NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/national/13tookie.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=84209d282753e6c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

And I won a dollar on this event! Go Arnold!

*waits for this thread to be closed by a mod*

So sayith the Judge and Jury.

So sayith the Judge and Jury.
And the California Supreme Court... and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...

Good. I'm sick of all the fuss. "Waaah, waaah, tookie!" I'm convinced a majority of the popular (on these forums) opinion in favor of Tookie is due to the fact that his nickname sounds cute and cuddly, like he's a fucking Ewok. Tookie the Ewok. Tookie wookie didn't commit any crimey-wimey! Waah!

But seriously, I think it is very possible that other people who didn't have the celebrity status of "tookie" have made real legitimate transformations, who never get to use their celebrity to generate any movement to save themselves. I am not sure if I beleive in punishment for the sake of punishment- unless we beleive that it can counter the damage done, the same way you pay cash when you drop an antique. If THAT is the reason, I would support punishment. Otherwise, I think correction should be the #1 goal, and if correction is not possible, keep them locked up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/national/13tookie.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=84209d282753e6c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

And I won a dollar on this event! Go Arnold!

It's a pity that true civilization still escapes us.

It's a pity that true civilization still escapes us.

It is unforutunate people have to murder people with shotguns, yes.

He made the right choice. The Justice system in this country isn't going to earn any additional merit [people joke about it enough already] by flaking out on verdicts.

That said, I do understand with and sympathise with the majority of the complaints surrounding the death penalty; I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of the Feds having the power to put its citizens to death. That said, they made it something of an unavoidable issue for me on account of the fact that my money is being spent keeping these people in lockup. As long as that's the case, I'm going to have to opt for the cheaper option; i.e. putting them to death.

And before all you death penalty haters jump my shit for how callous that sounds, I'll remind you that I'd be more than happy to keep them alive if you would prefer to absorb their housing/food/maintenance costs yourself. I think we should all choose how we spend our money and our lives; I'm not an exception and neither are you. I would prefer my wages not be put to use keeping condemned criminals alive, if possible.

Prison should be used for rehabilitation, not as a warehouse where the system constantly works against innocents and redeemed criminals. If I committed a crime, a year would set me straight easy; but tormenting people for as long as we do, let alone sentencing them to death and making them wait 10, 20, 30 years before something happens, is a crime against humanity.

Prison should be used for rehabilitation, not as a warehouse where the system constantly works against innocents and redeemed criminals. If I committed a crime, a year would set me straight easy; but tormenting people for as long as we do, let alone sentencing them to death and making them wait 10, 20, 30 years before something happens, is a crime against humanity.

You think a year in prison is sufficient punishment for a quadruple murder?

He made the right choice. The Justice system in this country isn't going to earn any additional merit [people joke about it enough already] by flaking out on verdicts.

That said, I do understand with and sympathise with the majority of the complaints surrounding the death penalty; I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of the Feds having the power to put its citizens to death. That said, they made it something of an unavoidable issue for me on account of the fact that my money is being spent keeping these people in lockup. As long as that's the case, I'm going to have to opt for the cheaper option; i.e. putting them to death.

And before all you death penalty haters jump my shit for how callous that sounds, I'll remind you that I'd be more than happy to keep them alive if you would prefer to absorb their housing/food/maintenance costs yourself. I think we should all choose how we spend our money and our lives; I'm not an exception and neither are you. I would prefer my wages not be put to use keeping condemned criminals alive, if possible.

I am a waffler on the death penalty. But the economic argument is invalid. It is much more expensive to execute people. The legal costs of the process are enormous.

I am a waffler on the death penalty. But the economic argument is invalid. It is much more expensive to execute people. The legal costs of the process are enormous.
Mmmmm...Waffles.

http://wheylow.com/waffles.jpg

He made the right choice. The Justice system in this country isn't going to earn any additional merit [people joke about it enough already] by flaking out on verdicts.

That said, I do understand with and sympathise with the majority of the complaints surrounding the death penalty; I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of the Feds having the power to put its citizens to death. That said, they made it something of an unavoidable issue for me on account of the fact that my money is being spent keeping these people in lockup. As long as that's the case, I'm going to have to opt for the cheaper option; i.e. putting them to death.

And before all you death penalty haters jump my shit for how callous that sounds, I'll remind you that I'd be more than happy to keep them alive if you would prefer to absorb their housing/food/maintenance costs yourself. I think we should all choose how we spend our money and our lives; I'm not an exception and neither are you. I would prefer my wages not be put to use keeping condemned criminals alive, if possible.
Something to consider-


A 1993 Duke University study showed that the death penalty in North Carolina costs 2.16 million dollars more per execution than a non-death penalty murder trial. Research in other states indicates executions are three to six times more costly than life imprisonment. In 1999, the New Mexico State Public Defender Department estimated the state would save $1 to 2.5 million dollars per year on Public Defender costs alone if the death penalty was replaced with an alternative sentence.
source (http://www.mvfr.org/DeathPenaltyFacts.htm)

Several similar studies here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)

And before all you death penalty haters jump my shit for how callous that sounds, I'll remind you that I'd be more than happy to keep them alive if you would prefer to absorb their housing/food/maintenance costs yourself. I think we should all choose how we spend our money and our lives; I'm not an exception and neither are you. I would prefer my wages not be put to use keeping condemned criminals alive, if possible.

Wow when did you change to Republicanism?

Forgot to add :p

Prison should be used for rehabilitation, not as a warehouse where the system constantly works against innocents and redeemed criminals. If I committed a crime, a year would set me straight easy; but tormenting people for as long as we do, let alone sentencing them to death and making them wait 10, 20, 30 years before something happens, is a crime against humanity.
Fuck you, anarchist.

You think a year in prison is sufficient punishment for a quadruple murder?
I think I am starting to beleive that that is what punishment is- the life-currency that a criminal puts out in payment for the life they've taken. But what happens when they don't have enough to pay?

I think I am starting to beleive that that is what punishment is- the life-currency that a criminal puts out in payment for the life they've taken. But what happens when they don't have enough to pay?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

It is unforutunate people have to murder people with shotguns, yes.

And murdering people with toxins is any better? :rolleyes:

Typical double-standard.

The purpose of our justice system should be to prevent future crimes and, where possible, to turn criminals into responsible, law-abiding people. It rarely does either of these things. There is little or no evidence that the death penalty prevents future crimes and there is reason to believe that this criminal was doing something that does help to prevent future crimes. By killing this man, the system may have actually prevented someone from preventing crimes. This seems counter-productive, no?

Good. I'm sick of all the fuss. "Waaah, waaah, tookie!" I'm convinced a majority of the popular (on these forums) opinion in favor of Tookie is due to the fact that his nickname sounds cute and cuddly, like he's a fucking Ewok. Tookie the Ewok. Tookie wookie didn't commit any crimey-wimey! Waah!

But how do you really feel about it?

Fuck you, anarchist.

You'll go far here.

And murdering people with toxins is any better? :rolleyes:

Typical double-standard.

Yes, it is better. He took a life. The judicial system takes his.

Prison should be used for rehabilitation, not as a warehouse where the system constantly works against innocents and redeemed criminals. If I committed a crime, a year would set me straight easy; but tormenting people for as long as we do, let alone sentencing them to death and making them wait 10, 20, 30 years before something happens, is a crime against humanity.

