Your Thoughts on Stanley 'Tookie' Williams?

[mykevermin]

Should the state stick to its commitment to execute him this coming Tuesday, or does he deserve a reduction to a life sentence with no possibility of parole?

IMO, this case will guide public attitudes and feelings in regards to the criminal justice system, the corrections system, and even race relations for the next decade or more; it's far more significant, I feel, than I would have previously expected it to be.

Your opinions?

[camoor]

Should have been killed a LONG time ago. Death sentences with more then 2 years of wrangling before the actual kill are cruel and unusual.

[RedvsBlue]

Should the state stick to its commitment to execute him this coming Tuesday, or does he deserve a reduction to a life sentence with no possibility of parole?

IMO, this case will guide public attitudes and feelings in regards to the criminal justice system, the corrections system, and even race relations for the next decade or more; it's far more significant, I feel, than I would have previously expected it to be.

Your opinions?


You're absolutely right there will be two outcomes of this that will be very indicative of the sentiment regarding corrections.

If he is excecuted it shows that there is no longer any concern for rehabilitation within the criminal justice system (my pick for likely outcome).

If he is granted clemency then it will show that our system does believe that criminals can be rehabilitated.

Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty in general due to the fact that there's no way to ever know with 100 percent certainty that someone is guilty and since the death penalty is the only punishment we can't take back, we shouldn't be using it.

[mykevermin]

If he is excecuted it shows that there is no longer any concern for rehabilitation within the criminal justice system (my pick for likely outcome).
That's true, but I'd argue a bit differently. I'd argue that, since a research paper was published in 1973 by Robert Martinson that argued that there was no "rehabilitation effect" that helped out inmates, policies following that publication (one of the few instances where actual research influenced government policy ;)) focused on deterrence and incarceration (which, since you said you're a CJ student, you ought to be familiar with the nuances of those theories). After all, the paper said, "nothing works" in regards to rehabilitating prisoners.

So, of course, the incarcerated population ballooned from 770,000 (give or take) in 1973 to over 2.3 million today, not counting the other 4.7 million on parole or on probation. Mandatory minimum sentences, three strikes policies, and the war on drugs all followed the Martinson piece, and dramatically changed the structure of our corrections and criminal justice systems.

There have been concerted efforts since Martinson to find out what can help prisoners; I could type for hours and not scratch the surface of what people have found out about helping reduce crime while avoiding punishment in the absence of 'justice.' (Though perhaps a discussion of justice is best done elsewhere ;)). There have been a great number of criminologists who believe in reinstituting rehabilitation on a grand scale (it has been reincluded since Martinson, but it is rarely mandatory, and thus rarely done by convicts). There are others (such as John DiIulio, who headed a division under the current President Bush focusing on fixing corrections - which Bush brought up exactly once, during the SoTU 2002, where he suggested, in true conservative fashion, offering tax incentives to businesses that hired ex-felons) who think, IIRC, that incapacitation (and not incarceration, as I misnamed it earlier) is the proper way to proceed.

On an aside - Google "The DiIulio Letter" sometime for one social scientist's take on the Bush Administration's approach to policy.

So, to shorten this (too late), rehabilitation has been dead for 30 years or so. The current battle being fought is one, which is where your arguments come in, that this will show if we can believe in rehabilitation at all, or if a person must continue to be punished despite showing remorse and social capabilities (though specifically, he does continue to deny that he murdered those four people).

[RedvsBlue]

Man, DiIulio gets around. I cited him for my senior thesis literature review on private prisons.

Its really interesting though. You can ask people about a particular inmate that has turned their life around and they seem to have an open mind about the person. Then you ask if you would want someone to move into your neighborhood who had served prison time and most of the time they will say aabsolutely not.

[mykevermin]

That's one of the remarkable things about this case; there's not really anything "NIMBY" about it. Those who want him dead want "justice served." Those who don't want him executed don't want him out on the streets - they want him to receive a life sentence without parole.

One thing is for certain: Tookie will have his last breath in prison. The uncertainty is when.

[dafoomie]

Terminate Tookie.

He didn't show mercy to the 4 people he murdered in cold blood.

I would challenge the opinion that he is actually reformed. He has refused to cooperate with investigations of the crips, won't give any information about them, he is very much still connected to them. How he came to be known as the "founder" of the crips (he's not), shows how much of a manipulator and liar he is.

He also has never admitted guilt, and to this day, has maintained his innocence. The first step in reform is admitting guilt. He has never done so.

The myth of a flawed trial is also not true, the evidence was overwhelming. And the myth of an all white jury is also not true.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

SQUEAK SQUEAK SQUEAK go the wheels on the gurney.

It's time for the journey to begin.

Journey on the Gurney!

Tookie vs. The Needle

December 13th San Quentin Death Chamber

One Man Enters.... One Needle Wins!

[evanft]

We shouldn't have the death penalty. Period. Even if the death penalty is applied to an innocent person only 1% of the time, that injustice is far greater than any injustice felt by the families of victims whose killer/rapist/etc. receives life without parole.

[dafoomie]

We shouldn't have the death penalty. Period. Even if the death penalty is applied to an innocent person only 1% of the time, that injustice is far greater than any injustice felt by the families of victims whose killer/rapist/etc. receives life without parole.
Thats fine, I have no problem with that.

I just don't want this guy being an exception because of what a "wonderful person" he is.

[mykevermin]

I just don't want this guy being an exception because of what a "wonderful person" he is.
Do you think that, with this clemency hearing being so public, that ignoring the work he's done over the past 24 years and deciding that essentially "that's not good enough" will have an increasingly negative effect on future inmates?

That future inmates will weigh the notion of behaving while serving time, or not giving in to the "system," consider the soon-to-be well known Tookie Williams decision, and think "this guy writes children's books and did all sorts of things to reform himself and work against the gang culture that's perpetuated society for the past quarter-decade or more. If *he* can't get any recognition for good behavior, what chance do I stand?"

That's my basic argument; that executing this man will set a remarkable standard for future behavior of those who end up in prison. In considering the difference between state-sanctioned execution and life without parole, is it really worth that kind of risk to kill him?

This is, of course, completely without getting into either arguments of (1) the aims of "justice" in our criminal justice and corrections programs, or (2) the false notion that executing him will have any positive social repurcussions, save for the extremely debatable effect of pleasing people through the death of a human being. I still have those cards up my sleeve.

[Xevious]

Maybe its the local news here but for some reason, the media seems to only show the protester's point of view and not the victims point of view. I dont know why it's all one sided.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I dont know why it's all one sided.

I'll give you a few hours to think about that statement and I think you'll figure it all out on your own.

[alonzomourning23]

I think he should be pardoned and just remain in prison. The guy has worked to keep youths from gangs and having one of the crips founders try to keep people away from them does more good than if you kill him. If someone becomes beneficial while locked in prison then I think that is a real reason to pardon them.

Should have been killed a LONG time ago. Death sentences with more then 2 years of wrangling before the actual kill are cruel and unusual.


:roll: Ya, like no one is ever found to be wrongly convicted after 2 years, and like the inmates are screaming to have their executions sped up. How it can be cruel when the vast majority in this position would oppose what you're saying is beyond me.

[Mike23]

Well, if you don't like the death penalty, commit crimes in Canada. We made a plea deal with Karla Homolka, who brutally murdered many people. She served 12(!) years.

[mykevermin]

What happened to her upon release?

[alonzomourning23]

What happened to her upon release?

She's under surveillance. It was really a mistake, they made a deal with her to help convict her husband and then they discovered tapes showing how much of an active participant she was in the rapes/murders. It wasn't really going easy on her.

They are able to hold dangerous criminals longer than their term, by she was deemed not likely to reoffend and therefore wasn't held longer.

[munch]

I've partially kept up with this ordeal but here is my two cents. I am more against the death penalty than for it. I haven't really made up my mind. With this case, however, i would feel more inclined to give him clemency if he admitted to what he did. From what i understand the evidence is overwhelming that he did commit the crimes from which he was convicted. If he were to admit to it and say he made a mistake i would be more willing to support him. In fact, that's about the only thing keepng me from totally supporting clemency at this point. It may be convoluted logic, but it makes sense to me.

[dafoomie]

Do you think that, with this clemency hearing being so public, that ignoring the work he's done over the past 24 years and deciding that essentially "that's not good enough" will have an increasingly negative effect on future inmates?

That future inmates will weigh the notion of behaving while serving time, or not giving in to the "system," consider the soon-to-be well known Tookie Williams decision, and think "this guy writes children's books and did all sorts of things to reform himself and work against the gang culture that's perpetuated society for the past quarter-decade or more. If *he* can't get any recognition for good behavior, what chance do I stand?"

That's my basic argument; that executing this man will set a remarkable standard for future behavior of those who end up in prison. In considering the difference between state-sanctioned execution and life without parole, is it really worth that kind of risk to kill him?

This is, of course, completely without getting into either arguments of (1) the aims of "justice" in our criminal justice and corrections programs, or (2) the false notion that executing him will have any positive social repurcussions, save for the extremely debatable effect of pleasing people through the death of a human being. I still have those cards up my sleeve.
You have to consider the original crime, plus, I don't agree that he's reformed at all. He's stil actively involved with the crips, and absolutely refuses to provide any information about them. The man is a manipulative sociopath. He conjured up the story about how he "founded" the crips (and its absolutely untrue, the actual founder is dead). He still to this day claims that he personally founded the crips, in order to "protect" his neighborhood from other gangs. What a load of shit.

Another major factor, is his refusal to admit to his crimes. He still, to this day, claims to be completely, 100% innocent. You have to admit to what you did before you can ever truly "reform".

He probably could have pleaded down to life in prison before he was convicted, he hasn't. He probably could have made a deal where he gave information about the crips (specifically, how the gang in prison communicates with the gang on the outside), in exchange for his life, and he hasn't. He probably could have garnered a lot more sympathy, had he admitted to his crimes, and he hasn't.


Albert Owens, 26, 7-11 clerk.
Shot twice in the back by "Tookie", while laying in a prone position, execution style, at point blank range, during a robbery. He netted about $120. He later made fun of the gurgling noises he made while he lay dying.

