Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[KenWittlief]

Amanda,

I have to completely disagree with your assessment of capitol punishment in the US. No person in a high position, Governor or judge 'gives the order' to end someone's life.

The accused is tried by a jury of their peers, ordinary people from all walks of life, chosen randomly from the pool of registered voters. The laws have been established by both state and federal legislators.

When a person is tried the duty of the court (judge and jury) is to decide which (if any) law has been broken.

The only person truly responsible for the execution of a person who committed a capitol crime, is THAT person: the criminal. He is the one person who had a free choice, and the ability to stop the crime before it was committed.

[Amanda Morrison]

Let me clarify even further: if I can recall, Stanley Williams asked for clemency. I'm referring solely to that when I made mention of higher government pardoning or damning a person on Death Row (I should have explained that but thought it was fairly obvious).

I didn't make mention of the trial because, as I said, I don't know enough about this individual case and therefore am not going to argue aspects of something I haven't researched. However, I encourage anyone else who has researched it to use it in their answer.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

I have refrained from this thread solely based on the fact that I don't know enough about the person at hand to judge his life one way or another. Most of you don't either, and I wish you'd realize that and take it into consideration when you post.

Maddie did bring up something that I thought important for me to say, though. No living, breathing human being has the right to end the life of another living, breathing human being. You have no right to walk up to someone and shoot them. You have no right to walk up to someone and strangle them. You have no right to suffocate someone. Essentially, you have no right to kill another living, breathing human being in any way, shape, or form where you are directly responsible for their death. But apparently, if you are in a high enough position in American government, you can. A justice system of any kind automatically determines something as black and white, right or wrong.

So here's the next essay question I post to you kids:

Assuming that people are not inherently evil (since as far as I know, DNA researchers and scientists have not discovered an 'evil' gene), and since we have proven statistically that the death penalty has not worked as a threat to criminals and in some states the crime rate has gone up since the implementation of the penalty, what is the solution? If you were a governor, would you want millions of Americans protesting you, with the blood of convicted persons on your hands, or would it be for the best? Could you deal with their families and friends afterward?

And more importantly, since this is already the subject at hand... could you have given the order to kill Stanley Williams and live the rest of your life knowing you killed another human being? Answer honestly, carefully, justifiably, and <b>politely</b>.

(I'd answer myself, but I'd be afraid of swaying someone or sparking even more hateful and disgusting behavior as some of you have already displayed in this thread, apparently without remorse. Please remember that this is a public forum, that opinions are tolerated but attacks are not.)

To add onto that, what if someone was attacking you or otherwise posed a threat to your or your family? Were the actions of those on Flight 93 (The one who fought the terrorists, presumably killing them, to try and save the lives of those onboard and possible targets) justified? Did those living, breathing human beings have the right to end the lives of other living, breathing human beings in order to save the lives of other living breathing human beings?

My vote is yes.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The accused is tried by a jury of their peers, ordinary people from all walks of life, chosen randomly from the pool of registered voters.

Jurors are not chosen at random.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

I lied. Here's another opinion...

Second verse is the same as the first. No.

I'm not going to even both responding to Ken, Mike, or some of the other posts in this thread. It's not worth my time. Go Tristan, Beth, and Andy!

Bill, you've made some of the worst posts I have ever seen in this thread. Simply stating that we're not worth the time is takes to respond in a thoughtful manner. We're not barbarians and have put time in our posts. The people who support the death penatly are not some cult phenomenon; 74% of the country is in favor of the death penatly for a convicted murderer! (Source)

Originally Posted by M. Krass

I can probably make a list of all sorts of people with questionable moral fiber. After you've finished deciding from the comfort of your armchair whether this kid should live or die, let me know and we can start a full-fledged witchhunt!

I'll bring the stake if you bring the firewood.

(That is to say, it's probably mildly inappropriate to so casually discuss the future of complete strangers based on what you read on Wikipedia.)

I'm sure you'd put me on a list of people with questionable moral fiber based on posts 27 and 29 of this thread. I find it mildy inapropriate that you can spit out the ridiculous comments about me like you've had in this thread without citing anything. But hey, what's integrity?

I make my desicions based on a collection of news sources. Not just Wikipedia. Mr. Ludwig is not surrounded by a property battle between Salem Town and Salem Village. He had a motive to kill the parents and he admitted to it. I'm not saying this kid wasn't mentally ill. I think he should plead insanity. However, this is hardly a witch hunt.

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

...since we have proven statistically that the death penalty has not worked as a threat to criminals and in some states the crime rate has gone up since the implementation of the penalty, what is the solution?

I don't think we've proven the effectiveness of the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

And more importantly, since this is already the subject at hand... could you have given the order to kill Stanley Williams and live the rest of your life knowing you killed another human being? Answer honestly, carefully, justifiably, and <b>politely</b>.