Rehabilitation is nice sentiment, but not the primary reason for prisons. Prison keeps violent people away from potential victims.

Rehabilitation is nice sentiment, but not the primary reason for prisons. Prison keeps violent people away from potential victims.
If that where the case then all sentences would be life sentences.

And murdering people with toxins is any better? :rolleyes:

Typical double-standard.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Execution is lawful. Hence it is not "murder."

I really wonder how people can have so much sympathy for a guy who shot a 6 year old girl's face off. Maybe, just maybe, THAT was murder. But what do I know.

Yes, it is better. He took a life. The judicial system takes his.

Revenge is such a noble purpose. :rolleyes:

And no, it isn't. What do we tell bullied children: "Don't sink down to their level". What do we say of terrorrists: "Don't sink down to their level" What do we tell the government: "Go ahead, kill the fuckers".

Any life is more important than "justice" (read: Revenge in cold blood). Yes, Stanley Williams may have commited the crimes he is accused of. Does that excuse you commiting those same crimes?

(argument on how it's cheaper to keep them alive, with quotes, etc.)

I've heard this also and while true, keeping people alive because it is cheaper probably comes short of answering what we ought to do with convicts.

If that where the case then all sentences would be life sentences.

For certain crimes, maybe it should be. Contract killers. Child rapers. Serial rapists. Is there any reason these people should be given the oportunity to find fresh victims?

The recitivism rate for people who attack children is staggering. Why should we take the chance?

Prison should be used for rehabilitation, not as a warehouse where the system constantly works against innocents and redeemed criminals. If I committed a crime, a year would set me straight easy; but tormenting people for as long as we do, let alone sentencing them to death and making them wait 10, 20, 30 years before something happens, is a crime against humanity.


What tripe. The fact is he was convicted, and expressed no remorse, for a quadruple homicide. How is he more innocent than his victims? How is he redeemed? If you murder people you should not get tickets to Disneyland, or a judicial "year off". The thirty years spent in prison should have been a daily torment to him forcing him to reflect on his crimes. Shed no tears for the brute; crime against humanity, pah, tookie commited the crime. Time to pay the piper.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Like, punsihment isn't for the sake of punishment. It is some sort of compensation for the affected families, or even compensation for the deceased victim. A person can be billed for crashing into the front of a grocery store, but you can't just bill someone for killing someone else.

So the punishment isn't being done just to punish, its because the punishment is a form of payment, toward restitution. I've heard of families that they often feel better about a horrible situation when the perpetrator can be brought to justice. So it isn't for the criminal that they are punished. It is for the family and for the victim.

Yes, it is better. He took a life. The judicial system takes his.
Marry me, please!

What tripe. The fact is he was convicted, and expressed no remorse, for a quadruple homicide. How is he more innocent than his victims? How is he redeemed? If you murder people you should not get tickets to Disneyland, or a judicial "year off". The thirty years spent in prison should have been a daily torment to him forcing him to reflect on his crimes. Shed no tears for the brute; crime against humanity, pah, tookie commited the crime. Time to pay the piper.

Please, don't stop there, let out all of your inner animal. Perhaps you'd like him tortured to death awfully?

Honestly, childish, petty, murderous revenge doesn't make the world a better place.

Something to consider-

source (http://www.mvfr.org/DeathPenaltyFacts.htm)

Several similar studies here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)
That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway. When a decision is made, a decision is made; I don't see any value in challenging it twenty times in the thirty years it takes for us to get around to executing the bastard. I understand what you're getting at here, but the overhauls I would apply to the Justice system aren't quite as one-dimensional as a cursory glance at my first post here might have you think. A lot of what I would support would depend largely on the costs involved and [perhaps more importantly] where that money is coming from.

That said, the costs inherent with the death penalty stem more from the fact that most criminals exhaust their appeals, and the costs come from legal fees and man-hours [guards, judges, state prosecutors] rather than from a simple flipping of the switch. The death penalty itself is much cheaper than life imprisonment; the appeals process [depending on the state] probably isn't. All of it really needs to be streamlined.

Also, the argument you make with that particular source is akin to linking me to moveon.org or the democratic underground while extolling their principles: if I were interested, I could probably find a dozen equally dubious sites that advocate the death penalty and have statistics to prove their point as well. Is it somewhat more credible on virtue of the fact that the site is apparently hosted by the families of murder victims? Probably. But they, like any other organization on the planet, have an agenda; and just like almost every other group on the planet, they can find studies to validate their position.

Fuck you, anarchist.
hooray someone swore at a (supposed) anarchist! We have acheived relevance and meaning in this discussion. I mean for real. It sounds like the words of Martin Luther King, or Ghandi. Why are you posting in message boards when you could be out using this approach to free nations and end poverty??

Something to consider-

source (http://www.mvfr.org/DeathPenaltyFacts.htm)

Several similar studies here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)

Careful there, citing statistics like that often ends up into a "I'll do it for free, a lead pipe and digging a ditch" type testosterone wank coming back from certain death penalty advocates.

(Yes, I have had that one used on me)

Careful there, citing statistics like that often ends up into a "I'll do it for free, a lead pipe and digging a ditch" type testosterone wank coming back from certain death penalty advocates.

(Yes, I have had that one used on me)
To a certain degree refuting the arguments is really just trying to get them to admit that support of the death penalty is more about blood lust than it is anything else.

All of it really needs to be streamlined.

That's crazy. I believe in the "cosmic justice" of the death penalty. There are numerous crimes that people commit, that I feel they should be terminated for. Unfortunately, our justice system is run by humans who make a lot of mistakes. Since the death penalty is irrevocable - it seems to be a little too risky for me. I accepted the risks for many years, but the events surrounding the recent spate of DNA reversals has been incredibly sobering. The American justice sysytem makes a lot of mistakes. To "streamline" the system further would be disastrous. Innocent people would definately die.

To a certain degree refuting the arguments is really just trying to get them to admit that support of the death penalty is more about blood lust than it is anything else.

Yeah, but it's not like some of them see anything wrong with that...

That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway. When a decision is made, a decision is made; I don't see any value in challenging it twenty times in the thirty years it takes for us to get around to executing the bastard. I understand what you're getting at here, but the overhauls I would apply to the Justice system aren't quite as one-dimensional as a cursory glance at my first post here might have you think. A lot of what I would support would depend largely on the costs involved and [perhaps more importantly] where that money is coming from.

That said, the costs inherent with the death penalty stem more from the fact that most criminals exhaust their appeals, and the costs come from legal fees and man-hours [guards, judges, state prosecutors] rather than from a simple flipping of the switch. The death penalty itself is much cheaper than life imprisonment; the appeals process [depending on the state] probably isn't. All of it really needs to be streamlined.

Also, the argument you make with that particular source is akin to linking me to moveon.org or the democratic underground while extolling their principles: if I were interested, I could probably find a dozen equally dubious sites that advocate the death penalty and have statistics to prove their point as well. Is it somewhat more credible on virtue of the fact that the site is apparently hosted by the families of murder victims? Probably. But they, like any other organization on the planet, have an agenda; and just like almost every other group on the planet, they can find studies to validate their position.
If you have studies that go the other direction, then by all means cite them. The website refered to university studies in one place rather than having to find the actual studies individually and linking them individually.