Yen-I Yang, 76, Hotel Owner
Tsai-Shai Yang, 63 Wife
Yee-Chen Lin, 43 Daughter

"Tookie" blew all of them away at point blank range with a 12 gauge shotgun, opened the cash register, and took $100. The 76 year old man was shot twice in the chest, the daughter was shot in the face at a distance of a couple feet. The 63 year old wife was shot once in the stomach from a few feet away, and once in the back, with the barrel a couple inches from the body.

He has claimed to have killed police officers, and has been accused of ordering murders from prison, but this has never been proven. Wow, what a great and wonderful person this guy is.

I might reconsider somewhat, if the family of the victims were to support him... Lets see... "I think he [Williams] is the same cold-blooded killer that he was then and he would be now if he had the opportunity again.". Oops, guess not. That was from the family of the 7-11 clerk, by the way.

Terminate Tookie Today. He'll be shown more mercy when given a lethal injection than he ever did to the innocent people he murdered for about $200 in cash.

What a twist of irony it would be if his last meal were 7-11 Taquitos and chinese food.

[rodeojones903]

He should have been executed long time ago.

[camoor]

:roll: Ya, like no one is ever found to be wrongly convicted after 2 years, and like the inmates are screaming to have their executions sped up. How it can be cruel when the vast majority in this position would oppose what you're saying is beyond me.

How would you feel if someone condemned you to die and then left you rotting in a jail cell for 15 years. Of course you don't want to die, but waiting in the cell for 15 years with only the slimmest possiblity of being let off is cruel, it prolongs your suffering for no real purpose. I'm not holding solid on the "2 year" timeframe (I would like to give a criminal the chance to launch one *reasonably* thorough appeal), but I do know that it must come down from the ridiculous timespan of greater then a decade.

Besides, this guy sounds like a real sociopath - getting the hollywood players with an axe to grind to reinvent his persona. Figures that alonzo fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

[alonzomourning23]

How would you feel if someone condemned you to die and then left you rotting in a jail cell for 15 years. Of course you don't want to die, but waiting in the cell for 15 years with only the slimmest possiblity of being let off is cruel, it prolongs your suffering for no real purpose. I'm not holding solid on the "2 year" timeframe (I would like to give a criminal the chance to launch one *reasonably* thorough appeal), but I do know that it must come down from the ridiculous timespan of greater then a decade.

Besides, this guy sounds like a real sociopath - getting the hollywood players with an axe to grind to reinvent his persona. Figures that alonzo fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

If he is providing a benefit then thats all that counts, and he has campaigned to keep kids away from gangs. Being one of the founders of the crips gives him credibility in that area. His own inner thoughts are secondary, especially since he won't be released either way. He is providing a benefit pure and simple. He could provide more (ie. by "snitching"), but considering what he is currently doing he's more beneficial alive. And there's always the small chance he could eventually tell some of what he knows about the gang, there's no chance if he's dead.

And besides, if rotting in prison is so much crueler then why not give this "sociopath" the cruelest treatment, ie. life in prison? You have no problem with speeding up executions (which would increase the amount executed and the amount wrongly executed) but when you have someone convicted of extremely violent crimes you use that to justify execution? Shouldn't that be used to justify life in prison, the one you describe as crueler?

But you know something camoor, I would rather die than spend 15 years on death row. But most would not. Due to the fact that trying to rush things will increase the amount of innocent people executed, and the fact that most do not want to die, there is no reason for such a thing. If someone on death row wants to die they can speed things up by not appealing and by doing nothing to push off the date. Most exhaust every channel they can to avoid the death penalty.

Personally I think everyone should be able to die if they truly want to, so I have no problem with death row inmates choosing to die. The problem is your system would kill those who do not want to die, and you'd increase the innocent people killed.

[elprincipe]

Being against the death penalty in any circumstance, obviously I don't think he should be executed. I think he's scum and the people saying what a wonderful person he is should be ashamed of themselves, as if a lifetime of telling kids not to join gangs can make up for murdering 4 people (or more). He should be working every day of his life for the rest of his life to try to make as much restitution as possible to the families of his victims and to society.

[camoor]

If he is providing a benefit then thats all that counts, and he has campaigned to keep kids away from gangs. Being one of the founders of the crips gives him credibility in that area. His own inner thoughts are secondary, especially since he won't be released either way. He is providing a benefit pure and simple. He could provide more (ie. by "snitching"), but considering what he is currently doing he's more beneficial alive. And there's always the small chance he could eventually tell some of what he knows about the gang, there's no chance if he's dead.

And besides, if rotting in prison is so much crueler then why not give this "sociopath" the cruelest treatment, ie. life in prison? You have no problem with speeding up executions (which would increase the amount executed and the amount wrongly executed) but when you have someone convicted of extremely violent crimes you use that to justify execution? Shouldn't that be used to justify life in prison, the one you describe as crueler?

But you know something camoor, I would rather die than spend 15 years on death row. But most would not. Due to the fact that trying to rush things will increase the amount of innocent people executed, and the fact that most do not want to die, there is no reason for such a thing. If someone on death row wants to die they can speed things up by not appealing and by doing nothing to push off the date. Most exhaust every channel they can to avoid the death penalty.

Personally I think everyone should be able to die if they truly want to, so I have no problem with death row inmates choosing to die. The problem is your system would kill those who do not want to die, and you'd increase the innocent people killed.

Why do you think I want the cruelest punishment possible (which would be perpetual torture, btw). No, I simply support a fair societal punishment for crimes of a particularly egregious nature.

I also don't want to be forced to support a person found guilty of particularly distasteful crimes with free food and boarding for the rest of his/her life. Let's end all of this human waste as quickly as possible and then get back to healing the wounds that it leaves behind. If a cold-blooded murderer were to say that he is being treated unfairly by being executed, any rational person would have to laugh at the absurdity. So let's not talk of these people's feelings - they lose a say in the process when they purposely kill innocents in cold blood.

Although I do agree with you about euthanasia - why do we force people to live when it's hard enough to find breathing room on this planet as it is.

[camoor]

Being against the death penalty in any circumstance, obviously I don't think he should be executed.

Well - that is a noble sentiment and from what I know it is the most likely to jive with the christian viewpoint. Luckily for me, for once the Republican's hypocracy lines up with my honestly held viewpoint.

[alonzomourning23]

Why do you think I want the cruelest punishment possible (which would be perpetual torture, btw). No, I simply support a fair societal punishment for crimes of a particularly egregious nature.

I also don't want to be forced to support a person found guilty of particularly distasteful crimes with free food and boarding for the rest of his/her life. Let's end all of this human waste as quickly as possible and then get back to healing the wounds that it leaves behind. If a cold-blooded murderer were to say that he is being treated unfairly by being executed, any rational person would have to laugh at the absurdity. So let's not talk of these people's feelings - they lose a say in the process when they purposely kill innocents in cold blood.

Although I do agree with you about euthanasia - why do we force people to live when it's hard enough to find breathing room on this planet as it is.

I find it odd you think that when a multiple homocide is committed justice is satisfied by executing one person. For example if I brutally torture and kill 5 people and am executed, one relatively humane death is not even close to the equivalent.

Also how do you justify speeding up the death penalty, when even in our system of years of appeals there are many people who have been released from death row after evidence vindicated them, and we have many example of wrongly executed people, and we have people requesting things such as DNA tests but not recieving them? The fact that they keep appealing and attempting to delay shows that they don't think death is a better fate. We know there are innocent people among them, we might not know which ones but based on our history we know there are multiple innocent people there. Why would you hurry their deaths when they don't want to die?

Also, life in prison is cheaper than our current system of appeals. It saves money to just lock em up.

Basically your argument seems to hinge on the cruelty of life in prison vs execution, but the people who have lived that cruelty overwhelmingly disagree with you. Why should the opinion of an observer overrule the opinion of someone who actually experiences it?

[The Narrator's Apprentice]

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

You hang around all night
And wait for Arnie’s song
You think you’re in the right
But I think you've got it wrong
We’d like to say goodnight
‘Cause you’ve been alive too long, Tookie

'Cause when you say you changed
We all know that you won't
and we know that you’re deranged, baby
Even though you don't
Every night your death still gives me hope, Tookie

Oh, tookie, what a pity
You don't understand
You killing all those people
gets you six feet in the sand
Oh, tookie, you're so silly
You won’t understand
It's guys like you, tookie
Who just can’t take it like a man, Tookie
Don't break my heart, Tookie

Hey, Tookie

Now when you say you’ve just been framed
We all know that the truth
Is that you‘re really proud
Of your murderous wayward youth
Your family’s shouting loud
But your plea is without couth, Tookie

So you should just give up and tell us that you understand
That killing people’s wrong
and god’s judgement is at hand
Oh, please tookie, please
Don't think you’re worth a damn, Tookie

Oh, tookie, what a pity
You will never see
Another day of freedom
Which I say is fine by me
Oh, Tookie, you're not pretty
Can't you understand
It's guys like you, Tookie
Oh, what you do, Tookie, do, Tookie
It’s called mass murder, Tookie

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie

[captaincold]

I think he should be pardoned and just remain in prison. The guy has worked to keep youths from gangs and having one of the crips founders try to keep people away from them does more good than if you kill him. If someone becomes beneficial while locked in prison then I think that is a real reason to pardon them.

Quoted for truth.

[camoor]

I find it odd you think that when a multiple homocide is committed justice is satisfied by executing one person. For example if I brutally torture and kill 5 people and am executed, one relatively humane death is not even close to the equivalent.


Well I don't think it's the equivalent, but I'm not looking for the equivalent - I'm looking for a fair punishment. My notion of fair is evolved from "eye for an eye".

Also how do you justify speeding up the death penalty, when even in our system of years of appeals there are many people who have been released from death row after evidence vindicated them, and we have many example of wrongly executed people, and we have people requesting things such as DNA tests but not recieving them? The fact that they keep appealing and attempting to delay shows that they don't think death is a better fate. We know there are innocent people among them, we might not know which ones but based on our history we know there are multiple innocent people there. Why would you hurry their deaths when they don't want to die?

I'd like to see the percentage of overturned cases across a timespan (2 years, 3 years, 4 years, etc) - is it high enough to justify keeping criminals locked up awaiting their death sentence in a hellish confinement indefinately?

