Religion, Politics, Culture: Defined & Explained

News & Politics

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Musings on Mail-in Voting

Eric Hogue was exploring the merits and shortfalls of California holding �mail-in� elections for the June primary and possibly other elections in the future. This idea is being floated in some recently introduced legislation that is expected to be debated later this year.

This idea is bad for a variety of reasons; some which exist now and others that could arise if the system is implemented.

Currently, once you register to vote as a permanent absentee voter, your ballot is automatically mailed to you in perpetuity or until the county clerk has some reason to drop you from the voter rolls.

This creates two problem areas. First, as with any other kind of voter registration, there is no requirement to prove citizenship or eligibility to vote. Secondly, your ballot can be disqualified and your vote may never be counted if someone at the county clerk�s office says your signature does not match the one on file from your voter registration card. This rule disproportionately impacts many senior citizens and results in many of their votes never being counted. If your ballot is disqualified for this reason, there is no requirement to notify the voter of a potential problem with their vote. Without such notification, the voter will continue to cast ballots which are subsequently disqualified.

A new area of abuse in the voting system should this proposal ever become law would be voters giving blank signed ballots to special interest groups in exchange for some perceived benefit to them or some group to which they have membership. The interest group would then punch the ballots and return them to the clerk�s office in their county.

Also, this proposal would allow illegal aliens, non-citizens and others without voting rights to be more insulated from any efforts to weed them off of the voting rolls.

If we want more voter involvement, a better way of doing that would be going to a system similar to Texas where they allow �early voting�. Early Voting is a system of consolidating precincts and allowing voting at a regular poling place several weeks before a scheduled election. The poling places are open five or six days a week to allow as many people as possible to vote.

The other reform worth looking at is having each county cross-check their voter rolls with other counties to remove duplicate registrations. This would require some type of state issued identification. This would be a step toward preventing such things as college students from voting twice (once at school and once at home) or people registered to vote at addresses where they no longer live from voting faithfully in every election.

Mail-in voting is just another opportunity to create more voter fraud in a state already full of tainted votes.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Clemancy for Stanley “Tookie” William?

The push is on to try to get the death sentence commuted for Stanley �Tookie� Williams.

In addition to the usual bleeding heart Liberals and small group of misguided but well meaning Roman Catholics, opponents of the death penalty have some new allies from the Right of the political spectrum. There are not many but there are some. Locally Craig DeLuz  and Andy Nevis a.k.a. California High School Conservative are among those calling for �Tookie� to be saved.

On his blog today, Nevis wrote concerning �Tookie�:

He will certainly do more good alive than dead. If he is allowed to live, he can continue his work against gangs and violence.

As Abraham Lincoln said when pardoning a deserter in the Civil War, �He will be of more use above ground than below it.�

The power of clemency was given to the Governor for just an instance like this. It�s time for the Governor to use that power.

This is a good summary of the views of many of the save �Tookie� advocates.

The fact is that �Tookie� is a convicted cold blooded murderer. He has exhausted every judicial appear available to him. There is no one saying that �Tookie� is innocent. There is no new or mitigating evidence of the crimes for which he has been convicted.

The real issue is can one�s �good works� after conviction be used to mitigate their sentence. It is said that �Tookie� gave his life to God and has purposed to make amends for his crime. Had Mr. Williams committed property crimes and worked to repay those that were victims of his crime most people would agree that there would be grounds to modify his remaining sentence.

However, when we look at the case of murder does the same principle apply?

For Christians that follow the teaching of Scripture the answer is a clear. In any crime there are actually two victims; the primary victim of any crime is God, the secondary victim is the person that was acted upon by the criminal. In the case of murder, man cannot kill God but he can kill an �image bearer� of God. A murder is attacking God by destroying someone created in His image.

From Genesis to Revelation, murder is always a crime. This includes abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, homicide and any other act of murder. The Biblical punishment is always the same: restitution. If you take another�s life, then you forfeit your own.