Removing public defenders and ability to apeal in the face of the numerous recent overturns of cases is a bit frightful. It creates a class barrier, well more than what already exists. It, in essense, says that people who already have little in the way of protecting themselves have no way of protecting themselves. We are then in the business of killing poor people.

We are already, with our system of appeals, innacurate about convictions. Reducing that to make it cheaper seems, if possible, even more barbaric.

Fuck you, anarchist.

There's a mod here, not smart.

Besides, calling your enemies anarchists is so 1920s

note: "fuck you" does not prove you right, nor is it generally accepted as an intelligent responce.

Rehabilitation is nice sentiment, but not the primary reason for prisons. Prison keeps violent people away from potential victims.

Prisions were invented for the reason of rehabilitation. Before that, you were flogged, or killed, or became a slave, et cetera.

For certain crimes, maybe it should be. Contract killers. Child rapers. Serial rapists. Is there any reason these people should be given the oportunity to find fresh victims?

The recitivism rate for people who attack children is staggering. Why should we take the chance?

Certain types of criminals need much longer sentences, or better monitering once they get out, and other types much less, in my opinion.

There is no reason to lock up someone who is not a danger to those around him.

Yeah, but it's not like some of them see anything wrong with that...
True, but at least we're getting them to be honest about thier motives.

Although I support the death penalty, I have to inform you Melkor that it's not saving us money. Why? Legal fees and the cost of keeping a prisoner on death row rack up to far more money than life sentences do.

Although I support the death penalty, I have to inform you Melkor that it's not saving us money. Why? Legal fees and the cost of keeping a prisoner on death row rack up to far more money than life sentences do.
You're behind the curve, he's already explained that he would do away with the appeals and public defenders as well.

That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway. When a decision is made, a decision is made; I don't see any value in challenging it twenty times in the thirty years it takes for us to get around to executing the bastard. I understand what you're getting at here, but the overhauls I would apply to the Justice system aren't quite as one-dimensional as a cursory glance at my first post here might have you think. A lot of what I would support would depend largely on the costs involved and [perhaps more importantly] where that money is coming from.

That said, the costs inherent with the death penalty stem more from the fact that most criminals exhaust their appeals, and the costs come from legal fees and man-hours [guards, judges, state prosecutors] rather than from a simple flipping of the switch. The death penalty itself is much cheaper than life imprisonment; the appeals process [depending on the state] probably isn't. All of it really needs to be streamlined.

You apparently are unaware that the appellate process in criminal cases has been streamlined. As a general rule, you get one state appeal and one federal habeas petition. You can file more after that, but the courts can easily dismiss them without regard to the merits.

But, skipping the trial and public defenders ..... that is a whole other question.

Beyond repealing parts of the Bill of Rights, you'd jettison common principals almost universal recognized as basic to justice.

it's simply a waste to kill this guy...he has done more in jail than most to stop gang violence...he has done more to steer kids away froma life of crime...he has done more good than bad in his life now...I am not out to say he shall be redeemed...not the case...but as long as he is doing good things with the life he has left...keep him alive and doing more of it...why not harness the positives that can be made from his incarceration...killing him does nothing more than please a few of the victims family memebers and of course you hard nosed go USA go clowns that cant see the errors your society is making...because your too uneducated and blurred with beer goggles and twisted visions of reality to really "get it"...It's too bad there are those of you with such limited mentalities...and even worse that some of you are in power...such a shame that the rest of your country's citizens have to carry the crumby nicknames and stifled laughs behind your backs...all because of you redneck morons that still can't see the light even when it's shining right in your wandering eye....for the rest of the USA I feel saddened that once again, another significant life will be remembered in such a negative way...so sad that you can;t even see the positives that could be made from all the negatives of tookies past...he's no angel...nor do I believe he is healed...but I do see more value in his life alive than I can see with him being dead...and to think...you clowns actually voted arny in!...OMG!...

If you have studies that go the other direction, then by all means cite them. The website refered to university studies in one place rather than having to find the actual studies individually and linking them individually.

Removing public defenders and ability to apeal in the face of the numerous recent overturns of cases is a bit frightful. It creates a class barrier, well more than what already exists. It, in essense, says that people who already have little in the way of protecting themselves have no way of protecting themselves. We are then in the business of killing poor people.

We are already, with our system of appeals, innacurate about convictions. Reducing that to make it cheaper seems, if possible, even more barbaric.

Amen.

Prisions were invented for the reason of rehabilitation. Before that, you were flogged, or killed, or became a slave, et cetera.

I am talking about their current use, not historical use. Prisons now warehouse many people that would have been killed quite prompltly with a noose or bullet years ago. They are warehoused to keep them away from potential victims.

it's simply a waste to kill this guy...he has done more in jail than most to stop gang violence...he has done more to steer kids away froma life of crime...he has done more good than bad in his life now...I am not out to say he shall be redeemed...not the case...but as long as he is doing good things with the life he has left...keep him alive and doing more of it...why not harness the positives that can be made from his incarceration...killing him does nothing more than please a few of the victims family memebers and of course you hard nosed go USA go clowns that cant see the errors your society is making...because your too uneducated and blurred with beer goggles and twisted visions of reality to really "get it"...It's too bad there are those of you with such limited mentalities...and even worse that some of you are in power...such a shame that the rest of your country's citizens have to carry the crumby nicknames and stifled laughs behind your backs...all because of you redneck morons that still can't see the light even when it's shining right in your wandering eye....for the rest of the USA I feel saddened that once again, another significant life will be remembered in such a negative way...so sad that you can;t even see the positives that could be made from all the negatives of tookies past...he's no angel...nor do I believe he is healed...but I do see more value in his life alive than I can see with him being dead...and to think...you clowns actually voted arny in!...OMG!...

Congratulations! Not only have you made the least convincing anti death penalty arguments so far, you've also made perhaps the longest sentence I've ever seen on this forum!

You deserve an award!

Congratulations! Not only have you made the least convincing anti death penalty arguments so far, you've also made perhaps the longest sentence I've ever seen on this forum!

You deserve an award!
I rest my case...stand up and wave santa barbara...stand up and wave

I see an incongruity here in Tookie's supposed message to kids that they should not be in gangs, involved in violence, etc. Would not an open acceptance of his fate by Tookie - an acknowledgement that he is getting what he has earned and deserves as a result of his past actions serve as a "final message" to all the kids he has supposedly kept out of gangs by his actions in the past few years in prison. Can't he use his execution to further his message? I think he should be using his execution to tell others "See, I've told you in my books, but as a final message, look what is happening to me! Understand, I deserve it because of what I did and this could happen to you to if you don't listen."

Instead, he is fighting to stay alive and others are fighting to keep him alive. In my view, this undermines the message he is allegedly trying to send. The fact he won't accept his fate leads me to believe his "repentence" is a sham.

I see an incongruity here in Tookie's supposed message to kids that they should not be in gangs, involved in violence, etc. Would not an open acceptance of his fate by Tookie - an acknowledgement that he is getting what he has earned and deserves as a result of his past actions serve as a "final message" to all the kids he has supposedly kept out of gangs by his actions in the past few years in prison. Can't he use his execution to further his message? I think he should be using his execution to tell others "See, I've told you in my books, but as a final message, look what is happening to me! Understand, I deserve it because of what I did and this could happen to you to if you don't listen."

