Many stories about Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the co-founder of the Crips gang who was convicted of having "shot and killed four people during two robberies in Los Angeles" note that he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in Literature (for writing children's books warning children against becoming gang members). Here's an AP story: "He has received several Nobel Prize nominations . . . ." An L.A. Times story: "He later was nominated repeatedly for the Nobel Prize . . . ." An NPR story from Nov. 21, 2005: "For his anti-gang work, Williams has received multiple nominations for the Nobel Prize." An L.A. Times story about the daughter of one of his victims:
Then four years ago, she said, she learned that Williams was alive and had been nominated for a Nobel Prize, and "it literally hit me like a ton of bricks."
"It literally almost destroyed my life because of my own anger," she said. "I was just flabbergasted. How could the man who co-founded the Crips be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. What in the world?"
I have an answer to that question: Any social science, history, philosophy, law, and theology professor, judge, or legislator in any country (plus a few others) can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize (past nominees, just in 1901-1951, included Hitler, Stalin, and Molotov). Any literature or linguistics professor can nominate anyone for a Nobel Prize in Literature. Naturally, many nominees have real merit; but that someone has been nominated by one of likely hundreds of thousands of potential nominees is little evidence of such merit. And this is especially so when that someone is a source of controversy, when it may seem that nominating him may prevent his being executed -- something that may understandably sway the judgment of nominators who are deeply opposed to the death penalty, and who might see the need to save a life and to make an anti-death-penalty statement as more important than the need to make an impartial evaluation of the person's net contribution to peace or the quality of his literary works.
And in any event, wouldn't it have been helpful -- both to listeners and to the victim's daughter -- if the stories that mentioned Williams' nominations had stressed how unselective the nomination process really is?
(Incidentally, whether a person's sincere contrition, and post-crime good deeds, should lead to clemency is a difficult question; I don't mean to opine on it here. My point is simply that a convicted murderer's having been nominated for the Nobel Prize sheds little light on that question.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Nobel Prizes:
- Good To Occasionally See That One's Articles Really Are Relevant:
- Nobel Peace Prize Nominees:
- Ethics of Nobel Prize Nominations:
- Imagine That -- We're Trying To Execute a Nobel Peace/Literature Prize Nominee!
In contrast, the Peace Prize is often awarded almost immediately. It seems to me that it would make sense for that prize committee to wait at least a decade before considering nominations, if for no other reason than to see if a nominee's actions really did promote the cause of peace.
As to the literature prizes, well, they were a bad idea to begin with and the history of the prizes only confirms that judgment.
For those of you who are interested in a lengthier treatment of the issue Eugene mentions above, you might be interested in a piece entitled Against Mercy, which provides a framework for thinking about these issues. It's available at this link:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=392880
The peace prize has become a self-congratulatory political tool, and I'm sad that its reputation tarnishes the tremendous value of the other Nobel awards.
Similarly, the Nobel Prize for Literature seems primarily aimed at thumbing it's nose at canon. A large number of mediocre, even inept, writers populate this list. Harold Pinter is the first writer in about a decade that I found worth the effort, and he was a playwright.
When I went back to search, I found that story here.
However, I also found another story posted 20 minutes later, which is the only one linked to on their website, which appears to be identical EXCEPT for the phrase I quoted above. That one is here.
Now, others have rightfully pointed out the question of "what does that actually mean", because the Nobel Committee's understanding of moral worth is not universal, but here I think the relevance is "obvious" enough that your request for a disclaimer serves no purpose and is counterproductive given that the disclaimer would undermine the (correct) underlying point that the article is trying to make.
That even years later a theory of "victim's rights" should make a criminal's behavior somehow unattonable (or, god forbid, make it morally wrong to try to atone, less one give the victim moral conflict in his or her desire to see retribution), is not only questionable as a philosophical or sociological question, it is invariable a policy disaster given that most criminals do ultimately leave prison and are ultimately at risk of recidivism.
If it "literally" hit her like a ton of bricks, then she should be dead, or at best in a coma in intensive care.
rel="nofollow" href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front
/3472872.html">
Depending, of course, on the velocity of the bricks . . . .
Machiavelli was very clear on this issue and used specific cases from the Roman Republic to support his arguments.
This is what I would tell the Williams victims' daughter.
For what it's worth, according to a pro-Williams web site, www.tookie.com, Williams has been Interestingly, the site also claims that Williams "[r]eceived from President George W. Bush a 2005 Presidential Call to Service Award for his volunteer efforts to help youth."
The professor is right. It would be helpful for journalists to say what it takes to be nominated.
