Q. Recently Stanley “Tookie” Williams was executed for several murders. Tookie founded a violent gang but appeared to reform himself while in prison, speaking out against gang violence and even writing books against it. Some felt he should have been spared the death sentence given his “redemption”, while others, especially the families of the victims, wanted justice / the death penalty. Tookie was convicted by a predominantly “white” jury, and although he pleaded his innocence until the end, his execution went ahead. From an Islamic (and Judeo-Christian) perspective, how should such a case have been handled?

A. The sanctity of human life is paramount in all religions. When we take someone’s life for a crime, there must be no doubt about the perpetrator’s guilt. The Qur'anic penalty of the capital sentence in case of homicide is one that is much misunderstood by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and warrants separate discussion, as the lengthy coverage would distract from your question. By the law of the Torah, there is a stipulated number of testimonies that must be accepted for passing of a capital sentence (Deuteronomy 17:6 "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall be he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness, he shall not be put to death." See also Deuteronomy 19:15 and Numbers 35:30 "...but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die"). The Qur'an seems to work on this, and goes further, stipulating that the witnesses must have 'adalah -- rectitude. The Qur'an also insists on verification of news: "You who believe, if some perverse man should come up to you with some piece of news, clear up the facts lest you afflict some folk out of ignorance and some morning feel regretful for what you may have done...(49:6). In the case of slander, the Qur'an stipulates that those who make slanderous allegations of adultery be punished and their testimony never afterwards be accepted (Q24: 4).

Now in the case of the acceptance of a testimony that could lead to a death sentence, certainly one will agree that the standards must be set higher. In the Tookie Williams case, we have the following considerations / issues:

(1) We are not concerned with whether the penalty of a crime should not be carried out if he has shown remorse. The fact is that a crime was committed, and the laws that are in place must be upheld. If every criminal's sentence were stayed because of repentance, there would be more criminality since all the perpetrator would need to do is claim to repent. In the case of murder, IF IT IS PROVEN, traditional Islam allows the paying of the diya (compensation) to avoid the capital sentence.

(2) We are concerned with the standard of  PROOF that was admitted in the Tookie Williams' conviction. There were NO eyewitnesses, and the testimony was rather deemed as "snitch" testimony -- obtained from people who were severely flawed. There was also evidence of prosecutorial misconduct  where "witnesses" were allegedly given transcripts to study. There were no Blacks allowed on the jury, and racist statements admitted in the trial.

(3) From an Islamic perspective, the trial was a farce, since there was no first hand evidence, and the "witnesses" had a history of criminal activity and were not known for any form of rectitude, so their testimony was inadmissible.

(4) Tookie Williams was NOT asking to be set free, his attorneys and supporters were not asking that he be set free, simply that his life be spared, and that he remain in prison to do his work.

(5) We are not saying he was an innocent man -- simply that LEGALLY, there was no room for a conviction of murder. There was forensics evidence tying a shell to a shotgun that Tookie purchased, however, the forensics “expert” had a questionable track record. Requests for additional tests were refused.

The conclusion then is that the execution of Tookie Williams was a travesty.

Posted January 28, 2006