Ace of Spades HQ

« More Race-Rioting In Australia | Main | Tookie: You're Terminated »

December 12, 2005

The Talented Mr. Williams

We are, it seems, supposed to forgive Tookie Williams of vicious murders -- in case anyone forgets what that word means, it means killing another human being without cause or justification -- because he supposedly wrote a children's book. And a book renouncing gangs.

Not even because he's expressed remorse about the four murders he was charged with. He maintains he was innocent of those.

It's a strange compulsion of the radical left to excuse the worst of all crimes -- murder -- simply because someone may have a bit of creative talent or literary potential. Murder is not some penny-ante offense that is outlawed only due to blue laws forced on the country by religious freaks. It is the ultimate crime, the alpha and omega of violations.

Tookie Williams murdered at least four people.

But he wrote a children's book.

This absolves his sins?

None of this is of course new. Norman Mailer championed the cause of convicted murder Jack Henry Abbott, based on the alleged literary power of the letters (probably largely ass-kissing, ego-stroking fan-mail) Abbott wrote to him.

Mailer's correspondence with Jack Henry Abbott began while he was in the midst of writing The Executioner's Song, the title of the Gilmore story. The very first letter that Mailer received greatly impressed him. "Abbott's letter was intense, direct, unadorned, and detached, an unforgettable combination," Mailer wrote in his introduction to Abbott's book. After that first letter, Mailer received, on average, about two letters a week for the next three years. Together the letters exceeded 2,000 pages of text which addressed every facet of prison life and more. Abbott liked to ponder the philosophical insights of Marx, Russell and Hobbes. He enjoyed writing about Lenin and saw Marxism as an alternative to the American system of justice. "I do not believe I would have suffered greater injustices in any country in the world than I have here," Abbott wrote.

Well, if he's a Marxist, surely he can't be all bad!

But apparently Abbott's talents were so enormous that society simply could not be denied them, even if Abbott posed an ongoing threat to innocent human beings:

Encouraged by Mailer, a New York City publishing house became interested in Abbott's letters as a book project. Mailer even lobbied for his new friend's parole and convinced others to do the same. Of course, no one could say for sure what would happen when a man like Abbott was released back into society. But Mailer was emphatic. Abbott's talents were of such importance, he assured, that it would be a crime to ignore it. "Culture is worth a little risk," Mailer later told reporters.

And it was imperative that Abbott be freed from prison. Not just spared the death penalty (he wasn't sentenced to death). No, he needed to be outright freed in order to enrich us all with his writings:

Still, the wisdom of paroling a violent man like Abbott was uncertain. "I am aware of the responsibility of what I propose," Mailer wrote to the Utah parole board, "and propose it in the belief that Abbott is in need of a special solution that can reach out to his special abilities."
But prison psychiatrists had strong reservations about his mental state. Abbott's long history of violence and rebellion did not indicate that he was ready for the free world. One report said, "Abbott is angry and hostile about his captivity." Another prison official opposed his release and said, "I thought ... that Mr. Abbott was a dangerous individual ... I didn't see a changed man. His attitude, his demeanor indicated psychosis."

Abbott was released, however, with Normal Mailer's guarantee that he would find him work. It wasn't long before the "risk" of Abott's realease became more than a risk:

When he asked Adan where the men's room was, the waiter explained that it could only be reached by walking through the kitchen and was off-limits to customers. But Abbott insisted on using the restroom. A verbal argument ensued between the two men, though it was quiet and hardly heard by the other diners. "It was all very low key," an employee later told a reporter from the Times. "You could hardly hear what they were saying before they went out on the street." Abbott told Adan to "take it outside." The two men exited the restaurant onto Fifth Street. The argument continued for only a minute longer. Abbott suddenly pulled out a knife and plunged it into Adan's chest. The blade pierced his heart.
"I'm hurt, it hurts!" he cried, "God, how it hurts!" Blood gushed from his chest as a passerby approached him to give aid. Abbott ran back into Binibon's and shouted to one of the girls, "Let's get out of here! I just killed a man!" The terrified girls left with Abbott and walked a block away. Suddenly, Abbott stopped, turned to the girls and said, "You don't know me!" He then ran off into the night without saying another word.

Just 24 hours after the murder...

The very next morning, July 19, 1981, the Sunday edition of the New York Times carried the review of Abbott's new book, In the Belly of the Beast. Reviewer Terrence Des Pres gave a mostly favorable report and expressed gratitude to Abbott's mentor, Norman Mailer. "We must be grateful to him (Mailer) for getting these letters into publishing form and, a job more difficult, for helping to get Abbott out on parole."