This is reason that human government was instituted in the first place. The State is to protect life and property of its citizens. When someone breaks the law they are subject to the sanctions of the law. This includes criminals within the society and foreign armies without. The oath administered to the military and civilian leaders in the United States to �protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic� is based upon the Biblical model. (This is also why our Founders wanted the military to be a purely defensive force and gave us the Second Amendment.)

In the Bible only government can put someone to death.

The Church is given an even more awesome power, the power of spiritual life and death. Spiritual life is the goal of evangelism but excommunication is the declaration of spiritual death. Only repentance can move one from death to life.

I think both Craig DeLuz and Andy Nevis have confused these two. They seem to believe that evidence of spiritual regeneration is grounds for the civil government to move �Tookie� from death to life. Sorry fellas. If Stanley �Tookie� Williams has undergone a spiritual renewal and given his life to Jesus Christ then that is great. He will be in heaven when he is executed and not another gang banger in Hell.

Spiritual conversion is not grounds for clemency from the Governor. If Stanley has truly repented then he knows that he owes restitution to God and his victims. The only restitution that can make things right is forfeiting his life.

If �Tookie� wants to be an example to struggling young people then be an object lesson. Show them that �the wages or sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.� Romans 6: 23

In this way Stanley could truly do more good in death than in life.

(See my previous post for more on the proper roll of the State and Church in capital cases.)

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Election Aftermath: KFBK’s Mark Williams Bayonets the Wounded

Last night my wife and I went to dinner. On the way home I turned on Mark Williams at KFBK Radio to see what he thought about the special election. I was expecting a rational, reasons analysis of the election (something like an after action report). Instead of how can we do this better next time what I heard was the most acidic, venomous attack on Governor Schwarzenegger that I have ever heard. My wife was so offended that she told me to shut off the radio.

Right before the radio went off, I did hear Mark thumping his chest and bragging about his article on the Sacramento Union website. (Yeah, the conservative alternative website that was the victim of a hostile takeover by the Sacramento Bee earlier this year.) After reading Marks tome, I can see why the Bee is so happy to have him thumping on Republicans—after all we do tend to eat our own.

A summary of Mark�s column is for Republicans to throw Arnold under the bus and start from scratch. This begs the question did Arnold fail us or did we fail Arnold? Williams dodges this question by call Arnold a �parasite� that is killing the Republican Party. His solution, kill our General.

If the party wants to survive in California, not even win � just survive, the very first thing party leaders need to do is sit down in a quiet room to jettison SchwartzenKennedy, assess their options and settle on a candidate for �06. Then they need to commit to building a new party, from the ground up . . .

My first reaction to that comment is �Welcome to Fantasy Island� or the Twilight Zone.

George Bush had the Harriett Miers nomination and Arnold Schwarzenegger had this special election. The motto in both cases was �trust me.� The reaction from the base was similar. Many on the Right were skeptical. Bush has recovered from this hit and so will the Governor.

In one article, Mark Williams called the Governor:
� a duck who�s a little gimpy, he�s a carrier of a deadly political form of Avian Flu
� reckless
� delusional
� never was, a republican or a reformer
� self-centered, spoiled, B-celebrity out on a lark
� jamoke
� parasite
� SchwartzenKennedy

The heart of William�s argument is his assertion that �the so-called reforms failed for these main reasons: they were ill-conceived, poorly written, unsupported, made to be personality specific (Arnold) and did not address any one � not a single one � of the serious issues and problems facing the state.�

This is elevating history revisionism to a fine art form. The Governor and his administration wrote none of these initiatives. The initiatives were written by third parties�interest groups�that felt the Legislature had failed to do their job. The Governor agreed to support them because they were incremental steps in the direction that he wished to move the State. This election was his threat and he had to follow-up on it when the Democrats failed to negotiate with him in good faith to solve these problems without having to bring them before the people.

To assert that these initiatives were poorly written is nuts. The only one that was spun as poorly written, was the pension initiative that was pulled many months ago for a rewrite.

