The Fate of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
350

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
K O N G wrote:
…There were African Americans surveyed here by a local radio show and all of the ones surveyed said Williams should not have been executed and some even asked why a white guy like Charles Manson was not executed yet. …

This is pure ignornance of history. The only reason Charles Manson has not been executed was that all prisoners who were on death row when the USSC declared the death penalty unconstutional in the early 70s had their sentences commuted to life in prison. When the USSC reversed itself on the death penalty’s constitutionality, those commutations to life imprisonment were not reversed - I believe there was an argument made that reinstating the death sentences was unconstitutional (due to double jeopardy I think, but I am going on memory).

Thus, Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan and others on CA’s death row at the time are now prisoners for life, rather than queued for execution.[/quote]

Hold up, killing someone is not Unconstitutional, but putting a man who was on death row BACK on death row is Unconstitutional? He didn’t even do anything personally to get off of death row. This sounded right when you typed it?

351

Huggy Bear: Dig this man. Someone once said: “To err is human, to forgive divine.”
Hutch: Tch. What idiot said that?
Huggy Bear: I believe that was God - the greatest mack of all.

352

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It was never in our hands from the moment his word was accepted as “Christian Law”. The question is, when did so many bypass The Bible, and in a world where the Christian Conservative Right seems to want to scream their adherence to “morals and values”, when did it become OK to kill someone? I am still waiting on the Christian Conservative response to this.[/quote]

Actually, one would think the Bible would specifically speak out against the death penalty if it were a problematic practice under Biblical morals.

It’s not as if use of the death penalty wasn’t widespread during the time in which the New Testament was written. In fact, back then there were really only a few punishments that were used: beatings/mutilations/torture, enslavement, expulsion from the country, and death. They didn’t use prisons in the sense we use them today, as places to hold people for long periods of time (except in the case of important captives who were being leveraged, or who had value kept alive and/or were being ransomed).

And death wasn’t just for murderers back then either. It was basically for all the major crimes – including some we’d consider not so major, like desecration.

The Bible explicitly discusses murder, and in no place does it speak of the state’s execution of a guilty person as being murder. It speaks to the taking of innocent life; it does not speak to punishment meted out by civil authorities.

This omission would make it very puzzling if the message was supposedly that the state could not use the death penalty on guilty persons.

And, it’s not as if the New Testament is absent of scriptures specifically talking about the rights of civil authorities to enforce laws. See, for instance, Romans 13. This is a particularly interesting chapter, as Paul describes the ruler as enforcing laws with the sword against evil doers, and then goes on to list “Thou shalt not Kill” as one of the commandments to follow. If the message was supposedly that the state could not kill, I would think it would have been a bit clearer, especially coming from a former man of laws like Paul.

353

BTW, here’s a link to the KJV of Romans 13:

http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Romans/13.html

354

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It was never in our hands from the moment his word was accepted as “Christian Law”. The question is, when did so many bypass The Bible, and in a world where the Christian Conservative Right seems to want to scream their adherence to “morals and values”, when did it become OK to kill someone? I am still waiting on the Christian Conservative response to this.

Actually, one would think the Bible would specifically speak out against the death penalty if it were a problematic practice under Biblical morals.

It’s not as if use of the death penalty wasn’t widespread during the time in which the New Testament was written. In fact, back then there were really only a few punishments that were used: beatings/mutilations/torture, enslavement, expulsion from the country, and death. They didn’t use prisons in the sense we use them today, as places to hold people for long periods of time (except in the case of important captives who were being leveraged, or who had value kept alive and/or were being ransomed).

And death wasn’t just for murderers back then either. It was basically for all the major crimes – including some we’d consider not so major, like desecration.

The Bible explicitly discusses murder, and in no place does it speak of the state’s execution of a guilty person as being murder. It speaks to the taking of innocent life; it does not speak to punishment meted out by civil authorities.

This omission would make it very puzzling if the message was supposedly that the state could not use the death penalty on guilty persons.