Instead, he is fighting to stay alive and others are fighting to keep him alive. In my view, this undermines the message he is allegedly trying to send. The fact he won't accept his fate leads me to believe his "repentence" is a sham.

So, the only way to show you repent and deserve clemency is to seek execution? Catch-22

The flaw in regards to the idea of clemency is that by allowing Williams to escape the death penalty, you are playing double standards on others, since it means that it is only fair to repeal any and all other murderers' condemned status if they just apologized and criticized their own actions in the form of a 600-page book. Not only this, but considering that he is denying the murders that he obviously committed, suggests that he is not a honest man at all, and is only doing all of this anti-gang preaching for his own benefit. Let's not talk about the hypocrisy of denying his own mistakes yet still preaching others about how others shouldn't engage in gang activities and commit the mistakes that he committed.

And for you anti-death people... Perhaps you all should put yourselves into the shoes of the victims' families. Would you be happy if the person who killed your son (who also laughed for five minutes after boasting about it) escaped the death penalty just because he wrote a few books against gangs and violence? Would you be satisfied, as a member of the family, if the man who massacred a Chinese family of three (including two senior citizens) and later referred to them as "Buddha-heads" suddenly escaped death also because of the aforementioned reason?

You can call my feelings as sentimental or whatnot, but the facts are all there. The punishment is just, and there's no denial about it, that he committed four horrible murders. If he didn't want himself to get injected some lethal chemicals or whatever, then perhaps he shouldn't committed the murders from the start in a nation where most states do prescribe the death penalty for murder.

The fact he won't accept his fate leads me to believe his "repentence" is a sham.

Untill you meet him, I don't believe that anyone on this forum is in a position to know this.

The moral lesson is this - if you don't want to die, then you don't murder people in a place where by law, the act of murdering people can result in a death penalty for the offender. It is all about owning up.

Mauiwowee is also fairly correct - the evidences supporting the fact that he did murder the four people are there. If he truly felt guilty about his past, then he should be also feeling guilty about the brutal slaying of four people that he committed, as opposed to be in constant denial just because he didn't want to die. Sorry, just because you happens to have written a few books against gang activities, violence, etc. doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to bear the burden of accepting the consequences of your action.

1) The purpose of prison is not rehabilitation; the purpose of prison is punishment.

2) Leave it to a liberal to see no difference between blasting a girl's head off with a shotgun and executing said murderer via painless lethal injection.

The moral lesson is this - if you don't want to die, then you don't murder people in a place where by law, the act of murdering people can result in a death penalty for the offender. It is all about owning up.

Mauiwowee is also fairly correct - the evidences supporting the fact that he did murder the four people are there. If he truly felt guilty about his past, then he should be also feeling guilty about the brutal slaying of four people that he committed, as opposed to be in constant denial just because he didn't want to die. Sorry, just because you happens to have written a few books against gang activities, violence, etc. doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to bear the burden of accepting the consequences of your action.

So, in other words, you don't believe in clemency - despite it being a part of the same set of death penalty laws.

1) The purpose of prison is not rehabilitation; the purpose of prison is punishment.

If this is true, then something is sorely wrong with the US justice system.

So, in other words, you don't believe in clemency - despite it being a part of the same set of death penalty laws.
No, I don't believe in clemency myself (unless in extremely rare cases) - but then again, the basic fact that he still denies his responsibility in the four murders, a matter which had already been extensively backed by an assortment of evidences, suggests to me that this whole "anti-gang" crusade of him is a farce.

Furthermore, if clemency is so easy of a thing to grant as if you could just apologize for your actions in some dramatic way or another and be spared from an uncertain end, then the whole point of the death penalty as a deterrence is defeated.

No, I don't believe in clemency myself (unless in extremely rare cases) - but then again, the basic fact that he still denies his responsibility in the four murders, a matter which had already been extensively backed by an assortment of evidences, suggests to me that this whole "anti-gang" crusade of him is a farce.

Furthermore, if clemency is so easy of a thing to grant as if you could just apologize for your actions in some dramatic way or another and be spared from an uncertain end, then the whole point of the death penalty as a deterrence is defeated.

LOL.

What ever gave you the idea that the death penaly was a deterrent?

If this is true, then something is sorely wrong with the US justice system.

I believe California has taken "rehabilitate" out of the official motto for the prison system, at least according to one of my professors, who is also head warden at a State prison camp.. that was six months ago, though.

Edit: Meh, maybe not.. the CDOC website still has it.

You apparently are unaware that the appellate process in criminal cases has been streamlined. As a general rule, you get one state appeal and one federal habeas petition. You can file more after that, but the courts can easily dismiss them without regard to the merits.
True, actually I know relatively little about how our justice system works but I may end up going into Law myself so that ignorance is not long for this world. I'll submit that I may have a substandard faculty with which to judge the mechanics of our judicial system.

But, skipping the trial and public defenders ..... that is a whole other question.

Beyond repealing parts of the Bill of Rights, you'd jettison common principals almost universal recognized as basic to justice.
I'd be really interested to see where I suggested that we skip trials.

I'd be really interested to see where I suggested that we skip trials.
"That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway."

If you do away with public defenders, define what legal proceedings are acceptable and abolish apeals, you have basically eliminated the need for a trial.

"That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway."

If you do away with public defenders, define what legal proceedings are acceptable and abolish apeals, you have basically eliminated the need for a trial.
Appeal ! = trial.

EDIT: although in light of what Cat-Tribe had to say, the current system seems shockingly more reasonable than I had previously thought; one state appeal and one federal appeal makes some sense. I guess the only thing left to do is figure out why they're so goddamn expensive.

good riddence...."i have changed" "he has changed"...he is a murder and a low-life prick.....the man kills 4 people and they want him to get a noble peace prize,the founder of the crips and a man who at first tried to get off death row by pleading insanity only to change his mind because that a-hole jesse jackson and all the other liberal and idiotic stars abuse there popularity to get extra awarness about "cookie" to try and get a murder off.

i hope that there kids gets shot or stabed then you will see them calling for the blood of the murderer and understanding the loss these famillies had to go through.

Appeal ! = trial.

Didn't say it was.

However, people defending themselves tend to loose so why have a trial?

Also, if there isn't a public defender, who is going to file the appeals?

i hope that there kids gets shot or stabed then you will see them calling for the blood of the murderer and understanding the loss these famillies had to go through.

Ahhh a great example of Canada! :rolleyes:

Well, Williams may only have 30 min. left to live, but at least we'll have his wonderful family to remember him by..

"One of Stanley Williams' children, Stanley "Little Tookie" Williams, Jr., has also been convicted of murder. Little Tookie, a Neighborhood Crip, was found guilty of shooting a 20 year-old woman to death in an alley off Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood during a gang-related shooting. Williams, Jr. was sentenced to 16-years in prison alongside his father at San Quentin for second-degree murder. [29]

In November 2005, the Fontana, California Police Department advised print and television media that a warrant had been issued for registered sex offender Lafayette Jones. Jones, wanted for allegedly molesting an ex-girlfriend's 13-year-old daughter at gunpoint, was identified by the police department as the son of Stanley Tookie Williams. [30] [31] Williams' official Reply Petition for Executive Clemency submitted on November 21, 2005, by Peter Fleming, Jr., stated that this was a lie purported by the police department, including an attached declaration from Lafayette Jones' mother, which declared under penalty of perjury that Lafayette was not Stanley Tookie Williams' son."

