When to grant clemency... that is the question

I am going to be flamed for saying this. But I’ll say it anyway. As much as I am opposed the death penalty, I am not sure I would have given Tookie Williams clemency if I were governor of California. Here is why:

I really think that the law has to mean something. And, in some cases, one’s private opinions have to be set aside. In a case like this, I think a governor should grant clemency when:

--Potentially exculpatory credible evidence comes forward that has not been reviewed by the courts or had been inadequately reviewed.
--There was judicial misconduct that would taint the prosecution or the sentence.
--The state’s death penalty system is so broken that it would be appropriate to set aside all state death sentences (as George Ryan did).

If none of the above was the case, then I don’t think a governor should just set aside a verdict reached by the courts based on a duly passed law. To do so, based solely on one’s personal objection to the death penalty would be an abuse of power, in my opinion.

I am open hearing anyone's case for why one or more of my three criteria were met in this case. But if they weren’t, then the governor would have been wrong to grant clemency.

since the "evidence" was heavily tainted by having been obtained through the reward of plea bargains for some of his fellow thugs. We know both of those are present in many DP cases, DAs running for reelection looking for easy convictions and innocent men being set up and then given the ultimate penalty to make those DAs look tough on crime.

The facts are that the DP is not a deterrent, is more expensive than housing an inmate for the rest of his life, is applied mostly to the poor, and puts us into a club with the most barbaric nations on earth as the only ones that have such a penalty.

Tookie Williams was not a nice guy. He did make a few amends in later life, but chances are he remained a pretty bad guy. It just wasn't our job to kill him.

testified against Tookie filed a declaration that he personally witnessed prosecution files being handed to the informant to review. He also stated that said cellmate flatout said he was lying to gain a reduction in his own sentence. He had no prior contact or connection to Williams or the case and did not, in fact, make the connection between his old cellmate and this case until recently when he saw an article which referenced his old cellmate by name and the fact that his testimony helped convict Williams.

His declaration was never fully considered by the court.

The governor probably shouldn't base it on being personally for or against the death penalty but I wish the sentence would have been commuted to live in prison just in case there is any chance he really was innocent.

nominated, it brings up some different perspectives to the issue. (aka Tookie)...

heaven on earth.

At the very least, if someone is still alive, the most unforeseen mistakes can be corrected.

If someone is rehabilitated, why not let them live...especially if it is in jail for the rest of their lives?

If there is no point to rehabilitation, why not just call it what it is...The Department of Revenge and Torture, not the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.

State sanctioned murder is no better than any other murder.

That pretty well sums up a lot of the reasons why I think death penalty laws should be repealed.

If he says he will commute death sentences when he runs then he should do that. If he doesn't or says that he won't commute then I think your standard holds. In the Tookie case I don't think any of the criteria you set out was met.

Yep, in that case, I think you could say that the electorate knew what it was voting for.

Then we wouldn't have to go through this shit.

If this convicted felon spent his many years in appeal of his sentence and accomplished the amount of honored work that this man did during that time, I see no merit in lethal injection. It would be far better for society if he spent the rest of his life in jail, hopefully continuing whatever good works earned him the nominations. I am neither pro nor against the penalty but in view of the fact that all the appeals seem to take 15-20 years, there seems to be plenty of time to prove you, as a felon, can contribute something to society and try to make some amends. Never to be free is a great penalty in itself but what if he was really innocent? I think the state of California deprived itself of a spokesman capable of communicating with the disadvantaged. Nothing was accomplished.

A mere Nobel Peace Prize nomination has pretty much zero value. Thousands of people worldwide can nominate anyone they like for any reason. It doesn't make the nominee decent or special.

to pay a little more attention. When it's fairly prominent professors making the nomination, it's worth paying a little more attention to.

over and over. The nomination had less to do with Williams than as a symbolic anti-death penalty gesture. He might just as easily have picked another murderer to nominate.

Actually, there was one professor and a member of Swiss parliament, both of whom nominated him for his work AGAINST gangs in the past decade.

Of course, only someone who was doing research would know this, not someone who got their information from say Fox News.

Don't bother replying, I'm through debating with intellectually dishonest people.

over and over. The nomination had less to do with Williams than as a symbolic anti-death penalty gesture. He might just as easily have picked another murderer to nominate.

http://www.mikefarrell.org/publications/Tookie.html

General statement by Mike Farrell concerning Stanley Tookie Williams.
Friday 28 October, 2005
To Squiggy from Mike