Honestly, I would feel a little remorse. You can always find some redeeming quality of a person to make them likable. That's why Mr. Williams was able to generate such a media frenzy. However, I think that I could justify "pulling the switch" because when he committed the act he knew the consequences.

I'm sure the mentality of the executioner is similar to being in the repossession business. When you are towing away the car of a single mother who couldn't pay the bill. You know what you're doing will deal a tremendous blow to the person and their family. You also know that we have rules, contracts and laws in this country. You're just in the unsavory position of holding them accountable for their actions.

The answer is, yes, I could have killed Stanley Williams. That doesn't mean I'd feel great about it, or that I'm a barbarian; I'm just a positively contributing member of society.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I find it mildy inapropriate [sic] that you can spit out the ridiculous comments about me like you've had in this thread without citing anything.

Surely you haven't forgotten that you said, women do not deserve the right to vote. What more evidence that your behavior and opinion are ridiculous and reprehensible am I to cite than what you've provided on these forums?

You are, for better or for worse, afforded the same opportunities to share your ideas here as anyone else, but you should not be allowed to call on children to decide if someone -- thusfar, convicted of no crime -- should be killed. We should not have a discussion that is simultaneously tactless, tasteless and without merit.

I don't expect for you to do anything but hand me a pitchfork and impale yourself upon it, Mike, but I am at least hopeful that some others will see exactly how inappropriate it is to judge people at random when neither we nor they have had the benefit of trial. Given that, so far, nobody has answered your question, I'm now confident that is the case.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Surely you haven't forgotten that you said, women do not deserve the right to vote.

That's taken out of context. My point in that post has more to do with equal rights for everyone. Why don't women have to register with the SSS when they turn 18? Why don't you champion a cause to include yourself in a draft? Oh, because you just want the positive rights, apparently not the equal rights.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Given that, so far, nobody has answered your question, I'm now confident that is the case.

Maybe because they don't want to voice their opinion and be attacked from someone like you? Hmm.

[KenWittlief]

technically no one on this forum has the authority or the power to pass judgement on Ludwig, and he is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

There is a difference between passing judgment and having an opinion. The biblical command to 'judge not' is talking about an action that carries with it punishment. If you have been judged guilty then penalties follow.

As far as I know there is no biblical or legal command that we should 'not have opinions' or be allowed to express them freely.

[Brandon Martus]

This thread will be closed tomorrow evening. Everybody who wants to voice their opinion has been given over a week to do so, and the discussion is turning more & more into bickering and personal attacks. Please gather your final thoughts on the main subject of this thread and post them sometime before tomorrow evening. The thread may re-open at a later date to spawn further discussion, but for now the topic needs time to rest.

If it's not closed by 6PM Eastern tomorrow, moderators, please close this thread and reference this post when doing so.

[sciguy125]

That deadline is a little sooner than I wanted, but I guess I'll have to live with it. I have jury duty this week, so I wanted to see if I get put on a jury before I respond to this. But here it goes anyway...

I present the following information as I see and understand it.

In discussions as controversial as this, I don't like to look at things on a case by case basis. Doing so often muddies the discussion with irrelevant information and petty bickering. Get ready for a long one...

I begin by exploring the morality of he death penalty. Aside from the beliefs of a higher power or force, religion is also a framework for the moral values of many people. With that, I decided to start my search there. I had a Catholic upbringing and, as such, can only give in-depth comments about Catholicism. I have had limited exposure to the details of other religions, so I can only present what I have read. Wikipedia's article on capital punishment covers several religions. Buddhism's pacifist believes apparently extend to its take on the death penalty. In essence, you are not to take anyone's life, particularly for vengeance. So, the death penalty is out. Judaism has some laws explicitly concerning the death penalty. It is allowed under certain circumstances. These circumstances are so specific, however, that it is hard to use them to put someone to death as a punishment. Islam also allows for the death penalty. So long as the law allows for the death penalty for their crime, and they are given due process, the death penalty can be administered if they are found guilty.

And now, on to Catholicism and Christianity. There are several places that the Old Testament allows for the death penalty. In Genesis 9:5-6, God tells Noah that the punishment for murder is death. God will kill the animals the kill people. However, humans that kill humans are to be put to death by the hand of other humans. Deuteronomy 17 outlines the laws given to Moses from God concerning the use of the death penalty. Worshiping false gods is grounds for a stoning if found guilty by the local judges. In the case of murder, the priests at the place of worship have the final verdict that must be followed. Presumably, this allows the death penalty for murder. On a side note, disobeying the priests' decree concerning the case is grounds for being put to death.