:rolleyes:

I editted the post right around the time you were writing your response, which might make some sort of a difference.

And by "public defender" I mean one that's propped up with my money. I wasn't lucky enough to get a public defender when I went to court--it was a minor offense but I would have preferred the opportunity to try and get out of it--the judge said "no" despite the fact that I pay his goddamn salary and he's supposed to be serving me, not the other way around.

And, to [not] answer your question, I don't know since I'm not intimately familiar with how the system works currently: I haven't fully examined the situation so I can't suggest a solution yet. I just don't like the idea of paying for a bunch of subsidized lawyers that I might not even be lucky enough to get to use, nevermind that I paid for their sorry asses too.

The guy was convicted in 1979?!?!

26 years from conviction to execution?!?! :headbang:

Now I happen to like the fact that we have a death penalty...but is someone going to tell me that 26 years is the BEST we can do??

Honestly, it need not take that long, even taking into account our current appeals process...it should not take nearly three decades to execute a convicted killer.

Ahhh a great example of Canada! :rolleyes:


1) i was specking figurtivly

2) i am french-canadian who hate most french people :p

Well, he's dead now. Is the world any better yet? :rolleyes:

I for one hope he rests in peace, and that his message will still be heard.

Well, he's dead now. Is the world any better yet? :rolleyes:

I for one hope he rests in peace, and that his message will still be heard.

It looks like his case was sent up to a higher court for appeal.

As far as I'm concerned, now that he's dead, he's square with the world.

Rehabilitation is nice sentiment, but not the primary reason for prisons. Prison keeps violent people away from potential victims.

Nice sentiment, but the primary purpose of the prison system is not to "keep violent people away from potential victims", nor is it for the other side's claim of rehabilitative purposes.

The primary purpose of the prisons system is to punish. To enact against the freedoms and liberty of the criminal to as close an equitable degree as possible as his crimes against the freedoms and liberties of another or others, such equitablibility is determined under the criminal code, and handed out by a judge and/or jury.

2) Leave it to a liberal to see no difference between blasting a girl's head off with a shotgun and executing said murderer via painless lethal injection.


Good job!

Blatant hatemongering, invoking disgusting, hyperbolistic imagery, and utilizing a condescending manner. You sir, will go far!

I see no difference in murders, period, because killing someone is killing someone. In the end, both are a horrific crime, whether by the state or by a person, and it is shamefull to sink to the level of a killer. If having compassion makes me a liberal (Oh noes, curse of curses) then it's a price I'll have to pay.:rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/national/13tookie.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=84209d282753e6c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

And I won a dollar on this event! Go Arnold!
You actually gained from another persons death. How sad is that?

Perhaps one day, the US will join modern civilization and ban executions.

I see an incongruity here in Tookie's supposed message to kids that they should not be in gangs, involved in violence, etc. Would not an open acceptance of his fate by Tookie - an acknowledgement that he is getting what he has earned and deserves as a result of his past actions serve as a "final message" to all the kids he has supposedly kept out of gangs by his actions in the past few years in prison. Can't he use his execution to further his message? I think he should be using his execution to tell others "See, I've told you in my books, but as a final message, look what is happening to me! Understand, I deserve it because of what I did and this could happen to you to if you don't listen."

Instead, he is fighting to stay alive and others are fighting to keep him alive. In my view, this undermines the message he is allegedly trying to send. The fact he won't accept his fate leads me to believe his "repentence" is a sham.

1. The basic instinct of every life form is self-preservation. Nobody wants to die.
2. You don't need to be a martyr for your message to be genuine and to affect people.
3. Tookie's message is not pro-death penalty, but anti-gang violence, so it is not only normal that he fought his execution, it is also logical. If he was given a life sentence, he would use his remaining years to further promote his message. The fact that the guy spent 20+ years in prison fighting gang violence and yet you claim that he's not genuine reveals your prejudice.

Here are a few facts:
- He was a founder and a member of The Crips (which was at first connected with the Black Panther party, but when Black Panther party deissolved they turned to crime), so he was a career criminal
- He maintained his innocence in the cases he was sentenced for. He was tried by an ALL-WHITE jury (Was that a jury of his peers? Since when is LA an all-white city?) and only a naive person can believe that there was no prejudice in the trial. He was convicted based on testimonies of five career criminals turned snitches, one of which was in a possession of the alleged murder weapon, the only physical evidence in the trial.

I think that he was convicted based on his notoriety, not based on evidence. He is probably responsible for more than a few crimes, including murders, but it seems he was convicted for the murders done by others.
If Tookie Williams was white, he probably wouldn't even be tried. USA is a racist country and while its judicial system looks good on paper, it is impossible to erase racism and prejudice from the judges' and the jurors' brains. It is equally impossible for the Austrian Nazi sympathizer Arnold Schwarzenegger to show compassion as for the racist US government to take care of the hurricane Catrina victims.
When the masks of the people who ask for the abolition of the appeals process fall, white sheets and hoods are revealed.
Finally, if Tookie stayed alive, he would continue to atone for his crimes by preaching against gang violence. But then again, it is in the best interest of the white Amerikkka that the "Niggaz" kill each other as fast as possible.

1. The basic instinct of every life form is self-preservation. Nobody wants to die.
2. You don't need to be a martyr for your message to be genuine and to affect people.
3. Tookie's message is not pro-death penalty, but anti-gang violence, so it is not only normal that he fought his execution, it is also logical. If he was given a life sentence, he would use his remaining years to further promote his message. The fact that the guy spent 20+ years in prison fighting gang violence and yet you claim that he's not genuine reveals your prejudice.

Here are a few facts:
- He was a founder and a member of The Crips (which was at first connected with the Black Panther party, but when Black Panther party deissolved they turned to crime), so he was a career criminal
- He maintained his innocence in the cases he was sentenced for. He was tried by an ALL-WHITE jury (Was that a jury of his peers? Since when is LA an all-white city?) and only a naive person can believe that there was no prejudice in the trial. He was convicted based on testimonies of five career criminals turned snitches, one of which was in a possession of the alleged murder weapon, the only physical evidence in the trial.

I think that he was convicted based on his notoriety, not based on evidence. He is probably responsible for more than a few crimes, including murders, but it seems he was convicted for the murders done by others.
If Tookie Williams was white, he probably wouldn't even be tried. USA is a racist country and while its judicial system looks good on paper, it is impossible to erase racism and prejudice from the judges' and the jurors' brains. It is equally impossible for the Austrian Nazi sympathizer Arnold Schwarzenegger to show compassion as for the racist US government to take care of the hurricane Catrina victims.
When the masks of the people who ask for the abolition of the appeals process fall, white sheets and hoods are revealed.
Finally, if Tookie stayed alive, he would continue to atone for his crimes by preaching against gang violence. But then again, it is in the best interest of the white Amerikkka that the "Niggaz" kill each other as fast as possible.

what it is, bro

erm...word

later, tookie

I see no difference in murders, period, because killing someone is killing someone.

