Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Stan

Early this morning, Stanley Tookie Williams was executed in California. Convicted of murder, Mr. Williams died by lethal injection amid a flurry of protest and last-minute appeals to our legal and governmental systems. Petitions for stays of execution were made based on newfound evidence and Mr. Williams’ post-incarceration turnaround. After founding the notorious gang known as the Crips, Mr. Williams became an outspoken advocate against gang violence while behind bars. Debate raged in the recent weeks before the execution that clemency should be granted to Mr. Williams based upon his ability to prevent gang membership among today’s youth.

The above paragraph could have appeared in any news outlet this morning. Tookie’s march toward the death chamber lasted much longer than the final paces he took shortly after midnight. The reality of the situation is overwhelming. Stan was convicted in a court of law, several appeals had been denied, and after more than two decades in prison, the judicial system of our day ran its course.

Should Stanley have been executed? Were those at the nightly vigils wasting their time? Was Jesse Jackson making a pointless visit? While I do not support the death penalty because of my Christian convictions, I do not think Tookie should have been released. The man should have been kept where he was most effective: behind bars. The lives he changed and the gang membership he prevented were admirable tasks. Let him keep doing it from the confines of his cell.

Those who are playing the race card during this time are merely crying wolf. If we want to focus on the barbarism of the death penalty system, let’s talk. If we want to bring to light the injustices the court system in America sometimes can cause, then I’m listening. But to bring up allegations of race or unfairness at the eleventh hour clearly had no benefit. Like Democrats, Stan’s supporters needed to learn how to frame debates to focus on the issues that really need changing.

Williams’ legacy will be mixed, like that of a man named Alfred. The inventor of dynamite, a rumor surfaced that Alfred had died, and a local paper ran his obituary the next day. Alfred awoke to find that his life’s crowning achievement was as the inventor of an item used for so much destruction. After correcting the authorities, Alfred Nobel began to work for peace and eventually had an international prize named after him.

Stan will always be known for founding a gang that has destroyed countless lives. He also spent his last years telling young people not to make the same mistakes he did. Hopefully, his legacy will not be ultimately tainted by others who wish to overlay their own political agendas. A double-edged sword, Stan’s legacy will be remembered differently by victims and victors. May he rest in peace.

Comments (3)

Anonymous

7:04 PM

I agree with a lot of what you say, however, I do have one other question to raise:

Do you think that Tookie would have worked so hard at speaking out against gangs if there was not the selfish perspective behind it that if he did enough to quell the ideas of the very thing he helped to create, he would possibly have the opportunity to have a stay of execution?

I understand that it's a somewhat pointless question, but I'm just wondering how much a person would want to change if they didn't finally have that fear that what they have done is catching up with them.

(And just in case anybody really is wondering, I am against the death penalty, but I still think there are a lot of people that should be killed)

-Bugg

Interesting question. I'm afraid I'm going to have to plead the fifth out of ignorance. I didn't know Tookie or his motives behind his activism. Yes, he got a destructive ball rolling. Yes, he was convicted of a very violent crime. Yes, punishment should be the result of both.

However, the fact that he did prevent some from joining gangs is undeniable, and for this heshould be praised, regardless of motive. And now, that is all I can do. Like Nobel, he was able to turn an empty life into one of prevention, which is the personification of redemption as discussed by Jesus.

And were it my relative or friend that was his victim in the 1970's, I'm sure my sentiment would be entirely different. Or maybe not.

Anonymous

11:35 PM

Some have said, especially recently, that redemption involves an acknowledgement of a destructive or regressive past. From what I understand Tookie Williams NEVER admitted he was guilty of a crime. Even until his death he vowed his innocence. Is his life one of redemption? Can a man unknowingly redeem himself?