I Really Don't Get It

Okay, so, Tookie Williams is dead.  The state of California killed him.  It's that simple, and there isn't much more to say about that.

There is, of course, a great deal more to say about the death penalty, but I'm not going to hash it out for you here.  I'm not a fan of it.  Except as an inoculate against persistent societal diseases (serial criminals who show they cannot control their destructive behaviors) I find capital punishment to be a sad and pointless exercise.  I do so with the full understanding that others feel differently, which brings me to the point that I don't understand.

Michelle Malkin, in one of the strangest bits of death rah-rah I've seen her post to date, seems fixated on the idea that people are somehow bad, or complicit in Tookie's crimes, if they don't know or remember the names of his victims. 

As the execution hour approaches, keep the focus where it belongs.

THE NAMES OF THE VICTIMS:

ALBERT OWENS
TSAI-SHAI YANG
YEN-I YANG
YE-CHEN LIN

Patterico sums it up:

"Tonight should be about honoring their memory, and bringing justice for their deaths."

Amen.

*BLINK* 

Say What?  I don't get it.  Actually, there's a lot of things here I don't get.

1)  How does knowing the names of tragically dead folk who one  never knew, and never cared about except as a symbol of  blood-lust for the guy who killed them, in any way ennoble a person?  I'm not so very impressed with Jesse's Michelle's Google skills that she can list the people that Tookie killed, but I would very impressed if she could name even 5 of Ted Bundy's prey ... with no Google help, of course.  I strongly doubt that Malkin even knew the names of one of William's victims before his impending execution.  So, restated, how exactly is that knowledge of nomen supposed to give her a moral high ground?

2)  Exactly how are the dead satisfied by creating more dead?  Fixating on the memory of the dead, (oops that should be "honoring"), assumes that the dead would be somehow "embiggened" by killing the killer.  When the hell did our criminal justice system become about sacrificing to the spirits of the fallen?  (This is a recurring theme with Michelle, as regards 9/11 especially,  which makes me seriously question her professions of Christianity.)  People, the dead are dead.  If they're in Heaven, they might not be pleased that were killing in their name, and if they're in Hell, then we're serving the wrong master.  And if they're just dead, the smart money says that they just don't care.  Let's be honest, executions aren't for the dead; they are for the living.

3)  If this really is all about the victims, who in life you might have sneered at should they have rubbed you wrong, and then not given a second thought to them, and if this is all about the living casualties hurt by the loss of those victims instead of the dead, how does outside involvement by people like Michelle foster justice for those actually hurt by this crime?  Really, I do understand Jesse Jackson's motives, and I understand the sad feelings of those who would have kept Tookie alive.  Life is a very precious thing, even the lives of those who behave monstrously.  That's easy to fathom.  What escapes me is the will to kill, and thank God for it as if he willed it to be so, coming from a half-assed pundit Suburban-driven' east-coast mommy hiding behind the shrouds of murder victims for some semblance of moral authority.  If anyone can explain that to me, I'd love to hear it.

I'm not all shook up by the crimes of Stanley Williams.  I'm none too shaken by the fact that institutional authority removed him from the living state of being.  But cheerleaders on the sidelines of a waste do kind of freak me out.  Any help you good folks can offer in understanding this would be mighty appreciated.

Comments

[Nancy]

I'm with you, Wulfgar. I don't get glorifying anyone who died for the "sins" they committed or how that somehow makes it all better for the victims. An eye for eye is not justice in my mind. Locking them up, making them work for their keep, ok, but killing them? Just doesn't make sense to me, let alone justice being served.

[Patia]

Yeah .... Food for thought.

[Brittany Kailey]

I look at it this way...if you kill someone in a state that has the death penalty for murder, then you reap what you sow. You know the consequences of your actions, and you state by your actions that you don't care. I don't see it as an eye for an eye. It is no different than me telling my child that she will be grounded if she goes out tonight and she chooses to go out. She has made the informed decision, knowing what the consequences will be. I just follow through on what I have said.

But I do agree that no one should be "cheerleading" execution on the sidelines. Death is sad, no matter what form it takes. And it should be treated as such.

Michelle spouting out the names of his victims does nothing to honor them, it just allows her to pat herself on the back for being false enough about even caring about these people in the first place. Did she know them in life? Did she cry at their deaths? Did she even notice their deaths before his impending execution hit the news recently?

[Aaron Weissman]

Whatever people like Malkin say, a death penalty that it about vengeance is neither moral nor ethical. Our criminal justice system can not be about vengeance and still be a system of justice.

Any criminal punishment is only acceptable as long as its deterrent effect provides society with general observance of the law by those that otherwise wouldn't.

My gut feeling is the death penalty is such an extreme punishment that it keeps many potential killers from killing. If (and only if) that is borne out, then the death penalty is just.

[dad]

I gave up on capital punishment back in the late 50s, after I read the, now forgotten, Caryl Chessman books. Nothing has changed. The same arguements, pro and con, remain the same. If a criminal changes his life he still must die because a judge follows a law. I still call it legal murder. Most countries gave it up decades ago. That punishment was seen to be a crime.

Thanks, Wulfgar!

[Rocky Smith]

It's interesting how many of these people turn their life around or find God after they have been convicted and are on death row. I'm not impressed.

[Wulfgar]

Rocky, you make no sense with that statement.

Hmm, someone does something wrong. They face the consequence of that action, and realize that what they did was wrong. Sounds like parenting 101 to me. And you're not impressed.

Do you see why I may have a problem with that attitude?

[Kindigulous]

I don't have a strong ethical opinion either way, but my fiscal opinion is that I would rather not have tax money supporting those that cannot be rehabilitated. While it might be interesting to argue the pros and cons of ethics, I suppose the average tax payer would readily forfeit those conclusions if s/he were to fully understand the costs associated with rehabilitiation. I'd like to see some studies myself to understand just how much money it takes to care for a single inmate per year. While I don't wish to argue any individual case, my conclusion is that most long-term prisoners are not contributing members of society -- regardless of rehabilitation. Of course, that's just my opinion and who the hell am I? *smile*