NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4486178.stm
I understand that this has become quite an issue in the US?

One of the founding members of the Crips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips), Stanley Williams (also known as "Tookie") has been on death row for quite some time, and he's now due to be executed in California on the 13th for the murder of four people.

Problem is that he seems to have completely changed his ways - he writes children's books, he's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times (for his work trying to end youth violence in US Ghettos), he's been congratulated for his work by GWB himself.

So what can you tell me about the case, and what do you think should be done.

I'm against the death penalty anyways, but there is little more proof that could exist that someone has repented and is clear to be released into the world again - so is a punishment a means of revenge, or is it a means of protecting the rest of society?

I think there's already a thread for this.

I think there's already a thread for this.
Though it has gone to hell through off-topic land, at the hands of its creator no less.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456948) is the other thread. I haven't been following it, so I don't know if it is off-topic.

Hmmm...seems to have turned into an abortion debate.
Oh well. Just use the other thread if you think that's better.

The way I see it, it's an issue of payment. He took something form someone [4 people to be specific], something which can't exactly be replaced. The idea tht he should be exonerated for his actions sense seems to indicate that one can redeem themselves by "paying back" the society... but with what? Did he just create 4 new lives somewhere out of thin air? His contributions really can't be considered repayment because they weren't delivered to the same person or people that the values [lives] were extracted from in the first place. His work should be noted, but justice should not be avoided.

He should fry.

His contributions really can't be considered repayment because they weren't delivered to the same person or people that the values [lives] were extracted from in the first place.
Very narrow way of seeing things.

He should fry.
If his books are useful to prevent project teens from doing what he did, stick him in a corner cell and let him serve his punishment as life without parole while churning out books regularly.

Very narrow way of seeing things.

Define repayment.

If his books are useful to prevent project teens from doing what he did, stick him in a corner cell and let him serve his punishment as life without parole while churning out books regularly.
I'm not saying fry his books. His books can still be read. If that was the contribution he intended to make, he's made it.

Hmmm...seems to have turned into an abortion debate.
Oh well. Just use the other thread if you think that's better.
Leonstein, I did not mean it like that. I just thought that you might not be aware you have competition.

But I guess this post only serves to carry this off-topic.

Define repayment.
I don't need to define it. I just disagree with your too narrow definition of it. Reparations to specific people is not more important than reparations to the community as a whole.


I'm not saying fry his books. His books can still be read. If that was the contribution he intended to make, he's made it.
You miss the point..

Well, maybe life in prison, not the death penalty for a nobel prize nominee

The way I see it, it's an issue of payment. He took something form someone [4 people to be specific], something which can't exactly be replaced. The idea tht he should be exonerated for his actions sense seems to indicate that one can redeem themselves by "paying back" the society... but with what? Did he just create 4 new lives somewhere out of thin air? His contributions really can't be considered repayment because they weren't delivered to the same person or people that the values [lives] were extracted from in the first place. His work should be noted, but justice should not be avoided.

He should fry.

...Killing him doesn't give back those lives either. Senseless revenge is not exactly a good thing. He may have more yet to contribute to society. If it turns out that he only wrote those books to avoid punishment, then he dies.

His contributions really can't be considered repayment because they weren't delivered to the same person or people that the values [lives] were extracted from in the first place.
But at the same time you know very well that killing him won't repay anything either. There is no way to make these people come back to life - but on the other hand the man can still do good for others, good that you would eliminate by killing him now.

He should fry.
You failed to make the connection between your argument and this conclusion. Yes, not killing him will not repay anything to the victim (but it might to others) - but neither will killing him.
Who sets the price in the first place?

I don't need to define it. I just disagree with your too narrow definition of it. Reparations to specific people is not more important than reparations to the community as a whole.
Disgusting. So you're saying I could steal gross amounts of cash from you, but so long as I distribute it as I please amongst the community at large I should avoid being called on it? Should I take this to mean, then, that the whole idea of "Justice" doesn't even have to take into account a [i]violation of the victim's rights, ignoring it altogether if the perpetrator has a sudden bout of "social conscience? How do you sleep at night?

Honestly, this is the kind of thing I'd expect out of an Orwell novel.

What would you say if he had become a born again Christian; a hard line conservative anti-homosexual anti-this anti-that puritanical Jesus freak? Would you extend him the same moral courtsey if he "came around" to a moral code that wasn't your own? What if he had made an equally large contribution to the folding of laundry or sorting of scrap metal or rocks at the state penn?

All of this is ridiculous. Actions cannot be forgiven if the wronged do not exist to forgive.

You miss the point..
You'd like to think so. What has Tookie said? I haven't read any of it but I'm guessing its something like "I did some bad shit, don't fuck up and wind up on Death Row like me because it sucks and killing people is not cool." THe purpose of his actions seems to indicate precisely that. That's all well and good, but he's said his piece and for all the "help" it would do to keep him alive, you've got to imagine that some nutcase will get it into his head that he can get off the hook by acting all civil. Cases like this are important to the rest of us because it shows how we deal with crime and how well [or how poorly] we punish its committal. I'd rather avoid this being a precedent.

He was tried and convicted and sentenced to die by a jury. He's had appeal after appeal (as most death row inmates have). The sentence should be carried out. The "good" work he did in prison will live on after he is gone. The "bad" work he did before prison left 4 people unable to live on. Merely doing good does not relieve you of the punishment you were sentenced to. Its like smoking for 20 years and then quitting and saying its unfair when you get lung cancer anyway. It's not fair, you quit, why should you get lung cancer? Why? Because you did smoke. He DID committ murder and he DID get sentenced to death for it. To say it is unfair to carry out the sentence because he is now doing "good" is idiotic IMHO. As Melkor said, he should fry.

