Against Clemency

I immediately recognize why some would be in favor of clemency. What sort of example would it send to society as a whole when a man who has clearly changed his ways is still denied clemency? Giving him clemency may seem to advance society in a way that encourages correcting your mistakes and promoting what is morally right. Giving Williams clemency could be seen as an opportunity for him and others to advance society in anti-gang awareness.

However, capital punishment for Williams can be seen as the stronger example of utilitarian punishment, or punishment that is allowed if the harm to be afflicted on the person being punished is overridden and justified by the overall positive results following the punishment. Williams made a complete change in his character and made significant strides in the anti-gang movement for the youth. However, the fact that he was sentenced to capital punishment in spite of his great efforts demonstrates just how unforgivable the act of murder is. It completely eliminates any hopes of a potential murderer of sliding his way out of death sentences. It makes many criminals think twice before committing murder. It sends a very strong message to ignorant criminals/murderers who plan to commit such atrocious acts, a message of a no tolerance policy towards any type of intentional murder. This message is the social benefit that is gained from capital punishment of Stanley Tookie Williams, which makes it a strong case for utilitarian punishment.  It should go without saying that this capital punishment is also a strong example of retributive punishment, where the convicted receives the punishment that he or she deserves. The decision to sentence Stanley to execution covers both sides and benefits of punishment, on the benefits side and the realm of morality.

It can be seen as a harsh decision to a man who is no longer same criminal that he once was, but the message that it sends out to dangerous gangs is a great benefit to the whole of society. It is not just about him, it is about the safety of the society as a whole.

Rebuttal Argument

Rebuttal to Danny's Argument

You made a very good point in regards to the context in which the man committed manslaughter. The man acted out of self defense because of his tribe's knowledge and history with Wendigos. There is proof of this.

However, I believe that this context serves as a justification only to a certain, and possibly minimal extent. This is mainly because the tall human he killed was not directly attacking him at that moment. He had to chase him from a distance. If the victim was innocent, of course the man should be held accountable.


Overall, I do agree that there has to be further investigation before a decision is made. We need to know more about the person that was killed and exactly what about him that convinced the Native American to kill him. What are the tribe's defined characteristics of disguised Wendigos and how did they fit the features of the victim? What made the Native American so sure that the man was a threat? How far away was he? With what we know right now, the Native American went out of his way to kill someone who has not directly threatening him at the time. Even if he had reason to believe that he was going to be attacked later on, there are other less extreme precautions he should have taken before resorting to going after the human and killing him. Therefore, he should be held responsible for his actions until further information is released.

Case of the Wendigo

The Native American is responsible for his act despite the given circumstances. He went out of his way to chase and challenge a human that was at a significant distance from him. The human was not attacking him directly in any way, so it is difficult to make the case that the Native American was fighting for his life and had absolutely no choice but to kill the other man. Respecting the culture and knowledge of the Native American's tribe, the Native American did not take the proper precautions in verifying that the runner was actually a Wendigo. Unless he can provide the proper and morally acceptable protocol that he used to verify if the runner was a Wendigo or not, there is good reason to believe that he acted too quickly before murdering someone, even by his tribe's standards. It is important to respect the Native American tribe's knowledge of the occult, but there is no excuse for making a rash decision that ended a harmless person's life.

Overall, the runner (Wendigo or not) had to be attacking or threatening the Native American for him to go completely out of his way to chase him and kill him with a gun. If there is no evidence that the runner was a threat to the Native American, then he should be charged with manslaughter.