One doubts Richard Adan or his family was similarly grateful.

Abbott fled, and a manhunt ensued. When he was finally arrested and tried for second-degree murder, his trial was attended by admiring celebrities -- despite the fact he had murdered again.

[Susan] Sarandon especially, became enamored by Abbott. Shortly after the trial, she gave birth to a baby. She and the father, actor Tim Robbins, named him "Jack Henry."

Normal Mailer was unrepetent and unapologetic that his pet project pen-pal now had a higher bodycount:

"Let's not destroy Abbott!" begged Mailer to the New York press. Jack Abbott was described as a literary star, a Marxist revolutionary, a convicted murderer, "an author of the highest magnitude." He was many things to many people. But lost in the quagmire of debate and obscured by the endless pleas of mercy for the misunderstood killer, was the forgotten life of Richard Adan. A man who did nothing more but advise a diner that the restaurant had no men's restroom.
He had been killed in an argument over a toilet.

Abbott of course claimed self-defense. But the prosecutors used some of his writings in the cross-examination. A prosecutor read to Abbott as passage from his Mailer-championed "literature:"

"You move your left foot to the side to step across his right side, body length. A light pivot toward him with your right shoulder and the world turns upside down. You have sunk the knife to its hilt. Into the middle of his chest Slowly he begins to struggle for his life ... You can feel his life trembling through the knife in his hand."
When he finished reading the paragraph, Fogel turned to Abbott and asked, "Did you write that?" Abbott smirked and replied, "It's good isn't it?"

Thanks to Abbott's celebrity status and some jury members who refused to convict for murder, he was found guilty only of manslaughter.

Only later did Mailer hint at his own culpability:

Mailer, to his credit, later recognized his tragic role in the story. "Another episode in my life in which I can find nothing to cheer about or nothing to take pride in," Mailer said in 1992 according to the Buffalo News. "It was a study in false vanity," he added.

This is neither new or novel. Cop-killer Abu-Jamal Mumia is feted as being, supposedly, a political prisoner. Margaret Cho names her dog after a vicious murderer she describes as an "art terrorist," back in the days when murder was "chic."

And Hollywood continues to crank out haigiographies about mass-killer Che Guevera.

It seems strange indeed that those who claim to be such passionate humanists defend, praise, and aid those who are so lacking in simple humanity.

All because they simply have a bit of style, talent, intellect, or Marxist leanings.

For all their talk of "the common man," they only seem to take a real shine to uncommon men, men of (supposedly) considerable intellectual gifts. And, of course, the uncommon condition of being a remorseless murderer.

There was a time when being an intellectual wasn't quite as indicative as good moral character as not having murdered another human being. After all, not being a murderer is so common -- so common, in fact, that there's not even actually a word for it. There's no simple word for "non-murderer."

But a man with some literary talent, or a woman with some style and charisma, who just happened to have killed a few people along the way of reaching for the stars... these people are worth honoring and praising. In fact, they're even allowed to murder again. For what is a human life against a good notice in the New York Review of Books?

Ah, the silly, repressive, buttoned-up jackbooted 1950's, when we used to think that murder was a bad thing.

Note: Chris Walken also attended Jack Henry Abbott's murder trial. But, at least pubicly, he indicated he wasn't there as a supporter:

I often go to court to watch people's emotions," Walken told a reporter from the New York Post.

posted by Ace at 04:07 PM

Comments

The Chicken Noodle Network sez that Tookie will Cookie tomorrow since the Guvernator decided not to excuse his murderous actions of 24 years ago.

Posted by: old_dawg on December 12, 2005 04:48 PM

Totally off-topic, but for some weird reason I couldn't find a recent open thread to stick it in. Huh. Anyway:

Dig this lede from AFP:

Embattled US President George W. Bush denied that living in the White House "bubble" of security, policy advisers and political strategists had left him out of touch.

That is a VERY even-handed sentence, non? We could have fun with that formula!

Let's make it on-topic!

Embattled children's author Tookie Williams denied that living in the Death Row "bubble" of pedophile murder-rapists, serial killers, and oppressed political prisoners has left him "out of time".

Posted by: Mark on December 12, 2005 04:52 PM

Well put, Ace.

Particularly nice:

I am perhaps most astounded by what our intellectuals believe is indicative of intelligence.