Disgusting. So you're saying I could steal gross amounts of cash from you, but so long as I distribute it as I please amongst the community at large I should avoid being called on it?
How would killing him serve either the victim's family or the community more than requiring him to live without parole and keep writing stories?

How do you sleep at night?
How did you become mod?

What would you say if he had become a born again Christian; a hard line conservative anti-homosexual anti-this anti-that puritanical Jesus freak?
Beside the point.

What if he had made an equally large contribution to the folding of laundry or sorting of scrap metal or rocks at the state penn?
This is an apple. Apples can be very colorful. They come in a noticeable shape and have a smooth texture. This is an orange. It is, well, orange. It is relatively round and has a kind of bump surface.

All of this is ridiculous. Actions cannot be forgiven if the wronged do not exist to forgive.
Life without parole is not letting him go free and giving him a job as a kindergarten teacher.

What has Tookie said? I haven't read any of it but I'm guessing its something like "I did some bad shit, don't fuck up and wind up on Death Row like me because it sucks and killing people is not cool."
Even if that is all he has written, his position and history gives him credit, respect, and influence among the project teens who may follow his path.

But at the same time you know very well that killing him won't repay anything either. There is no way to make these people come back to life - but on the other hand the man can still do good for others, good that you would eliminate by killing him now.
I'm not saying there is a way, and I'm not saying he hasn't made an impact. People say that the Justices system in this country isnt worth shit, and this is precisely the reason why. If the public moans loud enough, long enough, they can strongarm it into contradicting itself on the whim of the masses. If you want a Justice system that's soft on crime and pardons convicted killers, then put a like-minded Governor in office or pay more attention to the ballot. Bitching about it now shouldn't be a legitimate avenue for solving the problem: the sentence has already been handed down and it must be obeyed. Don't like it? Vote out that judge. If 4 lives is a small enough transgression to forgive by virtue of writing a few books and doing some charity work, then you're everything I stand against on this planet. Also, I'm surprised that you would even use the "but he can still do good to others" argument against me. You should know better by now.

You failed to make the connection between your argument and this conclusion.
Uhhh... no? Upon rereading it seems perfectly clear.

Yes, not killing him will not repay anything to the victim (but it might to others) - but neither will killing him.
I don't care if he lives or dies if it's off the government dime and off the streets, to be perfectly honest. I'm just working within the parameters that are set for me by our policies. I understand what you're getting at, but as long as my pocketbook is [potentially] involved, I'm going to have to put my foot down.

Who sets the price in the first place?
Reality.

To say it is unfair to carry out the sentence because he is now doing "good" is idiotic IMHO. As Melkor said, he should fry.
And just like Melkor, you fail to tell me what the execution would actually achieve.

Dying of lung cancer is a physiological reality, jumping off a cliff will also lead to death.
An execution on the other hand is not a natural event, it is not a necessary consequence. It is man-made, and as such man must look at the sense of it all.

I hope you'll forgive me for editting out the passages that are not worth my time. Please repost them if you were actually making a point and I missed it.

How would killing him serve either the victim's family or the community more than requiring him to live without parole and keep writing stories?
It serves them by letting them know that people who take lives in cold blood are not tolearted in our society and that the use of force to end a life you don't like is not an appropriate course of action. I would prefer not to live in a country that let every repentant criminal off the hook: I'm sure you've heard the term "revolving door prison" and I would guess the term wouldn't exist if it didn't happen at least occasionally. I know no one's saying he should be let out, but my point is that we shouldn't just contradict a sentence because we think the criminal has been really nice. It sets a bad standard.

If an honest man killed four people, he'd want what was coming to him. When honest people break the law [and they do, sometimes], they own up to it and graciously accept the sentence when it is delivered, provided it's not something outrageous like being sentenced to death for espousing capitalism. If he wants out of it, he's still dishonest.

Beside the point.
Yeah? How?

Even if that is all he has written, his position and history gives him credit, respect, and influence among the project teens who may follow his path.
Agreed, but not credit enough to allow him to murder 4 people and evade his sentenced punishment.

It serves them by letting them know that people who take lives in cold blood are not tolearted in our society and that the use of force to end a life you don't like is not an appropriate course of action.
You and I both know our justice system is far too flaky for that to even be the shadow of an effective argument. This man has been on deathrow since 1979. He can far better serve the community by doing his best to convince project teens to not follow in his footsteps. His unique position as a founder of the crips gives him much more sway to these poitions than even Calvin "Snoop Dogg" Broadus, a former crip.

but my point is that we shouldn't just contradict a sentence because we think the criminal has been really nice. It sets a bad standard.
No one is arguing his sentence be changed because he is just a nice guy. I am saying it should be altered because of his potential ability to save alot more than four people.

If he wants out of it, he's still dishonest.
I don't recall hearing if he wanted out of it anywhere.

The argument of effective punishment, an eye for an eye, he took innocent lives etc etc ad nauseum only works if every single person that has killed a person in an armed robbery in California since 1979 has also received a death sentence. It only works if it is a mandatory sentence, and someone is asking for special consideration. Since this is not the case, why should Stan "Tookie" Williams, who has worked tirelessly to prevent history from repeating itself by his campaign against gang violence, be executed, just because he was unlucky enough to get the wrong jury and the wrong judge on his day in court? I don't see any of the lifers who got lucky (or had rich parents), campaigning tirelessly against anything.

Having seen a recent upsurge in teens in my country attempting to emulate the glamourised version of gang life contrived by Hollywood movie moguls and music producers, I for one am grateful that someone with Tookie's credibility and insight into the problem is such a role model for change.

Reading that BBC article it seems like he has saved countless lives by helping to bring to an end to gang warfare in California and New Jersey.

You and I both know our justice system is far too flaky for that to even be the shadow of an effective argument.
And the solution to this is to start contradicting verdicts?