Yes, Mark some of the Governor�s initiatives were unsupported by you and John Doolittle and enough others that the base was split. This clouded the issues enough that many on our side either stayed home or fell back on the old axiom of �when in doubt throw it out�. Instead of being part of the solution for the political ills of our state, people like you became part of the problem of why the effort on our side failed.

Now you want to gloat when you have nothing to offer as a solution or a constructive alternative. If you would shut-up and sit down then you might at least get the benefit of the doubt instead of opening your mouth an throwing a tantrum like last night. You can play the Michael Savage of Sacramento if you wish but you won�t be doing anything to solve the problems facing California.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

California Special Election Aftermath

It is a sad night as the election returns begin pouring in from all over California. The reform package supported by the Governor is in tatters. As of this writing, only Payroll Protection is in the hunt to pass. Parental Notification also might have a chance to win.

Why? Because the campaign for the Governor’s measures failed to energize voters to go to the polls and support these measures. As I have stated previously, the cornerstone of this election was the reapportionment measure. This is the only reason that we had the election today instead of waiting �til June. No one in the Governor�s camp ever made this argument a part of the campaign. This allowed the labor unions to portray this election as Arnold�s war on California voters. Frame the issue, win the debate.

The Governor let these measures qualify without any input from his administration. Once he gave his support to these measures, he let his opponents define his positions on these measures.

Only the consultants benefited from this campaign. Support was poorly thought-out, executed and delivered. Saying �trust me� is not a good enough reason to vote the way we were asked too by the Governor.

Suggestions
1. Fire the consultants, they lose elections every two years for their Republican friends and then get hired the next election cycle and do it again. Amazingly they stay employed while another democrat beats their candidate.
2. Use the Internet and get some grassroots organization.
3. Listen to the people and explain what you are doing in a way that they can understand. Make them part of the solution.
4. People vote their pocketbooks; help them understand the process better.
5. Don�t take your base for granted. If you do they will stay home.
6. Bring all these ideas back again for another vote and make the case why they are needed.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Special Election Picks

Since today is the last day to register to vote in the upcoming special election on November 8th, I thought I would contribute my opinion about the measures that voters will be considering.

First, a word to the wise; anything that you read about the wonders and perils of any ballot measure should be viewed skeptically. The opinions expressed are not legally binding to either side. If the claim is not found in the text of the initiative or can be reasonable inferred by the implementation of the initiative then it is likely to be false.

If you like an idea and it passes, then chances are that the ACLU or some other group of self appointed guardians of the constitution will have it blocked in court before the vote is certified.

If something does become law, it still must get past the Legislature�whose failure to act responsibly is why it went to the voters in the first place�and the bureaucrats that write the regulations that give the measure the force of law. 

You can worry about all this legal “sausage” and how it gets made after the election.

My recommendations are as follows with reasons listed below:

YES  -  Proposition 73  Waiting Period And Parental Notification Before Termination Of Minor’s Pregnancy

As a parent, you must give your daughter permission to take an aspirin at school, get her ears or body pierced or go on a field trip to the zoo but under current law she can get an abortion without your knowledge or permission. Not only that, if �the procedure� goes wrong mom and dad are responsible for all ensuing medical bills. This measure tries to correct an obvious inequity of state law. Look for it to be overwhelmingly approved and go just as swiftly to court.

YES -  Proposition 74  Public School Teachers. Waiting Period For Permanent Status.

This measure is a modest attempt to try for some teacher accountability before the union can fully shield a teacher from job performance.

YES  -  Proposition 75  Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions On Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.

This is a measure that allows union members to keep their money and not have it go to political actions that are contrary to the beliefs or members. Currently, union members must forfeit other benefits such as disability insurance and legal representation to opt out of dues for political purposes.

YES  -  Proposition 76  State Spending And School Funding Limits.

Allows Governor to take state spending off of autopilot. This would not be necessary if legislature would do their job.

YES  -  Proposition 77  Redistricting

Allows for possibility of more competitive legislative districts instead of safe seats for every elected legislator in the state. New district would be in effect for 2006 primary. This measure is main reason why the special election is being held now instead of waiting for June 2006.