Also, life in prison is cheaper than our current system of appeals. It saves money to just lock em up.


Yes, and I am a routine critic of our overly litigous society. However here we are talking about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment - which is a constitutional requirement no matter what the cost.

Basically your argument seems to hinge on the cruelty of life in prison vs execution, but the people who have lived that cruelty overwhelmingly disagree with you. Why should the opinion of an observer overrule the opinion of someone who actually experiences it?

It's human instinct to survive, to be afraid of death, and this instinct is amplified in a simplistic, brutish sociopathic killer. However to keep such a person locked in a cage, in a hellish existence, for an indeterminately long period of time is a cruel form of punishment - to avoid sinking to their level, society should end their miserable lives as soon as possible.

[mykevermin]

[i]Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie
You've let me down for the first time. Poor form; more Dave Barry than Longfellow. I expect you to redouble your efforts for your next CAG forum appearance, in mid-February 2006.

dafoomie, I'd really like to respond to your points, but all you did was reiterate precisely what your first post stated, with the added facts of the murders he was convicted of.

You also mentioned a great deal of speculation (he's still involved with the crips, he's not working with officials, he's ordered murders from within prison walls, etc.). None of that is out of the question (and some of it even probable). But since little of it can be proven, I don't find much use in speculation when it comes to deciding a man's fate.

[sgs89]

To me, this case is really quite simple. I will be VERY disappointed in the Governor if he commutes Williams' sentence. Tookie deserves no compassion or mercy. To wit:

* Williams has never accepted responsibility for his crimes. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that he committed the murders for which he was convicted. His failure to accept responsibility should foreclose the possibility of clemency.

* Williams has refused to cooperate with the police regarding what he knows about the Crips gang. If he was truly rehabilitated, he should WANT to help the police break up a murderous and damaging street gang. His failure to do so should foreclose the possiblity of clemency.

* He was convicted of multiple murders, making the case for execution all the more powerful.

* The fact that he has Hollywood supporters (including rappers and ex-MASH stars) on his side gives him no extra credence. He has no stronger case than Mumia Abu Jamal -- in my view, each is a murderer who deserves little if any compassion.

* On a side note, did anyone else think it was the height of irony that, after a rally at San Quentin for Tookie, several of his "supporters" (no doubt, gang members) actually got into a fight and shot several people?

* All of Tookie's actions to date are purely self-preservation. I have no reason to believe that he is truly reformed -- his actions described above certainly suggest he is not. Therefore, the fact that he wrote several children's books is meaningless to me -- he did so only to win sympathy that he doesn't deserve.

* My prediction if Tookie gets clemency? You will see many more children's books being published from death row.

All in all, an easy case. No clemency for Tookie.

[theeipi]

One thing is for certain: Tookie will have his last breath in prison. The uncertainty is when.

Heh, that reminds me of a quote I once heard a deathrow immate make when he forfeited his right to appeal.

He said that being executed was a much better alternative to spending the rest of his life in prison.

I remember at the time, being about 15, thinking that that was real funny because if he were executed, he still would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

[dafoomie]

To me, this case is really quite simple. I will be VERY disappointed in the Governor if he commutes Williams' sentence. Tookie deserves no compassion or mercy. To wit:

* Williams has never accepted responsibility for his crimes. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that he committed the murders for which he was convicted. His failure to accept responsibility should foreclose the possibility of clemency.

* Williams has refused to cooperate with the police regarding what he knows about the Crips gang. If he was truly rehabilitated, he should WANT to help the police break up a murderous and damaging street gang. His failure to do so should foreclose the possiblity of clemency.

* He was convicted of multiple murders, making the case for execution all the more powerful.

* The fact that he has Hollywood supporters (including rappers and ex-MASH stars) on his side gives him no extra credence. He has no stronger case than Mumia Abu Jamal -- in my view, each is a murderer who deserves little if any compassion.

* On a side note, did anyone else think it was the height of irony that, after a rally at San Quentin for Tookie, several of his "supporters" (no doubt, gang members) actually got into a fight and shot several people?

* All of Tookie's actions to date are purely self-preservation. I have no reason to believe that he is truly reformed -- his actions described above certainly suggest he is not. Therefore, the fact that he wrote several children's books is meaningless to me -- he did so only to win sympathy that he doesn't deserve.

* My prediction if Tookie gets clemency? You will see many more children's books being published from death row.

All in all, an easy case. No clemency for Tookie.
I agree on all counts.

No one supporting clemency for him has addressed any of these points. If you're opposed to the death penalty for everyone, I can respect that.

[usickenme]

That future inmates will weigh the notion of behaving while serving time, or not giving in to the "system," consider the soon-to-be well known Tookie Williams decision, and think "this guy writes children's books and did all sorts of things to reform himself and work against the gang culture that's perpetuated society for the past quarter-decade or more. If *he* can't get any recognition for good behavior, what chance do I stand?"

That's my basic argument; that executing this man will set a remarkable standard for future behavior of those who end up in prison. In considering the difference between state-sanctioned execution and life without parole, is it really worth that kind of risk to kill him?



In some bizarre way, this almost seems like an arguement *for* the death penalty as well. If the threat of the death penalty was removed, there also be no incentive for rehabilitation as well? (assuming a life sentence). If you are providing the carrot, you also need to provide the stick.


Personally I am against the death penalty, it serves no purpose except acting out some revenge fantasy. Even to those not directly affected. You're wallet got stolen on the bus once...well Tookie got his!!

[VanillaGorilla]

I guess since Snoop Dogg likes him, it's ok that he killed a couple guys.........fry him.

[camoor]

Personally I am against the death penalty, it serves no purpose except acting out some revenge fantasy. Even to those not directly affected. You're wallet got stolen on the bus once...well Tookie got his!!

With the death penalty you can rest assured that the criminal in question won't commit the crime again. In addition, the taxpayers (which include his victim's families) will not be burdened with providing lifetime food and shelter to sociopathic criminal degenerates.

[alonzomourning23]

* My prediction if Tookie gets clemency? You will see many more children's books being published from death row.

If someone is beneficial then they're beneficial. Whats the big deal? Why would you want to stop death row inmates from doing good things in jail? It's not like eing locked up in prison for the rest of your life is a good life.

Yesterday on the news I saw that a death row inmate wants to donate their kidney to save someones life, yet one of the victims family opposes this claiming he's just playing god. The person is in new york and the inmate would have to travel to new york (were the person doctors are). Its uncertain if they will be able to. Is it really a big deal if someone on death row provides a societal benefit? It seems many think it is, but I don't.

Though he's done more than write books. His recorded speaches are also used in places such as schools to attempt to stop kids from joining gangs. He has spoken to schools and churches about gang violence. He also helped reach a truce between crips and bloods in newark. And for what its worth (I'm not overly concerned about this part but others bring up if he has really changed) he has written apologies for gang violence and his participation in gangs.

I don't really care about his true state of mind since he isn't going to be released anyway. What I see is a person who was a founder of the crips standing up and denouncing gang violence and doing things to deter youths from entering gangs. He brings much more credibility than any other anti gang activist. This person is much more useful alive than dead. Also as long as he's alive there's always the chance he will eventually give out more gang information. Letting "justice" take its course is great, unless justice is going to make things worse.



I'd like to see the percentage of overturned cases across a timespan (2 years, 3 years, 4 years, etc) - is it high enough to justify keeping criminals locked up awaiting their death sentence in a hellish confinement indefinately?

Nearly seven out of 10 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 were reversed due to "serious error" that left the reliability of the trial outcome in doubt, according to a Columbia University study released Monday.

The Justice Project (http://www.thejusticeproject.org/), which took nine years to complete, put the overall error rate for total capital-punishment system at 68 percent, and defined the most common serious errors found in death cases as incompetent legal defense work and suppression of evidence by prosecutors......

The Columbia study examined 4,578 capital punishment cases that had completed at least one round of appeals. Of 5,760 death sentences imposed from 1973 to 1995, only 5 percent were carried out, according to the Justice Project.
[/qupte]

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14037


[quote]
Yes, and I am a routine critic of our overly litigous society. However here we are talking about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment - which is a constitutional requirement no matter what the cost.

It's human instinct to survive, to be afraid of death, and this instinct is amplified in a simplistic, brutish sociopathic killer. However to keep such a person locked in a cage, in a hellish existence, for an indeterminately long period of time is a cruel form of punishment - to avoid sinking to their level, society should end their miserable lives as soon as possible.

If you want to cut down on the amount of appeals and such you will increase the innocent people killed. You will increase the burden of the poor and people who have state appointed attorneys who are incompetent. I'm not trying to generalize but they are generally of lower quality (including the really bad ones, like the ones who can't even stay awake through the trial). Is this something you're comfortable with? You wouldn't increase the burden on the guilty to help ensure the innocent ones (or the ones incorrectly sentenced) are not executed?

Your definition of cruel and unusual is extreme and not found in any element of society (that I'm aware of) or the courts. Do you suggest killing people convicted of robbing banks etc. and locked up for 15 years or so to be executed? You suggested that death is more humane than 15 years in prison, yet there are many people who have been sentenced to 15+ years and your argument would seem to suggest you'd give them the death penalty.

It also seems kind of patronizing "you claim you want to live, but I know better and think you should be executed so you don't have to suffer". From the people who are experiencing it, have been released etc. the clear majority don't agree with that. You suggestion that prison is more cruel than execution seems very odd to me. I haven't really encountered a person who suggested that we should speed up and increase executions to avoid suffering.

With the death penalty you can rest assured that the criminal in question won't commit the crime again. In addition, the taxpayers (which include his victim's families) will not be burdened with providing lifetime food and shelter to sociopathic criminal degenerates.

With the death penalty I can be assured the victims family and myself will pay more in taxes due to appeals and such. If you cut appeals I can be assured the state will execute more innocent people.