This man has been on deathrow since 1979. He can far better serve the community by doing his best to convince project teens to not follow in his footsteps. His unique position as a founder of the crips gives him much more sway to these poitions than even Calvin "Snoop Dogg" Broadus, a former crip.
We don't put people in jail to serve the community, we put them in jail because we want them to stop doing whatever it was they were doing. If his sentence had been community service, then I would agree it would have been rigorously fulfilled.

No one is arguing his sentence be changed because he is just a nice guy. I am saying it should be altered because of his potential ability to save alot more than four people.
...by being a nice guy.

The idea that he's redeemed himself by saving more than four people is not only impossible to prove, it's utterly ridiculous. Morality is not a formula: morality does not alter itself when it deals with more than one person; morality is not contingent on numbers. If he's helped people from following his footsteps, finish the job by showing them that they'll be fried if they follow them too closely.

That said, I was a teenager fairly recently and I'm here to tell you that these charity cases you keep hearing about in prison really don't have that much of an effect; the people buying these books are probably not teens, for the most part. People who want to becomine involved with gang violence probably will get involved with gang violence Tookie or no Tookie.

You still haven't answered why my question is "beside the point," either, which isn't terribly surprising, to be honest. I'm sure hundreds of criminals become 'born again' in prison every year, but we don't hear about them. This is understandably more high profile, but the moral gesture is the same.

I don't recall hearing if he wanted out of it anywhere.
Fine, then substitute "he" with "you."

And the solution to this is to start contradicting verdicts?
The solution is to make better decisions. Not all verdicts are fair or well thought out. Changing a execution sentence, one that has taken over 20 years to come close to carrying out, to life without parole upon the requirement he continues to put out anti-gang and anti-violence books and stories is not exactly contradicting anything.

We don't put people in jail to serve the community,
99.999% of people going to jail have no unique way to serve the community.

we put them in jail because we want them to stop doing whatever it was they were doing.
Which has worked beautifully, he is no longer on the street being a gang member.


...by being a nice guy.
You are putting words in my mouth. Excellent job.

The idea that he's redeemed himself by saving more than four people is not only impossible to prove, it's utterly ridiculous.
He has not redeemed himself, but he has earned himself clemency. The idea that executing him, an act which has taken 20 years to come close to occuring, is going to give anything back to the families or prove anything to the community is ludicrous.

If he's helped people from following his footsteps, finish the job by showing them that they'll be fried if they follow them too closely.
OK, I was wrong. You don't understand our justice system is too flaky for this to work.

People who want to becomine involved with gang violence probably will get involved with gang violence Tookie or no Tookie.
Of course. However, there are people that will be convinced otherwise, which has a domino effect.

You still haven't answered why my question is "beside the point,"
Because what you said is entirely irrelevant to my point. His potential worth to the community is not related to any repentence.

Fine, then substitute "he" with "you."
Then you lose your entire point.

anyone else notice that cases like this very accurately seperate out those who think the justice system should serve some rational purpose from those who think the justice system ought only act as institutionalized irrational revenge?

Again, I've left out the useless bits. Let me know if I overlooked anything.

The solution is to make better decisions. Not all verdicts are fair or well thought out. Changing a execution sentence, one that has taken over 20 years to come close to carrying out, to life without parole upon the requirement he continues to put out anti-gang and anti-violence books and stories is not exactly contradicting anything.
Then I guess the verdict didn't exist then, since it's "not contradicting" anything. How quaint.


99.999% of people going to jail have no unique way to serve the community.
Point? We sentence them to community service for lesser crimes too. Ability has never been a deciding factor in sentencing.

He has not redeemed himself, but he has earned himself clemency. The idea that executing him, an act which has taken 20 years to come close to occuring, is going to give anything back to the families or prove anything to the community is ludicrous.
Yes, I think it took a bit long to get around to it as well. They should have killed his ass years ago. At any rate, clemency, by definition is not earned, it is granted. One does not automatically "earn" clemency by doing certain things; it is given to them only in certain situations.

Because what you said is entirely irrelevant to my point. His potential worth to the community is not related to any repentence.
I can only take this to mean that you're against the death penalty entirely, which is understandable and makes this argument more or less moot. I understand and sympathise with many anti-death penalty sentiments, but as long as my pocketbook is [potentially] involed, I'll have an opinion.

Also, if one's "potential worth to the community" is so important, then why do we permit [i]productive 'criminals' to waste their talents in prison? If potential worth is all that matters, why weren't we letting Martha Stewart run TV specials from her cell? I'm not saying Martha Stewart is a godsend to society or anything, and to be honest the example is probably best deployed on someone else, but she was the example that popped into my head.

Regardless of all of that, one's worth to the "community" is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. There are more important things in life than making sure your neighbor is happy with what you're doing with it.

Then you lose your entire point.
Or not, because I never came out and said [or implied] that his change of heart wasn't genuine. I'm sure he really has come around and if [i]he's not the one trying to welch on his sentence then I've no objection with how he's handling the situation so far. I'm just saying he should fry anyway.

anyone else notice that cases like this very accurately seperate out those who think the justice system should serve some rational purpose from those who think the justice system ought only act as institutionalized irrational revenge?
If the verdict is a good one, it's both a rational purpose and 'revenge,' after a fashion.

To me the bottom line is - he should get life for just having started the Crips and all of the crimes he confessed to having done. Even though he is doing some good by trying to teach kids now not to join gangs I don't think he shouldn't still remain in prison.

He says he didn't kill those people and it could be true. Others studying the case have said that the police work was sloppy and the witness wasn't reliable and are merely asking for them to look at the case again which they wont do. So they shouldn't kill him as that is the easy way out anyway (and what sense is there in killing people to show that killign people is wrong? pretty short-sighted in my opinion), plus he can continue to do good for others while he remains on this earth.