Posted by: DeeDaGo on December 12, 2005 04:55 PM

"It's a strange compulsion of the radical left to excuse the worst of all crimes -- murder -- simply because someone may have a bit of creative talent or literary potential."

Look up Stalin's quote on Omlets. Then read this link...you then understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin

Don't immanentize the eschaton!

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 04:56 PM

Manson might want to get started on a few children's books. Seriously. This is all rather pathetic and totally typical.

Imagine a skinhead who killed black kids for sport being championed for clemency because he wrote a few books about how race killings and antisocial behavior are bad things. You cannot, because it would never happen. This is PC bullshit at the very worst.

If Tookie were a white man the only person there would be that twat Prejean looking to inspire a sequel to "Dead Man Walking."

This really pisses me off. I have avoided it all week and still will not believe it until it is done.

A nice riot in California is all this needs to be the perfect farce. You know they love a good race riot in LA. Shame they can only seem to come up with heros like Rodney King and Tookie to riot over these days. A crack head and a murderer. Amazing.

Posted by: Jennifer on December 12, 2005 04:56 PM

My wife asked me if his so-called rehabilition warranted a stay of execution. I told her that the success of any rehabilition he may have experienced is that he may get to die a better man. But die he will and rightly so. And I don't even believe in the death penalty.

Posted by: Biff Boff on December 12, 2005 04:58 PM

It's worse than that.

Roger Kimball in "The Long March" (pub. 2000) has an even worse quote from Mailer on this particular killer: "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to ensure the freedom of such a man" (paraphrased)

Either Kimball's making this up - and he doesn't really seem the type to do that - or Norman Mailer is seriously ill.

Posted by: Knemon on December 12, 2005 04:59 PM

I am often conflicted on the death penalty, for reasons I will not get into in this post. That said, when Tookie dies tonight shortly after midnight pacific time for the murder of 4 people, he will also take with him the 'crime' of founding of a violent street gang which is responsible for the murders of countless more. I won't be shedding any tears for Mr. Williams.

Posted by: Defense Guy on December 12, 2005 05:00 PM

I would have bet Arnold was going to cave on this issue.
I'm glad I was wrong.

Posted by: Timmy in the Well on December 12, 2005 05:04 PM

It's a strange compulsion of the radical left to excuse the worst of all crimes -- murder -- simply because someone may have a bit of creative talent or literary potential

I was touching on this with the Richard Pryor post before. What is it about fame? He wrote some books? Big...fucking...deal. The average Ace reader has probably written more on this site that Tookie Mc'Shitbag has ever written. Who cares if he has some creative talent. The most creative talent in the world is only mildly important. Try raising kids to not hate and make a contribution in life. That's important.

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 05:06 PM

Sorry. That last was me.

Posted by: Biff Boff on December 12, 2005 05:09 PM

Hell, he didn't even get a writing credit for Redemption.

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 05:10 PM

The timing of this event reminds of a time when SNL was actually funny. They did a great skit which included the song "Let's Kill Gary Gilmore for Christmas". Good times.

Posted by: JackStraw on December 12, 2005 05:12 PM

But just think of all the great clown art we are missing now that John Wayne Gacy is dead! What a loss to humanity.

http://www.clownz.com/pa_jwg3.html

(Supressing full body shudder)

Posted by: Scott Free on December 12, 2005 05:13 PM

Ace, thank you for this. I *think* I've heard this story before, but a lot of it sounds new to me. Quite the revelation indeed.

Huh. I actually *learned* something today. Whaddya know?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on December 12, 2005 05:23 PM

There is a disturbing predilection among leftys and chic limo liberals to fawn over depravity, as long as the depraved cater to a certain phoney lib worldview. Tookie is the godfather of a vicious crew of thugs, Mumia is a cop-killer, and Che was a butcher. But they are liberal-approved psychopaths, so they get a pass on whatever crimes they committed. Somehow I doubt that if Matthew Shepard's killers wrote some guilt-sodden tripe, they would get the same "activism". This infatuation limo-libs have with evil is more than just fluffy headed ignorance; to me it shows a serious moral rot these people have.

Posted by: UGAdawg on December 12, 2005 05:25 PM

Good comments.
I especially agree with Defense Guy.
Not only has this scum killed (at least) 4 people by his own hand, but thanks to his co-founding of the 'Crips', he's contributed to the deaths of so many others.
Another contribution is the condemnation of generations of children to the ghetto mentality, and ultimately the ghetto. These thugs lock their neighborhoods into a perpetual state of fear, lawlessness, and despair, but at the same time, they've made it 'cool' to be a criminal.
Ask Tookie. Ask fellow Crip Snoop Dogg.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe on December 12, 2005 05:29 PM

Huh. I really didn't think Ahnuld had the stones given his precarious political stature.

