Your Thoughts on Stanley 'Tookie' Williams?

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='sgs89']Whether an innocent person is likely to be wrongfully executed is not really the issue. After all, one could design the death penalty in such a way that there would be NO risk of an innocent person being murdered. For example, reserve the death penalty for cases where the murder was on film [/quote]

Ok, thats a good idea as long as the film is of decent enough quality

, there was a confession,

Bad idea, confessions are often gained on the assumption of leniency, of the defendant being scared, confused, threatened and occasionally even physical force is used. Here's an article on false confessions from psychology today http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030430-000002.html. A few choice excerpts:

In December, the convictions of five men who confessed to the 1989 rape and beating of a jogger in New York's Central Park were reversed after an imprisoned rapist took sole responsibility for the assault. .....

Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the number of false confessions nationwide, a recent review of one decade's worth of murder cases in a single Illinois county found 247 instances in which the defendants' self-incriminating statements were thrown out by the court or found by a jury to be insufficiently convincing for conviction. (The Chicago Tribune conducted the investigation.)...

Suspects with low IQs are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of police interrogation..Suspects with compliant or suggestible personalities and anxiety disorders may be hard-pressed to withstand an interrogation......"A drug addict may not be particularly suggestible but may have a strong desire to get back out on the street.".....Self-incriminating statements are often the result of a kind of cost-benefit analysis.....The most common explanation given after the fact is that suspects "just wanted to go home."

This often indicates an inability to appreciate the consequences of a confession, a situation that police cultivate by communicating that a confession will be rewarded with lenient sentencing. Police may also offer mitigating factors--the crime was unintentional; the suspect was provoked...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030430-000002.html

at least two eye witnesses, etc.

Witnesses are human like everyone else. They lie (often for immunity, leniency or personal reasons and grudges) and they are sometimes well meaning but just wrong. Memory is not precise and memories often differ significantly from what originally occured, especially as more and more time passes. Sometimes it's not even that, you just have two people with similar physical characteristics and people confused the two.

And, actually, witnesses that appear certain and have precise memories of the events are, as a whole, less accurate than those who have a good idea of what happened but do have lingering uncertainty about their memory. Unfortunately, the more accurate group makes much less desirable witnesses.

The point is that the debate about the death penalty should be a moral one at its base, not a practical one.

Why should society decide primarily on a moral basis? Society and the people have to live with the results of these decisions. Therefore how practical it is, how beneficial it is should be the basis of these decisions. All these executions have done nothing to ensure the safety of society, and if there's a practical way to help limit future victims that should take precedence over any concept of "justice".

If you were to execute only those who are absolutely, 100% guilty, of no benefit to society, and an innocent person was never executed, then moral reasons would be acceptable. There would be no downside to executions other than monetary since the person would be of no use to society sitting in their cell or in the ground.

For the same reason, arguments about the death penalty being more expensive to administer than the cost of keeping someone in prison for life without parole really miss the point. We could certainly reduce the cost of administering the death penalty -- limit the number of appeals, place a time limit for executions to be carried out, etc. The fact that our system allowed Stan Williams to be on death row for 24 years (and to file countless appeals at taxpayer expense) is not an argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the way we currently administer the death penalty.

So you are aware that your suggestions, such as limiting appeals, time limits etc. will decrease the time available for new evidence, increase the burden on those who have incompetent public (or private) attornies, increase the amount of innocent people executed etc., right? I'm not sure why executing the guilty people is so important that you're willing to increase the risks to those wrongly convicted.

In my opinion anyone wrongly imprisoned is a victim, anyone wrongly executed is a victim, they are victims just as those who were raped and murdered on the street. If I'm reading your opinion correctly you don't agree, or at least not to the same degree.

Personally I don't think society is properly educated, or patient enough, to allow what would be required to do the best we can to ensure it is properly carried out.

 

[sblymnlcrymnl]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7



http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html



http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

If you want to cut costs then the death penalty is not the best option. If you want to ensure that innocent people are not executed (I pointed out earlier that 70% are overturned due to serious errors, the most common being incompetent defense and suppression of evidence, and only 5% ever carried out) then you can't cut back on the costs.[/i][/QUOTE]Correction: It should cut costs, if they dispensed with all that pesky "due process". If they just killed them 15 minutes after sentencing the costs would be greatly reduced. :lol:

 

[RedvsBlue]

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Correction: It should cut costs, if they dispensed with all that pesky "due process". If they just killed them 15 minutes after sentencing the costs would be greatly reduced. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Even cheaper if they just had the cop do it, I mean they've got the guns already, might as well make them useful. PLUS it could replace the cop's gun range time and actually save money!

 

[sgs89]

Alonzo, I think you've misunderstood my point.

The examples I provided regarding a hypothetical case where we were SURE that the person was guilty were meant as cumulative examples (film, eye witnesses, confession, etc.). Of course I realize that there are problems with each of those types of evidence standing alone. The point was simply to hypothesize a case where WE KNOW someone did it.