Martyr him

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

The death penalty is pretty stupid. I mean, even if you have irrefutable proof of guilt it doesn't help any to further the cycle of violence by killing a murderer. That just puts blood on everyone else's hands.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

The death penalty is pretty stupid. I mean, even if you have irrefutable proof of guilt it doesn't help any to further the cycle of violence by killing a murderer. That just puts blood on everyone else's hands.

Here here!

*emails you a sour apple martini*

Cheers!

The way I see it, it's an issue of payment. He took something form someone [4 people to be specific], something which can't exactly be replaced. The idea tht he should be exonerated for his actions sense seems to indicate that one can redeem themselves by "paying back" the society... but with what? Did he just create 4 new lives somewhere out of thin air? His contributions really can't be considered repayment because they weren't delivered to the same person or people that the values [lives] were extracted from in the first place. His work should be noted, but justice should not be avoided.

He should fry.

I agree. Hey where were you in the other thread? Some reason was needed there too. Desperately.

Its reasons like the death penalty that i am glad im a brit and we abolished it.

Some of your views on here sicken me. It makes you just as bad to yell 'death death death' (which is basically what you are doing) because he killed 4 people. The death penalty (In my humble oppinion) serves no justice and is actually a way of the victims families 'murdering' the assailant.

Recently in england, there was the murder of a wpc. ITV news at noon and a call in about wether the death penalty should be re-introduced for murderers.
Quite alot of the people who texted in/phoned/e-mailed were against the death penalty because it does not bring justice and only serves to hurt the families of the assailant. (an eye for an eye anyone?). Why should the assailants familly have to suffer like the victims for a crime that they didnt commit. Isnt that unfair??

Now, This guy may be doing good for the coimmunity of America at large HOWEVER i do not believe under any circumstances that he should be freed. He should live out the rest of his life in prison as wehat he did was wrong.

Can you see my point?

it is given to them only in certain situations.
Williams has exhibited useful and important potential of public service which can do far more good than a late execution.


I can only take this to mean that you're against the death penalty entirely,
Your words taste like my parents' cooking, stop putting them in my mouth.

If potential worth is all that matters, why weren't we letting Martha Stewart run TV specials from her cell?
Wasn't she allowed to continue doing her shit once she switched to her home confinement?


Regardless of all of that, one's worth to the "community" is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. There are more important things in life than making sure your neighbor is happy with what you're doing with it.
Such as execution? This is not an annoying neighbor issue. You are comparing apples to oranges again. We have a choice between executing a long deterred execution and allowing a potential saving of people from a lifestyle which leads to those executions.

Or not,
Or yes. Your entire point was that the honest person would except their punishment and if he wants out, he is by definition not actually honest. Your entire point is moot if you change "he" to me.

Williams has exhibited useful and important potential of public service which can do far more good than a late execution.


You mean like proving that you can start a gang, kill 4 people and avoid justice just by being popular? That sets a good example for potential criminals. Hey, lets just be like Tookie - kill now, reform later!

Or yes. Your entire point was that the honest person would except their punishment and if he wants out, he is by definition not actually honest. Your entire point is moot if you change "he" to me.

So you are not honest? Good to know. ;) Now, can the other anti-death penalty advocates admit it too I wonder...

You mean like proving that you can start a gang, kill 4 people and avoid justice just by being popular?
I already explained that his unique position as a founder of the crips gives his message more credibility than even if Snoop delivered the exact same message.
And I also already stated life without parole is not tantamount to being released to live in a penthouse at the Four Seasons and teach a kindergarten class.

So you are not honest? Good to know. ;)
If you arn't going to be a serious non-nuisance, don't post.

Hell from what ive understood, this guy doesnt want out in the literal sense he wants off death row However I understand that under american law that to get off death row you have to be found not guilty of your crime after an appeal (is this right?) ergo he would be released..

Now i dont believe in killing him (as ive already said) but if i have got it right the only other option is to free him.. which is laso unacceptable. So if i have got it right its catch 22 anyways...

If ive gotten it wrong, ignore this post. Now im off to bed.

I already explained that his unique position as a founder of the crips gives his message more credibility than even if Snoop delivered the exact same message.

Yes... and it also gives him more credibility. Makes him a role model to be followed. As I said. Kill now, reform later!


And I also already stated life without parole is not tantamount to being released to live in a penthouse at the Four Seasons and teach a kindergarten class.

Big deal. When the sentence is death justice is death. I didn't say he was being released. But it would be an injustice for him to live just because he has a unique position (fame and cred). Or for any reason actually, other than a legal one.


If you arn't going to be a serious non-nuisance, don't post.

Actually I'll post even if you consider me a nuisance.

Tookie should have paid his debt and died years ago . The people he masacred with his shotgun are waiting for him.

I already explained that his unique position as a founder of the crips gives his message more credibility than even if Snoop delivered the exact same message.
Ridiculous. If it's Joe Q. Teen you're trying to reach, a prominent entertainment industry figure like Snoop has little or no competition, almost all of it coming from somewhere else within showbusiness or sports. Writing books and doing what you can locally is an admirable start, and all this attention can't be hurting either, as far as the cause itself is concerned.

Anyway, I'm not exactly enamored with the idea of continuing our... debate, if you can call it that. For some reason I still get butterflies sometimes when I open up threads and think "What if someone did it?" "What if someone finally discovered a contradiction or breach of reason?" but every time I actually open the threads, I'm releived, and in this case slightly disappointed. I've made my points for those who care to read them, and you've selected bits and pieces of them to respond or mostly not respond. As I've said before, I write here primarily for the benefit of the third party reader, rather than my opponent. Once I feel this need has been sated, I move on. If you have any specific questions that haven't been asked already, feel free to fire away but this back and forth isn't going anywhere right now. I'm just not feeling it. I can't stand putting all this time and energy into my posts and having the bulk of them go ignored; sentences isolated and answered as if the rest of my points [of which there were several substantial ones] go entirely unaddressed or evaded altogether. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10021053&postcount=10)

Why hasn't anyone, particularly those advocating death for Tookie, replied to my post on page two?