But the option here is execution or life. Either way he wouldn't get out. But even then, the recidivism rate of murderers is the lowest for any major crime:


Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates included those convicted of
robbery (70.2%), burglary (74.0%), larceny (74.6%), motor vehicle theft
(78.8%), stolen property (77.4%), and illegal weapons (70.2%).
Released prisoners with the lowest rearrest rates included those convicted of
homicide (40.7%), rape (46.0%), other sexual assault (41.4%), and DUI (51.5%).
61.7% of offenders sentenced for violence were arrested for a new offense,
though not necessarily another violent offense.
2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape
1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for
homicide
Property offenders had the highest rearrest rate (73.8%) followed by released
drug offenders (66.7%), and public-order offenders (62.2%).

http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS%20Recidivism%20Study.pdf

I obviously don't mean to suggest they're safe compared to the rest of society. But, the image of murderers as some unique brand of criminal that is just waiting for their next victim is incorrect. Their is a small percentage like that, but the majority of them have psychological problems that should have landed them in a psychological facility (which holds them for however long it takes, possible life even for crimes that may only get 5 or 10 years in prison). Unfortunately our society doesn't think much of putting the mentally ill where they belong.

[camoor]

Nearly seven out of 10 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 were reversed due to "serious error" that left the reliability of the trial outcome in doubt, according to a Columbia University study released Monday.

The Justice Project (http://www.thejusticeproject.org/), which took nine years to complete, put the overall error rate for total capital-punishment system at 68 percent, and defined the most common serious errors found in death cases as incompetent legal defense work and suppression of evidence by prosecutors......

The Columbia study examined 4,578 capital punishment cases that had completed at least one round of appeals. Of 5,760 death sentences imposed from 1973 to 1995, only 5 percent were carried out, according to the Justice Project.


http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14037




If you want to cut down on the amount of appeals and such you will increase the innocent people killed. You will increase the burden of the poor and people who have state appointed attorneys who are incompetent. I'm not trying to generalize but they are generally of lower quality (including the really bad ones, like the ones who can't even stay awake through the trial). Is this something you're comfortable with? You wouldn't increase the burden on the guilty to help ensure the innocent ones (or the ones incorrectly sentenced) are not executed?

Your definition of cruel and unusual is extreme and not found in any element of society (that I'm aware of) or the courts. Do you suggest killing people convicted of robbing banks etc. and locked up for 15 years or so to be executed? You suggested that death is more humane than 15 years in prison, yet there are many people who have been sentenced to 15+ years and your argument would seem to suggest you'd give them the death penalty.

It also seems kind of patronizing "you claim you want to live, but I know better and think you should be executed so you don't have to suffer". From the people who are experiencing it, have been released etc. the clear majority don't agree with that. You suggestion that prison is more cruel than execution seems very odd to me. I haven't really encountered a person who suggested that we should speed up and increase executions to avoid suffering.

You bring up a good point - perhaps it's necessary to wait longer for appeals then I initially thought forensic science improves.

As for the patronizing aspect, we are talking about people who think that killing police officers and innocents is a good idea. After they are found guilty, I wouldn't trust these people to make any sort of decision - especially one concerning which punishment they should receive.

[Metal Boss]

Terminate him!

[dafoomie]

His stay has been denied, he will be executed as planned.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If you're prinicpled on the death penalty as unacceptable under any circumstances I won't fault your position. It's a position worth respecting.

If you're crying that Tookie is worth saving because of some misguided notion that his childrens books and youth outreach programs are helping kids? BWHAHAHAHAHA! Your man is going down.

Founding a gang that has destroyed countless neighborhoods, been responsible for destroying tens of thousands of lives, threatened people in every conceivable manner, led to murders, robberies, rapes, executions, extortion etc. makes you worthy of death.

Imagine granting Osama bin Laden clemency because he wrote a childrens book or spoke out against Islamofacism. Ain't gonna happen. The evil has been done and continues to be done. With the threat of violence looming over Los Angeles because of this man's execution the reach of violence spawning from this piece of human trash won't end with his death. Countless more will suffer and die from the gang this man founded for decades to come.

At least the OG is goin' out old school yo!

[RedvsBlue]

If you're prinicpled on the death penalty as unacceptable under any circumstances I won't fault your position. It's a position worth respecting.

If you're crying that Tookie is worth saving because of some misguided notion that his childrens books and youth outreach programs are helping youth? BWHAHAHAHAHA! Your man is going down.

Founding a gang that has destroyed countless neighborhoods, been responsible for destroying tens of thousands of lives, threatened people in every conceivable manner, led to murders, robberies, rapes, executions, extortion etc. makes you worthy of death.

Imagine granting Osama bin Laden clemency because he wrote a childrens book or spoke out against Islamofacism. Ain't gonna happen. The evil has been done and continues to be done. With the threat of violence looming over Los Angeles because of this man's execution the reach of this man's violence won't end with his death. Countless more will suffer and die from the gang this man founded for decades.

At least the OG is goin' out old school!

Wow, a very good post from PAD.

You make an excellent point, some people think that just because he's reformed his life that he isn't worth killing anymore. This does not change the damage which he has already done. It would be something else entirely, if he had turned his life around BEFORE he had been sent to prison. Would he have continued on the same path if he had never been caught and sent to death row? Considering that he hadn't shown any signs of stopping his behavior before prison, I'd say its a pretty safe bet his change in viewpoint/behavior is based completely on being sent to prison and death row.

All that having been said, I completely oppose the death penalty. It is because of this point of view, not because of his near-celebrity status or some children's book, that I don't think he should be executed.

[mykevermin]

I think my overall point is that the publicity of this case tells people that, if you end up in jail, there is nothing you can do to amend your ways. It takes the "correct" out of "corrections," and reinforces that our criminal justice system is focused simply on punishment as a end in itself.

Do you think executing him will prevent future crime? You couldn't be more wrong if you think so; research overwhelmingly shows that the "deterrence" effect of executing people and other policies (mandatory minimums, for example) simply does not exist.

Do you think executing him will make the victims' families happy? What does that have to do with justice? Since when does our government take the liberties at ending a person's life in order to appease others? If you think that satisfying the families of Williams' victims is appropriate, you have a very misguided sense of justice. We aren't putting people in prison and executing them to appease people; that's simply too unpragmatic given the expenses sunk into the prison system each year.

What I don't understand about those who want to see him die is this: what purpose does it serve? How will society benefit from his death?

Of course, you all know how society will harm itself as a result of his death. I'm certain that protests and riots will occur (if they haven't already), and that inmate behavior certainly won't improve as a result of seeing someone whose life has improved since imprisonment (despite disagreements to the degree of his improvement) be executed.

[Zoglog]

I want him to die because all the moronic celebrities are annoying me. And hell I'm against the death penalty too lol

[RedvsBlue]

I want him to die because all the moronic celebrities are annoying me. And hell I'm against the death penalty too lol


The celebrities coming out for this is ridiculous, definetly starting to annoy me. I saw (well, heard) Ed Asner call into court TV earlier today and it was ridiculous. They asked him about the victim's family members behind and he starts launching into some (totally unrelated) tyrade about how we don't think about the victims left behind in a war so why would Stanley Tookie Williams be any different? WTF, keep your anti-war/bush statements seperate from this, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES!!!


I think my overall point is that the publicity of this case tells people that, if you end up in jail, there is nothing you can do to amend your ways. It takes the "correct" out of "corrections," and reinforces that our criminal justice system is focused simply on punishment as a end in itself.

Do you think executing him will prevent future crime? You couldn't be more wrong if you think so; research overwhelmingly shows that the "deterrence" effect of executing people and other policies (mandatory minimums, for example) simply does not exist.

Do you think executing him will make the victims' families happy? What does that have to do with justice? Since when does our government take the liberties at ending a person's life in order to appease others? If you think that satisfying the families of Williams' victims is appropriate, you have a very misguided sense of justice. We aren't putting people in prison and executing them to appease people; that's simply too unpragmatic given the expenses sunk into the prison system each year.

What I don't understand about those who want to see him die is this: what purpose does it serve? How will society benefit from his death?

Of course, you all know how society will harm itself as a result of his death. I'm certain that protests and riots will occur (if they haven't already), and that inmate behavior certainly won't improve as a result of seeing someone whose life has improved since imprisonment (despite disagreements to the degree of his improvement) be executed.

Well, thanks for typing up what I was too lazy to say about my viewpoint regarding the death penalty. Killing Tookie will not bring back the victims, will not alleviate the pain of their family, and will not prevent future murders/gangs. Despite the fact that I pretty much think he's a piece of trash that doesn't deserve to live, I don't think he should be executed, nor should anyone else.

[alonzomourning23]

Basicaly what myke says. We can't go back and change what he did. No ones saying that its better he was born, but that its better that he continue to live. People have died, nothing is going to change that. Going forward is there more benefit to have the co founder of the crips speaking out about the dangers of gangs and violence, or is there more benefit to having him dead? I can't imagine how a society improves itself by killing someone like him. He brings much more credibility when he speaks than you or I ever could.

Though his "protocal for peace" laid the groundwork for the truce between gangs in newark. There are many people who say that his words and speaches heard in churches, schools etc. helped them avoid gang life. If he had been killed 20 years ago there would have been more dead and more lives ruined. Nothing is going to change what happened, the primary goal should be to minimize future violence. Executing him does nothing to that end, letting him live does.

I really don't care if he's truly changed, all I care is that he is providing a benefit to society that killing him will remove. I doubt you'd find anyone a young person would listen to more than tookie about gang violence.

They asked him about the victim's family members behind and he starts launching into some (totally unrelated) tyrade about how we don't think about the victims left behind in a war so why would Stanley Tookie Williams be any different? WTF, keep your anti-war/bush statements seperate from this, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES!!!


I think his point is we only bring up victims when its convenient. We don't care if our actions have victims.

[camoor]

What I don't understand about those who want to see him die is this: what purpose does it serve? How will society benefit from his death?

Once he's dead, we can rest assured that he won't escape and kill more people or get set free by some whacko judge. In addition, I don't like spending my money to clothe, feed, and provide shelter to mass murderers.

Of course, you all know how society will harm itself as a result of his death. I'm certain that protests and riots will occur (if they haven't already), and that inmate behavior certainly won't improve as a result of seeing someone whose life has improved since imprisonment (despite disagreements to the degree of his improvement) be executed

Are you inferring that the law should capitulate to rioting thugs and criminals?

[mykevermin]

Once he's dead, we can rest assured that he won't escape and kill more people or get set free by some whacko judge. In addition, I don't like spending my money to clothe, feed, and provide shelter to mass murderers.
I don't like spending my money to pay for traffic lights. What of it?