Because there's been a significant reaction to the press coverage of my
opposition to the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, I thought it
might be a good idea to post a general statement for the benefit of
anyone who has a question or concern.
I thought it was already quite clear that I oppose the death penalty.
That means I'm against all state killing regardless of whether the
individual in question is guilty or innocent. But some of those who have
communicated their upset either aren't aware of that or feel this case
should be an exception. Let me try to be more clear.
I believe killing is wrong. That being so, I believe that the state (or
the people in a civilized society) have a special responsibility to
always act in a manner that honors the principles of humanity that
underpin our society. For the state to kill teaches that killing is
appropriate under certain circumstances and, by extension, provides
justification to those who believe that their particular case or
circumstance warrants it as well. The young, in particular, learn
behavior from us and this requires that we always reach for the higher
standard.
There's much more to be said, of course, but I don't want to go on
endlessly. I realize that some people believe it is right for the state
to execute those who have committed heinous crimes, but one of the
problems they have is that the system necessary to do so must be
perfect. It must be error-proof so that we don't kill innocent people or
kill some and not others who do the same or worse things. It must be
fair and even-handed, colorblind and absent prejudice of any type. It
must protect the rights of all equally and must not allow ambition or
dishonesty or bias or money or any of the myriad problems that can arise
in a system run by humans to corrupt it.
Unfortunately, our system does not measure up. It is corrupted by all
the above elements and, in addition, it makes mistakes. In recent years,
122 people who have been tried, convicted, sentenced to death by a 'jury
of their peers' and lived in terror as they awaited execution, have been
found to be wrongly convicted and freed. What we don't know is how many
other innocent people did not have the benefit of a caring person to go
to bat for them and died at the hands of the state.
Until and unless we can make the system perfect I do not see how anyone,
no matter how much he or she believes it appropriate, can justify its
use..
That's my general view. Now let's go to the specifics of the case in
question: Stanley Tookie Williams.
As many seem to know, Stanley was one of the founders of the "Crips," a
notorious street gang that began in Los Angeles and has spread quite
widely. He was an angry young man who did a lot of bad things, things of
which he is not proud. As you can imagine, he was considered dangerous
and was someone in whom the police had an interest, someone they wanted
to put away. He was arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of four
people in two different robberies. He has consistently, from the time he
was first arrested until this day, denied killing them.
Because I wasn't there I have no idea whether he killed them or not.
What I do know is that the prosecutor trying the case excused blacks
from the jury pool, a practice in some jurisdictions that has since been
held unconstitutional by higher courts. I know that the prosecutor used
highly charged terms with clear racial implications in securing a
conviction. I know Stanley was forced to sit before the jury in chains
and shackles, a tactic intended to inspire fear and loathing in them.
And I know that in examining the case later, a federal appeals court
judge said the conviction was based on "circumstantial evidence and the
testimony of witnesses whose credibility was highly suspect."
Circumstantial evidence means there was nothing that specifically tied
Stanley to the crime. The "highly suspect" witnesses were people who, as
a result of their testimony, either were set free or received reduced
sentences as a result of their cooperation. This practice is known as
"snitch testimony" and is inherently untrustworthy. "Snitches" have
corrupted numerous convictions and resulted in many people being later
found innocent. We don't know how many they have killed. In some
instances, notably in Los Angeles County, prosecutors have been exposed
as using "snitches" they knew were liars to help them secure a
conviction.
So, as said, I don't know if Stanley committed these murders or not, but
it is interesting to note that he has been consistent in denying them,
even after he went through the extraordinary change he has experienced
and acknowledged and apologized for his behavior during his lawless
years.
I've met Stanley and found him a very impressive man. I know of his
experience in prison and the process of change that began when he spent
years in "the hole," solitary confinement of the most drastic kind. I
know of the Bible and the dictionary he asked for and the process he
went through to teach himself to read and ultimately to write. I know of
the studying he has done in order to become a better man. I know of the
positive influence he has become for young people all over the world
through the books he has written and the letters and speaking he has
done (over the telephone from death row to schools, organizations and
groups of kids who want to hear from him).
I know that he has had an extraordinarily powerful impact in many
sectors. His counseling brought about a gang truce in Los Angeles and
another one in Newark, New Jersey. The Internet Project for Street Peace
he founded has reached young people as far away as Switzerland and South
Africa. In all of these efforts he counsels against gangs, against
violence; he encourages kids to stay in school and not be seduced by the
ethic of the street life. His books, the "Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang
Violence" series, deal with gangs, drugs, self-esteem, violence,
choosing the right friends and other important aspects of the lives of
ghetto kids. "Life in Prison" and "Blue Rage, Black Redemption" are
books that deal with his life experience. All of these have had a
profound effect on countless numbers of young people's lives.
So, yes, I believe Governor Schwarzenegger should commute Stanley's
sentence to Life in Prison Without Possibility of Parole so that he can
continue to do the good and effective work he has been doing. There is
no value to us or to our society in killing this man.
Mike Farrell

You made all the points I've tried to make repeatedly and did so in a much more eloquent manner.

the death penalty, and fight against it very publicly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5591814&mesg_id=5591814

Personally, I think the prospect of spending one's life in jail cruel and unusual.

We simply do not have the right to take a life. Period. It has to be across-the-board and not a case-by-case consideration.