When Ward Churchill, Ed Asner, and Al Sharpton are on your side, I'm not. It's time, quite literally, for capital punishment opponents to get a new posterchild. California executed Stanley "Tookie" Williams in the first minutes of today. Note to anti-death penalty activists: next time pick a more sympathetic character to spearhead your campaign. Tookie Williams, his mean visage, his imposing physique, his alleged role in founding the Crips, his prison rap sheet, his death-row residency for nearly a quarter century--all of this makes mainstream America want the death penalty more, not less. Society feels more comfortable seeing Tookie Williams strapped to a gurney than seeing Tookie Williams in a dark alley. Are Tookie's gang history and his scary look relevant to the case? No, they're not. But neither are his coauthorship of children's books, his prepostrous nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, and his role in a gang peace treaty. Image matters. Both sides of this debate understand this idea but don't always implement it. By selecting Mr. Williams as the cause du jour, death-penalty opponents harm rather than help their cause. In their defense, they don't have a lot to work with. Inhabitants of death row rarely lend themselves well to Madison Avenue-style public relations campaigns.

Even before this high profile display, in places less visible than in the city of hype, the save the condemned crowd has been ever present and unfortunately accounted for. It’s very hard to take any of these people seriously and that especially includes pampered liberal celebrities who have lots of time on their hands.

Funny how they never consider the real victims who can’t speak for themselves and who unlike this murderous piece o’ crap didn’t have the option to a make life or death decision.

This guy was a bad animal and he has been justifiably and rightly exterminated.

Tookie Williams got what he deserved, but as Clint Eastwood told Gene Hackman in Unforgiven "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it"! I thought Tookie was indeed a side show in this whole episode. What was most interesting was Liberals falling all over themselves coming up with reasons to commute this man's duly-imposed death sentence.

Alan Colmes last night asking repeatedly "Well, some people have said there's evidence he might not have committed the murders; isn't there a chance he might NOT have committed the murders?"

Alan might as well quote his undoubtedly-good friend Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and question whether the Holocaust actually occurred because "some people" believe it didn't. Or, because some crackpots say we never landed on the moon, let's cover all the bases and question whether that event ever happened.

Others question the "message" this will send to young prospective gang members! First, I'd like one scintilla of evidence that Tookie Williams' writings ever reached any budding Bloods or Crips, let alone turned their lives around. Second, the message I see being sent by sparing Tookie is that no matter how many people you kill, once you get to prision, use the 20 or more years you have waiting for your execution to write a couple of poems or childrens stories and a bunch of useful idiots will come to your aid saying you've been redeemed!

I think it's great if Mr. Williams was actually redeemed; but I would have been more convinced of his redemption had he confessed his crimes and actually aided authorities in busting up the Crips, rather than refusing to assist them in any way.

I truly respect those who are truly against the death penalty. But please, find a better focus for your actions.

And if any of the Catholic Bishops read Flynn Files, PLEASE, don't selectively quote Old Tesatament scripture to support your anti-death penalty position, and fail to mention the overwhelming volume of verses that state the exact opposite, and which specifically address the penalty God sets forth for the intentional taking of human life. Do you think this is the old days, where the Bible is only printed in Latin, and only the Church can read it?

The truth is that, as a Christian, I believe that Tookie will be judged by God. We can take away his life, but the real prize is his soul. Only Tookie and God know what happened and if he is redeemed. I'm comfortable leaving it up to Him. I'm glad that he's gone. I suppose to many liberals this doesn't make sense... cause it requires faith.

That may be true TFS. And in the spiritual realm of things that may be a valid interpretation. But, the way I see it, this is a case of just one more bad man who will never kill again or ruin anybody else’s life.

Don't care if he is subject to redemption in any form, either here or there. He's gone and good riddance to him.

Too bad they still don't have the chair. Snoop might have been heard to say something like "he's got some schnizzle in his sizzle". And then run off to play gold with Lee Iaccoca.