The "cost" argument is rather pointless, don't you think? You are going to *have* to pay for either housing or executing this criminal, unless you don't want to do anything to them (and I doubt few but the most foolish of libertarians would recommend *that*).

Additionally, the argument had nothing to do with being released. The clemency argument was centered on either going through with his execution, as planned, or on allowing him to remain imprisoned for the rest of his days until he died of natural causes. In this case, his getting free is a complete non-issue. You're also completely ignoring the data alonzo cited that show fewer than 2% of released murderers are rearrested for murder, a repeat offense rate *FAR* lower than others (over 50% lower, at the very least). That's some pretty important factual information, as it renders your hypothetical of release and repeat homicide extremely unlikely.

Are you inferring that the law should capitulate to rioting thugs and criminals?
Not at all; I am pointing out, however, that the decision Gov. Schwarzenegger made would have far reaching and long-lasting implications in regards to the policy direction of our criminal justice, courts, and corrections systems, the behavior of future inmates, and it would also set another precedent for race relations between blacks and the state for quite some time. To ignore these kinds of effects when deliberating over one person's death is poor governing.

[Zoglog]

OMG can they just kill this guy already? I just heard Snoop Dog's apkpeal to the Govenor and he was speaking all stupid ghetto talk and ebonics all the while taling about teaching children..... Real good influence there.

Well Clemency was not granted so things are looking up. Death Penalty solves nothing in my opinion in the big picture.

[mykevermin]

OMG can they just kill this guy already? I just heard Snoop Dog's apkpeal to the Govenor and he was speaking all stupid ghetto talk and ebonics all the while taling about teaching children..... Real good influence there.
When you become more gramatically proficient, then some of us might take your disregarding of negroes talking like negroes seriously. In the meantime, take some time to write coherently if you want to criticize the way people deliver their information. Jesus Christ.

Well Clemency was not granted so things are looking up.
Okay, you and I don't agree...but get ready for the punchline...
Death Penalty solves nothing in my opinion in the big picture.
Normally, it doesn't bother me if people write something contradictory to another thing they wrote (I'm certainly capable of being accused of doing it). But in the NEXT GODDAMN SENTENCE!?!?!?! C'mon, kid, your parents would be ashamed of you.

[SkyGheNe]

If he is providing a benefit then thats all that counts, and he has campaigned to keep kids away from gangs. Being one of the founders of the crips gives him credibility in that area. His own inner thoughts are secondary, especially since he won't be released either way. He is providing a benefit pure and simple. He could provide more (ie. by "snitching"), but considering what he is currently doing he's more beneficial alive. And there's always the small chance he could eventually tell some of what he knows about the gang, there's no chance if he's dead.

And besides, if rotting in prison is so much crueler then why not give this "sociopath" the cruelest treatment, ie. life in prison? You have no problem with speeding up executions (which would increase the amount executed and the amount wrongly executed) but when you have someone convicted of extremely violent crimes you use that to justify execution? Shouldn't that be used to justify life in prison, the one you describe as crueler?

But you know something camoor, I would rather die than spend 15 years on death row. But most would not. Due to the fact that trying to rush things will increase the amount of innocent people executed, and the fact that most do not want to die, there is no reason for such a thing. If someone on death row wants to die they can speed things up by not appealing and by doing nothing to push off the date. Most exhaust every channel they can to avoid the death penalty.

Personally I think everyone should be able to die if they truly want to, so I have no problem with death row inmates choosing to die. The problem is your system would kill those who do not want to die, and you'd increase the innocent people killed.

When there is no doubt about who committed the crime and they are sentenced to death, there should be absolutely no appeals. It should not be delayed. It should be done asap.

There is no doubt that he killed four people. ABSOLUTELY no doubt.

He is sentenced to death.

It shouldn't have taken more than a year.

I wonder if you would be this passive if this had happened to one of your family members? I know I wouldn't. If a murder was done out of cold intentions and is proven to be committed by someone without doubt, I'm for death the next day.

[Zoglog]

When you become more gramatically proficient, then some of us might take your disregarding of negroes talking like negroes seriously. In the meantime, take some time to write coherently if you want to criticize the way people deliver their information. Jesus Christ.


Okay, you and I don't agree...but get ready for the punchline...

Normally, it doesn't bother me if people write something contradictory to another thing they wrote (I'm certainly capable of being accused of doing it). But in the NEXT GODDAMN SENTENCE!?!?!?! C'mon, kid, your parents would be ashamed of you.

no and no =p
there's a difference between msg board grammar posting and requesting clemency to the govenor. Context my friend... context.

And I feel more sorry for you and ashamed. Sounds like you're trying to stick personal ideals and moral values on other people. I don't see how i'm contradicting myself. I don't believe in the death penalty in terms of the death penalty itself. However in this particular instance where the guy is recruiting tons of annoying celebrities and proclaiming himself as a saint.... well yeah...

So before you start callin other people kid you should look in the mirror boy ;)

[mykevermin]

Who is he "recruiting" exactly? Also, why does celebrity endorsement allow you to bend your anti-death penalty stance? Shall I assume that you are against the death penalty in general, and in the instance of celebrity intervention, that becomes the catalyst for a person deserving to die at the hands of the state?

You're not very good at arguing, I'll have you know. While you had a minute point regarding context and grammar, your initial assertion comes across as trite based upon your poor grammar. If I disregard your ability to form a sentence, it remains trite due to your inability to tackle any of the issues Snoop Dogg brought forth; instead, you attacked his character and his delivery, and thought that sufficient to find his argument unsuitable. You may not be a "kid," but you certainly don't argue like an adult.

[SkyGheNe]

And...to get back on topic...

[RedvsBlue]

You know, I think Schwarzenegger should have had to give the news to his face that he was not granting him clemency.

[evanft]

When there is no doubt about who committed the crime and they are sentenced to death, there should be absolutely no appeals. It should not be delayed. It should be done asap.

There is no doubt that he killed four people. ABSOLUTELY no doubt.

He is sentenced to death.

It shouldn't have taken more than a year.

I wonder if you would be this passive if this had happened to one of your family members? I know I wouldn't. If a murder was done out of cold intentions and is proven to be committed by someone without doubt, I'm for death the next day.

Define doubt.

[Zoglog]

Who is he "recruiting" exactly? Also, why does celebrity endorsement allow you to bend your anti-death penalty stance? Shall I assume that you are against the death penalty in general, and in the instance of celebrity intervention, that becomes the catalyst for a person deserving to die at the hands of the state?

You're not very good at arguing, I'll have you know. While you had a minute point regarding context and grammar, your initial assertion comes across as trite based upon your poor grammar. If I disregard your ability to form a sentence, it remains trite due to your inability to tackle any of the issues Snoop Dogg brought forth; instead, you attacked his character and his delivery, and thought that sufficient to find his argument unsuitable. You may not be a "kid," but you certainly don't argue like an adult.

wow the kettle blows out nothing but hot steam. That was a long way of saying "I have no argument so i'll ask a series of useless questions and recycle my grammar argument"

Anyway a bunch of morons decided to goto the federal building near my work and protest. Why the federal building for a state matter durr? It's people like this that make me want to help execute that guy =p.

People like 50 cent, Snoop dog, and this guy make me sick. They only help the man keep them down =p Well either way he's probably gonna die so no point in arguing really

[dafoomie]

You know, I think Schwarzenegger should have had to give the news to his face that he was not granting him clemency.
The jury convicted him to his face, the judge sentenced him to his face, every appeal has been denied to his face. The Governator has the power but not the obligation to grant clemency if theres reason for it, he has found that there is no compelling reason to override every judge and jury member that has decided he is guilty and deserving of the death penalty.

I think he should ask the families of the victims for clemency, to their face. Maybe he should look them in the eye, tell them he killed their loved ones, and convince them that he's such a nice guy now and he shouldn't die. How about that instead?

[RedvsBlue]

The jury convicted him to his face, the judge sentenced him to his face, every appeal has been denied to his face. The Governator has the power but not the obligation to grant clemency if theres reason for it, he has found that there is no compelling reason to override every judge and jury member that has decided he is guilty and deserving of the death penalty.

I think he should ask the families of the victims for clemency, to their face. Maybe he should look them in the eye, tell them he killed their loved ones, and convince them that he's such a nice guy now and he shouldn't die. How about that instead?

He probably will be doing that in about 4 hours when he's executed.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Should the state stick to its commitment to execute him this coming Tuesday, or does he deserve a reduction to a life sentence with no possibility of parole?That "reduction" would be even worse than execution. So either way is fine with me. I don't even know what he did. :oops: :lol:

[RedvsBlue]

That "reduction" would be even worse than execution. So either way is fine with me. I don't even know what he did. :oops: :lol:

Wow, Sub makes a rare VS. forum appearance.

[mykevermin]

wow the kettle blows out nothing but hot steam. That was a long way of saying "I have no argument so i'll ask a series of useless questions and recycle my grammar argument"

Anyway a bunch of morons decided to goto the federal building near my work and protest. Why the federal building for a state matter durr? It's people like this that make me want to help execute that guy =p.

People like 50 cent, Snoop dog, and this guy make me sick. They only help the man keep them down =p Well either way he's probably gonna die so no point in arguing really
If you find yourself reading through the thread, you'll note that I have plenty of arguments to make, none of which were refuted by your "Snoop Dogg wants him to live, so I want to see him die" argument.

Here's a challenge: make a fucking point, and I'll discuss it. Until then, your pedantic banter is the only thing I have to focus on.

[camoor]

I don't like spending my money to pay for traffic lights. What of it?

The "cost" argument is rather pointless, don't you think? You are going to *have* to pay for either housing or executing this criminal, unless you don't want to do anything to them (and I doubt few but the most foolish of libertarians would recommend *that*).

I agree, I'm just talking about what I'd rather pay for. I don't mind paying a little extra to see justice served.