And Seamus, one thing I have learned representing people who have done horrible things is to never, ever take a pot shot at a crime victim. Criticizing a victim is something I do only rarely, and then with extreme care. They have suffered enough. When they are explaining how my client (or anyone else) brutalized their family, it is incredibly cruel and petty to make style or grammar corrections.
Grow up.
Then again, Mr. Arafat surely murdered more people than Mr. Williams, and without any expressions of remorse. Once you start handing out Nobels to common bandits, no matter how popular, you can't really claim that anyone is below your standards.
Some crimes are "unattonable" in this life. My guess is that you'd agree if I were to indulge your argument by raping and murdering your mother or your child while you were forced to watch. Or perhaps I simply killed you directly and asked your wife ten years later whether she felt I was deserving of reacceptance due to my political awakening and contributions to children's literature? Or whether my kiddie book sufficiently covers by brutal murder and qualifies me for a Nobel prize?
Only a sheltered, ignorant intellectual forgives murder...and even then only to the extent that it doesn't affect him directly.
Professor Volokh helpfully clarified his position by adding this after my post.
Only a sheltered, ignorant nonintellectual fails to address a real argument by providing a straw man argument and then, rather than disecting the argument, simply relies on ad hominen attacks and points to the straw man.
This was never about whether or not Tooks, putting on his utilitarian hat ex ante, can make a conscious decision to commit a crime and then pay for it through good works. The obvious moral difference has been dealt with too often and too obviously for me to bother extending additional comments.
And the nominations themselves are never made public. So when you see someone in the sciences who's billed as a "Nobel Prize Nominee", it's generally the sign of (at the very least) a shameless self-promoter.
Moreover, Williams' clinging to omerta doesn't seem to be something to be rewarded with a Nobel.
Soak Hinson: You've been banned from posting further on the site, for reasons that should be pretty clear given the instructions below.
There's a good chance also that this thugs "co-author" did most of the writing of "his" books.
As for the Nobel Prize -- it's been awarded to far worse than this.
As for the nomination itself, such an honor has certainly lost its cache over the last twenty years. To paraphrase Bill Buckley, one could nominate the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory and come up with someone at least as deserving of the honor.
We can debate as to whether any crime is so heinous as to make atonement unattainable or whether any government has enough moral authority to make such a decision. But I do think that is a separate debate. I think Mr. Volokh's point is to note that the Nobel Prize should not enter into such a debate.
I think I see a business opportunity here...
And since when is a death row inmate allowed to exercise in the yard with other non-death row inmates? I thought they were kept separate.
This guy is playing bleeding hearts and the media. Period.
Just for the record, Stanley Williams, founder of the CRIPS gang in Los Angeles, has consistently maintained his innocence of the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. Thre are those who believe the evidence against him was entirely unreliable. It is not the sort of evidence that inspires great confidence (but I will not go into that here since it is rather beside the point of the thread and since it appears he has few legal options left other than a request to Governor Schwarzenegger for clemency).
Also just for the record, the woman quoted in the story, daughter of one of the victims, said, in addressing a gathering of student leaders, that she has not asked that anyone be put to death for murdering her father. She remained silent about whether or not she thought Williams should be put to death. She said she was keeping quiet on that out of respect for the State. What hit her like a ton of bricks was the news that Williams was alive and had been nominated for the prize. Before that, she had understood her father's killer had been executed long ago.
Both the San Quentin Prison staff and the Los Angeles Police Department have begun what the Los Angeles Times described as highly unusual campaigns to ensure Williams is executed. The former San Quentin warden Daniel Vasquez was rather shocked at the prison staff campaign. It's doubtful anyone would be shocked by anything the LAPD does. I suspect Williams knows a lot about the LAPD and what it did in the 1970s and early 1980s.
It is true that Williams has consistently refused to inform on others. He has said he will not become a snitch.
The iirst time Williams was nominated, it was by some European after Williams' ideas had been used to bring a truce in gang warfare in Europe. The next few years he was nominated by some California professor who opposes his execution. Williams' books have been praised for deromanticizing gang life among the young here and abroad.
Ah, yes. The universal defense of the indefensable. Used by city gangs and suburbanite frat boys alike to cover up anything inconveniently illegal.
And to the victims who never see justice because people hide the truth? Apparently, they're to go to hell, in his newly enlightened mind.
This barbaric criminal is under consideration for narrative lit on his bloodlust and Claudia Rosett is still waiting after exposing the largest international crime in the name of humanity in the history of the world.
Got it, Pamela
Boo hoo. How many prisoners do you think make the same claim? You'll forgive me if I doubt the honesty and sincerity of the founder of the Crips. I don't care if he cures cancer, he should have been dead a long time ago.
