Tookie was executed this morning for the murder of four people. Discussion about the case rarely focuses on that.
It wasn't enough that he was convicted of murdering those four, it was that he aided in the creation of a gang that is responsible for thousands of deaths. It wasn't enough that he became a changed man, it was that he had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize six times. Each side painted Tookie with broad strokes.
This case has rekindled the death penalty debate. Most cases are not this dramatic. He is painted as both the devil and a saint. How many death row inmated are responsible for creating a gang as obscenely violent and prolific as the Crips? How many death row inmates have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize at least once let alone six times?
Assuming each side is correct: Tookie is responsible for the murders of those four people as well as the thousands others taken by members of the Crips and he is a completely reformed individual, worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize - was execution the just and appropriate response?
1 comment:
hey there emerson, you ask a number of truly brilliant questions. however, I do disagree with you. I don't believe that Tookie, or any death-row inmate, was executed because of being convicted of four counts of murder. Williams was executed due to the US's perverse judeo-christian connection to the Old Testament--"an eye for an eye" and the like. To fully expose my cards, the death penalty is about vengance neatly packaged as the democratic ideal of justice that, in turn, creates in much of the polity a sense of safety. The penal system has never been about rehabilitation. But, I digress.
How do we reconcile these competing, disconnected, and, often, antithetical identities and faces of Stanley Tookie Williams? I hesitate to attribute the (hundreds of??) thousands of murders done in the name of the Crips. Stanley helped to create the gang machine, he did not, however, ingratiate members to kill in its name or on his behalf (at least to my knowledge). I am a big believer in personal responsibility--but, again, not the purpose of my post. How do we reconcile Tookie's antipathetic identities? Much in the way that we reconcile our own competing identities. Being a black academic comprises two antithetical identities. Being an aggressive woman comprises two antithetical identities--hence the need to clarify and specify the type of woman you are. Quite different from Tookie, these competing and, often, fragmented identities have not been shown on a large, global scale. The difference, though, between us and Tookie is that we get to live another day to reflect on and share the valuable process of identity development--and the reconciliation of our selves.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am just so sorry that Tookie's legacy impacts us most in the pervasive existence of the gang he created and the gangs formed in retaliation to and in opposition of the Crips rather than the good works he performed at the end of his life. God bless us all, no exceptions.
Brava, my friend.
Post a Comment