So you would never kill to keep yourself from being killed? You would never use lethal force to stop someone who, within arm's reach of you, was in the process of killing someone else?

LOL.

What ever gave you the idea that the death penaly was a deterrent?
What ever gave you the idea that the death penalty, like many other penalties, isn't a deterrent? Someone above said that it is the human instinct to survive - and he is right in regards to that point.

The question that I would like to pose is whether or not 'Tookie' would've written his childrens' books had he been sentenced to life in prison, and not just because he did it for the guilt trip effect its having on people?

If not, then justice was done:sniper:

If so, :headbang:

Good job!

Blatant hatemongering, invoking disgusting, hyperbolistic imagery, and utilizing a condescending manner. You sir, will go far!

I see no difference in murders, period, because killing someone is killing someone. In the end, both are a horrific crime, whether by the state or by a person, and it is shamefull to sink to the level of a killer. If having compassion makes me a liberal (Oh noes, curse of curses) then it's a price I'll have to pay.:rolleyes:


How in the hell was describing the crimes themselves a hate-crime on his part? That's not “hyperbolistic” imagery to describe what the convictions were for. Except for the fact that the head wasn't really blown all the way off, it was more of the left eye-socket area that a baseball size hole was blown through the head... But the analogy is a common one so it still fits.

Just because you don't like people to be reminded of what the crimes in fact were, is not hatemongering at all. Facts are facts.

If having compassion makes me a liberal (Oh noes, curse of curses) then it's a price I'll have to pay.:rolleyes:

It's the fact that you seem to reserve compassion for the most violent and depraved of criminals to the total neglect of their victims that makes you a modern liberal.

It's the fact that you seem to reserve compassion for the most violent and depraved of criminals to the total neglect of their victims that makes you a modern liberal.

Or maybe he feels that revenge doesn't do the victims any real good?

Never lost a family member to murder but I've beaten the living shit out of several people who bullied me or my brother over the years and it's done me no good, sure I'm happy for about 5 minutes but right now I just feel bad about sinking to their level.

tell me where they said 'I don't care about the victims'. Just tell me. You can't. Well done SB, you have demonstrated all the debating skill you'll ever need...

Murder sanctioned by the state is still murder, imho. If the installation of the death penalty leads to the death of even one innocent person, that is one person too many. Are we to say: in keeping the populace safe from serial killers, rapists and childmolesters we might have to kill off a few innocents? the old saying goes: you can´t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. People are not eggs (obviously), the value of human life is too great to be so threatened by the government he himself has helped create. Deep inside, I know that if someone was to kill my sis or harm her in any way I´d probably feel the urge to kill or severely maim that person myself, or to want him put to death. But I do not believe the death of another could serve to make me feel better about losing a loved one, or be positive in any way.

I´d rather have life-sentences for those convicted of horrible crimes. In death one leaves guilt (at least for a while), in life, there is no escaping from it. And years of confrontation with what you have done is bound to change you, woman or man. Which is not to say the changed person should be released on the slightest sign of progress. I believe that prison-systems can serve to educate, deterr and change. Don´t cuddle the prisoners, but don´t send them off to a death that does nothing positive whatsoever within a society or the world in general.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind - Ghandi

Or maybe he feels that revenge doesn't do the victims any real good?

Never lost a family member to murder but I've beaten the living shit out of several people who bullied me or my brother over the years and it's done me no good, sure I'm happy for about 5 minutes but right now I just feel bad about sinking to their level.

Okay, so you think that getting tried and convicted and sentenced of a crime is the same thing as you beating the shit out of people for revenge? Tell me, if you think its revenge to lawfully execute a convicted criminal, what about lawfully imprisoning a convicted criminal? Is that not revenge too? Or is it only revenge when it involves death... and if thats the case how come you were able to commit revenge without killing anyone?

Fact is its NOT revenge, its this little thing you might not be familiar with, called justice. He had his trials, his appeals, and more legal rights than... well, then the people you took it upon yourself to beat up.

tell me where they said 'I don't care about the victims'. Just tell me. You can't. Well done SB, you have demonstrated all the debating skill you'll ever need...

Oh please. Tell me where they said "I do care about the victims." Just tell me. You can't. Well done, you've demonstrated all the debating skill you'll ever need! Chuckle chuckle, try again.

What ever gave you the idea that the death penalty, like many other penalties, isn't a deterrent? Someone above said that it is the human instinct to survive - and he is right in regards to that point.

As posted to somebody else who made the claim; do show me an example where it deterred a murder.

It's the fact that you seem to reserve compassion for the most violent and depraved of criminals to the total neglect of their victims that makes you a modern liberal.

:D it's funny how conservatives flail contiuously to make liberal a dirty word.

:D it's funny how conservatives flail contiuously to make liberal a dirty word.
It's funny how liberals have so many more words they've made dirty - starting with "Christian". And of course, newly invented words like neocon.

Okay, so you think that getting tried and convicted and sentenced of a crime is the same thing as you beating the shit out of people for revenge? Tell me, if you think its revenge to lawfully execute a convicted criminal, what about lawfully imprisoning a convicted criminal? Is that not revenge too? Or is it only revenge when it involves death... and if thats the case how come you were able to commit revenge without killing anyone?

Fact is its NOT revenge, its this little thing you might not be familiar with, called justice. He had his trials, his appeals, and more legal rights than... well, then the people you took it upon yourself to beat up.


Actually for many it is revenge. Especially when you hear that step-mom talk. (side note: I found it interesting the clerks widow speaks against the step-mom over this matter).

Hmmm looks like a time to re-issue Mark Twain's thoughts on the matter. Sorry I don't remember the link for this:

======
THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

LOL.

What ever gave you the idea that the death penaly was a deterrent?
Unless Im mistaken, it sure cuts down on repeat offenders.

:D it's funny how conservatives flail contiuously to make liberal a dirty word.

I'm a liberal. "Modern liberal" is an oxymoron as they tend to be the people advocating moral authoritarianism and bigger government. It's them whose made the word a dirty one. A sick fucking joke - the idea that communism for example, is "liberal." Yeah OK, I guess it's opposite day.

It's funny how liberals have so many more words they've made dirty - starting with "Christian". And of course, newly invented words like neocon.

It's funny how Conservatives automattically assume everybody that argues with them is a liberal or anti-religion.

Two strikes against you Binky......

I'm a liberal. "Modern liberal" is an oxymoron as they tend to be the people advocating moral authoritarianism and bigger government. It's them whose made the word a dirty one. A sick fucking joke - the idea that communism for example, is "liberal." Yeah OK, I guess it's opposite day.

Ahhhh sorry my good man. I should have given you more credit.

My redneck relatives almost spit when they say liberal so it kind of makes me go :rolleyes: when I hear it as an insult.

No worries then. :)

Unless Im mistaken, it sure cuts down on repeat offenders.

Unless they get reincarnated.

+1 for a little creativity though ;)

It's funny how liberals have so many more words they've made dirty - starting with "Christian". And of course, newly invented words like neocon.