Because it would be inconvenient? :D

The argument of effective punishment, an eye for an eye, he took innocent lives etc etc ad nauseum only works if every single person that has killed a person in an armed robbery in California since 1979 has also received a death sentence.
Just one more piece of the puzzle that serves to show how ridiculous it is to fight fire with fire.

The argument of effective punishment, an eye for an eye, he took innocent lives etc etc ad nauseum only works if every single person that has killed a person in an armed robbery in California since 1979 has also received a death sentence.

You are correct; the death penalty should be applied more consistently.

Frankly, I don't care if they live or die so long as they're doing so off my proverbial dime. I'm all for abolishing the death penalty if you can find a way to get money for prisons somewhere other than my wallet.

Frankly, I don't care if they live or die so long as they're doing so off my proverbial dime. I'm all for abolishing the death penalty if you can find a way to get money for prisons somewhere other than my wallet.

No comment...

...Well, one comment. I'm all for abolishing the death penalty, regardless of the cost. A life is worth more than paper and metal, even if that life happened to take another.

No comment...

...Well, one comment. I'm all for abolishing the death penalty, regardless of the cost. A life is worth more than paper and metal, even if that life happened to take another.

Even if that "paper and metal" happens to be the only thing putting bread on the table and sustaining *my* life?

Even if that "paper and metal" happens to be the only thing putting bread on the table and sustaining *my* life?

Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your life, so there.

:D

Frankly, I don't give a fuck about your life, so there.

:D

Hmph. Who do I have to kill to get some respect around here? :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
:p

Hmph. Who do I have to kill to get some respect around here? :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
:p

Tookie Williams?

*runs*

I'm honestly surprised he wasn't a Clinton pardon. GWB seems to like him ... maybe we'll see a cool controversial pardon.

I'm honestly surprised he wasn't a Clinton pardon. GWB seems to like him ... maybe we'll see a cool controversial pardon.

That'd be interesting.

I'm honestly surprised he wasn't a Clinton pardon. GWB seems to like him ... maybe we'll see a cool controversial pardon.

Oh good *more* controversial Bush decisions. That'd be fun, if it wasn't like watching a kid play fetch with your dog with a live grenade.

Oh good *more* controversial Bush decisions. That'd be fun, if it wasn't like watching a kid play fetch with your dog with a live grenade.

Now THAT's entertainment.

Oh good *more* controversial Bush decisions. That'd be fun, if it wasn't like watching a kid play fetch with your dog with a live grenade.

I saw that one on America's Funniest Home Videos. Bob Sagat laughed so hard he puked. True story.

I saw that one on America's Funniest Home Videos. Bob Sagat laughed so hard he puked. True story.

Somebody laughed in the vicinity of Bob Sagat? Holy fuck.

I'm honestly surprised he wasn't a Clinton pardon. GWB seems to like him ... maybe we'll see a cool controversial pardon.
That job I believe would be Arnie's. Apparently he knew him back in the days when they visited the same bodybuilding studio (Have you seen the pic of Tookie in the OP-Link? :eek: )

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41064000/jpg/_41064856_tookieap300.jgp.jpg

Shoot him.

I like how the BBC article declares the guy "reformed." Maybe that word has a different meaning in England.. let's hope so.

I like how the BBC article declares the guy "reformed." Maybe that word has a different meaning in England.. let's hope so.
He used to be a gang-founder, a violent criminal. He didn't just live "Gangsta-Culture", he invented it.
Today he tries everything to get the kids away from that kind of thing.

It doesn't get much more 180° turn than that.

He used to be a gang-founder, a violent criminal. He didn't just live "Gangsta-Culture", he invented it.
Today he tries everything to get the kids away from that kind of thing.

It doesn't get much more 180° turn than that.

He didn't quit being a violent criminal after he was sent to prison.. he kept up a record of raping inmates and attacking guards.. having someone put your name on a children's book doesn't make you reformed. But even if there was real evidence that the guy had changed his ways, newspapers shouldn't be telling us who is reformed and who isn't.

He didn't quit being a violent criminal after he was sent to prison.. he kept up a record of raping inmates and attacking guards..
I guess the effect doesn't set in immediately.

...having someone put your name on a children's book doesn't make you reformed.
And getting nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Or recommendations from the President?
As easy as it may be to simply look at yet another black savage murderer, I think the evidence is quite overwhelming that this man is no longer the character he was when he committed the crime (although he maintains his innocence).

But even if there was real evidence that the guy had changed his ways, newspapers shouldn't be telling us who is reformed and who isn't.
See above.

And getting nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Or recommendations from the President?


The group that nominated him admits they did it as a way to oppose the death penalty, not because they believe the guy is reformed. He's not. I'll make that pronouncement with as much evidence as the BBC has.

The group that nominated him admits they did it as a way to oppose the death penalty, not because they believe the guy is reformed.
Five times?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41064000/jpg/_41064856_tookieap300.jgp.jpg

What glorious hair!!:eek: How come there are no religions dedicated to this? Where are the lines of poeple waiting to worship such an olympian 'fro!?

Five times?

I was referring to the Nobel Peace Prize nomination.. the other four were for literature.. not that that isn't significant (although the prize should really go to the actual author of those books, if it were awarded for them), but a prize for literature shouldn't change a court decision, I don't think.