In the New Testament, however, things get murky. For those that don't know, the New Testament is about the life and teachings of Jesus. The Old Testament is about things before Jesus' time, namely Creation and the beginnings of Judaism (Noah, Moses, and their descendants). There are a few places that Jesus seems to dislike the death penalty. In Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus talks about revenge and loving your enemies. When someone hits you, you're supposed to let them hit you again. If someone mistreats you, you're supposed to go above and beyond and show them that you don't mind. You are also supposed to love your enemies to separate yourself from them and to be more like God. God loves everyone and you should too. In John 8:1-11, Jesus stops a woman from being stoned. The law allowed for her to be put to death for committing adultery. Jesus, however, preached forgiveness. He argued that someone who was free of sin should throw the first stone. Nobody present was, so they left, but Jesus told the woman not to sin again. This would seem that Jesus was against the death penalty. I don't disagree that he was, but he also mentions something else. In Matthew 4:17-20, he says that the Law of Moses should be obeyed. It seems that he calls upon people to follow the spirit of the law, not the word.

The Catholic Church has taken a stance against the death penalty. A brief look at the official stances of some Protestant denominations reveals that they too have decided that the death penalty is not compliant with their beliefs. There are many, however, whose beliefs are not inline with the official positions of their churches. Google reveals that there are many Christian fundamentalists that hold that God and Jesus are in support of the death penalty.

So what about something from a more secular stand point? Many argue that by killing a murderer, we are lowering ourselves to their level. We are committing the crime that we are trying to amend. I fully agree with this. It's like stopping a fire by setting another one. But wait, I thought they do that. Remove a section of forest and the fire can't jump it. The death penalty is a deterrent. It tells people that if they kill someone, they themselves will be killed. Some argue that it doesn't work. I'm sure that, to an extent, they are right. It won't deter everyone. But, it will deter some. Isn't some better than none?

As for the criminal's right to live, I contend that they can give up that right when they commit their crime. Society gives you your rights. Americans have the right to free speech because we gave it to ourselves. People have the right to live because the society that they live in gave it to them. Rights can be taken away as easily as they are given. If someone chooses to commit a crime, they will loose whatever rights their society deems necessary to punish them. If we can take away someone's right to move about freely, we can take away their right to live. You live by whatever laws your society gives you. So long as you have the right to leave, you have to abide by them and accept whatever punishment your laws prescribe.

Now, what about the innocent people that are executed? What's the ratio of truly guilty to wrongfully accused? I don't know, but I have a feeling it's relatively low. They're collateral damage. How many times has the threat of collateral damage stopped a war? Serving the wellbeing of the many is more important than protecting the few. There is an important aspect to point out here. These innocently executed people are collateral damage, they aren't sacrificed. If I go out and kill someone to harvest their organs, I can probably save several people by killing that one. That person, however, would be a sacrifice. It's not the same as harvesting the organs of someone who is dead or dying.

Wherever you stand on the moral aspect of this argument is up to you. I'm not going to sit here and try to change your moral beliefs. Not only because I don't feel that is right, but because I can't. People will believe what they want to believe. What I can change however, is your logical perspective.

The death penalty permanently eliminates threats to our society. Many, including Pope John Paul II argue that, with respect to that, the death penalty is no longer needed. We have the ability to securely hold dangerous criminals and keep them away from the public. But, there's always a way to get out. Many may refute that by saying it's possible for me to be struck by lightning and win the lottery in the same day, but it's not going to happen. Well, I could easily increase my odds of that happening by carrying around a long metal pole and buying a bunch of lottery tickets. Similarly, we can easily prevent the possible release/escape of a hardened criminal by executing them. (I include release because people get off on technicalities sometimes.)

There's also the need to put the victim's family at rest. If it helps them to know that the person that hurt them is no longer around, then so be it. It might hurt the criminal's family, but they should have thought about that before they committed their crime. I'm sure that families don't like to see their relatives in jail either. So does that mean that we should let them go? I realize that prison and execution are not the same thing, but I contend that the reasoning is still sound.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. What else can we do? Well, one I idea I was toying with is to give everyone a gun. If you knew for a fact that I had a gun and that all the people around me have guns, would you try to hurt me? It's called mutually assured destruction. It seems to have worked to prevent nuclear war. Of course, this has a problem. If I give a gun to everybody, it only takes that one crazy guy to destroy everything. It would be a very delicate balance that could easily be upset. So, obviously, this wouldn't be a very good solution either.

I assert that we will never find a good solution. Everything will have some flaw. In the end, we will need to figure out what we want and what we are willing to sacrifice to get it. For the last few years, I've been calling this the Imperfection Principle (see Uncertainty Principle). Everything has some amount of baseline imperfection associated with it. If you finally filter down to the best ideas, you'll only end up with things that require sacrifices. What you have to work with will all be equally good, but require trade-offs.

So, is the death penalty good or bad? Whatever you think is up to you. I, however, feel that it's the best we have at the moment. Until you can think of something better, we'll have to go with it.