« GIs getting world's biggest shotgun | Main | Why GM is in dire straits: Reason #4,782 »
December 11, 2005
Clemency for a killer?
Local TV news stations are reporting that the governor is going to release a statement today at 3 p.m. PST sometime Monday about the fate of convicted multiple murderer Stanley Williams. While we wait, a few thoughts.
As a career prosecutor, I tell my friends on the outside of the criminal justice system that they'd be surprised by the number of ADAs who aren't gung ho about the death penalty, myself included. That fact notwithstanding, I think there's damn-near unanimity amongst my colleagues that Williams is a posterboy for the stone-cold killer in desperate need of an execution.
Here's the link (again) to the L.A. D.A.'s response to Williams' plea for clemency; it makes for a chilling read. All discussions about whether the governor ought to grant his request should begin and end with this account of Williams' crime.
A commenter over at Roger L. Simon's blog says that Williams deserves death for the untold undiscovered murders he surely committed, as well as the countless killings perpetrated by the street gang he started, the Crips. Maybe so, but you don't really need to speculate about the other crimes Williams has gotten away with in order to come down in favor of his execution. These particular killings are so depraved, so senseless, that they more than justify the imposition of the ultimate penalty.
No one can read of Williams' mocking imitations of his victims' dying gasps, his reference to the three asians he blasted with his shotgun as "Bhudda-heads," his statement that he killed one victim because he was white and think that this killer deserves the kind of mercy he denied his victims.
When I last wrote about this, I said:
The actor/moonbat-activist Mike Farrell claims that Williams is a changed man; today he is not the murderer who entered prison all those years ago. But if Williams still refuses to admit he killed his victims, then how exactly is it that he's changed?
I don't get it.
I still don't, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
Let me also add a plea that everyone refrain from referring to him as "Tookie."
Ever since the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman murders, I've always thought we do a disservice to the victims by referring to their killers by cute nicknames. I refused to call Simpson "O.J.," and the use of "Tookie" turns my stomach.
I've seen hardcore death-penalty DAs refer to killers they're prosecuting by first name, and the easy informality always brings me up short. What makes it even more odd is that those same prosecutors often refer to the victims by first name, too, creating an odd dynamic when discussing the case, wherein they talk about "Bill strangling Suzie after he raped her." Talk about cognitive dissonance.
I think the use of first names and nicknames ought to be reserved for friends, family, victims, and those we respect or revere. Killers deserve nothing more than to be referred to as "Williams" or "murderer."
Anything we can do to restore a sense of shame and shunning to society's most base members would be to the good, don't you think?
UPDATE
Continuing to forge his own idiosyncratic path through the fever swamps of Hollywood, screenwriter Roger L. Simon offers his thoughts on celebrities rallying to save the founder of the Crips street gang from his date with the hangman.
Michelle Malkin has a good roundup on the latest developments in the Williams Clemency Circus.
Posted by Mike Lief at December 11, 2005 12:47 PM
| TrackBack