Additionally, the argument had nothing to do with being released. The clemency argument was centered on either going through with his execution, as planned, or on allowing him to remain imprisoned for the rest of his days until he died of natural causes. In this case, his getting free is a complete non-issue. You're also completely ignoring the data alonzo cited that show fewer than 2% of released murderers are rearrested for murder, a repeat offense rate *FAR* lower than others (over 50% lower, at the very least). That's some pretty important factual information, as it renders your hypothetical of release and repeat homicide extremely unlikely.
...
Not at all; I am pointing out, however, that the decision Gov. Schwarzenegger made would have far reaching and long-lasting implications in regards to the policy direction of our criminal justice, courts, and corrections systems, the behavior of future inmates, and it would also set another precedent for race relations between blacks and the state for quite some time. To ignore these kinds of effects when deliberating over one person's death is poor governing.

I'd like to think that he'd never be released, but laws can change and there might be a period in Cali's future history where they do trust mass-murderers enough to free them from the jails after a stint. How many gang-banging murderers with circumstances similar to Tookie's repeat their offences? When talking statistics it doesn't make sense to mix in all of the cheating and manslaughter cases with what Tookie does.

Is the governor supposed to consider penal policy direction, race relations, etc when granting clemency? Is Schwartzeneger supposed to spare Barabbas because the mob has spoken? I thought it was supposed to be a decision based on correcting a judicial error - if the politicians are continually allowed to slide on this point we are eventually going to see many more pardons like that of Marc Rich.

[alonzomourning23]

When there is no doubt about who committed the crime and they are sentenced to death, there should be absolutely no appeals. It should not be delayed. It should be done asap.

There is no doubt that he killed four people. ABSOLUTELY no doubt.

He is sentenced to death.

It shouldn't have taken more than a year.

Well there is some doubt. Though how exactly do you determine that? There are rape victims who can go to a lineup, quickly point out a guy, swear that person raped them and only years later find out that they had the wrong guy. How do you determine when there is absolutely no doubt? Unless you have a video of him doing it I don't see how that would work. In this case the witnesses all had reason to testify against him (since they were criminals themselves), and you had ballistics evidence connecting the shots to his gun but not necessarily him. Look, I don't really care whether he's guilty, that doesn't effect my opinion on this and I have no interest in arguing that aspect. But this absolute proof you speak of would not fit him. There are many cases that seem air tight and major issues are found later on during appeals, new testimonies, evidence etc.

I wonder if you would be this passive if this had happened to one of your family members? I know I wouldn't. If a murder was done out of cold intentions and is proven to be committed by someone without doubt, I'm for death the next day.

Last time I checked we don't allow families to determine punishment.

But in this case we have a person that since his "reform" (reform, con, whatever word you want to use I don't care) has saved lives. Be it the people who say he helped alter the course of their life through his words, or things such as the gang truce he helped lay the groundwork for in newark. People are allowing the concept of justice to override the greater concern of keeping society safe. Thats what the police and court system should be there for, to ensure the safety of society. In this case they are doing more harm than good by executing him. It has long been shown that executions have no deterrent effect. But, unlike executions, anti gang activism does help deter violence. When you have a weapon such as this, the co-founder of the most notorious gang in the u.s., you shouldn't be so eager to get rid of it.

If we had killed tookie 20 years ago more people would have died from gang violence. I don't care whether the total difference is 5 people. Those are 5 families who don't have to seek justice for their loved one, families that won't have to deal with the same pain that tookies victims families do. And the gang truce in newark, all the students and church youth who hear his speaches (either taped or by phone), I'm sure more than 5 lives have been saved. Those 4 people are dead, the crips are a mega gang. Killing him is going to do absolutely nothing to change anything that has occured due to his past.

I'd like to think that he'd never be released, but laws can change and there might be a period in Cali's future history where they do trust mass-murderers enough to free them from the jails after a stint.

Laws can change to the point where life without parole mean parole in 30 years?

[camoor]

Well there is some doubt. Though how exactly do you determine that? There are rape victims who can go to a lineup, quickly point out a guy, swear that person raped them and only years later find out that they had the wrong guy. How do you determine when there is absolutely no doubt?

Yeah that's crazy and it should scare anyone. In this country, if a woman accuses a man, then for all intents and purposes he is guilty until proven innocent. Thank goodness things like DNA testing are elminating alot of this, but noone should have any doubt that it still happens.

[Zoglog]

If I were to speak the language I guess he ran out of quarters lols.
So what did he request as his last meal? Now there's something worth discussing :)

[alonzomourning23]

If I were to speak the language I guess he ran out of quarters lols.
So what did he request as his last meal? Now there's something worth discussing :)

It actually is interesting. He refused a last meal.

[camoor]

It actually is interesting. He refused a last meal.

Too bad, I heard they were serving crow.

[dafoomie]

Are any networks going to do a live countdown? CourtTV doesn't seem to be doing anything.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

This just in from the sports desk....

The needle won :37 seconds into the first round. Looks like the Vegas oddsmakers called this one right on the money.

[alonzomourning23]

This just in from the sports desk....

The needle won :37 seconds into the first round. Looks like the Vegas oddsmakers called this one right on the money.

I'm sure gang recruiters were watching and cheering right along with you.

Though there was one reporter on fox (the female reporter) who seriously needs to learn how to make an unbiased broadcast. Also, fox needs to learn that people who rather listen to the actual live descriptions of what happened rather than what the fox commentator thinks of the descriptions.

[Metal Boss]

wow, 12:35 AM too, they didn't even let him get a nights rest!


Good riddance, as ahnuld says, there IS no redemtion, john connor!!!


HE'S TERMINATED

[mykevermin]

I'm sure gang recruiters were watching and cheering right along with you.

Though there was one reporter on fox (the female reporter) who seriously needs to learn how to make an unbiased broadcast. Also, fox needs to learn that people who rather listen to the actual live descriptions of what happened rather than what the fox commentator thinks of the descriptions.

Details.

[SkyGheNe]

Well there is some doubt. Though how exactly do you determine that? There are rape victims who can go to a lineup, quickly point out a guy, swear that person raped them and only years later find out that they had the wrong guy. How do you determine when there is absolutely no doubt? Unless you have a video of him doing it I don't see how that would work. In this case the witnesses all had reason to testify against him (since they were criminals themselves), and you had ballistics evidence connecting the shots to his gun but not necessarily him. Look, I don't really care whether he's guilty, that doesn't effect my opinion on this and I have no interest in arguing that aspect. But this absolute proof you speak of would not fit him. There are many cases that seem air tight and major issues are found later on during appeals, new testimonies, evidence etc.



Last time I checked we don't allow families to determine punishment.

But in this case we have a person that since his "reform" (reform, con, whatever word you want to use I don't care) has saved lives. Be it the people who say he helped alter the course of their life through his words, or things such as the gang truce he helped lay the groundwork for in newark. People are allowing the concept of justice to override the greater concern of keeping society safe. Thats what the police and court system should be there for, to ensure the safety of society. In this case they are doing more harm than good by executing him. It has long been shown that executions have no deterrent effect. But, unlike executions, anti gang activism does help deter violence. When you have a weapon such as this, the co-founder of the most notorious gang in the u.s., you shouldn't be so eager to get rid of it.

If we had killed tookie 20 years ago more people would have died from gang violence. I don't care whether the total difference is 5 people. Those are 5 families who don't have to seek justice for their loved one, families that won't have to deal with the same pain that tookies victims families do. And the gang truce in newark, all the students and church youth who hear his speaches (either taped or by phone), I'm sure more than 5 lives have been saved. Those 4 people are dead, the crips are a mega gang. Killing him is going to do absolutely nothing to change anything that has occured due to his past.



Laws can change to the point where life without parole mean parole in 30 years?

If there's doubt, as long as there is no chance of parole, keep him in there. I'd find that a bit more miserable than dieing personally.

As far as him saving people goes, i'll be sure to keep that in mind when I go on a killing spree myself and am waiting out the sentence.

As long as I touch just one person, that's all that matters. I've made a difference.

There shouldn't be exceptions to the law. That's all I am saying. What you're talking about is utilitarianism and sometimes you have to do what's "right" whether that be death or life in prison. I don't care which because at the moment, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

So why not just let em' rot.

[SkyGheNe]

I'm sure gang recruiters were watching and cheering right along with you.

Though there was one reporter on fox (the female reporter) who seriously needs to learn how to make an unbiased broadcast. Also, fox needs to learn that people who rather listen to the actual live descriptions of what happened rather than what the fox commentator thinks of the descriptions.

Yes, because I bet the recruitment numbers are going to be overwhelming now that his books died along with him.

At any rate, anyone find it funny how they constantly mentioned him being nominated for the nobel peace prize? Did you know you can nominate yourself for that?

And don't watch fox news looking for anything more than entertainment.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Wow, Sub makes a rare VS. forum appearance.Only to reveal that I have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world. :oops: :lol:

[Strell]

I read nothing in this thread but here are my thoughts.

Here is what counts:

1) He killed people.

2) He found a gang that is known for killing people.

3) Said gang has killed several people since its founding. While he is obviously not responsible for what they do, his crime organization kills innocents and rivals alike.

4) He was found guilty.

5) He was found guilty in a state that enforces the death penalty and was sentenced to do so.

6) His sentencing is coming to pass.

Here's what is not applicable:

1) Race, at least not to the extent a bunch of advocates what to make it out to be. If that were the case it would have been argued for far longer and much more vohemently in the court at the time of hearing.

2) What he did in prison (books). If that were payment for his crimes then...well, I don't want to imagine what scenarios that would create, but they scare the living shit out of me. The fact that he got nominated for a Nobel is pretty sickening (although I concede that is my own personal view).

3) Whether or not the death penalty is wrong/right. This is completely beside the point and shouldn't even enter the equation. They had, what, 20 years to debate this for this case alone? And let's not forget how long it has been deliberated since the dawn of f*cking man. Save this argument for another day, because it is not the focus here.

4) "Redemption." What a laughable excuse. If this is coming from a spiritual/religious standpoint, then you understand that you STILL live by the laws of both man and your diety. And if he truly wants that, he understands that his diety will pass judgement upon that article of his life. Let's assume for a moment it's Christianity and God. Well, his soul is God's property and he can do what with he wants, that's not man's domain. Secondly, the Bible states you live by the law of the land. And the law of the land here is death penalty. That's where the judgement by man ends. This is very cut and dry. If he is truly redemptive, then he is no different from the theif on the cross, and God will do what he wants with his soul. "Redemption" is a personal thing. Everyone wants to make it out like this guy is a marty and representative of an entire group/generation/race/whatever. He's not. He's one man and his decisions rest with him, just as his consequences do.