It's funny how people like yourself constantly remind us why words like that are so apt in their use.

It's funny how Conservatives automattically assume everybody that argues with them is a liberal or anti-religion.

Two strikes against you Binky......

But you ARE liberal and anti-religion. Double foul against you, winky

That's all well and good, but you're probably not aware of the fact that I'm not a huge proponent of public defenders or most of these legal proceedings anyway. I don't really see the point in giving convicted felons ten thousand appeal opportunities, as they probably do little good in most cases anyway. When a decision is made, a decision is made; I don't see any value in challenging it twenty times in the thirty years it takes for us to get around to executing the bastard. I understand what you're getting at here, but the overhauls I would apply to the Justice system aren't quite as one-dimensional as a cursory glance at my first post here might have you think. A lot of what I would support would depend largely on the costs involved and [perhaps more importantly] where that money is coming from.


And I suppose that you believe that just because somebody is convicted, they are always guilty? Well, jury's are people, and make mistakes. Mistakes *have* happened in the past. Innocent people *have* been put on death row, and more than likely *have* been executed. Conviction does not always mean guilt. It means that the jury believes the convicted is guilty. By removing appeals, you are in essence sentencing many innocent men to death, without any chance of saving themselves.

In short: Not all decisions are wise, just, or necessarily reflective of the convicted. Decisions, especially when concerning a man's life, can never be absolute.

:sniper: I THINK HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED THE PEOPLE HE KILLED AND THE PEOPLE HIS GANG HAS KILLED OVER THE YEARS CAN NOT GET A REPRIEVE EVER NO MATTER WHAT HE HAS DONE IN PRISON,AND THE FACT HE WOULD NEVER HELP PUT AND END TO THE CRIPS
THAT HE HELPED FORM PROVES HE WAS NOT REHABILITATED!!!!!!!

I wonder if Tookie's last words were:

I'LL BE BACK!

:D

But you ARE liberal and anti-religion. Double foul against you, winky

Sweety!

And I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

Actually I am a centrist. I was conservative but the last 10 years has kind of moved me more to the middle.

As to anti-Religion? Just because I am anti-you doesn't mean I am against all Christians.

Try again binky.

:sniper: I THINK HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED THE PEOPLE HE KILLED AND THE PEOPLE HIS GANG HAS KILLED OVER THE YEARS CAN NOT GET A REPRIEVE EVER NO MATTER WHAT HE HAS DONE IN PRISON,AND THE FACT HE WOULD NEVER HELP PUT AND END TO THE CRIPS
THAT HE HELPED FORM PROVES HE WAS NOT REHABILITATED!!!!!!!

Kiddo. If you want to be taken seriously, don't use caps.

You think a year in prison is sufficient punishment for a quadruple murder?

I feel that he shouldn't of been executed, but probably spent life in prison or something like that, people have to realize that he did kill 4 people. :confused:

Sweety!

And I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

Missy!

Just because I don't have anything to say to you doesn't mean I'm not talking to you.

Actually I am a centrist. I was conservative but the last 10 years has kind of moved me more to the middle.

A centrist? Conservative? MWahahaha LMAO, what does that mean to you, somewhere between the far left and the fanatical liberal? :p :D *wipes away laughter tear*


... Try again binky.

I don't have to try again because you haven't had a hit yet ...cockamamie

Missy!
Just because I don't have anything to say to you doesn't mean I'm not talking to you.

A centrist? Conservative? MWahahaha LMAO, what does that mean to you, somewhere between the far left and the fanatical liberal? :p :D *wipes away laughter tear*

I don't have to try again because you haven't had a hit yet ...cockamamie

A swing and a miss!

Sorry hun.

I say fry him, give him the same mercy he gave his victims.

I say fry him, give him the same mercy he gave his victims.

Pssst. He is already dead.

I realize that some name-calling is not sanctioned by the mods, but don't we think it's possible as adults to not call each other "doodoohead" and "buttface". Many of these arguments are good and why people are so torn on the issue of Tookie. It seems like they hit a lot harder when people are being respectful of those that disagree. Just my two cents of text and nickle of truth.

That said, I do understand with and sympathise with the majority of the complaints surrounding the death penalty; I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of the Feds having the power to put its citizens to death. That said, they made it something of an unavoidable issue for me on account of the fact that my money is being spent keeping these people in lockup. As long as that's the case, I'm going to have to opt for the cheaper option; i.e. putting them to death.



I agree with the majority of what you said. I am pro-death penalty. However:

Actually, the Federal Government does not enforce death penalty cases, and only in very rare circumstances does it (i.e. the Supreme Court) commute a death sentence. All of that is taken care of on a state or circuit court level.

And I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard from someone once (can't remember who) that it's actually more expensive to put someone through the entire appeals process associated with the death penalty than to just give them life in prison and pay to feed and clothe them, etc. Again, not sure that this is actually the case.

Cool. This is the first time I've debated a mod.

And I suppose that you believe that just because somebody is convicted, they are always guilty? Well, jury's are people, and make mistakes. Mistakes *have* happened in the past. Innocent people *have* been put on death row, and more than likely *have* been executed. Conviction does not always mean guilt. It means that the jury believes the convicted is guilty. By removing appeals, you are in essence sentencing many innocent men to death, without any chance of saving themselves.

In short: Not all decisions are wise, just, or necessarily reflective of the convicted. Decisions, especially when concerning a man's life, can never be absolute.
Wow, gee, I'd have never thought of that! After all, I've been living in a cave on mars with a blindfold on and earplugs in; God only knows I don't know what the O.J. trial was!

Seriously though, for all the joking we do about our justice system, I'd wager we get it right most of the time.

Also, I never said we should eliminate appeals altogether; if you should care to reread my response to the Cat Tribe on the previous page, you'd notice that this isn't the case. Please pay attention to what I write next time if you're going to challenge it.

I realize that some name-calling is not sanctioned by the mods, but don't we think it's possible as adults to not call each other "doodoohead" and "buttface". Many of these arguments are good and why people are so torn on the issue of Tookie. It seems like they hit a lot harder when people are being respectful of those that disagree. Just my two cents of text and nickle of truth.

Sorry teacher! :p

Sorry teacher! :p
;) You must admit that it makes for a better discussion when people try to find new ways to frame their argument rather than try to think of the best way to mildly flame someone. As much fun as yo mamma jokes are, they have little to do with debate.

To avoid hijack, I'll state my belief on this again. Screw Tookie. I could care less about him. Whether or not he committed these particular crimes (which I think is questionable), he has certainly committed numerous others, including murders. He deserved the death penalty.

I'm more concerned about what we deserve. Don't we deserve someone to wish for someone to continue to be in the world who is attempting to stop gang violence and attempting to encourage are more positive path for young people? Everyone talks like the only reason anyone would want to commute his sentence and give him life in prison is to help him. My reasoning is that we deserve to have less crime and less violence. There is no reason to believe that killing Tookie accomplishes that goal, but there is enough reason to believe his books accomplish that goal. I wanted Tookie to live because I wanted him to continue what he was doing. I didn't want it for him. I wanted it for me and for my family.