I was referring to the Nobel Peace Prize nomination.. the other four were for literature.. not that that isn't significant (although the prize should really go to the actual author of those books, if it were awarded for them), but a prize for literature shouldn't change a court decision, I don't think.
Well it means someone has furthered the interests of humanity in a certain field...and killing someone with a Nobel Prize would therefore be a bad idea.

As for who is the real author of the books...I have no idea how they organised that, but chances are that he was fairly central to the way the books turned out - he thought up the stories, because he had experienced them.

Well it means someone has furthered the interests of humanity in a certain field...and killing someone with a Nobel Prize would therefore be a bad idea.

As for who is the real author of the books...I have no idea how they organised that, but chances are that he was fairly central to the way the books turned out - he thought up the stories, because he had experienced them.

Yeah.. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were nominated for the Peace Prize last year too.. almost anyone can get nominated.. neither they nor Williams won, although it shouldn't affect a court's decision if they had won. Caryl Chessman pulled the same stunt.. I'm hoping the governor treats them equally.

I'm hoping the governor treats them equally.
Well, regardless of the case or the person it concerns, I hope there will be one less execution.

And if it is true that Arnie knew Tookie, then maybe the chances aren't bad.

"Tookie" Williams is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There wasn't "sloppy" police work. On the contrary there were several witnesses who testified against him, most of whom did not have criminal records or face any jail time. Some did face jail time, but their testimony was corroborated by the other witnesses. "Tookie" himself told the police information that only the perpetrator of one of the incidents could know.

If there was sloppy police work, it would have certainly been considered in the 25 year's worth of appeals he has had since his original conviction. None of those appeals found cause to either retry or clear him. That, and it isn't as if he's been a model prisioner over those 25 years. He has assaulted guards and other inmates on multiple occassions. He planned an escape whereby he and an accomplise would kill two guards and one of his accomplicies from the crimes he was convicted of. He has never accepted responsibility for the murders he committed, nor has he ever debriefed prision officals on the activities of the gang he helped found, the Crips, which would help them prevent future gang violence both inside and outside of prision. As commendable as his books may be, they do not make up for his original crimes nor even for his further conduct while in prision.

The LA County DA has posted online their response to Stanley "Tookie" Williams' Petition for Executive Clemency, which can be found at this link:
http://www.lacountyda.org/pdf/swilliams.pdf. This man deserves no clemency, what he deserves is what he was sentenced to by a jury of his peers... death.

This man deserves no clemency, what he deserves is what he was sentenced to by a jury of his peers... death.
He doesn't deserve clemency but his benefit to the community of keeping him alive outweighs the point of executing him. Lock him away in a cell by himself and put a stay on his execution while he continues to put out literature and what not opposing gang life.

RIGHT Im going to say this again. In todays society, killing a man for a crime he commited is barbaric no matter how you do it. There is no sense of justice because it is point blank revenge for the victim(s) families and causes suffering to the assailants family...

IMHO the death penalty is just americas way of keeping taxes down OR having a few more tax dollars to spend else where like the war on terror and other such things. (This is not intended to be an iraq/anti terror war bash it was just thew only thing i could think of that the extra tax dollars saved would be spent on. Yes i was against the war in iraq but this is not the thread to discuss this.)

Acoording to the news over here in GB. youve just exected (as a country) the 1000th person since the death penalty was re-introduced. I think all of you pro death penalty people ESPECIALLY those of you who are for it because of the tax dollars it saves are selfish and misguided.

And, how can America dare to tell iraq that it shouldnt have the death penalty...thats just hypocritical. Yes Sadam did bad things but he deserves to rot and suffer in an iraqi prison rather than be executed.

All in all. The death penalty is barbaric and has NO PLACE in modern society.

I'd like to inform everyone who keeps whining "but he was nominated for a Nobel peace prize" that so were Stalin and Hitler.

He doesn't deserve clemency but his benefit to the community of keeping him alive outweighs the point of executing him. Lock him away in a cell by himself and put a stay on his execution while he continues to put out literature and what not opposing gang life.

That's just it, there is no net benefit to the community from his actions! So he wrote some books, that doesn't make up for his cold-blooded murder of four people or for his other immoral conduct since that time. Heck, even if he was a model prisioner and did debrief with prision officials, he's still be guilty of the ultimate crime (times four) and deserving of the ultimate punishment (times one.)

That, and I can't think of a better disincentive to being a gangbanger than the fact that you can be executed for your crimes.

That's just it, there is no net benefit to the community from his actions!
Why not?

So he wrote some books, that doesn't make up for his cold-blooded murder of four people or for his other immoral conduct since that time.
Which has nothing to do with your former sentence.

That, and I can't think of a better disincentive to being a gangbanger than the fact that you can be executed for your crimes.
For the third time, the justice system in the US is too flaky for the death penalty to be a deterrent. Executing some one after 26 years is not exactly showing any one anything.

Here's another question. Why does everyone keep saying that life in prison would be a worse fate, so do that? Isn't that the same as saying that by executing him, we are actually showing mercy? (BTW this isn't what I think)

IMHO[/b] the death penalty is just americas way of keeping taxes down OR having a few more tax dollars to spend else where like the war on terror and other such things. (This is not intended to be an iraq/anti terror war bash it was just thew only thing i could think of that the extra tax dollars saved would be spent on. Yes i was against the war in iraq but this is not the thread to discuss this.)

Acoording to the news over here in GB. youve just exected (as a country) the 1000th person since the death penalty was re-introduced. I think all of you pro death penalty people ESPECIALLY those of you who are for it because of the tax dollars it saves are selfish and misguided.

And, how can America dare to tell iraq that it shouldnt have the death penalty...thats just hypocritical. Yes Sadam did bad things but he deserves to rot and suffer in an iraqi prison rather than be executed.

All in all. The death penalty is barbaric and has NO PLACE in modern society.