The whole redemption/book thing is no different than the Menendez brothers bringing in evidence about their troubled childhood. This is the problem with the justice system, where people think all sorts of various peripheral arguments are valid over the cold, hard facts. We're not debating whether or not Tookie wrote books and advocated AGAINST violence, we're discussing if he killed people. A jury decided there was enough evidence he did.

It would be a huge slap in the face of all the victims if courts threw up their arms and said "oh GEE JAMIE FOXX IS RIGHT" and negated all the previous judgements. Perhaps this, too, should not be taken into account, but it would be unimaginably cruel if not.

I cannot and will not deliberate on the remains of his soul, whatever condemnations he may or may not receive, what will happen to him post-life, or anything else regarding what he truly feels emotionally. Likewise I cannot deliberate on the court's decision - I was not there. In fact, most of us here weren't even born yet. All I can hope for is that they examined every possible piece of evidence, that they came to a decision based on said evidence, and that his guilt was evaluated as complete. I cannot say whether or not the death penalty is right or wrong.

What I can say is this, purely:
He was found guilty, the court ruled death, and he got it.

My personal opinion is that if everything I've said is true, and that if he is guilty, then he merely got the consequences due to him. Whether or not those consequences are found in efficient and structural faith - meaning, within humanity and our judgements upon man - is something I have no way of confirming because I am not omnipotent.

The bottomline is that if you commit crimes - again, something I can only assume was shown to be found true in a court of law - then prepare to face the consequences.

If he is innocent, and there is a post-life station, and a judging of souls takes place, then all of his supporters need not worry.

If he is guilty, and there is a post-life station, and judging of souls takes place, then it is up to those dieties to deliberate.

In other words, our place as humans remains solely here on Earth, and our peers found a man guilty for brutal slayings. Nothing else should enter into the argument beyond that. It is sad, shallow, and hollow to believe anything else should be considered.

[mykevermin]

My personal opinion is that if everything I've said is true
The fact that you disregarded race shows that you don't know much about the criminal justice or prison systems.

The fact that you expressed your opinion that redemption is impossible shows that you have a biased notion of justice.

The fact that you disregarded the context of criminal justification (in the case if the Menendez brothers) is contradictory to the arguments you put forth about how deserving Williams is of the death penalty; namely, his indirect culpability as one of the founders of the crips.

The fact that you disregarded the context of criminal justification shows that you lack the legal understanding of concepts such as "justifiable homicides."

Your argument is full of postmortem speculation - the "let god handle him" argument. That's not the role of the state to determine, and its uncertainty deplorable, when you consider that you're letting your *opinion* about what happens to people when they die inform your opinion of whether or not someone *should* die.

You wrote a very thorough and coherent argument, but one ultimately full of holes, speculation, and misinformation. Let me give you my nutshell question: How will society benefit from this man's death?

[Strell]

The fact that you disregarded race shows that you don't know much about the criminal justice or prison systems.

The fact that you expressed your opinion that redemption is impossible shows that you have a biased notion of justice.

The fact that you disregarded the context of criminal justification (in the case if the Menendez brothers) is contradictory to the arguments you put forth about how deserving Williams is of the death penalty; namely, his indirect culpability as one of the founders of the crips.

The fact that you disregarded the context of criminal justification shows that you lack the legal understanding of concepts such as "justifiable homicides."

Your argument is full of postmortem speculation - the "let god handle him" argument. That's not the role of the state to determine, and its uncertainty deplorable, when you consider that you're letting your *opinion* about what happens to people when they die inform your opinion of whether or not someone *should* die.

You wrote a very thorough and coherent argument, but one ultimately full of holes, speculation, and misinformation. Let me give you my nutshell question: How will society benefit from this man's death?

I think maybe some of my arguments/comments aren't coming through as I intended, or I'm just writing bad ones, either of which are entirely possible because I prefer to stay away from internet arguments. This is a broad statement and not meant to sound like a reaction to you specificially, or more importantly, this forum.

Anyway...

The main point I was trying to say is that consequences can't be avoided. He was found guilty for crimes he probably committed. I admit freely I don't have all the info and I have no way of knowing it aside from reading a LOT of information I don't want to wade through, and even then there's no way to tell if it is biased or not.

First off, I'm probably wrong about race. But I'm tired of things being seen as only in terms of race. Going with your hypothetical, what would be the situation if Tookie was white? I'm just curious to know. Or Asian, or Hispanic, or from another country, etc etc? When do we see people as simply people? That's probably hopelessly idealistic on my part. I'm sure this is directly related to the fact that I'm white and really don't have any sort of basis to say anything about racial inequality aside from what I've read in classes.

Secondly, I wasn't saying redemption isn't possible. In fact, I didn't say that at all, and if it sounded like that, I apologize. I was saying it is a PERSONAL thing, that it remains between you and whatever dieties your faith believes in. Isn't this what everyone complains about with religion anyway? How there are people complaining that the word Christmas endorses Christianity and simultaneously denies other religious? My point is that if he has achieved redemption, then it is up to him and his faith. It is not based on earthly, corporeal realms - it is something entirely ethereal. Since that is the core of most post-life arguments in most religions, then what would happen to his soul would be up to those forces.
And if that's the case, how could we judge it at all? Probably about as well as we can judge a man to die.

Again, case in point, if he became Christian, God handles him. Man doesn't. It doesn't matter what man does to him, God has ultimate control. I can't speak for other religions because I know I am woefully under-educated on them. He dies, he's good, he goes to heaven. He's bad, he goes to Hell. If you believe that sort of thing.

So I'm not trying to say he is beyond rehabilitation/redemption, I'm saying man's judgements and actions imparted onto Tookie are completely insignificant to a godlike figure. Again, theif on the cross comes to mind.

So my point is that all these peopel screaming about "redemption!" need to sit back and realize that in this reality, it is completely secondary to what happens once you die. I remember a lot of arguments towards Schiavo supporters along these lines - "If you love her and feel she is a CHristian and bla bla, why would you keep her chained to this world when you think she'll reach heaven?" Same idea here. Stop passing it off as a huge banner to wave your own personal agendas around. Schiavo shouldn't be shoveled off anymore as an icon for Christianity anymore than Tookie should be for African Americans. That'll never happen though.

If Tookie is honestly redemptive - again, something I can't measure and neither can anyone else, his supporters included - then what happens to him doesn't matter. His soul isn't ours to govern. When I hear pastors and other persons of faith say something like "I know I'm going to Heaven when I die," I can't help but think how arrogant that sounds. We don't get to decide, God does (assuming he exists), and the same applies here.

To go along with that, I was saying that the Bible states you still follow the laws of man. From what I understand there were multiple appeals and attempts to exhaust all methods of law. Whether or not those attempts were met with biased rejection, I don't know. I have to assume it was carried out properly. I guess that sounds biased, and it sounds like I think the justice system is flawless. It clearly isn't and if I sounded like that, I apologize, because it's not. But you still have to play by the rules. I realize it's skewed here and there but that's not something I can change, and if this guy is innocent then, again, his redemption/soul/whatever will be clarified in that light and his post-death experience will reflect that.

-None- of the above should declare/augment/determine if a man should die. None of it. That is what I'm saying - it's all something out of our hands. In the end, if there is postmortem experience to be had, then it happens beyond our control. That was my point. Redemption is personal, it is not meant to be a martyred ideal to spread across a representative group, and it is not a reason to say he's innocent/guilty.

Thirdly, I said he was not responible for his gang's actions, but I did say it counted, and you are right, it is the same as the Menendez brothers. So I concede that and it becomes negligable.

Fourth, yea, I probably do lack the understanding of lots of things. So do a lot of people around here. I believe thats why I used the word if. You certainly seem out to get me for not understanding things I full well made clear I probably don't. Isn't that what this board is for? For opinions? That's NOT giving me carte blanche to say anything without reason, but I'm just pointing out that I'm probably about as well informed as the majority of users here, and less so than some others who have made it their specialization.

Fifth, will it better humanity? I'm not at liberty to say that. In the short run it is going to cause, possibly, riots and things like that. In the long run it will perpetuate unrest, distrust, and a lot of social problems. And it will definitely bring race relations to the forefront for some time. And it will be a precedent for a long while in court systems. And people will talk about it. That much I know.

Had he stayed alive it would appease several persons and not infuriate a lot of agonized people. It probably wouldn't have affected the victims' families too much because I hope they have found solace (although nothing like this has happened to me so I can't say what sort of mentality they live with, nor do I know much about what they are feeling now except some sort of closure, whether or not it is justified beyond simply killing Tookie) in that they feel he's behind bars. It would come off as a huge triumph for African Americans, and like it or not that would piss off lots of White Supremacists. And religious nuts would be all over it claiming it was a breakdown of justice and that "hoo boy, God gunna get'em sooner 'r later."

Sounds like a lose lose lose situation to me.

I guess all I can hope for is that his books and his message outlive his crimes and that it saves people from making the same mistakes.

And that maybe gang rivalry/warfare bullshit will finally begin to recede. But it didn't happen with Tupac and Biggie so I can't see it happening here.

Also the followup hypothetical is probably "how do you think it should be handled," and all I can say is I don't know and I'm appreciative that I don't have to know. That's not my position. And I don't see much of a reason to play the what if game on that one because it's going to make my head hurt like hell.

I'm not sure any of this helps my argument but I'm really bored at work.

[Zoglog]

America and Japan are the only Adv. Industrial countries that condone capital punishment.

On a side note he did have milk before he died but no food and apparently he got black power salutes from supporters in the back. moot!

[alonzomourning23]

Details.

When the media (who witnessed the execution) came out and began reporting on what happened fox cut to their commentator and he began talking about what the media was saying. They may have gone back, but I switched to another channel after about 15 seconds.

Though there were 2 main fox reporters. One was doing a good job, stating how peaceful everything was (even when a protestor hit a cameraman who tried to remove their sign, he kept saying that 99.9% of the people here were peaceful and explained why) and open to both sides of the tookie issue. The female reporter seemed to be more interested in stating how guilty tookie was, but at this point I don't remember exactly what she was saying.

