My opinion... on his guilt? Oh, he's clearly guilty. Much of the attacks on the evidence and trial procedure turned out to be frivolous. In that sense, it's odd that the anti-death-penalty crowd picked Tookie as their poster child, and then took the tack of mistaken conviction. There are others on death row who have weaker convictions than Tookie did, and who have less (or no!) history of violence apart from the crime for which they were convicted.

Tookie is just the opposite. He is a co-founder of the Crips. Albert Owens and the Yang family were not his first victims, and may not have been his worst crimes. This is why I find his case so compelling: on the date of his conviction, he certainly did deserve to die. The "mistaken conviction" tack is mistaken, and leads nowhere.

But here, the argument might set its sails differently and tack in two new directions.

First, there is the "reformed/transformed person" tack. It goes like this: Stanley Williams is not the same person now as when he did his crimes. He has found faith, or been enlightened, or come to his senses, whatever. Because of this reformation, he no longer deserves the death sentence which once was appropriate. Now he deserves clemency: perhaps a life sentence without parole. Or, if he is so transformed that he is now a boon to society rather than not-a-threat, perhaps life sentence WITH parole, so he can get out and do his good deeds but if he messes up, he's back in the clink so fast his head will spin (a guard against a false transformation).

This tack actually showed the most potential: the website and his children's books and certain vicarious "public appearances" (by phone) seemed like evidence supporting this argument. But "his" books turned out to be Barbara Becnel's books, and their circulation was pitiful during the timespan they were supposed to have had a great impact (since then they have sold better, b/c of media-generated curiosity). Worst of all, Tookie carefully avoids certain claims that are necessary for this tack to work: he won't take responsibility for the crimes, either in a legal-admission sense or in a moral sense (zero remorse). He won't repudiate or even distance himself very much from the Crips. And reports from fellow inmates show that he is still a loyal gangster.

Then there is the "grace/mercy" tack. This is the one that carries the most weight with me: perhaps his death sentence ought to be commuted, not because of any virtue of his, but because of some virtue in us: mercy. It lies within our power, as a society hypothetically, to extend mercy to a hardened criminal who deserves to die for his sins. We cannot in good conscience let him into society, or let him communicate effectively with the gang he once led, but we can let him live out his natural life in confinement. Day after day, leaving him the opportunity to be reconciled with God, if not with the society he betrayed and harmed.

Thanks. That little girl of mine is a cutie!