If the death penalty is a means by which to save on taxes, then it is the worst means to save on taxes ever! They still spend decades in prision during the appeals process (Tookie has spent 25 years in prision since his original conviction), and the legal fees alone go into the millions of dollars per appeal (of which there are several). Frankly it would be cheaper to let them rot!

To me it isn't a matter of revenge, more so a just punishment for a heinous crime. Not every murderer receives nor deserves the death penalty, but some commit crimes so unconsciounable that they do deserve it. It isn't about money, it isn't about revenge, it is about the ultimate form of justice plain and simple.

It is worth noting that not all states have the death penalty. The state I live in, Michigan, is one that doesn't. It is up to each state's leglislature to decide whether or not they will have this form of punishment, and thus the electorate to elect those who would or would not support it. Does that mean Michigan is more moral than California? Not necessarily, it is just a different opinion. Perhaps we're more interested in saving money than providing proper justice.

RIGHT Im going to say this again. In todays society, killing a man for a crime he commited is barbaric no matter how you do it. There is no sense of justice because it is point blank revenge for the victim(s) families and causes suffering to the assailants family...

IMHO the death penalty is just americas way of keeping taxes down OR having a few more tax dollars to spend else where like the war on terror and other such things. (This is not intended to be an iraq/anti terror war bash it was just thew only thing i could think of that the extra tax dollars saved would be spent on. Yes i was against the war in iraq but this is not the thread to discuss this.)

Acoording to the news over here in GB. youve just exected (as a country) the 1000th person since the death penalty was re-introduced. I think all of you pro death penalty people ESPECIALLY those of you who are for it because of the tax dollars it saves are selfish and misguided.

And, how can America dare to tell iraq that it shouldnt have the death penalty...thats just hypocritical. Yes Sadam did bad things but he deserves to rot and suffer in an iraqi prison rather than be executed.

All in all. The death penalty is barbaric and has NO PLACE in modern society.


MAY I MAKE MY POINT AGAIN!!

ok sorry for that didnt see your post.

Ok, so you can poo-poo the tax dollars part, fair enough I'll concede that BUT it can in no way be a just punishment for a heinous crime. DEATH is not a punishment for the convict, its a penalty for the convicts familly. I was going to call it murder but i suddenly remmeber it cannot be murder because under the law in that state the death penalty is legal and murder is an unlawful killing. Therefore i can only go so far as to say that it is an unjust punishment.

Why not?

How could it be a net benefit? I don't care if he wrote 100 books, or 1000, he still killed four people for justifiable reason.



For the third time, the justice system in the US is too flaky for the death penalty to be a deterrent. Executing some one after 26 years is not exactly showing any one anything.

And the only reason it takes 26 years is because of the automatic appeals and the various other appeals Tookie was entitled to under the law. The justice system bends over backwards to make sure that such a punishment isn't taken lightly, and rightfully so. But you can't have it both ways. The only reason to have these lenghty appeals is to ensure that mistakes aren't made, mainly in response to anti-death penalty advocates' accusations to the contrary. To have those advocates then accuse the system of being "flaky" because of the delay is hypocritcal and just plain wrong. It also should be pointed out that the last appeal ran out in November of this year, and he will be executed on December 13th, which just goes to show that the only reason for this 26 year delay is the appeals process.

Tookie could have certainly waived most of the appeals, as McVeigh did, and the execution would have happened decades ago. But the timing is irrelevant. He is being executed for four murders, and that lesson is lost on nobody that wishes to pay attention.

He is being executed for four murders, and that lesson is lost on nobody that wishes to pay attention.

Lesson being: When _we_ kill, it's justice. When _you_ kill, it's bad.

Yes, that's well thought out...!

ok sorry for that didnt see your post.

Ok, so you can poo-poo the tax dollars part, fair enough I'll concede that BUT it can in no way be a just punishment for a heinous crime. DEATH is not a punishment for the convict, its a penalty for the convicts familly. I was going to call it murder but i suddenly remmeber it cannot be murder because under the law in that state the death penalty is legal and murder is an unlawful killing. Therefore i can only go so far as to say that it is an unjust punishment.

I see your point, but I disagree. The convicted person is responsible for the penalty to their family, not the state. The state didn't go out and randomly grab this person to punish them, the person committed the crime and the state investigated, indicted, tried and convicted them for it.

If taking them away from their family is a punishment for the family, then any incarceration would be a punishment for the family, wouldn't it? That's a pretty dangerous slippery slope.

[QUOTE=Pompomia]How could it be a net benefit? I don't care if he wrote 100 books, or 1000, he still killed four people for justifiable reason.
QUOTE]

D'oh! Make that for no justifiable reason.

Allowing death penalty to make people have lower taxes is the most disgusting argument I ever heard on the issue. I suppose it has been invented by some extremist bigot, who maybe even considers himself Christian, who thinks that human life is too sacred to let for example women abort, but if human life costs money then "hey, let them all fry!". Shame. I don't believe in God, but if he exists, I think he would prefer a Tookie Williams than a persone like that.

this argument is also ridicolous adn false: in the rest of the civil world the nations do not have death penalty, and i don't see millions of people begging for food because the detention costs have made the nation poor. And don't tell me that the most rich nation of the whole world cannot afford to abolish death penalty, while it can for example spend billions on dollars in a war!

No, incarceration is IMO solely a punishment for the assailant as his familly can visit him (if they wish AND if hes not in solitary) Death punishes the familly for a crime he commited.

What i get from your post is that its the families fault he commited the cr4ime therefore they should be punished... i fail to see the point

What i get from your post is that its the families fault he commited the cr4ime therefore they should be punished... i fail to see the point

No, not the families' fault, it is the criminal's fault. He (or she) was the one who committed the crime that resulted in any and all suffering, whether it be to the victims, the victims' families or even the criminals' family. The state is mearly the instrument that punishes the criminal. In the case of due process of the law, I can't see how the state is held responsible for the suffering the criminal caused, even if it is to his own family. As I said before, the state didn't force him to commit these murders, he did it of his own free will. The consequences are thus the result of his own free will, and he alone is responsible for them.