And, it’s not as if the New Testament is absent of scriptures specifically talking about the rights of civil authorities to enforce laws. See, for instance, Romans 13. This is a particularly interesting chapter, as Paul describes the ruler as enforcing laws with the sword against evil doers, and then goes on to list “Thou shalt not Kill” as one of the commandments to follow. If the message was supposedly that the state could not kill, I would think it would have been a bit clearer, especially coming from a former man of laws like Paul.
[/quote]

I thought that was what “Thou shalt not kill” was about? No? Cool, let me grab my gun.

355

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I thought that was what “Thou shalt not kill” was about? No? Cool, let me grab my gun.
[/quote]

Not in context. If you stripped it of all context, I suppose that you could make that argument. However, that ignores the whole of what I wrote above, and the historical context in which it was written.

You grabbing your gun and going on a spree would certainly not comport with Paul’s description of the civil governing authorities protecting society from evildoers with the sword, unless you happen to be appointed judge, jury and executioner according to the civil laws.

356

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Actually, one would think the Bible would specifically speak out against the death penalty if it were a problematic practice under Biblical morals.

It’s not as if use of the death penalty wasn’t widespread during the time in which the New Testament was written. In fact, back then there were really only a few punishments that were used: beatings/mutilations/torture, enslavement, expulsion from the country, and death. They didn’t use prisons in the sense we use them today, as places to hold people for long periods of time (except in the case of important captives who were being leveraged, or who had value kept alive and/or were being ransomed).

And death wasn’t just for murderers back then either. It was basically for all the major crimes – including some we’d consider not so major, like desecration.

The Bible explicitly discusses murder, and in no place does it speak of the state’s execution of a guilty person as being murder. It speaks to the taking of innocent life; it does not speak to punishment meted out by civil authorities.

This omission would make it very puzzling if the message was supposedly that the state could not use the death penalty on guilty persons.

And, it’s not as if the New Testament is absent of scriptures specifically talking about the rights of civil authorities to enforce laws. See, for instance, Romans 13. This is a particularly interesting chapter, as Paul describes the ruler as enforcing laws with the sword against evil doers, and then goes on to list “Thou shalt not Kill” as one of the commandments to follow. If the message was supposedly that the state could not kill, I would think it would have been a bit clearer, especially coming from a former man of laws like Paul.
[/quote]

Leave it to a lawyer to legally interpret THE BIBLE. :slight_smile:

The death penalty was indeed widespread in biblical times, as it still is today in much of the Middle East. This may be precisely why it isn’t specifically mentioned.
Since the bible was, if fact, written by men, perhaps it would not be in their best interest to forbid the very practices they embrace. The Bible may very well be that era’s version of the constitution. Who knows?

I’m not sure the commandments were meant to be placed in context. They seem pretty absolute. Any interpretation beyond the words are man’s attempts to justify circumventing them, in many cases.

357

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I thought that was what “Thou shalt not kill” was about? No? Cool, let me grab my gun.

Not in context. If you stripped it of all context, I suppose that you could make that argument. However, that ignores the whole of what I wrote above, and the historical context in which it was written.

You grabbing your gun and going on a spree would certainly not comport with Paul’s description of the civil governing authorities protecting society from evildoers with the sword, unless you happen to be appointed judge, jury and executioner according to the civil laws.[/quote]

But that is like comparing cops using guns while on duty to killing a prisoner who is already behind bars and no longer a threat to society. They aren’t the same.

358

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I thought that was what “Thou shalt not kill” was about? No? Cool, let me grab my gun.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Not in context. If you stripped it of all context, I suppose that you could make that argument. However, that ignores the whole of what I wrote above, and the historical context in which it was written.

You grabbing your gun and going on a spree would certainly not comport with Paul’s description of the civil governing authorities protecting society from evildoers with the sword, unless you happen to be appointed judge, jury and executioner according to the civil laws.

ProfessorX wrote:

But that is like comparing cops using guns while on duty to killing a prisoner who is already behind bars and no longer a threat to society. They aren’t the same.[/quote]

Not necessarily. And that’s my characterization for “protecting society,” not a quote.

