Stanley "Tookie" Williams..

[ayoub]

Is dead.

Killed for crimes he was convicted of.

Did he commit those crimes? Maybe, maybe not, but he did, as a gangster, do a lot, and none of it good.

Did he deserve to die? I'm not the judge, God is.

There is a theory within Islam, which states that those who suffer on this earth, are saved from suffering in the hereafter. The suffering on this world is your atonement, so that you can approach heaven with a clean soul. This is not to say that all murderers who are given the death sentence will be forgiven, because not all will ask for absolution sincerely. There are no absolutes in life.

The problem with having a death penalty, twinned with an imperfect justice system, is that innocent people will be killed. Therefore, until the justice system is perfect, there should be no death penalty.

The last time I discussed this, though, my views were called into question, specifically, this one:

No one can kill another, except in self-defense, and be an Anarchist, because that would be invading another's equal right to live - the antithesis of Anarchism.

Joseph A. Labadie's quote on my bio.

Let me explain (No, is too much, let me sum up ;)), Sentencing an unrepentant killer to death is self-defence, because if he or she is not willing to repent and reform, then that person WILL kill again.
But how can you be sure? In some cases, there is no doubt. People who kill hundreds, or even thousands, and then stand in a court, defiant, and defending themselves regardless of the validity of the court, will not repent, and should die, not as a penance, but as a removal of a risk from society. I can say this, and have it fit with my views to the letter and in perfection.
In the case of Tookie, though, as long as there is doubt, and with proof of repentance as he has shown, suffice it to say he was no longer a risk, so therefore, he should not have been killed.

I do hope I have explained my views accurately, and questions are, as always, welcome.

Comments

[neneithel.livejournal.com]

If your enemy is confined, killing himcan never be in self-defence. Self-defence can only be a meaningful mitigation if a life is immediately and certainly endangered. To kill someone because there is a possibility that, if released, they may kill someone else is neither just nor sane.

By the same token, we should kill everyone. Anyone may, at any time, go insane and kill someone else.

Self defence means acting in the moment of danger to save the life of yourself or another. It does not make pre-emptive strikes reasonable.

By the way, most released killers never kill again. Only serial killers feel a repeated need to kill, which is why they should never be released.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Anyone with a fervent following will influence them, even from behind bars, killing them is in self defence. Also, how many jails do you know that are 100% escape proof?

Each case must be measured individually. What is wrong for one, may be right for another, that is what the Anarchist way is all about. Everybody has the right to live, but a rabid dog can be put down, and some humans are much worse than rabid dogs...

[neneithel.livejournal.com]

If it is the influence of a criminal on others you fear, remember that a murderer killed attracts far more attention than one merely locked away. There have even been cases of men who feel they are nothing committing crimes in order to be condemned to death, because it makes them feel like a celebrity. A jail is as escape proof as the government choose to make it, but I would oppose killing prisoners even if there were no secure prisons at all. You cannot fight evil by committing it. If it is right to kill someone because they may one day pose a threat, the war in Iraq is perfectly fine. Bush only needs to say he was scared, so he killed the people he was scared of. By your standards, not a problem.

I'm sure it will come to no surprise to you that I also oppose the killing of rabid dogs. All cruelty to animals is abhorrent to me. All people are worse than dogs. Dogs are decent creatures. That is no excuse to sink lower by becoming as bad as any common murderer ourselves. If the justice system has a right to kill, so does any individual.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

One of my more, divisive, views is that Natural selection is dead for the human race.

Sometimes I despair, and when I do, I feel that the only way this race will grow is if we cut out the evil, lock it up, and not let it breed. Let them die cold and alone, after killing as many of each other as they can.

I grew up among gangs, drug dealers, and their ilk, I know what they're capable of, because they rule by fear... Having seen it, and lived in it, I have little patience for those for whom violence is a way of life...

Without laws, and courts, in a true anarchist society, people would never see power to desire it, and they would never not be nurtured in a loving environment, but getting there will take generations, and getting all those who believe to unite.

