Tookie williams

From Cyberlaw

I was first made aware of the controversy surrounding Stanley “Tookie” Williams’ execution by an email from a friend asking me to write a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger urging him to grant clemency. After reading her short, persuasive description of the situation, I had an immediate emotional response: My own brother is a former gang member who was rehabilitated by a stint in prison and is now a productive member of society; of course I would want Tookie to be granted clemency. I was looking at Tookie as “brother,” much in the same way we might look at rape victims and those accused of rape as “daughters” and “sons.” Once I became emotionally involved in the dispute, I began to look at the evidence, and every piece I confronted seemed to support my stance. I could not imagine any possibility that Governor Schwarzenegger might not grant clemency. Then, I brought the topic up with my brother over the holiday break, and was shocked at what he had to say. Whereas I had naively assumed that he, the very inspiration for my view point, would support clemency, he told me that he thought Tookie should be executed. He told me that if it were him, he would want to take responsibility for his actions and face the punishment assigned to him. I find it ironic that if Tookie had done that very thing, taken responsibility for his actions and admitted that he had committed the four murders for which he was sent to prison, there is a greater chance that Governor Schwarzenegger would have granted clemency. Because I know that my brother is a legitimate case of a reformed criminal and his instinct was the opposite of Tookie’s, I wondered if this meant that Tookie was not as rehabilitated as I had originally thought. I equate my brother’s surprising response to an unprepared lawyer irresponsibly asking a witness a question without knowing what the answer will be. I was ready to put my brother on the stand as my star witness because I assumed he would say what I wanted him to, just like the defense attorney in the Rodney King trial assumed that testifying expert Mr. Duke would say that upon first viewing the video evidence, he thought there was a possibility that excess force was used by the police. My brother’s response was the first time that I considered that those who opposed clemency may have some valid points to make. I suddenly became aware of the Necker Cube-like shape of the dispute and I then knew that I would need to prepare myself be able to respond to any arguments an opponent might make.

My opponent would present Tookie Williams as a hardened criminal who feigned his reformation. Mr. Williams was convicted in a jury trial through the safety net of due process. There was much eyewitness testimony presented at trial which supported the conclusion that it was Tookie Williams who committed the brutal and callous murders of Albert Lewis Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee-Chen Lin. There was also physical evidence in the form of a firearm registered to Mr. Williams. He has never apologized for the crimes for which he was convicted. Nor has Mr. Williams ever agreed to be debriefed by prison authorities, claiming that doing so would make him a “snitch” in gang terminology. After being sent to prison, Mr. Williams committed several serious infractions and was finally placed in solitary confinement. Furthermore, Mr. Williams has already milked the justice system for all it can give him. He has benefited from multiple hearings and appeals, all of which confirmed his conviction and death sentence. Additionally, although he has not admitted to the murders for which he was sent to prison, Tookie Williams does openly acknowledge his role as co-founder of the Crips, a notorious and still very active gang responsible for the spread of youth violence across our country and across the globe. The complete fulfillment of Tookie Williams’ punishment would send a message of deterrence and retribution to society.

I would argue that there were flaws in the trial that led to Tookie Williams’ conviction. The prosecutor, who was later criticized by the California Supreme Court for racially discriminatory practices in jury selection, went so far as to analogize Mr. Williams to an animal, an extremely prejudicial reference. More important in a clemency hearing, though, is the evidence of Tookie Williams’ contributions to society while incarcerated. A clemency hearing is about altering a sentence, not reversing a conviction. Tookie Williams has not committed a serious violation in prison since 1993. It was in that year that Mr. Williams made the decision to commit himself to educating the nation and the world about the dangers of gang violence. Over the next 12 years, Tookie Williams made immeasurable positive contributions to society. He has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize for his participation in anti-gang efforts and the Nobel Prize for Literature for the several books that he has written aimed at educating youth on the dangers of gang violence. He has issued a public apology for his role as a founding member of the Crips. The list of witnesses who are ready and willing to testify to the positive impact Tookie Williams’ message has had on their lives and others’ is nearly endless. Tookie Williams is an important role model for disadvantaged youth who may be contemplating the life of a gangster. To execute Tookie Williams is to take away a figure who devotes his life to making strides against gang violence. In death, Tookie Williams can only leave behind a legacy that, while powerful, could not be as effective at deterring gang activity as Tookie’s living actions. To grant clemency to Tookie would send a message of hope to society.

With respect to evaluating the two sides of this dispute, when I first opened my mind to the opposing point of view after speaking with my brother, I became convinced that my initial emotional reaction had been wrong. The Los Angeles district attorney’s response to Tookie Williams’ petition for clemency is twice as long as the petition itself and lays out in detail a lot of convincing evidence that leads to the conclusion that Tookie Williams was rightly convicted. But, as Chief Justice John Marshall famously described it, clemency is an act of grace. Thus, the grace lord should rule in a clemency hearing and it should not merely be a retrial of Tookie Williams for murder. Yet, having governors as judges means that the political lord will inevitably be the actual ruler in clemency hearings. For such a judge, the safest political decision is not to interfere with a course of action that has passed through the numerous procedural safeguards that Tookie Williams’ conviction has. A large factor in Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to deny clemency was Mr. Williams’ refusal to admit guilt and apologize for the four murders of which he was convicted. Admission of guilt by Tookie Williams would concretely confirm that the justice system worked properly in convicting him. Perhaps Governor Schwarzenegger was worried that granting clemency without an admission of guilt by Tookie would lead society to think that the Governor granted clemency because he believed that Tookie Williams may be innocent. In reality, if clemency were granted, Tookie would still serve life without parole, and it is doubtful that society would suddenly become convinced that an innocent man was in prison, especially since Tookie did openly acknowledge his role in the founding of a notoriously violent gang. Regardless, whether or not Tookie Williams actually committed the four murders is not what the clemency hearing should hinge upon. Rather, clemency should be granted if the convict’s rehabilitation and good deeds have earned him grace. The district attorney could only point out three things that he believed supported his argument that Tookie Williams was not truly rehabilitated: that Tookie never admitted to the murders for which he was convicted, that he refused to be debriefed by prison authorities, and that he had a lot of very old black marks on his prison record. The petition for clemency, on the other hand, lays out an overwhelming amount of evidence with respect to Mr. Williams’ positive reformation. The relevant evidence ranges from the many books that Tookie Williams wrote in prison during his twelve year rehabilitation to the testimony of people who believe in the power of Tookie’s positive influence. It’s hard to believe that one could find a more dramatic case of a person turning his life around and dedicating himself so fully to undoing wrongs he may have set in motion before his imprisonment. The grace lord would smile on Tookie Williams.