Here it seems that if it tipped the balance of Schwarzenegger’s decision, Williams’s dedication of a book to a controversial historical figure, may have cost him his life.

If no one thinks that the dedication was a tipping point, then what exactly does the above mean? What purpose does it serve in debate? And do you see how moronic your imagined dialogue between Arnold, CT, and Barbar is, when you pretend that I introduced the notion of the tipping point into the discussion? (By the way, the italicized quote above is a direct quote from Chris Bertram’s original post, in case you haven’t read it.)

And how is 2 nonsense? Are you saying that redemption wasn’t an argument advanced on Williams’s behalf, and therefore the governor was way out of bounds in referring to it in his explanation? No, you don’t say anything at all, and pretend that what you believe is so self-evident that the people who disagree with you must be evil Nazis.

As far as 3 is concerned, all I can say is that I’m disappointed that someone who opposes the death penalty so much can’t be bothered to argue, “The death penalty is always wrong, because the power of deciding life and death should not be placed in the hands of the state… First, the consequences are so severe that the tiniest amount of doubt should deter us from execution. In this case, for example, although it seems quite likely that Williams committed the four murders it remains the case that this is not known for sure, for reasons X Y and Z… ” etc etc.

Instead we get crap like “Williams confessed to other crimes” as if that’s going to engender a reaction other than eye-rolling. Oh yeah, and we are implored to look elsewhere for good arguments for clemency, because we all know that rilkefan is incapable of making arguments for himself, but he knows that the blogger at TalkLeft is pretty smart.

Maybe people think it was the straw on the camel’s back, or the slip twixt cup and lip, or the last brick in the wall, or the wafer-thin mint down Mr. Creosote’s gullet.

Consider this hypothetical Arnold argument: “Tookie’s a bad bad man, and what sort of name is ‘Tookie’ anyway?” CT response: Arnold is being shockingly childish in a solemn moment. barbar’s riposte: “’Tookie’ wasn’t a tipping point”.

2 is nonsense.

3 ditto, plus the fry-Tookie crowd here apparently can’t be bothered to look into the clemency case.

Anyway, the man is dead. Oh well. Too bad about the quality of discourse at CT if this thread is an example.

Anyway, here’s a quick summary of the logic of the thread:

1. No one thinks the dedication was a tipping point, so strictly speaking the post has no content.

2. If you were genuinely baffled by the Schwarzenegger’s citation of the dedication, then you should have expressed some interest in the explanation—which is that many of Williams’s supporters cited his book-writing as a reason for clemency.

3. People are apparently much more comfortable arguing that supporters of the death penalty are scum than they are articulating a strong argument against capital punishment. Oh well.

Chris says: “This discussion has passed the point of being interesting, if it ever got there.”

Yeah, and you have a great deal of responsibility (perhaps more than anyone) for this.

James says: “Most of those who argue (as in in this thread) for consideration of victims assume that all they want is retribution. ”

I wouldn’t generalize about that—I, for one, certainly don’t make that assumption. I’ll argue for the consideration of victims regardless of what the victims want, whether its retribution, restitution, or forgiveness. What victims might want and what is an appropriate response to a heinous crime are two different things.

Imagine having over a 100,000 murderers (genocide offenders) in your prisons awaiting trial.

I suggest that in the context of restorative justice we should limit ourselves to three secular meanings:

Most of those who argue (as in in this thread) for consideration of victims assume that all they want is retribution. I do not believe this is true as a matter of fact. Experiments in restorative justice that include opportunities for restitution and forgiveness have beeen carried out, I believe with success, in more civilised countries than the USA. Any hard data anyone?

Yes. Despite everything I can’t read Chris’ comment other than an argument against the death penalty.

And once again a comment on CT, with whose end message one agrees (I am against capital punishment, as I am against, say, torture, secret rendition, the current administration in Washington, etc.), is packaged so smugly as to elicit an opposing response.

Look around the internet, or read some op-eds, and you’ll find plenty of people who think that the Nobel nominations and letters from children are compelling reasons to overturn a death sentence. To disgregard this context, and to pretend that the dedication point is a direct rebuttal to charges of inconclusive evidence and failed justice—well, if you live in a Kafkaesque world it is partly of your own making.

The case against the death penalty does not depend on Tookie reforming (when he denies committing the murders), Tookie writing books, Schwarzanegger citing a dedication, supporters of the death penalty being fascists, or rilkefan having doubts about how much I care about Tookie’s innocence. These points are logically irrelevant, and they don’t really seem to work from a poltical view either. An argument against the death penalty that dances around the fact that Tookie is probably guilty strikes me as politically harmful, not helpful.

Says Arnold Schwarzenegger, noted pacifist. I’m aware that if you star in countless movies about solving problems by mowing down bad guys with machine-gun fire, that isn’t necessarily a reflection of your moral attitudes about the good society, but there’s still something darkly hilarious about this line.

Its a shame that you feel that way: I think a lot of serious responses to your original post have been offered. If this is where you were going to end things off, then what was the point of getting going in the first place?

Don’t disagree with you there. But I live in a different timezone and just woke up. This discussion has passed the point of being interesting, if it ever got there.

The problem isn’t just the occasional execution of innocents, something that most of us who eat meat and wear leather implicitly conscience, at one level or another, although preferably not consciously. (FWIW, I’m in that number.)

There is also the problem that entire groups of perpetrators reliably escape this ultimate sanction. The problem isn’t only that blacks are executed; it’s also a problem that whites aren’t executed. It’s unfair that the poor die; it’s also unfair that the rich don’t.

Perhaps it’s unsurprising that advocates of capital punishment are rarely heard to complain that whites or the wealthy are so seldom executed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t outrageous.

What, justice is done as long as the guy was guilty of something, trial be damned? That’s how we get cops who just know a perp is guilty but they can’t prove it so they make up a little evidence. That’s how we get vigilantes, and lynch mobs, and fascism. No thanks.

Amazing that chris is snapping at SH when there are people here David Neiwert should be monitoring.