At any rate, here’s a more eloquent presentation of the interpretation of Romans 13, which I have excerpted from this article ( A Papal Remedy by Dennis Teti | Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity ):

The New Testament & Capital Punishment

In Romans 13 St. Paul specifies the locus of rightful authority to execute in the political order. Here again the larger context of the applicable verses throws light on their full teaching. Just prior to the pertinent passage, the apostle writes against vengeance (12:19 DR): “Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” Yet he instantly follows this injunction against revenge by requiring “every soul [to] be subject to higher powers,” adding, “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God” (13:1). Paul teaches that the “prince” has been divinely given the authority to execute (13:3?5 DR): “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . . [I]f thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath but also for conscience’ sake.” The “sword” not borne “in vain” is the standard weapon of execution (jus gladii). After recognizing the public authority’s right or duty to exercise the ultimate punishment, St. Paul returns to and completes his opening teaching against revenge: The law and the Ten Commandments are fulfilled in the love of neighbor (13:10).

Thus we have a verse sequence in which the first and third themes enclose the second:

  1. Christians must not take revenge on those who do evil (12:17?21).

  2. The public authority must punish evildoers, including use of capital punishment (13:1?5).

  3. Obedience to the civil and moral law attains its “fulfillment,” perfection, or highest purpose in the love of neighbor (13:6?10).

The first striking feature of these verses is the contrast St. Paul draws between the personal claim to revenge, which he denies because it belongs to God alone, and the government’s right to be God’s “avenger,” which he sanctions. St. Paul requires Christians to obey the civil law not merely because government has a monopoly of power to enforce it (which is “legal positivism”), but as a matter of conscience, because government has divine sanction. The harshness of public justice is framed by the necessity of public peace and the end of personal love.

These passages also indicate the reason for the moral difference between private vengeance and public justice. St. Paul does not deny that terrible wrongs occur. The problem of vengeance is that it cannot rise above a private response, which elicits further violence. There was a dramatic illustration of this difference when the survivors and relatives of McVeigh’s victims were permitted to witness his execution in order to attain “closure.” Once the murderer actually stopped breathing, most of those witnesses denied feeling any such “closure.” Some, remembering the affliction of his victims, grew even angrier as they observed his peaceful death. Others said that his remorseless face would haunt them for the rest of their lives. For all the pop-psych talk about “closure,” the wish to watch McVeigh die was meant to satisfy revenge, not justice. St. Paul was right: Vengeance does not beget peace.

By granting power to execute evildoers to the officials of the community while denying private persons a right to vengeance, God establishes the conditions of peace that make it possible to love one’s neighbor as oneself. What is finally most striking about Romans’ placement of capital punishment with the public authority is that the ultimate penalty is as indispensable to the second great commandment as Genesis’s support of it is to the first.

359

But Boston, while your ability to find random blogs that agree with your stance is nothing short of fairly impressive, there is something that passage you quoted is missing. From this:

[quote] “Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” Yet he instantly follows this injunction against revenge by requiring “every soul [to] be subject to higher powers,” adding, “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God” (13:1). Paul teaches that the “prince” has been divinely given the authority to execute (13:3?5 DR): “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . . [I]f thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath but also for conscience’ sake.” The “sword” not borne “in vain” is the standard weapon of execution (jus gladii). After recognizing the public authority’s right or duty to exercise the ultimate punishment, St. Paul returns to and completes his opening teaching against revenge: The law and the Ten Commandments are fulfilled in the love of neighbor (13:10).
[/quote]

You can also clearly see the reverence given to “princes”, Kings and Queens. America was built without these presences. Our President is no “King”. He is a leader based on the voice of the people. It erases the idea instituted through regimes governed by one ruling voice leaving that voice divided along the people of America. Clearly this passage was written before any concept of our system of government was even a factor. Therefore, wouldn’t it be wise to go back to the basis of the information given? If it is, then this:

“Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

…is where our message ends and adding more onto it becomes a political exercise ignoring what was written.

360

[quote]AZMojo wrote:

Leave it to a lawyer to legally interpret THE BIBLE. :slight_smile:

The death penalty was indeed widespread in biblical times, as it still is today in much of the Middle East. This may be precisely why it isn’t specifically mentioned.

Since the bible was, if fact, written by men, perhaps it would not be in their best interest to forbid the very practices they embrace. The Bible may very well be that era’s version of the constitution. Who knows?

