jump to navigation

Would You Fight for the Life of a Man Who Shot You and Left You for Dead? July 24, 2011

Posted by rogerhollander in 9/11, Criminal Justice, Texas.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Roger’s note: the United States is one of the few nations in the world that allows for the barbarism of state execution.  I read a few years ago that the thee jurisdictions in the world with the most state executions were China, Texas and Florida.  By pure coincidence Texas and Florida for many years were governed by a couple of renowned statesmen who go by the names of George W. and Jeb Bush.  A proud heritage.
LilianaSegura.com / By Liliana Segura

Capital punishment is supposed to bring closure to victims’
families, but ignores the wishes of those who prefer forgiveness.
July 22, 2011  |

A death penalty case in Texas received a lot of media attention in the past several
weeks, as state prison authorities prepared to execute Mark Stroman, a man who
shot and killed two people in a vengeful rampage after September
11th. His victims, who he targeted because he thought they were Arab,
were a Pakistani man named Waqar Hasan and an Indian man named Vasudev Patel. A
third man survived. His name is Rais Bhuiyan. He is Muslim, from Bangladesh. He
has told his story to news outlets across the country; how he was approached at
the gas station where he worked, how Stroman, a tattooed white man, demanded,
“where are you from?” as he brandished a gun. How he had not yet answered when
he felt “the sensation of a million bees stinging my face, and then heard an
explosion” as Stroman shot him. Bhuiyan survived, somehow, and was
left blinded in one eye.

To the surprise of many, Bhuiyan devoted himself in the past several months
to fighting for Stroman’s life, pleading with Texas not to kill the man who
brutally shot him and left him for dead. After discussing it with Hasan’s and
Patel’s families, he started a petition on Stroman’s behalf asking the Texas
Board of Pardons and Parole to spare his life, and posting it on a
in which he preached forgiveness: “In order to live in a better and
peaceful world, we need to break the cycle of hate and violence,” he wrote. “…I
forgave Mark Stroman many years ago. I believe he was ignorant and not capable
of distinguishing between right and wrong. Otherwise he wouldn’t have done what
he did.” Despite Bhuiyan’s efforts, Stroman was executed by lethal injection on July 20th.

Bhuiyan’s story is extraordinary in many ways, heavy with the symbolic weight
of 9/11. His willingness to forgive and even fight for the life of a man who
tried to murder him has moved many people, with good reason. But it’s worth
remembering that victims of violent crime oppose the death penalty more often
than we may realize, and, like Bhuiyan so far, they are often disregarded. As
much as prosecutors and politicians love to insist that the toughest penalties
are meted out on behalf of victims and their grieving family members, the
reality is that deference to the mantle of “victim” often relies on a
full-throated embrace of the harshest sentence for the people whose job it is
for them to punish. Anything less is liable to be ignored.

Take another Texas case from a few months back. An Army veteran named Timothy
Adams was put to death in the killing of his 19-month-old son during a standoff
with police. Adams was suicidal at the time; he immediately turned himself in
and expressed remorse for his crime. As Texas prepared to put him to death, his
family members begged for clemency. “Our family lost one child,” his father said. “We don’t deserve to lose another. After my grandson’s
death, we lived through pain worse than anyone could imagine. Nothing good will
come from executing my son Tim and causing us more anguish.” Adams was executed by lethal injection on February 23rd.

That same month, in Ohio, a man named Johnnie Baston faced execution for the
killing of a South Korean store clerk in Toledo. The man’s family members fought
for clemency, but were ignored by the state parole board, which voted
unanimously to put him to death. “While many members of Mr. Mah’s family favor a
commutation to life without parole, Mr. Baston’s lack of accepting
responsibility, criminal history, and the severity of the execution-style
killing of Mr. Chong Mah outweigh their personal opinions regarding the death
penalty and their wishes as to the sentence imposed in this case,” the parole
board concluded.

“The death of Johnnie Baston isn’t going to do anything that’s going to bring
back our father, give us any closure or gratification,” his son, Peter Mah
argued to no avail. Baston was executed on March 10th.

The same thing happened in Alabama in January. Leroy White was executed over the wishes of his victim’s family members,
who, as in the case of Timothy Adams, included family members of his own. White
was sentenced to death for the killing of his wife, Ruby, with whom he had a
young daughter, Latonya. In a signed affidavit, she described how despite years
of anger at her father for taking her mother away, she was now very close to him
and “have grown to love him just as much as any child would love their parent…I
know that he did a terrible thing by taking my mother’s life, but I have
forgiven him completely.”

