Deciding Whether or Not a Man Should Die

 

Deciding Whether or Not a Man Should Die

In the case presented by Stanley Williams before the Governor of California for request for clemency was denied on December 12, 2005. Williams had killed four people in cold blood in a span of a few weeks. He was found guilty and was sentenced by a California jury to death, which was to be executed on December 13, 2005 (McCann, 2014). This decision to deny him clemency was informed by substantial reasoning and an unchanging position of the many courts he appealed to. This paper seeks to evaluate the decision made by the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and determine my opinion on whether the Governor made his decision fairly.

Williams’ request for clemency was based on his reformation and not on his innocence. However, it is difficult to separate the two. This is because the one thing that he would do which would prove his reformation is the one thing he refuses to do. Williams was to apologize for his crimes and atone for the many families that have been wrecked as a result of his actions and those of his gang, the Crips. There was however substantial evidence against him that proved that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For example eye witness testimony from Alfred Coward, ballistics evidence, testimony from Samuel Coleman, James and Esther Garrett and George Oglesby that Williams confessed to the murders (McCann, 2014).

Aside from all this, his claim of transformation is doubtful. First because he conspired to kill people in an escape attempt that coincided with guilt and not with innocence. Second, the dedication of the book he wrote telling people not to join gangs was to people who were subjected to harsh oppression when in jail, and other who have had a violent past. Of particular concern is the dedication to George Jackson that proves that his claims of redemption are not genuine. George Jackson was a militant activist who attempted to escape with the help of his brother and two other inmates which resulted in the death of a judge and his brother. He also tried to escape a second time when he was gunned down, also causing the deaths of three officers and three inmates (McCann, 2014). There was nothing that could compel the judge to grant Williams clemency. All these circumstances and issues highlighted only confirmed the sentence given and denied his clemency.

The strongest arguments for the option were chosen. The map does show that the government applied the appropriate standards in the appropriate ways. The strong arguments were used to deny him clemency such as the heavy evidence against him and the reasons proving contrary to his claim of reformation. His Nobel Peace Prize nomination did not offer persuasive reason to warrant for clemency. The government did its part in upholding the law in the appropriate standards in the appropriate ways. The case was heard before many courts and many appeals were heard for the same case. There was also the use of a jury in the California Court that gave the verdict and the sentence. These courts include the California Supreme court and the U Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Governor of California was the final person to whom the case was taken before to plead for clemency (McCann, 2014). This was all done according to the standards provided by the law.

The Governor’s arguments were centered on the facts brought before him including the fact that there was overwhelming evidence against Stanley Williams from the various testimonies of his accomplices in his crimes. Another argument was in line with his book that Williams wrote titled “Life in Prison”. The Governor argued that it is the responsibility of each and every individual in the community to stop and preach against gang violence (McCann, 2014). The fact that he wrote this book advising people to stop gang violence cannot really be assessed concretely considering that Williams co-founded one of the notorious gangs called Crips, which continues to terrorize people and cause massive violence that has led to the ruin of many families in California.

The Governor’s decision to deny Williams’s clemency was well thought out and evaluated with consideration to all the arguments brought before him. The decision to sentence him to death, an execution that was set to take place the day after this ruling, was justified. Williams killed four people in cold blood within a span of less than two weeks. He reveled in the victims’ pain. In the testimonies provided, it is said that Williams described how Albert Owens shouted when he was being shot and found pleasure in it and laughed for five to six minutes. He also told details of the murders of the family of three that he murdered later, referring to them as “Buddha-heads”. His post-trial and post-arrest behavior is also wanting. He plans an escape in which people had to die to facilitate this escape. Williams clearly did not have any problem with violence and murder and the decision to deny him clemency was warranted (Schwarzenegger, 2005). This decision therefore, seems very fairly weighed and fairly judged.

I think that the Governor was influenced by heuristics in making his decisions. One of these is the Availability heuristic. This heuristic influences our decisions through the ease at which things come to mind. The crimes that Crips has done as a gang easily come to mind and many instances that they have caused violence would be a factor. However, the number of violence cases that Crips has committed may not be as many as they seem in the deliberations. There was also use of the anchoring and adjustments heuristic that influences decisions on previous knowledge. The case had had eight substantive judicial opinions over 24 years of litigation. The knowledge that no one opinion was contrary to the other, they were all in agreement of denying Williams habeas corpus countless times and sentencing him to death could easily have influenced the Governor’s decision to deny Williams of clemency (Kelman, 2011).

References

Kelman, M. (2011). The heuristics debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCann, B. J. (March 01, 2014). Redemption in the Neoliberal and Radical Imaginations: The Saga of Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Communication, Culture & Critique, 7, 1, 92-111.

Schwarzenegger A. (2005). Request for Clemency by Stanley Williams. Retrieved on 7

December, 2014 at http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/Williams_Clemency_Decision.pdf