I’m not sure the commandments were meant to be placed in context. They seem pretty absolute. Any interpretation beyond the words are man’s attempts to justify circumventing them, in many cases.[/quote]

Yes, rather lawyerly of me at that… =-)

Anyway though, the commandments do need to be taken in context. Specifically, I think their historical context is important, but even taking them in context of what else is written in the Bible is important.

For instance, the penalty for those who violate “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is made explicit just a few lines later: “Whoever strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:12). The text goes on to specify that this applies only to deliberate murder, not unintentional killing. Accidents are not capital crimes. But for a willful killer, there can be no sanctuary: “Take him even from My altar and put him death” (Exodus 21:14).

361

It’s amazing the range of responses this is getting all over the planet. It would be funny if this wasn’t such serious business:

"
Schwarzenegger Shunned in Austria Following Execution

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s refusal to grant former gang leader Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams clemency has sparked outrage in his native Austria. On Monday, Schwarzenegger refused to overturn the Crips gang founder’s death sentence, and he was executed in the early hours of yesterday morning. And his refusal to spare the life of Williams - who was convicted of killing four people - has sparked harsh criticism from people across Austria. Leaders of the country’s opposition Green Party are calling for the Terminator star to be stripped of his Austrian citizenship - a demand rejected by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel as “absurd” despite his government’s opposition to the death penalty. And in Graz, Schwarzenegger’s hometown, local Greens are planning to file a petition to remove Schwarzenegger’s name from the city’s Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group suggests it be renamed to honour Williams.
"

362

Sort of makes it all sound like an early attempt to codify right and wrong.

So, are we interpreting the Bible now but not the constitution? Maybe we should be strict constructionists and use the word as written.

Too bad nobody can make sense of it and it contradicts itself all over the place.

Wow. Imagine. Over 2000 years later and we are still creating books full of laws that nobody can figure out and arguing about them endlessly.

363

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But Boston, while your ability to find random blogs that agree with your stance is nothing short of fairly impressive…[/quote]

I cannot help but picture BB with one of the most lengthy and well-organized sets of bookmarks/favorites set up in his browser, ready to churn forth articles within seconds of his needing some kind of reference. Seriously, do you have about 25,000 bookmarks in a Dewey Decimel like system?

364

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But Boston, while your ability to find random blogs that agree with your stance is nothing short of fairly impressive,[/quote]

Thanks Prof. But it’s not a random blog entry. It’s from an article written by Dennis Teti, who has taught constitutional law, political philosophy, and related subjects for Regent University and Hillsdale College.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
there is something that passage you quoted is missing.

From this:
[i] “Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” Yet he instantly follows this injunction against revenge by requiring “every soul [to] be subject to higher powers,” adding, “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God” (13:1). Paul teaches that the “prince” has been divinely given the authority to execute (13:3?5 DR): "princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . . f thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath but also for conscience’ sake." The “sword” not borne “in vain” is the standard weapon of execution (jus gladii). After recognizing the public authority’s right or duty to exercise the ultimate punishment, St. Paul returns to and completes his opening teaching against revenge: The law and the Ten Commandments are fulfilled in the love of neighbor (13:10).

You can also clearly see the reverence given to “princes”, Kings and Queens. America was built without these presences. Our President is no “King”. He is a leader based on the voice of the people. It erases the idea instituted through regimes governed by one ruling voice leaving that voice divided along the people of America. Clearly this passage was written before any concept of our system of government was even a factor. Therefore, wouldn’t it be wise to go back to the basis of the information given? [/quote]

I disagree. I don’t think the passage is premised on any divine right of princes or kings. I think those were the examples he used because those were the rulers during the time period.

And I don’t see any implication whatsoever in the fact that we vote in people who pass laws, versus having someone who was born, or who conquered, his way into power as the authority for making laws. In either case, you have civil authorities making laws for the governance of society.

Aside from that, Rome’s Senate and assembly continued to pass laws, even during the imperial era. Caesar was the head of government, but not the sole voice of lawmaking or decisions. This was the government under which Paul lived.

This actually plays to my overall analysis. If capital punishment were so widely used, and if it were supposed to be a violation of the laws of God, one would think it would be explicitly stated. In fact, one would think Paul would have, in this very section, called the rulers out for widespread violations. But he explicitly states their use of the sword to punish evid deeds is complimentary to God’s purposes.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If it is, then this:

“Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

…is where our message ends and adding more onto it becomes a political exercise ignoring what was written.[/quote]

Once again, per the analysis from the article above, this can’t be ripped out of the context of the passage. It necessarily is read with what came immediately afterward, which was the part concerning the prince using the sword against evildoers.