Yes, because I bet the recruitment numbers are going to be overwhelming now that his books died along with him.

At any rate, anyone find it funny how they constantly mentioned him being nominated for the nobel peace prize? Did you know you can nominate yourself for that?

And don't watch fox news looking for anything more than entertainment.

Of course not, but I'm sure the death of anyone who speaks against gangs is a welcome death to gang leaders.

Though I know its relatively easy to get a nobel prize nomination, that doesn't really add or take away from everything else. And the reason I was watching fox was because I was watching hannity and colmes (al sharpton was the guest) before that.

As far as him saving people goes, i'll be sure to keep that in mind when I go on a killing spree myself and am waiting out the sentence.

As long as I touch just one person, that's all that matters. I've made a difference.

There shouldn't be exceptions to the law. That's all I am saying. What you're talking about is utilitarianism and sometimes you have to do what's "right" whether that be death or life in prison. I don't care which because at the moment, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

So why not just let em' rot.

Because if they're more beneficial alive then thats where they should be. Justice is great, but when that person does things that decrease (even if only by a very small amount) the amount of gang violence or deaths then thats a few extra people who don't have to seek "justice" for their loved one. If there wasn't a gang truce in newark then right there you would have had a few extra dead people at least, and a few extra families seeking "justice".

The central focus of the courts and the police should be protecting society. Dead he does nothing for that, alive he did. What's "right" is keeping alive a tool to keep people away from gangs.

I also honestly doubt you're going to go on a killing spree "just cause you'll only get life". Again, deterrence isn't a good argument since no evidence supports it and, actually, states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates on average.

[Quillion]

I'm only barely following this story, but are this man's good works enough to repay the debt of the four lives he took?

I'm going to have to go with Arnold on this one. Without remorse, there is no redemption.

[Zoglog]

remorse is overrated

[Derwood43]

Our justice system is not set up how some of you think. If a person receives a death penalty, they won't receive leniancy because they've become a "good person". Becoming a "good person" after a conviction does only one thing, it clears your own conscience. Does it bring back people from the dead? No. If you commit a crime, you pay the price. If you steal a tv, they aren't going to kill, but you will serve your time. If you kill someone (in the right state), and are convicted, they will kill you. If you don't like the rules, don't kill anyone. It's a pretty simple concept. I think it's great that he says he's "changed". It still doesn't change the fact that he murdered 4 individuals, and ordered many more killings. It's like a kid who gets caught stealing a candy bar...he may really want to change after being caught, but he still has to be punished for his actions.

[evanft]

Our justice system is not set up how some of you think. If a person receives a death penalty, they won't receive leniancy because they've become a "good person". Becoming a "good person" after a conviction does only one thing, it clears your own conscience. Does it bring back people from the dead? No. If you commit a crime, you pay the price. If you steal a tv, they aren't going to kill, but you will serve your time. If you kill someone (in the right state), and are convicted, they will kill you. If you don't like the rules, don't kill anyone. It's a pretty simple concept. I think it's great that he says he's "changed". It still doesn't change the fact that he murdered 4 individuals, and ordered many more killings. It's like a kid who gets caught stealing a candy bar...he may really want to change after being caught, but he still has to be punished for his actions.

Your entire thesis is predicated on the fact that our justice system is perfect. It isn't.

[Ozzkev55]

Celebrities shouldnt recieve special treatment. There have been plenty of Reformed inmates killed, and this one shouldnt be any different. I dont see anyone standing up for "Son Of Sam", and hes an altar boy.

[KingNES]

Just a question here for any who think he should have been spared. Have any of you lost a relative to a violent crime and had to go through the judicial (sp?) process afterwards? Were any of you a victim of a violent crime yourself and if you were would you feel any different? I ask because I lost my brother in law to a murder when he was shot over 35 times back in '86 by a friend (I know some friend) of his. The Murderer was convicted and tried clemency 3 times and was denied and all three times I had to go through that mess with my wife. It wasn't a picnic by any means, so back to the question, would any of you if you had lost a relative or were the victim of some horrific crime feel any different about wanting to spare the person responsible the death penalty?

[mykevermin]

You've only identified the person seeking clemency by the crime they committed. That's insufficient detail as far as I'm concerned.

It's inconvenient and unfortunate for you and your family, but you're also trying to argue that your emotional involvement somehow gives you better insight. I would argue the opposite, that your emotional involvement impedes you from recognizing that a person convicted of a crime can change for the better. Your loss and situation is unfortunate, but it's not really an applicable argument.

[camoor]

If you kill someone (in the right state), and are convicted, they will kill you. If you don't like the rules, don't kill anyone. It's a pretty simple concept.

It's not that simple - there are legally justified kills, manslaughter, and 3 degrees of homicide.

It's interesting to note that if it's a one-on-one situation, then the US does not authorize a pre-emptive strike. Yet if it's a nation-on-nation situation, preemtive strikes by the US are A-OK (even if the reasons for doing so turn out to be faulty).

[KingNES]

You've only identified the person seeking clemency by the crime they committed. That's insufficient detail as far as I'm concerned.

It's inconvenient and unfortunate for you and your family, but you're also trying to argue that your emotional involvement somehow gives you better insight. I would argue the opposite, that your emotional involvement impedes you from recognizing that a person convicted of a crime can change for the better. Your loss and situation is unfortunate, but it's not really an applicable argument.


I am not arguing anything, I asked a question. It's a simple as that, if anyone who thinks tookie should have been spared was a victim of a horrific crime or lost a relative to one, would they feel any different. I made no argument for it one way or the other. As far as my situation it was very cut and dry, witnesses, weapons the whole 9 was never in doubt, also he was given life w/out parole instead of death and wanted to use clemency and gain time to get out of prison altogether, so it is not the same as tookie. I never saids a person could not change either. Please do not put words in my mouth, I asked a simple question and put the reason why i asked it, I never said one way or the other, but if you must know, I believe he (tookie) should have died as he was convicted and the true crime is how long it took to get to the point of him leaving this Earth. As far as my "loss" I am well over it, the only true insight I have is going to court time and time again and truth be told if the person who did murder my brother in law did in fact change and do a great good for this world I would in fact look to it with open eyes (more so than my wife's family) and look at all options cause i would like to believe my brother in law would not want them to dwell and stress over this for the rest of their lives and he would was them to learn to forgive as well. Thats just my .01, so back to the original question I asked.

[alonzomourning23]

Just a question here for any who think he should have been spared. Have any of you lost a relative to a violent crime and had to go through the judicial (sp?) process afterwards? Were any of you a victim of a violent crime yourself and if you were would you feel any different? I ask because I lost my brother in law to a murder when he was shot over 35 times back in '86 by a friend (I know some friend) of his. The Murderer was convicted and tried clemency 3 times and was denied and all three times I had to go through that mess with my wife. It wasn't a picnic by any means, so back to the question, would any of you if you had lost a relative or were the victim of some horrific crime feel any different about wanting to spare the person responsible the death penalty?

An ex family member (my cousin divorced him) was killed by his girlfriend. Though he was abusive and even pulled a gun on my cousin, so its not like anyone was really distraught. One of his daughters was a little upset, the other couldn't have cared less. I just think of it as an example of how screwed up some of my family is and a nice story to tell, I never cared personally and it never bothered me. I guess it does kind of fit here, only because it shows how I think of people who have harmed those I care about. I also remember a friend in high school who was almost raped, I would have welcomed someone going in and shooting that guy. But there's a big difference between wanting harm to come to someone and thinking that it's a good idea to let those with a personal relationship to the victim to decide the legal fate of a person. Though I do feel that if the victims family wants the murderer not to be executed then the execution should be stopped. I've seen a few cases where that happened (and it wasn't like this where some families wanted an execution while other didn't or didn't care), but the execution went forward.

But, ok, so even if I do accept the idea that revenge for past killings overrides current good works there's still a problem. This mans good works led to a truce between gangs in newark and helped lead to at least some people not joining gangs. If he prevented 1 more death, if he prevented 1 more family from knowing the sorrow of the victims family, isn't that more valuable than seeing justice for past crimes? He continued his anti gang work, it wasn't as if that was over with and there was nothing more to gain by keeping him alive. There's little doubt that some peoples lives were saved by his past work, we'll never know whose life may have been different in the future, but its a safe bet that somewhere, someone will commit a violent crime or murder that may have been indirectly prevented if tookie was still alive. His guilt or innocence, his inner thoughts etc. have little to do with this.

Unless you dispute that his anti gang work (including the truce) has had any effect, it just doesn't make much sense to me to suggest that making him pay for past crimes is more important than his work that helps prevent future crimes. Just as families suffer from his past, families will suffer in the future due to crimes committed.

Also, this seems overlooked, while the courts did uphold the conviction, the 9th circuit did strongly advise the state to commute his sentence to life with parole. It is very rare for any court to do that. Going back to some previous arguments about it being an open and shut case, there was no dna evidence, and the courts did state that there were issues with the witnesses (since they all got deals for testifieing resulting in incentives to lie), that there were serious issues with racial discrimination in the prosecutions case, and that it was based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The way I see it if he didn't do it he still had the mindset to do it, and I take that from listening to his own words. I'm not comfortable with this whole thing being a con, since if it was he would have done everything possible to protect himself (meaning he would have confessed like everyone, including his lawyer, advised him to to gain clemecy). If its legit then it was just an issue of he didn't commit this crime, not that he wouldn't have eventually killed someone (or hadn't killed someone else that he wasn't accused of).

[evanft]

This is a basic truth against the death penalty that noone has been able to answer:

Innocent people sometimes get convicted. If they are given a prison term, new evidence can come out and they can be set free. If they are executed, they can't be brought back.

And some questions:

Would you be willing to die for a crime you didn't commit in order to preserve the death penalty?

What reparations, if any, should the family of a wrongly executed man receive?

Should we go back and reexamine any case that may be overturned because of DNA evidence?

If the desired result of the punishment is to permanently remove someone from society, in what way is the death penalty better than life in solitary confinement?

Should there be a time limit between conviction and execution?

[sblymnlcrymnl]

If the desired result of the punishment is to permanently remove someone from society, in what way is the death penalty better than life in solitary confinement?It costs less.

[alonzomourning23]

It costs less.


Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murd