My point is that, at its root, the debate is about morality, not practicality. Perhaps you don't feel the two can be divorced. I think they must be to answer the fundamental question of whether the death penalty can ever be morally justified.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='sgs89']Alonzo, I think you've misunderstood my point.

The examples I provided regarding a hypothetical case where we were SURE that the person was guilty were meant as cumulative examples (film, eye witnesses, confession, etc.). Of course I realize that there are problems with each of those types of evidence standing alone. The point was simply to hypothesize a case where WE KNOW someone did it.

My point is that, at its root, the debate is about morality, not practicality. Perhaps you don't feel the two can be divorced. I think they must be to answer the fundamental question of whether the death penalty can ever be morally justified.[/QUOTE]

Although I agree with Alonzo's point that there are serious problems with the death penalty simply because its application is far from perfect and it is a final and non-correctable punishment, I also see the need for a debate such as you want to have about morality and the death penalty. I think people of good conscience can disagree on this.

Certainly it is allowable under the Constitution to have the death penalty. However, I believe that it is morally wrong for any government to deprive anyone of life (unless you count something like a police officer acting in self-defense as the government). Not only is this power too easily abused, but I believe that each human life is sacred and valuable in and of itself, no matter how poorly someone has lived it, and that no individual or organization has the right to judge someone else in this way. Therefore, my belief is that killing anyone for any reason other than self-defense is morally reprehensible. And satisfying someone's bloodlust for revenge certainly doesn't fit into that moral equation.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='sgs89']Alonzo, I think you've misunderstood my point.

The examples I provided regarding a hypothetical case where we were SURE that the person was guilty were meant as cumulative examples (film, eye witnesses, confession, etc.). Of course I realize that there are problems with each of those types of evidence standing alone. The point was simply to hypothesize a case where WE KNOW someone did it.

My point is that, at its root, the debate is about morality, not practicality. Perhaps you don't feel the two can be divorced. I think they must be to answer the fundamental question of whether the death penalty can ever be morally justified.[/QUOTE]

If the method of execution was being burned alive I'm sure many victims families would be glad to see that person suffer. I know that if it was someone I deeply care about I would be glad to see that. At the same time its unnecessary and excessive. Most people, unrelated to the crime, would say that goes too far. That's how I view the death penalty. It has no real practical value, even if it is just. I make a significant distinction between what is moral and what the legal system should allow. If someone where to brutally torture and kill my spouse I would think its morally acceptable for me to impale them. That's something that, if done right, can take days to die from. But that should not be legal and, if I were to act on that, I should be locked away for a long time.

In my opinion the death penalty is moral but serves no purpose. The government should not be in the business of revenge. I would not support the death penalty even if we were able to find a way to ensure that 100% of those executed were guilty and their crime warranted it (something I don't think we can do). On the other hand I would not be overly concerned about it. An exception still would be a case like this, where the person holds considerable value to society alive. My opposition to tookies execution extends well beyond my opposition to the death penalty, and why I think he should be kept alive has little to do with the reasons why I oppose the death penalty.

edit: Austria's pissed. I also find odd the difference (somewhat) between those who openly identify themselves as christians in the u.s. and christians in europe. You don't see this with christian politicians (those who use their religion in politics) in the u.s.

Leaders of Austria’s pacifist Green party went as far as to call for Schwarzenegger to be stripped of his Austrian citizenship — a demand that was rejected by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel.

“Whoever, out of political calculation, allows the death of a person rehabilitated in such an exemplary manner has rejected the basic values of Austrian society,” said Peter Pilz, a Greens leader.

In Graz, Schwarzenegger’s hometown, local Greens said they would file a petition to remove the governor’s name from the southern city’s Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group went even further, suggesting it be renamed the “Stanley Tookie Williams Stadium.”
“Mr. Williams had converted and, unlike Mr. Schwarzenegger, opposed every form of violence,” said Richard Schadauer, the chairman of the Association of Christianity and Social Democracy.

A vatican official addressed the issue, though didn't exactly mention the his name

At the Vatican, Pope Benedict’s top official for justice matters denounced the death penalty for going against redemption and human dignity. “We know the death penalty doesn’t resolve anything,” Renato Cardinal Martino told Associated Press Television News. “Even a criminal is worthy of respect because he is a human being. The death penalty is a negation of human dignity.”

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/12/13/1351396.html

edit: Just found this and thought it was interesting. It seems that owens widow (the first victim) issued a statement on the 9th in support:

In a statement sent to attorneys for Williams for public release, Ms. Owens said: "I, Linda Owens want to build upon Mr. Williams' peace initiative. I invite Mr. Williams to join me in sending a message to all communities that we should all unite in peace. This position of peace would honor my husband's memory and Mr. Williams work."

http://www.naacp.org/news/2005/2005-12-09.html

Tookie also recieved a "call to service" award from president george w bush in August of 2005.