NO  -  Proposition 78  Discounts On Prescription Drugs
NO  -  Proposition 79  Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates

These measures are intended to cancel each other out. Worse case would be both passing and letting a judge �cherry pick� which parts of each that voters will have imposed on them. There is no legitimate reason why government should be buying and selling drugs. They screw-up medical decisions and healthcare enough without these programs.

NO  -  Proposition 80  Electric Service Providers. Regulation

Having an interest group make such a unilateral proposal will not benefit consumers and enhance competition. This is the worst idea floated since Gray Davis threatened to seize all privately owned power generating facilities in the State and wondered why no one wanted to invest in our utility infrastructure.

The Secretary of State Summaries appear below.

PROPOSITION 73

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
� Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
� Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”
� Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
� Mandates various reporting requirements.
� Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
� Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
� Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

PROPOSITION 74

PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
� Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years.
� Measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
� Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� Unknown net effect on school districts’ costs for teacher compensation, performance evaluations, and other activities. The impact would vary significantly by district and depend largely on future personnel actions by individual school districts.

PROPOSITION 75

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
� Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.
� Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefitting the public employee.
� Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees� and organizations� political contributions.
� These records are not subject to public disclosure.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.

PROPOSITION 76

STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
� Limits state spending to prior year�s level plus three previous years� average revenue growth.
� Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
� Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools� funding base.
� Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
� Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor�s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
� Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
� Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
� Requires payment of local government mandates.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� The provisions creating an additional state spending limit and granting the Governor new power to reduce spending in most program areas would likely reduce expenditures relative to current law. These reductions also could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.
� The new spending limit could result in a smoother pattern of state expenditures over time, especially to the extent that reserves are set aside in good times and available in bad times.
� The provisions changing school funding formulas would make school and community college funding more subject to annual decisions of state policymakers and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
� Relative to current law, the measure could result in a change in the mix of state spending�that is, some programs could receive a larger share and others a smaller share of the total budget.

PROPOSITION 77

REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
� Amends process for redistricting California�s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
� Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.
� Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.
� Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.
� If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.
� Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� One-time costs for a redistricting plan. State costs totaling no more than $1.5 million and county costs in the range of $1 million.
� Potential reduction in costs for each redistricting effort after 2010, but net impact would depend on decisions by voters.

PROPOSITION 78

DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
� Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by California Department of Health Services.
� Enables certain low- and moderate-income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices.
� Authorizes Department: to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance; to negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers.
� Imposes $15 annual application fee.
� Creates state fund for deposit of drug manufacturers� rebate payments.
� Requires Department�s prompt determination of residents� eligibility, based on listed qualifications.
� Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness.
� Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund.
� State costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund.
� Unknown potentially significant savings for state and county health programs due to the availability of drug discounts.
� Potential unknown effects on state revenues and expenditures from changes in prices and quantities of drugs sold in California.

PROPOSITION 79

PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
� Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services.
� Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent.
� Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset costs of administration.
� At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts.
� Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as described, unlawful.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund.
� State costs, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund.
� Unknown potentially significant net costs or savings as a result of provisions linking state Medi-Cal rebate contracts and the new drug discount program.
� Unknown potentially significant savings for state and county health programs due to the availability of drug discounts.
� Unknown costs and revenues from the provisions regarding lawsuits over profiteering on drug sales.
� Potential unknown effects on state revenues and expenditures from changes in prices and quantities of drugs sold in California.

PROPOSITION 80

ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
� Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission.
� Imposes restrictions on electricity customers� ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers.
� Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers� consent to regulation.
� Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017.
� Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
� Potential annual state administrative costs ranging from negligible up to around $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
� Unknown net impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure�s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Tookie: Penance of Restitution?

Tookie has written children’s books to warn youngsters of the dangers of gangs. For this act of penance, DeLuz argues that Tookies’ sentence should be commuted to life in prison.