Is this simply a rant against the legitimacy of the Nobel Prizes. As a matter of law, the Nobel Prize is about as weighty as winning the lottery vis a vis any adjudicated sentence.
Is this a public relations problem? Are you suggesting that once someone has been convicted by a jury of his peers that any and all "good news" about such individual be suppressed to protect the victims (or any relatives)? Would anyone be complaining if a felon were found to be dying of an incureable disease that he contracted from his sinful ways?
Or as some posters have acknowledged is this simply a backdoor argument regarding capital punishment?
Do those who think capital punishment is wonderful, suddenly feel uncomfortable with the fact that humans, and their behavior are not easily described by a simple black and white picture? Is it easier to dehumanize convicted felons? (And more importantly are you all arguing that that should be the legal affect?) Are we saying one strike and you cease to have any rights? And don't let anyone (especially foreigners) mess with the security of that warm feeling?
Leland: I think you and the professor protesteth too much. If this is a "legal" discussion then why even mention the affect of winning the Nobel Peace prize (or for that matter whether someone in jail is born again and suddenly is converting all of the inmates)? Why should it matter at all what some Scandinavians think is or is not appropriate? Or is all of this discussion an exegesis concerning "victims" rights.
How quickly everyone is willing to give up freedoms, to exercise the more instinctive and less ideally based need for retribution. And if retribution is the source of authority for our penal/legal system, then nothing, I repeat nothing, should be able to mitigate same.
Is everyone ready to take that great leap backward?
I'd say that brutally murdering someone is a very effective way of dehumanizing yourself.
How quickly everyone is willing to give up freedoms, to exercise the more instinctive and less ideally based need for retribution.
Yes, well when you commit a crime you are punished by having some of your freedoms taken away, regardless of whether the goal is reform or retribution.
But in any event, eddie, I'm not "rant[ing] against the legitimacy of the Nobel Prizes." For all the Prizes' flaws, if someone had won a Nobel Peace Prize or even a Nobel Prize in Literature, that would be a pretty significant argument to consider in deciding on clemency. Perhaps one may still reject the argument for various reasons, but one can't casually dismiss it.
I'm condemning people's quick references to Nobel Prize nominations as if those nominations were meaningful (and with no acknowledgement to readers that the nominations are actually largely meaningless).
Well, I guess, a clarification is necessary. There is no official nomination process, so any nomination from the field--however professiona and however considered--has exactly the same weight as a nomination from Sean Hannity or another toady. The only people who have any actual input on the candidates considered each year are the members of the Academy who can be rather impervious to outside influence. They usually take their job seriously even if their motives may well be misguided.
So, when I saw the reference to the "three nominations" in the Knight-Ridder version of the story, I recognized two things--first, the reporter did not do his job; second, the claim came from a cheap piece of propaganda. This kind of nonsense may end up hurting rather than helping an appeal for clemency. On the other hand, I find it quite disturbing that the prosecutor (well, DA's office) has submitted "evidence" ostensibly to show that Williams continued to stir up trouble. Why am I suspicious of this submission? Because the report claims that the submission essentially terminates twelve years ago. In other words, it shows absolutely nothing as to the current state of mind of Williams. Come to think of it, the evidence is also purely correlational, showing absolutely no link between Williams and the problems that the state allegedly had during the first few years of his incarceration. Still, as the reporters got the "Nobel nominations" from a piece of propaganda, I wonder if the rest of the information came from there as well.
The bottom line is that there is not such thing as "nomination for the Nobel Prize".
Jordan: Boo hoo. How many prisoners do you think make the same claim? You'll forgive me if I doubt the honesty and sincerity of the founder of the Crips. I don't care if he cures cancer, he should have been dead a long time ago.
A lot of prisoners make the same claim, Jordan. But the reason I pointed it out is because in an earlier post you said "Well, 'I'm sorry' just doesn't cut it after you murder 4 people." You would not expect one who claims he is innocent to say he is sorry, would you?
You believe he is guilty, of course. But has it ever struck you that the innocent on Death Row say they are innocent as well as the guilty? That's precisely what the Texas man who was the subject of today's Houston newspaper story, linked in a message above. said before he went to his death. "I'm innocent," he said, no one believed him and now it turns out it's pretty clear he was indeed innocent. I don't know for sure if Williams is guilty or innocent, but I do know the evidence on which he was convicted is shaky at best and I wouldn't put anything past the LAPD, particularly not in 1981.