[neneithel.livejournal.com]

We cannot cut out the evil if we give it shelter within ourselves. If we kill people because we deem them unfit to live or because they scare us, we become exactly like them and evil spreads.

I have also seen what violence can do. I have felt it in my own life, as both victim and aggressor. I have been filled with rage and I have felt the intoxicating rush of knowing that I want to hurt someone, even destroy them. I have been in fights in which I loved every blow I landed and knew I was justified, because they were bad people.

I felt how my righteous anger affected me. I died. I ceased to exist. I hurt my enemies and they became stronger, because they had power over me. I could not love, because love and hate cannot share a heart. I ceased to feel. I was less than those I hated, because I had been taught not to hate and I had deliberately overcome my humanity. They had the excuse of ignorance. When you support the killing of another, part of you dies. When you lash out in anger, the person you hurt is yourself. I was lucky, I came to my senses. I gave up the intoxicating pleasures of hatred and tried the terrifying path of love.

As soon as I greeted evil with unconditional love, it ceased to have power. I stopped being afraid. I found my despair about humanity going. I found that the people I had thought monsters were in terrible pain, and I pitied them, and my pity was a punishment to them far worse than violence could ever have been.

I have tried both ways of confronting evil. Fighting evil with evil just strengthens evil and destroys whatever in you is good. Fight it with love, and evil is destroyed.

I would by now be dead, if I had continued to think in the way I did. I would be worse than dead. I would be cut off from God. Nothing is worth that.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

This is why anarchy is so good. Everyone can come up with their own solutions, and we all respect that what works for one, may not work for the other :D

[neneithel.livejournal.com]

It's also anarchy's main flaw, that what is right may not be done. The world will be a bloodbath until humanity learns to love. While the death penalty is allowed to happen anywhere, humanity is enslaved, whatever system of government (or lack of one) we use.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

wont there always be dark if there is light. wont there always be evil if there is good.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

there will, sadly...

Do we scrifice the ultimate heights of good to remove the ultimate depths of evil?

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

no. we cant. it is at the very nature of all of us. just because i cant achieve the uptmost of good for all or wont maybe does not mean that i will stoop to the lowest. the balance exists. it exists already. the things that stand out are the instances where the balance is shaken. man i do not sound like i know what i am talking about. this is an abstract looming in my head and i am struggling hard to press for words.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

But would the sacrifice be worth it?

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

explain?

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Would the sacrifice of the highest highs, if it were possible, be worth it to get rid of the darkest evil?

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

ah my point if you rid the world of evil today - it would be back tomorrow

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

As night follows day...

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

yes exactly

[neneithel.livejournal.com]

Dark and light, yes. Both are beautiful and good. Evil is a temporary thing. It will remain until we stop encouraging it. We could have a world without evil tomorrow. It's entirely our choice.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

but can one person always be good. or most. i understood one was. but can most.

[come-undone.livejournal.com]

This would be a good time to use the cliche:

Judge a society by the way it treats it's criminals.

I do not condone killing prisoners, regadless of their [number of] crime...however I don't agree with paying for their existance either.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Dude!

Where've you been hiding?

[come-undone.livejournal.com]

i don't hide...i lurk ;)

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

How are your two lovelies?

[dazzedelf.livejournal.com]

I like provolone cheese.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I've never tried Provolone... I need to taste it!

[dazzedelf.livejournal.com]

It is a wonderful sandwich cheese, one of my faves actually.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

yes very good on italian subs!

[dazzedelf.livejournal.com]

And remember when someone with a Lara Croft icon tells you to try something, you do it!

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I'll go to the shop today!

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

::cracks up:: awesome

[hypovex.livejournal.com]

that's something I've always been on the fence with, certain issues swaying me one way, certain another. Underneath it, I do believe in an eye for an eye, but this is juxtaposed against a system that is flawed, there's obviously a bit of a conflict. Schwarznegger said one thing that more or less put me over the line on this one though, Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption." He added: "In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do."

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

That is a very powerful argument... If he had repented, then it may have been different.