Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
while I still stand by my statement, it doesn't mean that I don't want him to get stayed from his appointment with death.
In my opinion the death penalty is a deterrent to some people for some crimes just like incarceration. While it doesn't bring back those that were intitially killed, I do feel that it does serve a purpose for example.
If you don't punish someone exactly for something that can make someone think twice before acting and you don't follow through with it, then why bother to punish them at all?
|
The emprical evidence indicates that the death penatly is a short-lived deterrent, to the extent it deters at all.
Murders drop for a short period (1 to 2 months after) and then rise to higher levels thereafter. If anything, it seems to indicate that the death penalty is counter-productive. It isn't even a wash due to the fact that murders increase after the decrease.
But, having met many of Tookie's supporters in person, and knowing a handful of people who have worked with him, interviewed him, and know him as a person, as well as being on the floor of a number of people involved in the innocence project and other criminologists, in general, I need to point out the three main categories of beliefs surrounding this case:
1) people who believe in a general notion of punishment for rehabilitation.
These people believe that our sysem of punishment ought not to be based on retribution. They are general opponents of the death penatly. It could be based on practical reasons or moral reasons, but Tookie is less important to them than the overarching notion of abolishing the death penatly.
2) people who believe in Tookie's personal redemption
he ought to be given a chance to live based on his changing personal views and behavior, to these people. Most often, I find the people who have personally met him to hold this view.
3) people who are supporters of the message he sends to young children regarding gang violence. These people may or may not believe in the effectiveness of the death penatly as a deterrent, but they know first hand young boys who have mentioned Tookie as deciding factors in their desire to leave gang life. My wife, who works as a youth counselor as her day job, first learned of Tookie from a young boy. Whether his influence is overstated, or his creation of the crips is apocryphal (my personal belief), is immaterial in this portion of the debate. The reality is he has
some influence, but unanswered is how much. I'm unaware of any studies on the issue (possible master's or doctorate thesis plug for budding criminologists, btw). One must decide for oneself whether his influence warrants clemency from death.
People may suscribe to one or all of these categories of beliefs.
Personally, I am opposed to the death penatly in general on both moral and utilitarian grounds. A close second to that is my belief that Tookie does create at least some social good due to his anti-gang messages. Lastly, and very distant as a fact to be honest, is the notion that he is reformed as a person. Not that I don't believe him, just that it isn't really relevent to me given my thoughts on the first two reasons.
Finally, I thinkan interesting scientific/biological case can be made that Tookie wasn't the same person as the one who comitted the crimes when he was a young man. If his personality has changed and if all the cells in his body have been replaced by new ones after nearly 30 years (and I'm aware of evidence suggesting this is so), then one could reasonably say that he wasn't the same person at all when he went to his death last night. Of course, this brings up matthew330's (valid, in my opinion) point that he shouldn't have been allowed to live long enough to become a different person. So there you go,
I voted that he should have received clemency.