December 12, 2005

No Justice - No End to the Violence

I am frankly appalled not only by the impending execution of Stanley “Tookie” Williams, but by the statement from the Governor’s office justifying it. This packet of vitriol argues not just for another execution in California, but an execution in the face of massive public opposition and incredibly exceptional circumstances. Leaving aside my personal feelings on the death penalty in general, I would like to highlight the most disgraceful passages of the statement, because I think it reveals, under its hypocrisy and arrogance, the nastiness, violence, and veiled racism that threaten all of us and our society at a deep level.

The overall tone of the statement is self-righteous, which I suppose is requisite for those who would hold another’s life in their hands. But it is also very violent, taking its first full third (two pages) to recite the details of Mr. Williams’s convicted crimes (and giving the same treatment to George Jackson in a lengthy footnote). This document takes the time to describe which weapons Williams (and Jackson) wielded, but reduces his prolific writing career to five lines (and ignores Jackson’s work entirely).

Playing up readers’ fear in order to incite the need for vengeance is a common enough underhanded maneuver, but in this case it is all the more disgraceful because the document itself recognizes the irrelevance of the crimes. As it reads:

The basis of Williams’ clemency request is not innocence. Rather, the basis of the request is the “personal redemption Stanley Williams has experienced and the positive impact of the message he sends.” But Williams’s claim of innocence remains a key factor to evaluating his claim of personal redemption. It is impossible to separate Williams’ claim of innocence from his claim of redemption. (p.3)

This leap, to tie redemption to innocence, is necessary to justify the basic purpose of the document—to reiterate Williams’s crimes in order to dampen human empathy and the claims of justice. But this is an unsupported claim, and a bare falsehood, and a dangerous lie. A moment’s thought reveals that redemption requires guilt—the innocent do not need to be redeemed. Not only is it entirely possible to separate the claim of innocence from the claim of redemption, it is necessary to do so. Furthermore, Williams has pled guilty to other crimes-- another crucial detail of his life story conveniently erased by the document—demonstrating exactly this point. this nasty rhetorical dodge, attacking as it does common sense and thousands of years of sacred beliefs, actually conceals the document’s hostility to redemption for anyone under any circumstances.

Indeed, redemption in clemency-denial land requires efforts beyond the superhuman. Williams’s anti-gang efforts are internationally known, but in the lowest point of this document, Williams is made to bear the charge of ending all gang violence throughout California alone or face death as the consequence of failure:

It is hard to assess the effect of [Williams’s anti-gang-violence] efforts in concrete terms, but the continued pervasiness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams’ message. Williams co-founded the Crips, a notorious street gang that has contributed and continues to contribute to predatory and exploitative violence. (p.4)

I’m not making this up—go check that the document actually reads this way! Could the bankruptcy of the positions in this document be more obvious? To be clear: It is not the fault of Stanley Williams that gang violence still happens. He has done more that virtually any other individual alive to lessen violence and spread a message of how to live in peace—he has already done more than anyone could ask, and than most could achieve, to make the world more peaceful. But this is apparently not enough for clemency. Should he have stopped bullets with a magic shield? Raised the dead? Perhaps the governor just doesn’t understand the basics: making peace among tens of thousands of disenfranchised and oppressed people raised in a culture of violence and poverty takes more time than killing one man already behind bars in the worlds’ biggest and best-funded prison system. The affront to logic and a basic sense of fairness and proportion could not be more plain.

But finally, listen to what the document says we should be doing to stop gang violence (relegated to a footnote, as if actually stopping gang violence isn’t a major concern):

Breaking the cycle of hopelessness and gang violence is the responsibility of all of us, not just the most affected African-American or inner city communities. It is important to work together with respect, understanding, and patience if we are to one day succeed. (p.4)

Here we enter the realm of the absurd, and the deepest heart of the matter. If anyone is “working together with respect, understanding, and patience” to “break the cycle of hopelessness and gang violence,” it is precisely Stanley Williams.  Of course, he is going to be killed despite doing exactly the right thing. I think the disclaimer “not just… African-American… communities” makes the necessary clarification: saying “not just… African-American… communities” are needed to end gang violence really means that African-Americans will not be allowed to participate. They are to be the subjects of pacification, not the actors.

Apparently, we will see at one minute past midnight exactly how Governor Schwarzenegger and the authors of his denial of clemency think African-Americans can best help end gang violence: by dying. The state’s role: killing. The chance of redemption: zero. This is the appalling statement made today by the Governor of California.

Raphael Sperry

President, Architects / Designers / Planners for Social Responsibility

To read the full statement:

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf