This question is prompted by the Arnold Schwarzenegger/Tookie Williams Execution or Clemency Thread:

If you found yourself covicted of a murder that you didn't commit and were sentenced to death, would you confess, apologize, and show contrition if it meant that your sentence would be commuted?

I'm not sure what I would do.

That's a tough question.

On one hand, your life would be spared if you apologized. To many people, that's reason enough to apologize.

But on the other hand, wouldn't an apology be some what of a confession? If you're apologizing for a crime you didn't commit, in a way, you are acknowledging that you in fact did commit it by apologizing for it.

"Tookie" Williams' situation is different, though. He was guilty. Here's an exerpt from an article I posted in the other thread:

I would not confess or apologize for something that I did not do.


DS

I'd argue innocence until I was blue in the face, literally in this case. It's the principle that matters.

This example isn't quite on the same level but the principle is the same. My mate is facing charges due to accidentaly knocking down a cyclist on the road that didn't have any lights on at night. It's obviously the cyclist's fault but because we're living in a compensation culture he's spun the story and my mate is coming off worse. If he simply pleads guilty he's going to get off better than if he pleads innocent due to lawyer costs. My area is financially quite poor and we simply can't afford to even challenge these decisions.

[/quote]Witness have been to known to lie and make mistakes.

I'm not saying he's innocent, but he claimed that he was, and since you didn't attend the trail every day and hear all of the testimony, I don't see how you can be so certain he was guilty.

I cannot say with absolute certainty that he was guilty of these crimes. You're right, I wasn't there. But it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. Apparantly, the evidence was concrete. He spent over 2 decades in prison, and neither he or his lawyers were able to prove his innocence.

It is my opinion that if you are found guilty, but are actually innocent, unless you are able to prove you are innocent, justice needs to be carried out. That would apply to myself, as well, if I were in that situation.

Again....

I am not arguing that he was innocent.

All I'm saying is that there was a possibility that he was innocent, which may have accounted for his unwillingness to apologize or show remorse.

Barry Scheck and Peter Neufield, the OJ Simpson attorneys who specialized in the DNA evidence, established "The Innocence Project" several years ago, in which they take on cases, free of charge, and attempt to prove the innocence - based on new techniques for handling DNA evidence - of people whom they believe to be wrongfully convicted.

To date, the convictions of 164 murderers have been overturned based on their work.

164 people who faced life imprisonment or execution.

That's a pretty strong argument against the death penalty, don't you think?

here's a link to info about THE INNOCENCE PROJECT

First off, it's not my intention to suggest that you think Williams is innocent, and I apologize if that was the impression I was giving.

I'll be the first to admit that capital punishment in this country is implemented irresponsibly. As with the cases from the Innocence Project, these individuals were proven innocent. It's a shame that there are also innocent people sent to death row, whos' crimes are disproven once they have already been executed.

Its cases like these that make me question capital punishment in this country.

The problem with the death penality is its obvious finality, which makes any subsequent evidence of innocence very embarrasing.

State governors do not like being embarrassed; and when the possibility of a financially and politically powerful person being embarrased arises, such a possibility is paid off or taken out.

Why do state governors even have the power of clemency? They're not part of the judiciary.

The whole system is extremely unsatisfactory. Having an apology or remorseful confession helps use to alleiviate our discomfort, because the bad man admitted it. But as people have commented, what if people were admitting stuff in the perhaps vain hope of escpaping the death penalty in exchange for 20 years of prison and the stigma of being labelled a killer?

And don't a lot of these southern State Governors get electoral milage out of being good, God-fearing christians? If so, then what happened to the fundamental Biblical injunctions "thou shalt not kill" and "judge not, lest ye be judged". What is the death penalty, if not a judgment that a certain person should be killed?

I think the liberal Americans know in their hearts the truth, that the sooner the inhumane and logically, socialogically and morally dubious death penalty is abolished, along with the ridiculously archaic interpretation of the 2nd amendment that allows free gun ownership, the better.

What heppened to the seperation of church and state? You can't use it when it supports your argument and then throw it out when it doesnt.


DS

Like I said, DS, don't a lot of these southern State Governors get electoral milage out of being good, God-fearing christians?

If I may.....He's not using the Bible to support his argument.

He's doing what you were claiming he was doing:

Questioning how "good" Christians can use the Bible to support their arguments when convenient, and ignore it when it's not.

If you're going to quote the Bible, you should also consider Gen. 9 (I think, I don't have a copy with me now), where it's written that the one who sheds a man's blood should, by man, have his blood shed. The commandment in Exodus 20 is about murder, period, not the death penalty, nor killing in war (see also Ecclesiastes, where there's even a "season" for killing, but not murder). Abortion isn't murder, conveniently, but I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, take away everyone's guns. That's the answer, all right. Didn't Hitler do that when he came to power? We've got enough gun control laws on the books. No one enforces them. If you can't tell, I'm of the "pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands" crowd. Anyway, I digress.

First off, I'd never confess to a crime I didn't commit. Yes, for my family's sake, I'd exhaust all my appeals. But if it came time to insert the needle, I'd have to accept it, because I accept this form of government we have, flawed though it may be. But, then again, I'm not afraid of dying.

Sure, but you could say that about most factions, parties, etc., etc., etc. out there. But, of course, only the Christians are singled out. Gotta' be nice to the Muslims, though.

Is a govorner supposed to make a desision for the state because of what his religion teaches? I thought he was supposed to seperate his religion from public desisions?


DS

HE IS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Not even if that apology might prevent you of being killed?

HE IS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. [/b][/quote]Thats what I am saying. So why bring up a governers religion when it comes to denying clemency?


DS

Not even if that apology might prevent you of being killed? [/b][/quote]As I stated above...

If "Tookie" was innocent, then I can understand why he didn't apologize. I wouldn't apologize if I were innocent. I'd send my condolensces to the families, and pray that they find the real perpetrator.

This is reminding me of The Crucible.

Never. For that I've to much honour. I will not confess.

If you're going to quote the Bible, you should also consider Gen. 9 (I think, I don't have a copy with me now), where it's written that the one who sheds a man's blood should, by man, have his blood shed. The commandment in Exodus 20 is about murder, period, not the death penalty, nor killing in war (see also Ecclesiastes, where there's even a "season" for killing, but not murder). [/b][/quote]When Jesus came, he rendered most of the laws with a new interpretation and went as far as contrasting His teachings with those of God during the six antitheses (Matthew 5:17 to Matthew 7:29). Not only that, but Jesus gave a new interpretation to the law on Matthew 22:36-40.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40 ALL THE LAWS AND PROPHETS HANG ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS."

Of course Snake, I forgot you and your fellow Christians seem to forget this little passage and go straight to the Old Testament

Plaw, It's a very interesting and complex question that you raise. I don't know what I would do. I think that the human being's will to survive is immense, so I might be tempted. But what would I confess to?? If I didn't do it, would I have picked up enough information at the trial, etc., to make a believable confession with enough details? I guess so. However much I might want to hold on to my honor and all that principled stuff, I think that my desire to live, and perhaps one day prove my innocence, could be far more overwhelming. To see my children grow, to see my grandchildren born, and so on, would be a mighty big thing to give up for honor.

Absolutley not. I will argue for innocence until I can. If I die, I know I will die inncoent.

If you're going to quote the Bible, you should also consider Gen. 9 (I think, I don't have a copy with me now), where it's written that the one who sheds a man's blood should, by man, have his blood shed. The commandment in Exodus 20 is about murder, period, not the death penalty, nor killing in war (see also Ecclesiastes, where there's even a "season" for killing, but not murder). [/b][/quote]When Jesus came, he rendered most of the laws with a new interpretation and went as far as contrasting His teachings with those of God during the six antitheses (Matthew 5:17 to Matthew 7:29). Not only that, but Jesus gave a new interpretation to the law on Matthew 22:36-40.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40 ALL THE LAWS AND PROPHETS HANG ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS."

Of course Snake, I forgot you and your fellow Christians seem to forget this little passage and go straight to the Old Testament [/quote]Jesus did NOT "contrast" (read, "contradict") God's law. If you'll read it in context, He gives what the HEART of the Law was intended to convey and elicit (in contrast to the Pharisees). Of course, Eustachius, I forget that you and your humanists (or whatever you are) like to read it out of context, choose what you like, and toss what you don't. Convenient.

By the way, the principle alluded to in Genesis 9 is what's known in hermeneutics (that means "art and science of biblical interpretation," fyi) as an eternal principle. In other words, it's not bound by cultural or historical mileus. Hence, "Old" versus "New" doesn't apply with that one. Nice try, though.

My American firends who are better educated in the Bible will have to forgive me, I am poorly read in its teachings.

Please explain the flaw in my simple reasoning

"Thou shalt not kill" = You can't kill another human. That is God's job.

"Judge not..." = You are not to judge another human. That is God's job.

So.. a "judgment" that "kills"... i.e. a death sentence... seems to my simple mind to be a "double whammy".

And this judgment to kill, then ratified by a State Governor whose election spiel includes "I go to church every Sunday with my family" and "God save America" and, in some cases, a predilication toward creationism.

Part of me is tempted to conclude that redneck hick State Governors are hypocrites, using the Bible as an electoral standing block to make them appear as wholesome good American folk, while at the same time violating two of its most fundamental injuctions, against judging and killing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snake:

Jesus did NOT "contrast" (read, "contradict") God's law. If you'll read it in context, He gives what the HEART of the Law was intended to convey and elicit (in contrast to the Pharisees).
Of course, Eustachius, I forget that you and your humanists (or whatever you are) like to read it out of context, choose what you like, and toss what you don't. Convenient. [B][/B]

I belong to the second most hated religion by Protestants: Roman Catholicism, thank you very much. A Papist and proud of it. You know the whole schtick: Mary was a Virgin, the Bread turns into Body, Good Works Over Belief, etc. The interpretation that I gave you is the one that was taught to me by the Holy Church, my wetback grandparents and my own reading of Jesus Christ, the most noble Man whoever lived.

And it's extremely funny how you say I take what I like and toss what I don't. It sounds like a description of yourself.

I have no problem whatsoever with taking the Word as the inerrant, infallible, very Word of the living God...and taking it in whole. BTW, it also teaches that Jesus wasn't a mere "noble man." He was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord (to quote C.S. Lewis). I believe He was God incarnate. Call it "schtick," if you like. Doesn't offend me in the least.

I was just wondering who decides what means the inmate will be exacuted with?
And as far as your question goes Neal, I would not confess, apologize to something I did not do. God knows if Tookie commented those murders or not it's up to God now to be the ultimate judge.