That said, I'm pretty pissed right now. I was sure the Tookster was going to get a wholly undeserved clemency. Had it occured, I figured that would give me all the justification I--as a white, nearing-middle-aged, male--needed to get in on some riotin' and lootin'.

Posted by: kelly on December 12, 2005 05:30 PM

[..] simply because someone may have a bit of creative talent or literary potential.

One of his books sold a total of 300+ copies and the other sold a grand total of two (2). Both probably ghost written.

Posted by: rls on December 12, 2005 05:45 PM

Arnold is NOT in a precarious position, politically. That is another wishfull thinking-driven kenard by the media. He has succeeded in everything he has pursued up until these last 4 propositions. If you lived in California, you should have seen the un-ending supply of advertisements against his ballot props but relatively little in favor.

I think he has tried a little too much too soon and burned out his resources. Also, citizens can only keep up that grass-roots tempo for so long before special elections begin to get tiresome and easy to over look. His last 4 props were not put together as strong as they could have been and were under-communicated while aggresively attacked.

Anyway, I'm not surprised he refused the stay and assure you he is in no precarious position. He just need the resources to put his message out more frequently. When he runs for re-election (and he will), the GOP will pull out all the stops to keep even a moderate registered Republican in the Executive chair of such a Blue dominated state, particularly since Arnold's goal is still to re-district.

Posted by: Biff Boff on December 12, 2005 05:48 PM

I'll take your word on Arnold's political heft right now, Biff, since I don't live in the glorious republic of California. But you gotta admit he's fighting some entrenched political factions in the state legi.

I am still amazed he didn't cave to the Hollywood crowd, though.

Posted by: kelly on December 12, 2005 06:04 PM

Is it a bad thing if I liked the Executioner's Song? Of course I was quite young and quite liberal then but its an outstanding read for anybody who's interested and can put Mailer's politics aside.

Posted by: BrewFan on December 12, 2005 06:27 PM

Biff is right. Where were you when ace did a hachet job on the redistricting proposal?

I liked Executioner's Song, too, until it dawned on me that all those people were disgusting and it made me ill. A better book, if you are so inclined, is Shot in the Heart, by Mikal Gilmore (though, the people still are disgusting, except for Mikal.)

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 06:42 PM

Hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away everything he has, and everything he's ever gonna have.

Posted by: Mr. Chaos on December 12, 2005 06:54 PM

Hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away everything he has, and everything he's ever gonna have.

Tell that to:
Albert Owens
Yen-I Yang
Tsai-Shai Lin
Yee-Chen Lin

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 07:00 PM

Yes, Mr. Chaos.
Too bad 'Tookie' didn't think of that before he shot-gunned his victims to death.
Funny now, his so-called 'contributions' to society.
Some would say that they're childrens' books.
Some would say that it's the legacy of a murderous criminal enterprise.
I take it your quote
You take away everything he has, and everything he's ever gonna have
includes the victims, and all that they could've contributed to our society, had 'Tookie' not murdered them...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe on December 12, 2005 07:02 PM

There are different kinds of killers. The Hollywood/Media elite worships and glorifies one particular brand.

Here's what Tookie, Mumia, and Jack Henry Abbott have in common: they enjoyed their murders. In each case, the act was unneccessary. In each case, helpless victims were slaughtered for the emotional satisfaction of the killer.

As the quote from Abbott's trial makes clear, they enjoy murder and relive it with pleasure. These grandiose, pathetic losers feel godlike when taking the lives of ordinary people. It vindicates their deep belief that they are superior to the world of victims.

Big surprise that Marxism holds such appeal for them, with its avant-garde elite commanding the faceless masses for their own good.

And that's why limousine left elites finds empathy for civilization's most depraved killers. Their internal convictions are the same. Their emotional satisfactions are the same.

Posted by: lyle on December 12, 2005 07:09 PM

...and they're so 'edgy'...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe on December 12, 2005 07:11 PM

Norman Mailer was pretty handy with a knife himself; he used one on one of ex-wives.

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 07:20 PM

I was kinda wondering about that myself. If your prime support comes from a guy who stabs people with penknives, who's your secondary? People who smash kittens and babies and bunnies in the head with a maul? Or, Susan Sarandon? Same difference in global terms.