When Dan lights into a subject, it's often to urge his opponents to argue smarter. Like a boxer poking his own chest and sticking out his jaw at a chumpy challenger, to say, "That's all you got?"

To ante up: the Tookie contingent outside San Quentin was more harmonic convergence than unified movement. The worst were pre-printed placards that read, "Save Tookie - International Socialist Organization" and one with a quote from Buddha about only love being a solution to violence. I wondered if the standard-bearer for that one was John Walker Lindh's mom - perhaps of the same temple or retreat? - another lapsed Judeo-Christian who lives a short drive from San Quentin.

The pro-Tookie person I respected most was a former Oakland gang member interviewed by local radio. He clearly needed to believe in a hero to credit and/or continue his own redemption from thuggery and druggery. I wish him the best, and hope someday he steps out of Tookie's shadow.

The anti-Tookie person I respected most was stepmother of Albert Jones, Williams's youngest victim. She said she thought justice was done and she felt peace for her family. She also had the grace to reply, when asked her opinion of those who wanted let him live, that Williams was entitled to have people who love him, too.

Albert Owens, not "Jones" (goddammit)

I was in an argument with a family member over the death penalty. Her opinion was that the death penalty was not a deterrent. I, never being one to hold back my opinion, said it's not meant to be, it's justice. I told her they should get 3 appeals over 3 years. Lose all three, dig a hole. Her response, "Not very Christian of you". I told her that we forgive the criminal for the crime, we don't excuse him from the punishment for it. His final judgement is from God.

So i can see that none of you give a damn about justice. You all are confusing justice with revenge and no they are not the same thing. Tookie was not asking to be free, none of us would have ever run into him in a dark ally. All he wanted was to keep writting anti-gang, anti-violence literature so that disgruntal urban youths dont follow the same path. The real question is: Can one redem themselves? You all are so caught up in revenge that you forget about justice. How can Dan Flynn say that all the books and the peace accords between bloods and crips doesnt matter? OF COURSE IT MATTERS! this man may have saved uncountable lives through his writtings. Since you all are wrapped up in punishment and revenge, dont you think that life in prison is a far worse punishment then death? Prison SUCKS! death is a form of freedom, a release. so i hope it makes you all feel better now that a person is dead and gone. Its truly disgusting, RIP Tookie.

Wm. Clement, what you are saying is unchristian. Do you think Christ would really execute anyone? would Christ be happy that this man committed his life to stopping what he started? i think so. You are no Christian. And also, God is a crip so youll probobly see Tookie in heaven...its wierd though because gabriel is a blood. I dont really know how that works out...

Clement, what you are saying is unchristian. Do you think Christ would really execute anyone? would Christ be happy that this man committed his life to stopping what he started? i think so. You are no Christian. And also, God is a crip so youll probobly see Tookie in heaven...its wierd though because gabriel is a blood. I dont really know how that works out...

hkjsad: Wow, Im not even really proDeath penalty, but you make me wanna be. When I catch students plagiarizing, sometimes they are sincerely sorry and embarrassed and repentant. I still give them an F and send them to the Dean. That's justice, not revenge. (And actually Tookie WAS asking to be free -- he denied killing those four people, remember?)

And as for this BS about how many lives he could save by co-authoring some children's books, well, no one knows. I suspect it's about the same number he will save by having been given such a public execution. The death penalty may not be a huge deterent, but neither are obscure children's books. Which means more to 12-year-old boys in bad LA neighborhoods?

h...,
I'm sorry for your loss. Just that much of the country doesn't feel it was a loss.
If Williams' efforts to reform gangstas were a sincere, let alone successful, attempt at spiritual redemption, if he touched specific lives and left a legacy that will touch more, then his execution won't change that.

