You don't remove yourself from the process in the case of your friends?
series of concerts
Are you a musician? Or do you mean you went to listen to several concerts?
No, I was playing. A choral group needed an orchestra.
accompanied by clavicorde and other pre-modern miniatures.
A choral group needed an orchestra.
He's a one-man orgy.
8 - As a wind instrument or percussion?
I actually do care about the Tookie Williams thing. I hope Schwarzenegger pardons him, but I don't have a lot of faith that that will happen.
your lack of faith has proved the correct choice.
Coyness aside, I think I recall FL plays the cello, am I correct?
Very kewl.
Probably it was the bass. He mentioned the bow, and then someone mentioned the bass, and he never corrected them, so I think the answer is bass unless we can prove otherwise.
I don't know why I recalled the 'cello,' maybe I was thinking of Yoyo Ma.
I'm not secretive about my connection with the applicants
Which is in fact why they didn't get interviews.
B, can I ask why about Tookie? My thinking-- crude as usual, but I suspect this will hold up-- goes like this: I'm opposed to the DP as a matter of policy, for the usual reasons (non-deterrence, cost, etc.). I think it's a dumb policy, all-in. But I don't think Williams' death matters much, morally speaking (vs. life in prison, that is) if he has in fact done the things he's alleged to have done. In particular, I don't see why he should be granted clemency because he's turned into a nicer guy on death row.
Now, now, Matt, we haven't had the meeting yet. But my nepotism hopes are not high. How's your own file-reading going?
That information is classified.
I can say that the process kind of sucks, but it's better than applying. In fact, I'm not sure how people who sat on hiring committees as grad students are able to maintain their sanity when on the market, knowing what's about to happen to their dossiers.
In particular, I don't see why he should be granted clemency because he's turned into a nicer guy on death row.
Clemency/commutation or a pardon? A full pardon is a get-out-of-jail-free card. He gets a full pardon, he goes home, nothing on his record. His sentence could also be commuted to time served or a shorter sentence (not a 'natural' life sentence), or just life in prison.
Overturning his death sentence hardly matters, unless you think the death penalty has a some kind of deterrent effect. (Not necessarily a deterrent to any crime, merely a deterrent to more egregarious offense or simply to make a negotiation tool available to prosecutors.)
So you're saying you're against the death penalty but you don't care? Isn't that sort of arguing that you're for the DP in this case?
ash
['Where's my goddamned hat?']
Isn't that sort of arguing that you're for the DP in this case?
I think it's more of a "right action, wrong reasons" kind of thing. It would be good if he wasn't executed, but not because he is somehow personally deserving of clemency. It's because no one should be executed.
I thought this was a pretty good article on the Tookie Williams thing.
Isn't that sort of arguing that you're for the DP in this case?
No.
I'm generally anti-death penalty in the same way FL mentions above. But I must admit that if we applied the thing rarely in only really egregious cases, I don't think I'd be ever be able to work up much actual concern about it.
That's why a case like Tookie's does actually bother me. Executing unapologetic rejects like, say, Timothy McVeigh rolls right off my shoulder (or wherever things roll off of - that metaphor is eluding me at the moment). Executing a guy, 20 years later, who is contrite and has made some effort to do some measurable good, just seems grotesquely cold-blooded.
Morally I supose it's the same as flipping the switch on old Timmy, but it just feels completely different to me.
I'm not sure how people who sat on hiring committees as grad students are able to maintain their sanity when on the market
Assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. that such people maintain their sanity while on the market. I know I didn't.
I think it's more of a "right action, wrong reasons" kind of thing.
It might even be worse than that, you know. I mean, if you're against the death penalty then you could make the argument that granting of clemency where deserved actually reinforces the apparent legitimacy of what is at bottom an illegitimate practice and should be revealed as such.
Yes, this is an immiseration argument. Find the flaws, both moral and logical!
I think why Tookie for a few reasons. First, the specific crime for which he's being executed is one he claims not to have done; obviously, he's done a lot of things, but simply in terms of criminal justice, I think executing someone for something they say they didn't do is not okay. Especially when they've confessed to so many other things--why would he lie about this one?
Second, specifically *because* of all he's done. His profile w/r/t gang violence is pretty much about as high as you can get. And the fact that he is so outspoken now about regretting that choice, about the reasons it was wrong, and about how destructive it was to him, to his kids, to his community is potentially extremely productive. He can do a lot more good--and a lot more restitution for the wrong he's done--alive than dead, and he seems willing, even wanting to do it.
B, your second argument is much stronger than the first.
executing someone for something they say they didn't do is not okay.
Umm, that's not the way it works. Most murderers say they didn't do it. That's why we have juries - to judge the validity of their denial.
why would he lie about this one?
Because it's the capital crime.
I think it's more of a "right action, wrong reasons" kind of thing. It would be good if he wasn't executed, but not because he is somehow personally deserving of clemency. It's because no one should be executed.
Ok.
I'm not in favor of the DP because governments screw up and also, because I think they suffer more in prison.