For example, I could go out and rob a store tonight to provide for my family. If I were convicted (a very real possibility) my pregnant wife would lose her only means of support. She'd definitely suffer for this, but would it be the state's fault for prosecuting me, or my fault for committing the crime?

The way I see it, it would be entirely my fault. See what I'm trying to say?

L.A. Officers Urge 'No Mercy' for Tookie Williams

Los Angeles' top law enforcement officers today urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to have no mercy for Stanley Tookie Williams, the gang co-founder convicted of four murders who is to be executed Dec. 13.

Williams is a "coldblooded killer" who has "left his mark forever on our society by co-founding one of the most vicious, brutal gangs in existence, the Crips," according to the statement urging Schwarzenegger to deny clemency.


The letter was from Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

"Williams now seeks mercy, the very mercy he so callously denied" his four victims, according to the document, designed to counter Williams' clemency petition submitted this month.

"Despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite the nonexistence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams steadfastly refused to take any responsibility for the brutal, destructive and murderous acts he committed," according to the statement. "Without such responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no mercy."




I'm with them!

I'm anti-death penalty, but this is ridiculous. He was sentenced to death. He should die.

of course l.a. officers aren't exactly known for being all that far on the up and up themselves...

I'm anti-death penalty, but this is ridiculous. He was sentenced to death. He should die.

wouldn't that make you pro-death penalty, then?

That guy is directly responsible for the deaths of several, and indirectly for the deaths of thousands of people. I'm not a pro-death guy but I'm not crying any tears when they stick that needle in his arm.

wouldn't that make you pro-death penalty, then?

Ha, no. I don't believe the death penalty is just or fair, and it should be banned by the goverment for that reason, not because some gangster had a change of heart.

Ha, no. I don't believe the death penalty is just or fair, and it should be banned by the goverment for that reason, not because some gangster had a change of heart.

pardon my confusion but the following doesn't exactly seem like something somebody who thinks the death penalty isn't fair or just would easily say.

He was sentenced to death. He should die.

pardon my confusion but the following doesn't exactly seem like something somebody who thinks the death penalty isn't fair or just would easily say.

Well, they should. Those sentanced to death should die. Otherwise we make a mockery of our legal system.

However, the judge presiding in the case shouldn't have the option of sentancing someone to death. It's a principle thing.

Allowing death penalty to make people have lower taxes is the most disgusting argument I ever heard on the issue. I suppose it has been invented by some extremist bigot, who maybe even considers himself Christian, who thinks that human life is too sacred to let for example women abort, but if human life costs money then "hey, let them all fry!". Shame. I don't believe in God, but if he exists, I think he would prefer a Tookie Williams than a persone like that.
Or maybe it was "invented" by someone who would prefer that the product of his life's work [his wages] not be put to use keeping condemned criminals alive? Within the current framework of our prison system policy, death appears to be the only way to lower the cost to me, barring some overhaul in the prison funding system that gets its money from somewhere else. If you or a group of like minded people think it's so important to keep murderers alive, you're more than welcome to do it on your own dime. But if my pocketbook is involved, I'm going to have an opinion, and chances are that opinion will be something along the lines of letting me keep most of my pocketbook.

A lot of people try to brush off money as a "trivial concern," or at the very least a vulgarity not worth mentioning when discussing morality, but what is money, in the end? Money is what I get for the time I take out of my life to provide a service to others: it's a tool for trade that allows me to put my life to use in any manner I see fit. Taking it away from me, therefore, is tantamount to taking my life away: if you wanted to take it every dime I earn for the rest of my natural life you might as well strap my ass in the electric chair and throw the switch. Ever since we did away with the barter system, living without money has sort of sucked.

this argument is also ridicolous adn false: in the rest of the civil world the nations do not have death penalty, and i don't see millions of people begging for food because the detention costs have made the nation poor.
Because you don't live in them. Take a look at the recent effects of France's runaway social policy spending, and cultural habits. Of course it's not all due entirely to their preference of keeping murderers alive, as their populations are much smaller and they have far fewer of them, probably even per capita.

Also, the habits and preferences of other people [or, in this case, nations] is not a proper barometer for how we should act. Right and wrong aren't utterly dependent on what other people happen to be doing at the time.

And don't tell me that the most rich nation of the whole world cannot afford to abolish death penalty, while it can for example spend billions on dollars in a war!
Oh, we can afford it [if by "afford" you mean "increase our defecit spending," which seems to be the prevailing attitude of most politicans], but I'd rather we didn't. The war we could have done without also.

$
Yeah, money is always evil till the landlord comes knocking, or the cashier asks you to actually pay for the food you want to buy, or, god forbid, it's needed to pay for something as trivial as heating your house.

Who needs money, anyways? :rolleyes:

Nice post, Melkor! ;)

How could it be a net benefit? I don't care if he wrote 100 books, or 1000, he still killed four people for justifiable reason.
Make this make sense please.


And the only reason it takes 26 years is because of the automatic appeals and the various other appeals Tookie was entitled to under the law. The justice system bends over backwards to make sure that such a punishment isn't taken lightly, and rightfully so.
And in doing so it makes the death penalty a joke. His benefit to society alive as an anti-gang advocate far outweighs his benefit to society as a head on a pike out in the field. You think gang members give a rat's ass about being executed for murders? They could be killed by opposing gang members or a damn car wreck.


He is being executed for four murders, and that lesson is lost on nobody that wishes to pay attention.
And my point is lost on deaf ears.