The kind of sicko that blows away 4 people (and who knows how many others) does not get better. He only does whatever he can to survive. Williams's only hope was if he could fool enough people with his "good works." Odd that he only turned to good works after being condemned to death. I guess death row has a really strong rehabilitative effect. How many pro-death penalty people were fooled by this cretin's turnaround act? How many were already against the death penalty? I am anti-death penalty, but I suspect that justice was done, strongly suspect.

h.,
I Guess you haven't read the Bible. Remember "Thou shall not commit murder"? Jesus said we should forgive those who sin against us. He did not say that we would not be punished for our sins. I stated that Tookie should be forgiven, but, that does not preclude punishment. Also, how can you be redeemed if you don't apologize for your crime? The evidence against him was pretty solid. He was also a problem in prison for the first 5 or 10 years he was in. If he really did seek God's forgiveness, then I'm sure he got it. God is a crip? Gabriel a blood? No, to campare God to a bunch of murdering thugs is pretty sad. I hope you find peace.

Cardinal Renato Martino: "We know the death penalty doesn't resolve anything. Even a criminal is worthy of respect because he is a human being. The death penalty is a negation of human dignity."

Brian or Skeptic, please explain to me why the death penalty is the negation of human dignity? Is this Church teaching or merely prevelant opinion among the clergy? Is the topic covered in an encyclical?

Well, Ralph, to see how the the death penalty could be an attack on human dignity, read asdf's comments above, e.g., "This guy was a bad animal and he has been justifiably and rightly exterminated." I'm sure if you surf some conservative blogs you can find more of the same, and worse.

There are levels of teaching. It's teaching in the sense that many bishops/priests think this way and tell us it follows from Christ's message, but it's not teaching in a strong sense, let alone an infallible sense (it is ineligible for infallibility given the Church's past support of it). Thus, contrary to liberal US Catholic jibberish, it isn't comparable to the teaching about abortion.

Ralph,

I think skeptic is basically on to something there in her response Ralph. I suspect that if one presses Cardinal Martino towards a full discussion of the meaning of "human dignity" than he would end up with a philosophical position that is both reasonable, orthodox, and wouldn't gibe with that quote you give when read rather straightforwardly and literally. In fact, I am not sure that his eminence is really giving much of an argument at all in that quote and so wonder if a fuller context would make it make more sense.

But, truth be told, I honestly am confused by most remonstrances against the death penalty on the part of the Church heirarchy, including from JPII. I am really not clear at all on what the real motivating factor (rational or otherwise) behind the move towards opposition of the death penalty in the ordinary magisterium is all about. It seems to be a matter of prudence rather than one of principle, just look at the Catechism as it now reflects the additions of JPII on the subject:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

His new additions are in quotations and basically claim that today a criminal can be rendered harmless by means other than execution and therefore the death penalty should not be preferred and in fact rarely, if ever, made use of because other means of protecting society "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

There again we have that phrase, the "dignity of the human person." Here is what the Catechism has to say about what that phrase means:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5F.HTM

I really don't see the direct logic or reasoning behind why the specific act of capital punishment violates human dignity more so than other forms of restraint. I suspect it is actually tied into the question of allowing the person the time to actually truly repent, and seek out God's forgiveness. But even that seems to be a strictly prudential argument, and since impending death often has a way of quickening the mind it isn't even clear to me that this argument is completely persuasive.

But as for the pragmatic arguments in general I do find the concatenation of them decently persuasive, particularly the obvious procedural injustices in the American legal system based on wealth, that is, rich murderers don't fry. But can this rather prosaic reasoning really be enough to explain Cardinal Martino's words? I just am not certain about why the death penalty specifically violates, or at least doesn't fully attest to, the human dignity of the criminal. Sorry, I know this isn't of much help but maybe you can read the relevant parts of the Catechism and maybe take a look at Evagelium Vitae and explain it to me!

(Btw, in answer to hkjsad's question "Can one redem [stet] themselves?" No. That is why Christ took it upon Himself to redeem us.)