But I am not against the DP because I have any particular sympathy for them (or him) in this.
ash
['My my my.']
Apos, sure. But people also sometimes deny doing a crime because, in fact, they didn't do it. Given what I know about the LAPD and what I've read about capital punishment trials of poor blacks nation-wide, I have a real problem assuming that just because someone has been found guilty, he is guilty.
Labs, I am confused by your position. Unless you think the death penalty is philosophically and ethically ok, but for the improbability (indeed, impossibility) of having a system that isn't terribly flawed. From my perspective, I am categorically against the death penalty, and so each person who is spared that fate, no matter the circumstances, consitutes a victory.
I think also, sort of in line with what B. said, that the whole principle behind the DP is that it is the last resort when there is no possibility for rehabilitation. Clearly, that's not the case here. We punish people for being unrepentant killers, not for coming around and trying to do some good in the world.
I'm with FL on this one. The really dissonant part to me is that Tookie's claim to redemption is based upon his anti-gang work, but some of his highest profile advocates (specifically Snoop) seem to be campaigning for his life because of their and Tookie's affiliation with the Crips.
But I haven't been following the debate very closely, so my perception on this score may be way off.
We punish people for being unrepentant killers, not for coming around and trying to do some good in the world.
This would be a more palatable justification for the death penalty, but I don't think it's why we actually kill people. We kill them partly because of the myth of deterrance, but mostly just for vengeance. The "last resort when rehabilitation is impossible" line doesn't really hold up: it's never actually the last resort. You could always just keep them locked up forever.
What is true vengeance though? If we just want the person to suffer as they've made the victim's family suffer, out with the torture devices, no? Vengeance is an unworkable theory of criminal justice, in my opinion, and there are many indications that it is not in fact the presiding theory with respect to the rest of the criminal justice system apart from the death penalty.
I think the point is that none of the theories rationalizing the death penalty hold water: it doesn't deter, it has nothing to do with redemption. It basically satisfies a public desire for vengeance is all. Look at the things people say when they're calling for criminals to be executed.
I agree that it's an unworkable theory of criminal justice. Which is one of the reasons I think that the death penalty is crap.
I'm fairly strongly of the opinion that all justifications for all sentences are under-theorized, at least on the basis of what I've read. For instance, if State A punishes possession of two lbs. of heroin with five years in prison, and State B punishes it with ten years, how do we go about judging which of these is a better idea (they could both be bad ideas, but could they both be equally bad?)
If State A punishes a non-violent burglary with the same five years as two lbs. of heroin, what does that tell us?
This could just be because I haven't read much more of punishment theory than was required for one class last year.
Vengeance is an unworkable theory of criminal justice, in my opinion
If you frame it as vengeance yes; I could easily call it a retaliatory attack (death penalty or other punishment) and it would mean the same thing but carry distinctly different connotations.
Assuming Tookie there committed the murder he did, did he become a 'good person' because he was gonna die or in spite of it?
ash
['Hrmm.']
So how do you define "vengeance"?
Vengeance. Also, possibly this. Solid cases for the death penalty both.
Surely *someone* will stand up for retributivism? I don't go for the view myself, but there's more to it than "mere vengeance," surely.
About Tookie in particular, my thinking remains: (a) if there's genuine doubt about his culpability, that's a genuine problem; (b) if the opposition is based simply on his attempts to do nice things now, that's pretty unconvincing.
I suspect part of my intuition here is based on this sort of reasoning: utilitarian advocacy for the death penalty is not at all compelling; hence supporters of the DP must be at least closet retributivists; a retributivist view won't really care that Tookie's nicer now, since the rationale for his execution is not some forward-looking benefit but simply the fact that he killed four people (with an additional qualification: whatever you have to do to atone, morally, for that kind of monstrous badness, he hasn't done it); therefore anyone who has a halfway decent rationale for capital punishment shouldn't think that Williams' case is especially problematic.
And the fact that he's done a lot of awful things makes me think that (morally speaking) it's not a *tremendous* injustice even if it's an injustice to some degree. Or something like this. I have a limited outrage budget, and cases like the Mississippi one we've been talking about seem more deserving.
In any event, it seems as though the world of children's literature will be a bit poorer in the morning.
the fact that he killed four people (with an additional qualification: whatever you have to do to atone, morally, for that kind of monstrous badness, he hasn't done it
I don't know; I could see a plausilbe case that moral comparissons are not temporally-independent. The fact that the wrong actions are well into the past, but the good actions are present would, in this view, have to be taken into consideration.
Looking over my comment, I see that it has already been made implicitly, and need not have been made explicitly.
Surely *someone* will stand up for retributivism? I don't go for the view myself, but there's more to it than "mere vengeance," surely.
I'm game. Here's one way to look at it (note that this is not necessarily my personal view):
The death penalty is an irreversible punishment that societies give out for crimes that are considered unforgivable. In our society, certain kinds of murder fall under this criterion, but no other crimes do. Because of this, it's easy for people (especially DP opponents) to think that it's simple vengeance, but that's not the point -- it's just that both the crime and the punishment happen to involve killing. Under this view, questions like "why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" don't make any sense; we obviously don't believe all killing is wrong (war, etc.) and that's not why we execute anyway.
