12 Comments

Perhaps Williams could have continued to contribute to society had he lived. He certainly did do some worthwhile things while he was on death row. Nevertheless, he murdered four people in cold blood, in a state with capital murder statute. The law is the law.

That said, I found Farrell’s post on Williams execution to be articulate and well-reasoned. And it appears from his website that Farrell has been a very active anti-death penalty activist for many years, as well as an activist on other matters of concern to him (such as refugees).

I see no evidence that this “self-promoting narcissist” actor is any more self-promoting, narcissistic, or any less knowledgable or justified in his activism than you as a Hollywood screenplay writer and novelist are justified in yours. (Ed: isn’t that a run-on sentence? Yeah, but he gets the idea.)

I don’t know what Roger was referring to, but I saw Farrell all over the televsion the last few days saying contradictory things. First Williams was innocent, then he was contrite. Can’t be both. Of course he was neither, but Farrell didn’t admit that. At least on television. Yes, he seemd self-serving.

Williams contrition paraphrased amounts to – I didn’t commit the crime but I promise to never do it again. Not quite convincing IMO.

First, I absolutely agree that Mr. Williams was exactly the wrong person over whom to raise the anti-death-penalty banner. Pardoning him would have sent exactly the wrong message…that celebrity and cool affect (not to mention reasonably competent ghost-writers) can trump justice.

Second, my suspicion is that the enthusiasm of his celebrity fans may have been the result of gratitude for the discretion with which Tookie and his organization fed their demand for quality coke and prostitutes over the past two decades. In business this is called “goodwill.”

“I see no evidence…” Where have you been? Mike Farrell established his reputation for narcissistic behavior decades ago campaigning for Mumia. It follows him around.

After years of famously demanding “justice for Mumia”, citing lack of evidence and a racist justice system trying to silence a black “journalist”, Mr Farrell was cornered by a real journalist who asked if he was aware that Mumia’s own registered weapon had been the murder weapon, that most of the witnesses against him were black, and that Mumia’s own brother, an eyewitness, had refused to testify on his behalf.

Farrell famously declared that he was not aware of those rather major pieces of evidence and would have to reconsider. (He didn’t, he shifted to “elaborate frame”.)

For Farrell, it was all about him being in the limelight. He cared not enough to even educate himself as to the evidence. His reputation as a narcissist is part of his history and not just Roger Simon’s opinion.

William’s death at this late date is too little, too late, but still better than leaving him alive. He was obviously trying the same cagey game that Mumia was: Do anything to get a new trial. With even one homeboy or wannabe on the jury, he’d never be convicted. Mumia finally found a judge to overturn his death penalty, and that may be all he needs. After all, prison doesn’t seem to be much of an obstacle to his career as a martyr, and frees him from the need to earn a living.

Farrel would be a lot more convincing if he simply stated his opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances, and let it go at that. Admitting that Williiams was what he obviously was would have strengthened his position, in my mind.

If he’s looking for unjustifiably condemned black men to defend, there’s a case in Mississippi that’s shaping up to be a doozy.

Interestingly, for those who claim life without parole is sufficient, I just read that the next person scheduled to be executed in California (his date with justice is being opposed on the grounds that he is too old and sick to kill) is on death row for commisioning several murders while in prison.

Tookie’s actually a pretty good person to debate the death penalty over. Suppose you buy the argument that he’s legitimately repented his crimes and has been rehabilitated. Granted, his unwillingness to confess his involvement in the crimes that led to his execution undercut his claims of repentance (while giving his allies the ability to claim that he might be innocent).

Suppose somebody invents a machine that could actually tell whether somebody legitimately repented their crimes, and if they truly intended to pursue a non-criminal lifestyle if released from prison. And suppose that Tookie, or somebody like him, but guilty of a lesser crime like burglary or armed robbery, were to pass that test.

Would you then feel that person should be set free? Would you recommend at least commuting Tookie’s sentence to life?

Back when I was a liberal I would have said, set him free. My parents had taught me that the purpose of prison was not punishment, but rehabilitation; once the prisoner truly repented his crimes and was determined to go straight, there was no societal benefit to keeping him in jail.

There are three distinct arguments for imprisonment/capital punishment.

1. Rehabilitation (obviously only applies to imprisonment).

2. Protection of the society at large from further criminal acts by the offender.

3. Revenge (call it justice if that’s easier).

But if this machine is invented, the argument for 1 and 2 go out the window.

Don’t get me wrong, I would not have pushed for freedom or even commutation of Tookie’s sentence. So I accept that there must be a certain amount of revenge/retribution/justice involved in my attitude.

