a timely hmmmm...
This week a U.S. District Judge relaxed the conditions of John Hinckley, Jr.'s imprisonment. Hinckley, you will remember, was convicted of the 1982 attempted assasination of President Ronald Reagan. Attributing his actions to an attempt to woo actress Jodie Foster, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge granted Hinckley a total of three three-night visits with his parents at their Williamsburg, Virginia home. The visits will be will not be supervised by hospital staff but must, however, stay under his parents' supervision at all times. Judge Friedman granted the visits to Hinckley upon watching the prisoner acclimate to the outside world through a variety of activities including gardening, shopping, cooking, and walking around the neighborhood of his parents' home. This freedom granted to Hinckley nearly two years ago when Judge Friedman initially relaxed Mr. Hinckley's sentence allowing him short overnight stays supervised by his parents. The full story can be found here.
I am wondering about the relaxation of Mr. Hinckley's sentence in comparison to the death of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
While none of us know with any degree surety that Williams did not commit the crimes that he was accused of, we all know for fact that Mr. Hinckley set out to kill then President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Williams lost his life based on this uncertainty; and, while uncertainty exists surrounding the relaxation of his sentence, Mr. Hinckley is given back his freedom. What does a life mean/cost/what is it worth? What is the inherent difference that called for Tookie's death and spared Hinckley's life? Why did Tookie die and why is Hinckley recovering his freedom? How do their crimes differ; are the crimes similar? The admitted uncertainty attributed to granting Mr. Hinckley's freedom seems to far outweigh the significance and value of Tookie's noticeable life transformation. The weighty and knotty question that plagues me most about this comparison is...why?
posted by becomingme at 1:56 AM
2 Comments:
hinkley attempted to commit murder. williams was convicted of murder... is the difference really not clear? personally, i oppose the death penalty and feel that no one should be killed. one main reason: the finality of the sentence.
hey there anony...yes there is actually quite a significant difference. hinckley was identified and caught on the scene. and, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the incident caught on tape? there may or may not have been a preponderance of evidence that may or may not have proven Williams innocent or guilty. while hinckley did not kill, we know that he tried to kill someone. while, in williams case, we cannot say with absolute certainty that he committed the crimes of which he was convicted. A conviction does not indicate innocence or guilt, but, rather, the ability of the state to present solid, air-tight evidence.
I am most concerned with why we can make choices about who lives and dies. While I cannot say that I am a complete pacifist, I don't believe in the death penalty for the same reason, anonymous. and, in addition, the disparity with which the sentence is applied to minorities should give us some room to pause about the biases of the law and its applications. what's more, the issue of a jury of our peers should be revisited.
Post a Comment
<< Home