any other opponent of the death penalty? Of course not. All it points out is our difference of opinion on justice.

As for innocent men and women being executed, I concede that the death penalty should be reserved for people whose guilt is beyond question, such as John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy. And while Tookie Williams isn't a monster on the same scale as Gacy or Bundy, his guilt is beyond doubt, he's unrepentant, and there's no point in keeping him alive-- there's no possiblity of executing the wrong man.

Thanks for the honest answer, Hale.

As is probably obvious, I could not, and so I cannot support the death penalty, even were I to think it just. I have no right to delegate an action to a representative that I am not willing (as opposed to able) to do myself.

But for me the question of clemency for Williams doesn't really hinge on his guilt or innocence, anyway, but how he has used and is using his life since then. There are arguments on both sides of that issue.

For instance, my wife pointed out that one talking point against him--that he refused the "debriefing" process--could be interpreted, not as non-repentance and continuing criminal behavior, but as the result of his realization that while there would be a one-time benefit from arrests and convictions of the people he identified as criminals, the underlying dynamics of gang formation would remain, the institution of the Crips and their opponents would remain, and, more important, any influence he had would be gone.

But that, of course, is not a convincing argument to anyone convinced of Williams' non-repentance and continuing criminality. My view is simply that I don't think anyone really knows his state of mind with a certainty that justifies killing him, and it would be a terrible thing to terminate his progress towards redemption if there's any chance at all of that.

So I hope you understand my position even though you don't agree.

As far as I’m concerned he has forfeited his life. I have read that his victim’s family wants him executed. If that will bring them some measure of closure then that seems to me to be a decent use of his miserable life. Kill him. And yes, I could push the button.

'lazerlou' (12/8, 3:33 pm) writes: "The only other countries who do it [=capital punishment] are religious third world countries, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of the viewpoint if the rest of the first world has rejected the practice."

This is demonstrably false. China and South Africa are third-world, but not religious, and China is in fact militantly atheist, brutally and ecumenically oppressing Muslims, Christians, and Falun Gong. Russia is officially not at all religious, though it's arguably third-world, or at least heading that way. All three have and use the death penalty.Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are neither third-world nor religious. All four have the death penalty on the books, and Japan and Singapore use it regularly. Singapore even executes non-murderers: just last week they hanged a Vietnamese-Australian drug smuggler. My list is from Amnesty International, who should know. Other countries that have the death penalty that are not generally considered third-world hellholes are Armenia, India, Thailand, and Jamaica.

Please try to get your facts straight before arguing on the subject.

I really had no idea Japan or South Korea had it. My bad. But as for the rest, I stand by my point. There should have been an "or" between third world and religious, and I should have thrown Democracies in there as well. While I was factually incorrect and sloppy, there certainly is a trend amongst civilized democracies, No?

No, you should have omitted "religious" entirely. There is certainly a third-world bias to the list of countries with death penalties, but there is no religious bias at all. India is very religious and has a death penalty, but Israel and Poland are, too, and they don't. The East Asian countries listed are just as irreligious as Western Europe, and (to repeat myself) China is militantly anti-religion.

As for the main point, the fact that most of Europe doesn't have a death penalty just shows how undemocratic most democracies are. For instance, polls consistently show that 2/3s of the British support the death penalty, they just can't seem to get their politicians to do what they want. The same applies to most of the rest of Europe.

In any case, the fact that most of the supposedly more civilized parts of the world have no death penalty bothers me no more than the fact that they mostly have a Minister of Tourism, a Minister of Sport, a national airline, and gun control, and use the metric system. We have none of those things, and the fact that others do is no reason to join them. Didn't your mother ever say "If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you jump, too?"? I hope your answer wasn't "yes".

I don't know that democracy is a good reason for the death penalty, for the same criticicm your mother applied to jumping off of cliffs applies in both directions: just because the majority of people in a country favor something doesn't make it right.

And it does bother me that only China, Vietnam, and Iran executed more people than the U.S. in 2004. (If you look at it by executions/100 million residents, we're 9th.) At least, that's what Wikipedia says, so take whatever measure of salt you think appropriate with those statistics.