I like Craig and have talked with him on several occasions but in this instance, I must respectfully disagree. I would like to submit the following article on this subject for your consideration. This article first appeared in the Sacramento Union on June 1, 1991. It was written by Rev David Chilton. At the time, Chilton was Pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Placerville, CA.

Forgiveness Requires Restitution
The condemned man sat in his cell awaiting execution. James Morgan had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death under the justice system of 17th-century Massachusetts—the Puritan Colony par excellence.

The Puritans have often been stigmatized as narrow-minded legalists, unconcerned about the plight of “sinners” in their midst. To the contrary, the Puritans, as good Calvinists, believed that all people—themselves included—are depraved and sinful, in need of the grace of God and the mercy of fellow men.

Accordingly, the Rev. Cotton Mather and other ministers visited Morgan in his cell and urged him to pray for repentance and forgiveness. To their delight, Morgan heard them and soon gave evidence of a sound, sincere conversion.

The whole Puritan colony joyously responded to Morgan’s change of heart. They held a special worship service, where Morgan testified to his newfound faith. He was embraced and received as a brother in Christ, with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the heavenly kingdom.

The congregation sang a psalm of praise, thanking God for His goodness to James Morgan, the sinner who had become a saint.

Then they took him to the gallows and hanged him.

Shocked? If so, you need to understand how our forefathers’ world view affected their concept of capital punishment. To begin with, they firmly believed that only God is God. No institution can rightfully take His place.

That meant that only God could change people’s hearts. Unlike modern Americans, of both conservative and liberal stripe, Puritans did not expect civil government to transform the character of its citizens. The state, they believed, existed as a ministry of vengeance, to bring down God’s earthly justice upon criminals.

The purpose of punishing ‘a criminal, therefore, was not to reform the criminal’s nature, but to force him to make restitution. A thief was forced to repay his victim—double!—entering a period of indentured servitude, if necessary.

And the only restitution for murder was by the death of the murderer (based on such Biblical passages as Numbers 35:31 and. Romans 13:4). Capital punishment was mandatory. No exceptions.

But what if the murderer sincerely repents? Shouldn’t he be forgiven? Here, again, the Puritan conviction that man is not God provided a two-pronged focus that shielded them from our modern confusion.

The first point: Man—the state—is not free to bestow divine forgiveness. Since God has commanded capital punishment, evading it would be sacrilegious, nothing less than playing God.

The second point of their focus involves the nature of forgiveness. True forgiveness, they said, means simply this: dropping charges when full restitution has been rendered.

They were thus able to distinguish divine forgiveness from human, civil forgiveness. Divine forgiveness, based on the restitution provided by Christ’s atonement, comes to all who find God’s grace. But earthly, civil forgiveness is based on restitution to the victim.

Executing a repentant, Christian murderer is perhaps the purest form of a proper separation of Church and State: neither institution tries to do the other’s job.

Keep this in mind next time you hear about Robert Alton Harris, the convicted murderer scheduled for execution. Some supporters argue he shouldn’t be executed. He has “changed,” they say; he’s “a different person” from the man who butchered two teenagers in 1978.

If that’s true—and the constant smirk on his televised image belies that claim—we are happy for him. We would encourage him to remain steadfast as he approaches the ultimate religious experience.

Ditto for Tookie and if he has found redemption, my God welcome him into His kingdom. Trackback http://www.craigdeluz.com I want to thank you for the trackback and for sharing with our readers about Stanley. But your post does misrepresent my argument. Penance, redemption and/or forgiveness are not even part of my reasoning. As I stated in my piece: Stanley’s efforts, as extraordinary as they are, do not absolve Mr. Williams of his crimes, nor should they be cause to release him from the debt he must pay to society for those crimes. As a consequence of his crimes, Stanley Williams has given up his life. The question now is “What is the best use of this life we now hold in our hands?” The work he has done has had a significant, proven impact on reducing gang violence. I have read articles and letters from around the world detailing the impact his work has had.  And because of this proven track record, I believe that there is a greater benefit to society by keeping him alive, in prison and continuing this work. I understand if you still disagree, I just wanted to clarify my point.