Posted by: pinky on December 12, 2005 07:32 PM

People who smash kittens and babies and bunnies in the head with a maul?

You mean Dick Cheney??

Posted by: on December 12, 2005 07:38 PM

Okay, I understand he's written a total of nine (9) books.

That means, in the eyes of the leftists and activists claiming that, because he writes books now, he should not get the chair.

So... doing the math shows that each of his victim's lives is worth 2.25 books.

Posted by: Xoxotl on December 12, 2005 08:29 PM

Hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away everything he has, and everything he's ever gonna have.

I think IIRC that this quote is from a Clint Eastwood movie.

Posted by: rls on December 12, 2005 08:32 PM

The movie was Unforgiven... somewhat appropos considering the subject!

Posted by: Madfish Willie on December 12, 2005 09:21 PM

I knew that it was a Clint quote; I just wanted to know in what context...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe on December 12, 2005 09:30 PM

I understand that the nazis played good samaratant to the kids and just how many kids ended up dead becuase of it

Posted by: spurwing plover on December 12, 2005 09:31 PM

"... After all, not being a murderer is so common -- so common, in fact, that there's not even actually a word for it. There's no simple word for "non-murderer." "

This seems unique. An actual case where a thing is best described by what it is not.

"non-murderer" : everyone, except those that have murdered.

Posted by: Tom M on December 12, 2005 10:02 PM

I have to admit, i knew it, but whenever i am reminded of how Susan Sarandon and her bitch Robbins named their love child after this scumbag murderer Abbott i am just gob smacked.

Like Margaret (Fat) Cho naming her dog after a German terrorist because it's 'chic' the level of self absorbtion and stupidity of the celebrity left is almost incomprehensible.

Posted by: h on December 12, 2005 10:25 PM

I rely upon the answer to just one question when determining the credibility of any new Hollywood 'cause'.

Is Alfre Woodard involved?

I lost all interest in listening to anything she had to say years ago when she walked onto the Dennis Miller show and launched, unhinged, into Bush....before he'd even been inaugurated.

Posted by: jmflynny on December 12, 2005 10:41 PM

This is a great post, Ace. The arrogance and snobbery of the left needs more public vilification. (This is why I so loved the last part of Team America-World Police.) Some of these same idiots tried to save this Gary Graham guy in Texas, seemingly for the most superficial of reasons; he had a nice smile and and was halfway articulate.

They were not successful.

I just scarfed a half dozen Dec. 04 tamales, but I think the real reason I feel a bit like puking is reading that Sarandon named their fucking kid after that thug. I was familiar with the basics of the abbot case, and I knew that Sarandon and Robbins were leftist tools, but the details you related are literally nauseating.

People like them, plus Mike Farrell and Bianca Jagger, are truly the butt end of the moral compass.

Posted by: stace on December 12, 2005 10:43 PM

The fact that B.J. Honeycutt is supporting this asshole celeb-felon says it all.

B.J. Honeycutt. Is there a more gay name than that?

Posted by: kelly on December 12, 2005 11:12 PM

I missed the stuff below the fold the first time around.

Terrific post, Ace.

As always, your best posts educate, and entertain.

Posted by: jmflynny on December 12, 2005 11:31 PM

This would have been a great post if you were making it up. As it is, it's astounding.

Posted by: anselm on December 12, 2005 11:44 PM

[Susan] Sarandon especially, became enamored by Abbott. Shortly after the trial, she gave birth to a baby. She and the father, actor Tim Robbins, named him "Jack Henry."

They are pure and simple batshit crazy.

Ugh.

Posted by: Pixy Misa on December 13, 2005 06:09 AM

Susan saranwrap is your typical holywood lefists

Posted by: spurwing plover on December 13, 2005 09:27 AM

There is a type of female who is drawn to dangerous cons in prison. Specially if they are black and have biceps like Smithfield Hams. I've never understood it. Same thing with the late unlamented George Jackson. Some of the liberal fascination is a mask for sexual fascination, methinks.

Posted by: Rosemarie on December 13, 2005 10:10 AM

Let me see if I understand this. So, Mailer pushes to get Abbot released from prison. Why? Because Abbot wrote a bunch of letters that were "intense, direct, unadorned, and detached". Umm... so? Prison time is supposed to be you know a "punishment" whose duration is based on one's "sentence" with early release based on "atonement" - not a talent show, poetry reading or standup act - "atonement". The dumbest guy on earth should have the same opportunity for early release as Charles Dickens if he takes responsibility for and atones for his crime - even if he can't find a clever way to express his remorse.