You're entitled to believe all the men in prison or on Death Row are guilty, of course, although that demonstrates naivete about the fallibility of our criminal justice system. Perhaps it is that belief that allows you to be so certain that Williams deserves to die. But when one of those Death Row inmates is shown to be innocent after execution, perhaps you will spare one of your boo hoos for him and mean it, too. Then again, perhaps not.
Me: He has said he will not become a snitch.
John Ann Arbor: Ah, yes. The universal defense of the indefensable. Used by city gangs and suburbanite frat boys alike to cover up anything inconveniently illegal.
And to the victims who never see justice because people hide the truth? Apparently, they're to go to hell, in his newly enlightened mind.
Oh, quite a few more than gang members and frat boys, eh, John? Police officers, soldiers, politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, doctors, psychotherapists, husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriendw, business partners, newspaper reporters, buddies, parents, children, priests, political radicals and people who invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and don't get immunity from prosecution (and even some who do get immunity), and many others who simply don't like informing on someone. A few of these hide the truth behind legally recognized privileges, to be sure, but the effect on the victim is just the same, isn't it?
And for a criminal to not snitch on another criminal is not the same thing as for a lawyer to protect society's 4,5,6th amendment rights.
Even if it were, it still wouldn't be a valid 'bullet point' in support of him, as the "he isn't a snitch" line was used here. At very very best, it is neutral. It is never a plus. And it's probably a minus, as he's probably an accessory to whatever he isn't snitching to.
Regardless, he probably didn't write the book he was nominated for. Even if he were, the nomination is irrelevant and the media used the nomination as though it was relevant.
No. Society gains from the legally recognized privileges: the attorney-client privilege helps the overall legal system, the doctor-patient helps the practice of medicine, etc. What does society gain from the gang founder-member privilege?
"I certainly don't want dehumanize murderers -- after all, if a nonhuman (say, a dog, or a defective product) kills a person I don't morally condemn the nonhuman. I morally condemn murderers precisely because I realize that they are human, and deserve to be judged according to the standards we apply to humans."
The flaw: your typical SQ death row inmate, and I would tentatively include TW, has a history of child abuse, a limited IQ, the mental status under stress of a 5 to 10 year old.
We apply a different standard to those with a chronological age of 7, yes? Those with a mental age under stress of 5-10 (but a chronological age ot 18+) routinely get treated as if the mental equals of EV. This denies justice.
We cannot, in good conscience, knowing what we know about how the brain develops (or fails to develop) and works (or fails to work) treat humans as fungible.
Does this persuade a rational AS to give clemency in the sense of freedom? No, of course not. Could it justify LWOPP (life without possibility of parol)? Sure. Will the death of TW bring back to life any murdered mother? Of course not. If it would, I could see dropping TW in a NY minute. But we are not bringing anyone back, or wiping out emotional distress that came from the murder.
I also note that a white privileged law professor claiming he cannot readily talk about clemency for a black man seems troubling. It brings to light the fact we may tend to judge those of a differnt race, who came from places like Compton, more harshly. Like EV, AS has never had to live in Compton as an elementary school kid. Does this mean set TW free? Of coures not. Let him rot in jail for LWOPP? Why not?
Keep up the good work. Blog is a great public service.
Whether a particular inmate's behavior has earned clemency is another whole topic, but too many seem too eager to read the clemency power out of the law.
First: I love the word "fungible".
More on topic: I think we must. EVERYONE is a special case. I don't think it is possible to have a society that takes that into account at every turn. It is certainly NOT possible to have a bureacracy that does - bureacracy thrives on rules and stifles judgement.
Before getting to the difficult stuff such as the death penalty, what about a Driver's License? Why 16? Why, at least in Colorado, such ridiculously easy tests? I shudder to think what the aging Baby Boomers are going to do to the process of revoking Driver's Licenses. (I'll bet it is rule based, though, not merit/skills based)
Humans are not fungible, but we must treat them/ourselves that way.
Sam: No. Society gains from the legally recognized privileges: the attorney-client privilege helps the overall legal system, the doctor-patient helps the practice of medicine, etc. What does society gain from the gang founder-member privilege?
No to what? Certainly you didn't answer--and cannot answer--my claim that the effect on the victim is the same whether the refusal to talk is based on a privilege or not. The fact that society benefits from the privileges has no bearing at all on the effect on the victim. The exercise of the privilege has a cost, and that is the hiding of truth, which hurts the victim of crime in the same way any refusal to spill the beans does. In any event, my underlying point--that refusing to reveal the truth is commonplace--remains untouched even if you disregard invocations of privilege.