“Granted, his unwillingness to confess his involvement in the crimes that led to his execution undercut his claims of repentance…”

This raises an interesting question. Assuming Tookie was guilty, and assuming that he was sociopathic enough not to feel any remorse for his actions (hence, the lack of a confession) — why wasn’t he sociopathic enough to recognize the utility of an INSINCERE CONFESSION for the sole purpose of SAVING HIS OWN ASS? Surely, he (or one of his lawyers or supporters) was smart enough to recognize that a show of contrition, coupled with the children’s books and other post-conviction activities, and his celebrity support, would have made Schwartzeneger much more likely to commute his sentence.

Markus — the principal contribution Tookie aka Monster (his REAL street name) had while he lived was co-founding and running the Crips. Just like Gotti he gave the orders in jail to kill and maim. And just like Gotti his mob will be worse off than before without the chief terrorizer around who was functionally invincible.

People in South Central will be better off especially without Monster. His books? Sold 300 copies. Liberals look frankly stupid beyond belief to fall for this con. Average people tend to tune them out because of that stupidity.

Yes Farrell is a self-promoter and narcissist. He simply latched onto a celebrity murderer. His arguments to the average person boil down to: we don’t care about YOU RABBLE who deserve to get murdered by Monster so you know your place. We care about Monster. Because we are morally superior to you all.

If you deliberately set out to undermine Democrats, anti-Death Penalty forces, and such you could not have done a better job. Everyone who works for a living and enters 7/11 stores and such pencilled themselves in Albert Owen’s position and pretty much has contempt for Monster and his Democratic/Civil Rights/Celebrity defenders. Whoever runs against Arnold will have a heavy row to hoe with this stuff attached to them.

Credibility is precious. Once it’s gone people stop listening to you and because people like Farrell and organizations like the NAACP wasted it on Monster when it’s really needed people will just tune them out. I have no doubt whatsoever that there is an innocent person in the system who deserves a rehearing on the facts. I have no doubt also that wasting the time/money/energy on Monster means that this person won’t get heard.

Mumia? Guy murdered a cop with his own gun according to eyewitnesses and forensics. Motivation? White Cop arrested Mumia’s brother on some outstanding warrant. Either you have a “special class” of people who get preferential treatment in the legal system (the Liberal assertion — no African American is ever guilty) or you have equal justice under the law that is colorblind. What Dr. King fought for. As a matter of law, policy, justice, and politics this PC nonsense is disastrous and will lead IMHO to vigilante justice along the lines of the San Francisco Committee of 13, otherwise known as the Vigilance Committee. Even Sherman did not tackle them. When the Law over and over again fails to provide elementary justice due to corruption (Vigilance Committee) or PC nonsense (Mumia) then people will eventually organize themselves for what Bacon called Wild Justice and the result is an ugly mob.

Executing Monster without favor or prejudice was the right thing to do in order to preserve the rule of law.

“I accept that there must be a certain amount of revenge/retribution/justice involved in my attitude”

I think you’re just being honest. Peaceful civilization is possible not because we abjure violence but because we agree to let the state handle it for us. If the state gets too wishy-washy about its responsibilities, feuds come back into fashion.

Personally, I would favor life in prison for someone who murdered someone dear to me only if I were utterly convinced he would suffer more that way. Many death penalty opponents recognize this implicitly when they argue just that point.

People who argue that the revenge motive is somehow unworthy are wrong about human nature, and usually speaking either abstractly, or about someone else.

The very few people who actually believe and practice that are hothouse orchids, and would quickly go extinct if left on their own.

Speaking of utility, if the anti-death penalty crowd were actually against capital punishment per se, as they maintain they are, they could *hugely* undermine public support for it by actually and actively supporting one of their regular arguments; to wit, wouldn’t it be just as safe to lock murderers up for life?

As with abortion, most people’s position on the death penalty is shaded by many issues, some conflicting. I personally believe punishment is a good enough reason in itself to take the life of a murderer. However, even those who are against capital punishment in the abstract would be less conflicted were they convinced that murderers would, in fact, stay in jail for life.

A major part of the problem is that, contra to their public statements, the vast majority of people who are actively working against the death penalty simply don’t like the criminal punishment system much to begin with. If their goal were truly to end the death penalty, rather than more simply to protect criminals, they would fight as passionately as possible for long–and in the cases of violent crimes, life-long–sentences, to be served without parole.

All too often, at least several times a year, we read in the paper about a murder committed by someone who had been previously incarcerated for another killing. You can’t tell me that doesn’t help nudge the vast majority of the populace into supporting capital punishment, even if they would rather be on the other side.

Very rightly written article, it arrests the attention of the reader.