365

[quote]vroom wrote:
…
So, are we interpreting the Bible now but not the constitution? Maybe we should be strict constructionists and use the word as written.[/quote]

Professor X asked a religious question, so he got a religious answer.

We can certainly discuss Constitutionality as well. The Constitutionality isn’t really debatable – under an originalist theory there is no evidence that any single founder opposed capital punishment; and even under a “living constitutionalist” interpretation, the 9 all-knowing muses in black robes who sit on the USSC haven’t declared that the Constitution now emanates, from deep within its penumbras, that capital punishment is prohibited.

366

[quote]Kuz wrote:

I cannot help but picture BB with one of the most lengthy and well-organized sets of bookmarks/favorites set up in his browser, ready to churn forth articles within seconds of his needing some kind of reference. Seriously, do you have about 25,000 bookmarks in a Dewey Decimel like system?[/quote]

Kuz, please, that is a ridiculous claim. Boston has at least double that. :>

367

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Anyway though, the commandments do need to be taken in context. Specifically, I think their historical context is important, but even taking them in context of what else is written in the Bible is important.[/quote]

I’m not a Christian, so forgive me if I misunderstand this, but from my Christian education and from discussing this with my wife and my father in law (who are Christian) I was under the impression that:

  1. Christ died in the Cross to pay for our sins, and, with that, started a “New Covenant”, that overturned many, if not all, aspects of The Law (as proclaimed in the Old Testament) and is based, fundamentally, on concepts of forgiveness, love, and not judging others (leaving only for God the “privilege” of judgment and revenge) – basically making your quotes from Exodus (Old Testament) irrelevant for Christians, as they are overturned by the New Covenant.

  2. The words in the New Testament are supposed to come from God, and hence, as God, be eternal, and hence devoid of historical context

  3. Paul’s mention of the usage of “the sword” doesn’t necessarily imply execution. We’d have to look at the original scripture (in the original language) in order to even try to begin to make any certain conclusions about if His message (as a believer, you are to believe that Paul is simply a channel for God’s message) is “simply” hard punishment or actual execution (the latter of which I doubt, in light of 1.). If he meant that they should be killed, why not just say exactly that?

  4. Paul also made several statements that are obviously misogynous: Paul insisted that women should not talk in church (“women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” -1 Cor 14:34 NIV). Do you also subscribe to that line of thought – that God actually has that message (which basically amounts to misogyny), or do you rather realize it’s either Paul not really putting God’s message onto paper properly and/or a botched translation?

Or am I missing something here?

368

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

We can certainly discuss Constitutionality as well. The Constitutionality isn’t really debatable – under an originalist theory there is no evidence that any single founder opposed capital punishment; and even under a “living constitutionalist” interpretation, the 9 all-knowing muses in black robes who sit on the USSC haven’t declared that the Constitution now emanates, from deep within its penumbras, that capital punishment is prohibited.
[/quote]

And just to dovetail on Boston’s good point, for an overall discussion - the 5th Amendment guarantees that no person will “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

So it is clear from the text that a person can be deprived of life so long as they are afforded Due Process.

And, further, the 5th Amendment states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” - the text explicitly recognizes capital crimes, and that a Grand Jury must be the one handing down the indictment for one.

Just food for thought.

369

Actually, with that passage, I think Paul was addressing some specific problems with the church in Corinth. I can’t remember where I heard this – probably Sunday school when I was in high school. If I’m recalling correctly, my pastor, who did read Greek, Hebrew and Latin, said that the specific context of those remarks, and certain other very specific pronouncements he made, was to address problems going on in that congregation at the time. Once again, going on memory here, but I believe he said there was a specific problem in the Corinthian church, evidenced from other contemporary sources, of women speaking/socializing during the services, which some people (including, apparently, Paul) thought was irreverent. The “submission”, I believe, was to God, and was referencing the services.

But again, that’s just memory. I do think, obviously, that there can be translation issues.