Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Death penalty is no way to show that violence is wrong

Re: A barbaric end to a barbaric life, Dec. 15.

According to the opinion piece, 40 countries have abolished the death penalty since 1990. However, the United States is in the company of China, Iran and Vietnam and still uses the death penalty. In fact, the United States, China and Iran account for more than 81 percent of executions, according to Amnesty International. What a sad commentary on our justice system.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that executions deter crime more effectively than imprisonment without possibility of parole. That leaves vengeance as the only reason for executions. Gandhi wisely reminded us, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

The death penalty doesn't stop violence and discriminates against people who are poor and/or of color. The organization "Alternatives to the Death Penalty" raises this valid question: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

An unsettling kind of justice

Stanley Tookie Williams, a co-founder of the Los Angeles Crips gang, was executed Dec. 13 for the murders of four people in 1979. The struggle to prevent his death is over, yet we now have the opportunity to reflect on the death penalty.

Evidence suggests that the threat of death fails to prevent criminal acts, and the associated legal process is more expensive than lifetime imprisonment. But these points aside, Williams' execution should move us to ponder an even bigger question. If the point of the prison system is rehabilitation, and Williams actively sought to prevent gang violence, why was the execution carried out? Justice for the families, perhaps. But this notion of justice is unsettling because it is heavily inoculated with a dose of revenge.

As the United States begins the century as the only Western democracy that has not recognized the obsolescence of the death penalty, we must ask on what grounds does a so-called democracy have the right to use the power of the state to kill?

Williams did not redeem himself

In general, I oppose the death penalty along these grounds: Unless government can assure us that the person the state seeks to put to death is actually guilty of the crime for which the penalty was imposed, there must be no execution. Unfortunately for Stanley Tookie Williams, there was no doubt about his guilt. And there shouldn't have been any controversy about whether he deserved to be put to death. But, of course, there was.

Williams wrote antigang children's books (interesting only because he was co-founder of the Crips, one of America's bloodiest gangs ever), and the arguments bandied about suggest that because these books had some perceived social value, Williams' life must have attained some social value. How?

How does the writing of a children's book outweigh the guilt of four vicious, cruel, premeditated murders? It doesn't. Did Williams contribute the proceeds from these books to the families of the victims he murdered? No, Williams' social conscience didn't include much thought for these folks. Did he offer to assist law enforcement to bring other murderous members of the Crips to justice? No, his conscience couldn't permit that.

The truth is, there is no measure acceptable to a civilized society by which Stanley Tookie Williams can be judged to have redeemed himself for the murders of the four victims he gunned down.

Restore rights to ex-felons

Re: Restoring ex-felons' voting rights

It is extremely disappointing that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Johnson vs. Bush, the federal lawsuit challenging Florida's voting ban for former felons. Florida is one of only three states that does not automatically restore the civil and voting rights of ex-felons after completion of their sentences.

This policy was first placed in the Florida Constitution shortly after the Civil War. The restriction goes beyond the right to vote. It also prohibits the right to hold public office, to serve on a jury, and to qualify for licenses required for many jobs. The result is that more than 600,000 state residents are prevented from fully participating in our democratic society.

Isn't it time to change this unfair practice? Please contact your state legislators to ask for their support in making this change happen.

Stop criminalizing misbehaviors

Re: Girl handcuffed on bus won't be charged, Dec. 10.

Ashley Marie Mitchell is very happy because "I didn't want it to be on my record."

Unfortunately, the initiating charge of disorderly conduct by law enforcement is on the record. Just because prosecutors have officially ruled out criminal charges against 13-year-old Ashley does not mean that she has no record.

A shocking handcuffing by a hotheaded cop often equates to a life-long arrest record for many children. It is outrageous that youthful disobedience continues to be criminalized.

The shameful reason for many of the arrests? Juvenile justice is big business! Thousands of government employees and a multitude of private providers lead the public to believe that juvenile arrests protect society and rehabilitate youth. But visit a juvenile delinquency courtroom for a few hours and you'll get a sampling of the petty offenses that are clogging up the court system and draining tax dollars.

Disorderly conduct, disruption of school environment and trespass were the top Pinellas County school-related charges for 2004, according to public records of the Pinellas Juvenile Assessment Center. There were more than 500 charges for these three offenses - almost 50 percent of all school-related charges by law enforcement.

We must stop criminalizing misbehaviors! Disorderly and disruptive children are not criminals!

A tale of two tapings

Re: The kid who had his mouth taped - maybe.

Well, gosh golly gee! Back in 1954, my favorite teacher at Forest Hills Elementary, Mrs. Watson, taped my mouth - TWICE! I was a real chatterbox, and she put tape across my mouth.

Why is it that I didn't make the front page of the St. Petersburg Times? How come my mom and dad didn't get me a lawyer, and why, pray tell, didn't they fire the evil Mrs. Watson?

Something's pretty wacky with society when an incident like this can make headlines. Instead of hiring a lawyer, these parents should have encouraged Kyle to behave himself on the bus. All that noise could cause a traffic accident and kill someone. That ought to make the front page!

[Last modified December 19, 2005, 15:08:12]