Claiming a social gain for Williams' refusal to snitch is not necessary to any point I made. But I will offer one just to show I can, although it isn't the basis of a privilege. Williams has been trying, with a lot of success, to convince young people to give up or forego the gang life and the reason he has great credibility with these young gang members and potential gang members is because he was the founder of CRIPS and has not turned snitch on his former brothers and sisters. He would lose all credibility with his audience, past, present and future, were he to snitch on his former gangmates of a quarter of a century ago. Williams also put together a manual for negotiating peace between gangs, and the reason for its success is his credibility with gang members all over the world. Again, snitching would mean loss of that credibility.
And to the families of the dead victims of his buddies, well too f---ing bad, right?
It's a conspiracy!
Well, that makes no sense whatsoever. Imprisoning him won't bring anyone back either. I guess we should just let him go then?
Keep in mind that you're arguing with someone who tried to argue that someone nominated for a Nobel prize in literature should automatically be treated as he had a “mental age under stress of 5-10.” That and accusing Professor Volokh of racism merely for confining his remarks to the topic of the Nobel prize nominations rather than clemency ought to be enough to disqualify cfw’s opinions from any serious consideration.
Are you willing to pay the price for this in money and delays in other cases? When judges have to give priority to capital cases, other cases languish. Is it fair to the rape victim that the appeal in her case is delayed while the courts give priority to a death case?
If you force attorneys to brief the cases more quickly, you prevent private lawyers from taking the cases. They can't afford to drop everything for a month or two for one case. That means you have to hire more government lawyers (like me). Plus, there are inefficiencies in quick deadlines--lawyers will handle fewer cases at a time, but the cases will have tighter deadlines. That means the ebbs and flows of the work will be more severe.
Plus, in some cases, if you push defense attorneys too produce work faster than we can do it effectively, we are under an ethical obligation to withdraw. Because all inmates have the right to effective counsel on one appeal, the courts have to give us the time to do it right.
If the deadlines are too short, defense lawyers refuse to file a brief, and the courts have to appoint new lawyers who have to start from scratch, again delaying the process. Courts know this, and as long as we are reasonable, they generally give us the time we need.
I saw an interesting opinion piece a few years ago about California's appellate system. They couldn't find enough lawyers to handle death row appeals for the money they were paying, so cases stalled for years waiting for lawyers. If I remember right, when inmates got lawyers and their cases were decided in the California courts, the reversal rate was around 1%.
The article suggested that it was generally unethical for lawyers to handle DP appeals because there was a 99% chance the lawyers would hurt their clients by moving them closer to the gas chamber. Would any lawyer take a case where the odds of making your client's situation worse was 99-1?
Capital cases suck giant amounts of resources (time, money and attention) out of the judicial system. If you "streamline" the death process, the cases will suck even more resources.
Back to the subject (kind of). Death Row has given Williams fame. If State had given him life without parole, he would probably be an unknown number rotting anonymously. Congratulations death penalty supporters, you turned a murderer into a hero!
That's fine because he'll be dead soon.
P.S. My clients who rape people and steal stuff would like to thank death penalty supporters for diverting prosecutorial and judicial resources away from their cases. It makes it easier to get deals for less serious convictions and shorter sentences.
I think they'd rather hear about him for a decade or so then know that this POS gets to live out the rest of his life while their family member was cheated out of theirs.
Some would, some wouldn't.
Out of respect for Mr. Volokh I won't say what I want to say. However, suffice it to say that you have no idea what you're babbling about.
Heh. No.
If the state had given him life without parole, his supporters would be pressing for his RELEASE, as opposed to commuting a sentence to life. And sappy folks like yourself would be right there, willing to forgive him for what he did to someone else and screaming for his release...after all, you don't have to live in one of the low-income, black neighborhoods his boys will terrorize, now, do you?
p.s. I don't believe you are a public defender. Won't say why, but it's abundantly clear to me that you're just an ACLU loving poseur.
Good point. No doubt that if we ever were to abolish capital punisment a significant number (but certainly not all) of its opponents would then work to reduce the use of or eliminate sentences for life without the possibility of parole.
I simply see no reason to allow an honor bestowed by the Norwegian Parliament to effect the sentencing of a US citizen. IMHO, it is akin to recognizing the knighthood of a person. Our constitution does not allow it.
I think this is an US legal matter and therefore the Nobel Prize shouldn't be at issue. Moreover, I agree that certainly that Nobel Prize Nomination process, at least for literature, is so wide open as to be insignificant in value, in terms of a capital crime committed in the US. With that answered, I think what is interesting is that members of the press do seem to think that a nomination for a Nobel Prize is something to be considered. I disagree with those people.