recent tracks:

Beat Takeshi

I had an eight hour takehome exam today. I feel pretty good about it. I was especially pleased that the (imaginary) events described in the fact pattern took place primarily at the Starbucks next door to our apartment. Now I find myself wondering how frequently my prof visits the place. If I end up doing well, as I think I might have, I will likely inquire as to whether this particular professor is in need of any research assistance this coming summer. He is interested in some of the same issues I am.

For example, sentencing. I suspect, given that he is (I believe) opposed to the fairly recent trend of mandatory minimum sentences, that he is not high on the death penalty.

I found it strange last night (and you will understand why I found the matter particularly preoccupying shortly) to think that a man knew with absolute certainty, having exhausted every legal recourse, that he would be dying within a couple of hours. Particularly troublesome is that the man in question always maintained his innocence, and--although I'm sure that as a founding member of the Crips he did some terrible things--he also found redemption and worked to build a new legacy for himself, centered on tearing down his original legacy of gang violence. For this work he was nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here are some of the issues I found disturbing:

(1) People want blood. Normal people. The families of the victims of Williams's alleged murders demanded retribution. Excuse me, but:
Proposition 1: gang violence caused their family members to be killed.
Which may, without too much of a leap, be distilled to:
Conclusion 1: gang violence -> deaths
Proposition 2: the man on death row for their killing fights against gangs.
Proposition 3: a dead man can not fight against gangs.
Conclusion 2: killing the man on death row -> one less man fighting against gangs
Proposition 4: fighting against gangs helps decrease gang violence.
Conclusion 3: killing the man on death row does not help decrease gang violence.
Conclusion 4: killing the man on death row does not help decrease deaths.
In fact, it just chalks up one more tally mark in the count of gang-related deaths. By wanting Williams killed, the family members of the victims dealt a blow against the very cause one would think they would champion: fighting gangs. Furthermore, an eye for an eye was once considered outdated--whatever happened to that?

(2) Gov. Arnold's failure to pardon Williams was inexcusable. The Governator cited a logical inconsistency between Williams's claims of redemption and his failure to admit to guilt. Here logic fails the Governator, as Williams did not claim to have been redeemed for these four murders, but rather to have analyzed his role in creating and perpetuating the terribly unhealthy gang lifestyle and found that to have been necessary grounds for redemption by working to tear down the social order which he helped engineer.

(3) "In this case, a prosecutor, publicly castigated by the Supreme Court of California for his pattern of racially motivated peremptory jury challenges, removed all blacks from Williams’ jury. In declining to take this case..." Williams v. Woodward 2005. Talk about unconstitutional...

(4) Williams always maintained his innocence. We don't exactly have the best track record of applying the death penalty to worthy persons here in the good ol' U. S. of A.

(5) Williams's message was one of redemption--what does it say to current gang members who may have been mulling over Williams's words when the state kills the man who has been telling them to cast aside violence? Here we begin to intersect with the whole torture issue I've been struggling with--these young men see a system willing and able to kill a man who had long ago dedicated his life to the social good, and they see that personal redemption has no political consequences. Fight for the public good or fight for the guys from your block, and either way, your past can get you killed--with the state's blessing.

(6) Retribution is a morally abhorent theory upon which to base a criminal justice system. See the end of point 1.

So anyway, even if Mr. Williams was guilty, go ahead and lock 'im up and throw away the key, but allow him to continue working for social benefit instead of killing him.

Now, as an inappropriate follow-up and explanation of why I was in a mindset particularly suited to considering such matters last night as I waited for the onset of sleep:

Batoru Royaru ***½
The premise: there's a bit of a political crisis in Japan, and part of the solution to an overpopulation of orphaned, rebellious, middle-school-age kids is to send randomly selected classes off to an island, where they are forced to kill each other off over a period of three days. If more than one is alive at the end of that period, no one gets to live. We, the moviegoers, get to see every death of every schoolchild, and the growing realization of the ones who survive, as their friends and enemies go down around them, that their days are numbered. Allegorical, I think, and rather brilliant. Might've been four stars, except that the end goes into some rather unnecessary requies.

Related list: The 3 Beat Takeshi Movies I've Seen
2000: Battle Royale
1999: Kikujiro
1997: Fireworks

Although the thug theme runs through each of his characters, the three movies are very different but quite good.

Erm, ok, it's getting late again, and I ought to sleep, so I can study up tomorrow for...Torts...or Contracts...whichever. Amazing that there's actually been some flow to this entry. Disturbing, too. Here's an interruption of the narrative before sleep: this evening's dinner was a delightful combo of tandoori chicken, and peas in a cream-based curry sauce. That and Summer very kindly made me a delicious turkey and brie sandwich for lunch as I was in the throes of my exam. Perhaps I will soon be able to return the favor, as she has two papers and some test-taking still looming.