Besides, Mailer's push for parole was self-contradictory; Abbot's letters after all were inspired by his life *in prison* - so what did Mailer expect his fan to write about once released? 2000 more letters about "O Joyous Freedom! O Rapture!"?

Posted by: Scott on December 13, 2005 11:26 AM

Not that I care to be in a position to defend Sarandon (god, I loathe that woman), but Abbott's second trial was in 1981, and her child, Jack Henry, wasn't born until 1989. She didn't even hook up with Robbins until '87 or '88 while making Bull Durham.

So, I'm not sure what else in that article is or is not bs. I hate Hollywood leftists as much as the next person, but the truth is important in these matters.

Sounds to me like the article you're citing is a bit . . . over-zealous.

Posted by: Robbie on December 13, 2005 11:26 AM

Anybody remember William F. Buckley's Jack Abbott? Buckley was instrumental in freeing a mysogynistic sociopathic convicted murderer named Edgar Smith, going so far as to write the introduction to Smith's Death Row book Brief Against Death. Smith's next victim got away with the knife still hilt-deep in her chest and Smith vamoosed to Vegas where he called Buckley for help. "Fool me once" Bill tipped off the FBI, and Smith rots in prison to this day. The similarities to the Norman Mailer debacle are almost eerie. In Buckley's defense, Smith's genius (and he is a genius) ran to convincing people that he was actually innocent, rather than writing Marxist social commentary that Norman Mailer likes. And the facts of Smith's first case can credibly be argued to raise reasonable doubt- briefly, he had to have done a lot of stuff in just the right order over a frenetic half-hour immediately following the murder.

And, in fact, he did...

crimemagazine.com/03/edgarsmith,0825.htm

Posted by: on December 13, 2005 11:32 AM

And, in fact, he did...

crimemagazine.com/03/edgarsmith,0825.htm

Posted by: Supernatural Rabbit Scribe on December 13, 2005 11:32 AM

"Another episode in my life in which I can find nothing to cheer about or nothing to take pride in," Mailer said in 1992 according to the Buffalo News. "It was a study in false vanity," he added.

Actually Mailer's whole life apparently was dedicated to being contrary and sounding like he always knew the dirty inside track to all things positive and good.

This is what passes for sophistication these days; being able to "handle" the "truth", and "speaking truth to power".

And which explains how it is easier for Mailer to get a murderer released from prison and then later moan about how it was "all a great sham do you see??? My life is a joke!!!!", than to simply show common sense in the beginning and treat Abbot's letters as the simple deranged fan mail they were.

Posted by: Scott on December 13, 2005 11:40 AM

Why do death penalty proponents always equate clemency to letting the criminal off the hook, or "absolving his sins"? Tookie Williams was guilty, fine. Clemency is a not an issue of whether he's innocent or guilty, or whether he should be killed or go free, but whether he merits mercy. Clemency would have commuted his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole - nothing more. It wouldn't have excused his crime, but it would have recognized that over 25 years he rehabilitated himself to an extent that he deserved mercy. If Williams' efforts over the last 25 years to atone for his sins didn't merit mercy, then why should any prisoners even bother behaving?

Posted by: Pete on December 13, 2005 09:17 PM

If Williams' efforts over the last 25 years to atone for his sins didn't merit mercy, then why should any prisoners even bother behaving?

If he wanted to atone for his sins, he could have agreed to talk to the police and told them what he knew about the Crips. But he never agreed to do this. He never "snitched".

You raise a good point, though. We've reduced the incentive for death row convicts to write books for children. Somehow, we'll manage.

I oppose the death penalty. But unless Arnold is going to make a policy of offering clemency in all death penalty cases (a policy I might support!), he should not do so in this case, because Tookie is an unrepentant murderer.

I oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons, chief of which is my fear of government power in general. We should end it all. But what I'm seeing now is a bunch of people claiming to hold my opinion but actually arguing for special privileges for Tookie, a man who deserves it least of all.

Posted by: SJKevin on December 13, 2005 09:37 PM

Why do people always think that liberals want to "excuse" the crime, when all that is wanted is a commuted sentence. Life in prison without parole is still punishment. It's not about who the criminal is or how bad his crime was. It's about this: do you want to be a killer too? Even if it is justified, I don't.

Posted by: SB on December 14, 2005 12:34 PM