Apparently, they are going to execute Tookie Williams. Barring some last-minute reprieve or pardon, the founder of the Crips (named so because an early incarnation of the gang carried canes, and hence were referred to as “cripples”, shortened to “crips”) will die by lethal injection.
The controversy is not over his guilt, but over his current value to society as an anti-gang activst and humanitarian. It speaks to me of a fundamental question, what is our “justice system” for, anyway? The protection of the public, or “justice” (read rightious punishment, or just vengence)? Does his value to society through his current work outweigh the need to punish him for his wrongs? Your answer probably depends on which side of the line you fall on, Justice, or Protection.
For my part, it seems to me that justice is something that can not be doled out by a system of law. Justice is personal, it is a sense of satsfaction and balance between the aggrieved and the criminal.It is a moral and ethical judgment, it is emotional and subjective. Does killing the man give balance and satisfaction to the survivors of his victims? Does that penalty do so in all cases? Maybe Tookie’s victims are happy to see him die, but certainly criminals have been forgiven by their victims in many cases, and I don’t believe the victims get to have a say in the penalty. So its not really “justice”, is it? It is a system that seeks to meet out a fair punishment for wrongs, but it is not adept at achieveing satisfaction and balance, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps we should give up this idea that our government and laws are here to give us justice, fairness, and vengence. Like religion and sex, these things are personal, and the government should keeps it fingers out. Their job should be the protection of the public, not the regulation of its behavior in the name of morality or justice - let them lock up those who would do damage, let them put to death those whose potential to cause damage can not be stemmed any other way. Let them ask, what harms society? And act to prevent that harm, and only to prevent that harm. A crime that does not cause harm would not be punished in this system, a man who enriched society far more than he harmed it would not die, and Justice, that personal and subjective stuff, would be given or not given by the only person with the moral authority to say what is right or wrong - whatever God or system of personal morality you happen to believe in. As it has always been. Justice was never given by governmental authority, it has always been a judgment in the mind of the beholder, and is given out by a capricious universe with little obvious rhyme or reason.
Imagine a world where authority asked how to prevent harm, rather than how to punish wrongdoers. Imagine if they sought to balance benefit and harm, and made laws for this purpose, rather than out of moral beliefs of good and evil. Morals vary, but harm is measurable, concrete. Perhaps in such a system, victims of crime would feel deprived and unsatisfied, but they would be a lot safer, as would we all. Safer from crime, and safer from our own government. No one would go to jail for a harmless, if repugnant act, and those who do real harm would not get out of jail while still capable of doing that harm. The world would look very different if our lawmakers were required to justify a laws and actions with concrete data on the harm it addressed, rather than a subjective moral assertion of right and wrong.
Sigh, it will never change. We are too married to our notions of vengence and just desserts. Maybe the current atmosphere of fear, secret arrests, dilution of rights and anti-terror reactionism will help people see some of the flaws of the current system.
No comments yet.