Clemency and guilt and innocence
Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to be executed tonight and his bid for clemency was denied by Governor Schwarzenneger. Williams claims he founded the Crips, but he didn't. He was responsible for the Crips spreading to the westside of L.A. He was convicted of four murders - a convenience store clerk named Albert Owens, and a family of three, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang, and Yee Chen Lin a couple of weeks later. There was testimony of his accomplices that after he shot Owens, Williams made fun of the gurgling sound Owens made as he died.
Williams was convicted of these crimes. All his appeals were rejected. In the eyes of the law, he is guilty. Williams has always maintained his innocence. His defense counsel said that his clemency bid would go better if he admitted his guilt, but Williams insisted he was innocent and would not admit guilt.
A major reason cited by the governor in denying clemency was the fact that Williams refused to take responsibility for the murders. This is the same argument you hear from judge's all the time in sentencing hearings. Convicted persons are sentenced more harshly because they maintain their innocence.
Those who know me well know that my opposition to the death penalty is one of my most deeply-held beliefs. I mention this because I am sure my feelings about the death penalty are coloring my feelings regarding this case - I don't claim to be without bias. It sickens me that we - the people of the U.S., the people of the state of California, we, all of us, me - are going to kill someone tonight. I feel helpless in the face of this. If this were a movie, we would mount a daring rescue. We wouldn't let this happen. But if this were a movie, Williams would be innocent. And it's not a movie. And we don't know if he is innocent.
But the reason I am writing this is to address the issue that people who claim they are innocent are punished more harshly because of it. How can that be right? Is it just the religious principle of redemption being a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness? Can that be right? We judge you harshly - and we judge you even more harshly if you don't repent your wicked ways. Is that what this is about? How can it be? Have we not progressed at all from the Salem witch trials? We know for a fact we convict innocent people. We know for a fact we have executed more than a dozen innocent people since the death penalty was reinstated 30 years ago. DNA evidence has exonerated hundreds - including 14 people who were already executed. We know this. We know that the "truth" isn't always clear, even though it might appear so at the time. We know all this, but we justify increasing the punishment for those who claim, despite the evidence and despite the verdict, that they are innocent? Is our hubris that boundless? We know we are imperfect, but we act as if we were flawless.
I'm not god. I don't know the ultimate truth. And I want to live in a society that feels the same way. But I don't. I live in a country where the people like to pretend we are god. We pretend to know the truth, and we punish harshly those who dare contradict us. It's not Williams' murders that guarantee his lack of clemency. It's his refusal to acede to what we know in our infinite wisdom to be true.
Williams was convicted of these crimes. All his appeals were rejected. In the eyes of the law, he is guilty. Williams has always maintained his innocence. His defense counsel said that his clemency bid would go better if he admitted his guilt, but Williams insisted he was innocent and would not admit guilt.
A major reason cited by the governor in denying clemency was the fact that Williams refused to take responsibility for the murders. This is the same argument you hear from judge's all the time in sentencing hearings. Convicted persons are sentenced more harshly because they maintain their innocence.
Those who know me well know that my opposition to the death penalty is one of my most deeply-held beliefs. I mention this because I am sure my feelings about the death penalty are coloring my feelings regarding this case - I don't claim to be without bias. It sickens me that we - the people of the U.S., the people of the state of California, we, all of us, me - are going to kill someone tonight. I feel helpless in the face of this. If this were a movie, we would mount a daring rescue. We wouldn't let this happen. But if this were a movie, Williams would be innocent. And it's not a movie. And we don't know if he is innocent.
But the reason I am writing this is to address the issue that people who claim they are innocent are punished more harshly because of it. How can that be right? Is it just the religious principle of redemption being a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness? Can that be right? We judge you harshly - and we judge you even more harshly if you don't repent your wicked ways. Is that what this is about? How can it be? Have we not progressed at all from the Salem witch trials? We know for a fact we convict innocent people. We know for a fact we have executed more than a dozen innocent people since the death penalty was reinstated 30 years ago. DNA evidence has exonerated hundreds - including 14 people who were already executed. We know this. We know that the "truth" isn't always clear, even though it might appear so at the time. We know all this, but we justify increasing the punishment for those who claim, despite the evidence and despite the verdict, that they are innocent? Is our hubris that boundless? We know we are imperfect, but we act as if we were flawless.
I'm not god. I don't know the ultimate truth. And I want to live in a society that feels the same way. But I don't. I live in a country where the people like to pretend we are god. We pretend to know the truth, and we punish harshly those who dare contradict us. It's not Williams' murders that guarantee his lack of clemency. It's his refusal to acede to what we know in our infinite wisdom to be true.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home