In other societies the difference is clearer, because they prescribe capital punishment for other crimes. This was extremely common up until around the 18th century; counterfeiting, e.g., was a capital crime in England (and many other countries). Read the Code of Hammurabi some time -- it's basically wall-to-wall executions, for pretty petty stuff by modern standards.
Of course, none of this takes into account discrepancies in sentencing etc., which are a whole different (much bigger imho) problem.
#45: I agree, actually--which is why I think that my point 1. is actually stronger than 2. (apostropher notwithstanding). But I think apostropher's argument is why 2. is the issue being trotted out in the press.
#48: The problem with that argument is it makes no distinction between murder by an individual and murder by the state.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.
Well, you're saying "society"--but the legal apparatus of the modern state is way beyond, say, some kind of village mob lynching. (Not that that's okay, mind.) The state isn't a single entity, like a person is; execution is obviously cold-blooded, while most murders aren't; if an individual kills someone, the state can punish them--but who punishes the state if it kills someone wrongly?; and the power differential between the person being sentenced and the state that's doing the sentencing is so enormous that it defies description. So I just don't think the quid pro quo at the center of the "you kill someone, society finds that unacceptable, society kills you" logic is sustainable.
Okay, I see. Your points are valid, and I can't really counter them. Like I said, the argument I gave isn't exactly what I personally believe. My main point is that it's not quite vengeance in the eye-for-an-eye sense but a more complicated social institution that in our society happens to look a lot like vengeance. I'm not saying it's objectively justifiable in those terms.
45 doesn't have anything to do with my notwithstanding. It isn't about retribution, it's about the fact that denial of commission of a crime doesn't have anything to do with conviction or sentencing. People deny crimes all the time, but it's a jury that decides whether or not the denial is truthful. If denying culpability is the measuring stick for sentencing, only the suicidal would ever admit to a capital crime.
Look, I've gone back and forth so many times on the death penalty that I can't even state clearly whether I support or oppose it. I oppose the way it's used in this country and would support a moratorium as a result, but I don't have a problem with the death penalty per se. The issue that gives me the most pause about the DP is the company it places us in: China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, every half-assed African dictatorship, etc. That's not the folks you want as your ideological compatriots.
As to Tookie qua Tookie, I don't care any more or less about his personal case than any other DP case. I have serious doubts that his anti-gang writings have had one scintilla of effect over actual gang violence. He's an old dude in jail. How many current Crips do you think have read his books?
The only decent argument I see in this case is the same argument we use for every death row inmate: the state oughtn't kill its citizens. That is completely defensible. Whether Tookie Williams has reformed or repented or whatever is utterly beside the point. Whether he denies the crimes is even further beside the point. If capital punishment is a legitimate social response to crime, then it is. If it isn't, it isn't. This particular case doesn't bringt any additional evidence to that dispute for either side.
See, 51 is the operative (and serious) issue here. That is the real argument for commuting Williams' sentence, not that he is or isn't sorry or that he is or isn't doing good deeds now.
apostropher, but those factors do make it all the more infuriating that they're killing him. Yes, it's not an argument against the death penalty per se, but it still sucks.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time getting any more infuriated about it than any other DP case. Tookie Williams doesn't really strike me as a sympathetic figure because he has written some childrens' books. And the relative sympathy this or that death row inmate inspires isn't the issue, in any event.
Either the death penalty is right or wrong. Whether it's Tookie Williams, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, or Ethel Rosenberg is immaterial. It's right or it's wrong. I'm totally ready to accept that it's wrong, but not that it's wrong in certain cases.
"but not that it's wrong in certain cases" s/b "but not that it's more wrong in certain cases"
Excluding wrongful convictions, obviously. Which is why we have an appeals process that can last 25 years, as in this case.
Ok, but back to the "he hasn't admitted to this particular crime" thing. Schwarzenegger's statement, apparently, is that there was no clemency b/c Williams hadn't admitted to the killing and therefore showed no remorse for it. Leaving aside the point that obviously, if remorse commutes a death sentence, it's about vengeance rather than anything else, doesn't that present the falsely convicted with quite a conundrum? Either admit that you committed a murder when you didn't, and express regret, or refuse to admit to murder and die. That's why I said that I think not admitting is grounds for commuting a death sentence: b/c it is possible that someone who hasn't admitted a killing, in spite of a conviction, is, in fact, not guilty.
That's why I said that I think not admitting is grounds for commuting a death sentence: b/c it is possible that someone who hasn't admitted a killing, in spite of a conviction, is, in fact, not guilty.
This seems crazy. At some point, in the particular, we've got to assume that the justice system gets it right. Does anyone admit that they've killed someone, especially if not admitting it is a get-out-of-jail-free card?
Not admitting isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And why do we have to assume, in capital cases, that the justice system gets it right? Especially when it's dealing with poor black defendants? Hasn't it been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the justice system is pretty darn unreliable in those cases?