Your Thoughts on Stanley 'Tookie' Williams?

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]


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.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']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).[/QUOTE]
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I just don't want this guy being an exception because of what a "wonderful person" he is.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Xevious'] I dont know why it's all one sided.[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]


: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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What happened to her upon release?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']: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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Being against the death penalty in any circumstance, obviously I don't think he should be executed.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
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
 
[quote name='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. [/QUOTE]

Quoted for truth.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.
[/QUOTE]

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".

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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?[/QUOTE]

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?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, life in prison is cheaper than our current system of appeals. It saves money to just lock em up.
[/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.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
The Narrator's Apprentice said:
Oh, Tookie, you're so fine
You're so fine you blew his mind
Hey, Tookie Hey, Tookie
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
One thing is for certain: Tookie will have his last breath in prison. The uncertainty is when.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

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?

[/QUOTE]

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!!
 
[quote name='usickenme']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!![/QUOTE]

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

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.


[quote name='camoor']
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?[/quote]

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, 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


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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%).
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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, 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. [/QUOTE]

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.
 
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!
 
[quote name='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 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![/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
I want him to die because all the moronic celebrities are annoying me. And hell I'm against the death penalty too lol
 
[quote name='Zoglog']I want him to die because all the moronic celebrities are annoying me. And hell I'm against the death penalty too lol[/QUOTE]


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!!!


[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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!!!
Click to expand...

I think his point is we only bring up victims when its convenient. We don't care if our actions have victims.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='mykevermin']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[/QUOTE]

Are you inferring that the law should capitulate to rioting thugs and criminals?
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/quote]
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top