I am deeply opposed to my father’s
execution. He is the only thing that I have left that’s a part of me. Taking
away my only remaining biological parent will hurt me more than I can say.
Executing my father will do nothing to bring my mother back. I would do anything
in my power to stop this execution from taking place.

Leroy White was executed on January 13th.

Some would argue that cases like White’s and Adams’s are different, that
of course family members of murderers will argue to spare the life of a
relative, even if they have taken one of their own. To do so sets up a strange
hierarchy of victimization—who are the “good” victims?—but one that is all too
real. The family members of death row prisoners are rarely included under the
banner of “victim’s family,” but when the state has killed your loved one, what
are you then?

As we were so aggressively reminded after the death of Osama bin Laden, the
killing of killers is celebrated as a way to bring “closure” to people who have
suffered terrible losses at their hands. There are many reasons to question this notion, but whether this is ever
true can only depend on individual experiences. What is clear is that, when
those in a position to carry out the death penalty stand upon the moral pedestal
bestowed to them as a defender of victims’ rights, such  “rights” have limits.
As Jeff Gamso, a criminal defense attorney in Ohio who has worked on capital
cases, wrote a few days before Stroman’s
execution: “Texas, of course, like Ohio, like other states, like the feds, is
deeply committed to ensuring the rights of crime victims. Their voices will be
heard. Their needs will be met. They will be offered support and comfort and
help. As long as they seek vengeance. The rights of victims don’t extend to
seeking mercy. At least, not so far.”


Liliana Segura is an independent journalist and
editor with a focus on social justice, prisons & harsh sentencing

Forgiving Woody August 25, 2008

Posted by rogerhollander in About Forgiveness, Art, Literature and Culture.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Forgiving Woody


©Roger Hollander 2008


“I had the miraculous clarity for an instant and so I understood that the forgiveness itself was strong, durable, like strands of a web, weaving around us, holding us.”


Jane Hamilton, “A Map of the World”



I read recently that Woody Allen no longer is able to make movies in the United States, that no backer would invest given that he has lost a large part of the female audience.  This a result, of course, of the scandal some years ago around his betrayal of Mia Farrow and taking up with her adopted daughter.


I can easily understand such reaction on the part of women, and I have a feeling that he alienated many women who would not consider themselves militantly feminist.  I myself avoid movies where certain actors are involved: Mel Gibson (anti-Semitic); Sean Connery (misogynist); Charlton Heston (guns); Rambo Stallone and his doppelganger, the Governor of California (mindless violence); John Wayne (right wing politics). 


But I am not consistent.  I don’t like what Woody Allen did but it is easy for me to say that it is none of my business and at least he married Soon-Yi Previn.


We tend to be selective in our forgiving.  Women still adore John F. Kennedy, for whom it would not be much of an exaggeration to say that he bedded nearly every female he considered attractive who passed through the doors of the White House.  And Charlie Chaplin, whose involvement with under aged women was far more scandalous than that of Woody Allen’s.  Perhaps martyrdom or simply dying makes it easier to be forgiven.  But I doubt it.  I think that we humans are simply fickle when it comes to whom we can and cannot forgive.


But, if so, based upon what criteria?  That’s what puzzles me.  When it comes to Woody Allen, for example, I have such a great admiration for his work and his brand of comedy, that the scandal hardly made a dent in my desire to continue on as a fan.  On the other hand, if I can turn to sports for a moment, there was no athlete I admired more for pure talent than the Los Angeles Laker basketball star Kobe Bryant.  But when I learned of his disgusting escapade in Las Vegas and the gift of a million dollar diamond ring to buy back his wife’s loyalty (or silence?), my appetite for watching him play totally evaporated.


I don’t have the answer.  In some instances we can separate the person from the work, and in some just cannot allow ourselves to forgive.  Was the genius of Ezra Pound compromised by his pro-Nazi attitude?  I have trouble forgiving Nazi sympathizers and obscenely rich and arrogant athletes no matter the level of genius.  Ironically, Woody Allen himself gave a comic expression to the issue of the person vs. the “work” in one of his rare film appearances in someone else’s film, Martin Ritt’s “The Front,” where he portrays a small time bookie who comes to some degree of fame by allowing his name to be affixed to the television scripts of a friend who has been blacklisted (in the era of McCarthyism).  The young impressionable studio employee with whom he develops a relationship is both in awe of what she believes is his prodigious talent as a writer and at the same time baffled by his stupidly childish personality.


I guess that in the final analysis we have a right to our prejudices as long as no one gets hurt.  I will go on boycotting Mel Gibson and hope that he doesn’t make anything I’d otherwise really want to see.


If you want to avoid Woody Allen because you think he is and forever will be a male chauvinist pig that is all right with me.  As for me I simply cannot.  I really need the eggs.