I agree with the majority of what you said. I am pro-death penalty. However:

Actually, the Federal Government does not enforce death penalty cases, and only in very rare circumstances does it (i.e. the Supreme Court) commute a death sentence. All of that is taken care of on a state or circuit court level.
I know, but "Fed" is generally a catch-all term I use to indicate I'm talking about government officials in general; it depends mostly on the context. I guess I should start using "Statey" to avoid confusion ;)

And I'm not sure if this is true, but I heard from someone once (can't remember who) that it's actually more expensive to put someone through the entire appeals process associated with the death penalty than to just give them life in prison and pay to feed and clothe them, etc. Again, not sure that this is actually the case.
I've heard that too, in fact there are links somewhere on the first or second page that cite studies to that effect, but I'm having a hard time beleiving them. The last figures I read seemed to suggest that the appeals process for the death penalty costs $2.75 million [i]more on the state budget than a life sentance, at least in North Carolina [which is where the study took place], but I too have something of a hard time beleiving this. If you only get a state appeal and a federal appeal, that means that each appearance in court costs almost $1.5 million, a figure which seems shockingly high for two [much shorter] court proceedings.

To be completely honest, $2.75 million on the state budget really isn't that big of a deal to me: I have bigger fish to fry as far as the government wasting my money is concerned. I don't know why it costs so much to bring an already incarcerated person into court to review the case, but it [apparently] does. Like I said earlier, all of it really needs to be streamlined.

Also, it's probably kind of hard to compare the costs in a lot of cases since we don't know how long otherwise executed inmates would have lived. It boggles my mind to think that feeding, clothing, and watching someone [not to mention the expenses I'd probvably never even think of] for fifty years would be cheaper than sending them back to court twice, putting them on the electric chair, and being done with it. Something seems a little fishy with all of that.

If the costs involved with appeals are unavoidable [which I doubt] and are actually reasonably structured [which I doubt even more], I would gladly restate my position on the death penalty. Right now, however, it still just doesn't make any sense to me.

I know, but "Fed" is generally a catch-all term I use to indicate I'm talking about government officials in general; it depends mostly on the context. I guess I should start using "Statey" to avoid confusion ;)


I've heard that too, in fact there are links somewhere on the first or second page that cite studies to that effect, but I'm having a hard time beleiving them. The last figures I read seemed to suggest that the appeals process for the death penalty costs $2.75 million [i]more on the state budget than a life sentance, at least in North Carolina [which is where the study took place], but I too have something of a hard time beleiving this. If you only get a state appeal and a federal appeal, that means that each appearance in court costs almost $1.5 million, a figure which seems shockingly high for two [much shorter] court proceedings.

To be completely honest, $2.75 million on the state budget really isn't that big of a deal to me: I have bigger fish to fry as far as the government wasting my money is concerned. I don't know why it costs so much to bring an already incarcerated person into court to review the case, but it [apparently] does. Like I said earlier, all of it really needs to be streamlined.

Also, it's probably kind of hard to compare the costs in a lot of cases since we don't know how long otherwise executed inmates would have lived. It boggles my mind to think that feeding, clothing, and watching someone [not to mention the expenses I'd probvably never even think of] for fifty years would be cheaper than sending them back to court twice, putting them on the electric chair, and being done with it. Something seems a little fishy with all of that.

If the costs involved with appeals are unavoidable [which I doubt] and are actually reasonably structured [which I doubt even more], I would gladly restate my position on the death penalty. Right now, however, it still just doesn't make any sense to me.

To add to this point, I'd imagine that many people who are given life in prison also appeal. I don't imagine their appeals process is cheaper or quicker so I don't see how their can be such a huge discrepency in costs between the two sentences.

EDIT: It appears that by examining the sources one finds that death penalty cases are compared to ALL other murder cases in the expense of trial and incarceration. If it were being intellectually honest it should be comparing death penalty cases to only life-in-prison cases, particularly those that could have warranted the death penalty. This would give a more accurate account of the variance in cost. A person on trial for murder and likely to only get a few years isn't as likely to go for broke as a person get life in prison or the death penalty. They compared apples to oranges. My guess would be that they were looking for a particular outcome.

Oh please. Tell me where they said "I do care about the victims." Just tell me. You can't. Well done, you've demonstrated all the debating skill you'll ever need! Chuckle chuckle, try again.

He never said that the guy said "I do care about the victims." You, on the other hand, said that he didn't care about the victims. He pointed out that the guy never said anything to that effect, which he was correct in.

Unless Im mistaken, it sure cuts down on repeat offenders.

Not always. Didn't you see Fallen? ;-)

So, the only way to show you repent and deserve clemency is to seek execution? Catch-22

I didn't say he should seek it. I said he should accept it and use it to advance the message he is purporting espouse at this time with his children's books. Acceptance is not the same as seeking. Accepting and acknowledging that the law says he is guilty and should die for what he did and he accepts that as his fate (i.e. repenting) is not the same as asking (i.e. seeking) to be executed.

Untill you meet him, I don't believe that anyone on this forum is in a position to know this.

I didn't say I "knew it" I said it "leads me to believe." there is a difference you know. Maybe his "conversion" (for lack of a better word) is genuine. However, his actions still lead me to believe it is just sham.

However, his actions still lead me to believe it is just sham.

Which actions where that?

What tripe. The fact is he was convicted, and expressed no remorse, for a quadruple homicide. How is he more innocent than his victims? How is he redeemed? If you murder people you should not get tickets to Disneyland, or a judicial "year off". The thirty years spent in prison should have been a daily torment to him forcing him to reflect on his crimes. Shed no tears for the brute; crime against humanity, pah, tookie commited the crime. Time to pay the piper.
Please, don't stop there, let out all of your inner animal. Perhaps you'd like him tortured to death awfully?

Honestly, childish, petty, murderous revenge doesn't make the world a better place.
Maybe not, but allowing someone who only showed remorse for his crimes when his last appeal was denied doesn't make the world a better place either

LOL.

What ever gave you the idea that the death penaly was a deterrent?
No-one who has been executed has ever committed the crime for which they were executed, or for that matter any other crime, ever again :D

<snip>
I see no difference in murders, period, because killing someone is killing someone. <snip>
execution isn't murder, murder is: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Murder sanctioned by the state is still murder, imho.
your opinion is wrong; if the killing is not illegal (i.e. execution) then it is not murder. :headbang:

I didn't say I "knew it" I said it "leads me to believe." there is a difference you know. Maybe his "conversion" (for lack of a better word) is genuine. However, his actions still lead me to believe it is just sham.

Fair 'nough.

What I found interesting was the reaction by Austrians.

Many where angered by the fact an execution was allowed for political gain. Some want his Austrian citizenship stripped and the funny one was suggested by a Christian minister in his home town.

Change the stadium from Arnold to Stanly Tookie Williams.

your opinion is wrong; if the killing is not illegal (i.e. execution) then it is not murder. :headbang:
If you start defining things strictly by the local law, you can get yourself into all sorts of funny situations...

Was the Holocaust illegal?

Was the attempt on Hitler's life illegal?

If you start defining things strictly by the local law, you can get yourself into all sorts of funny situations...

Was the Holocaust illegal?

Was the attempt on Hitler's life illegal?


Indeed, by that logic Saddam's gassings weren't murder, because was the law, so they weren't illegal and couldn't have been murders..

your opinion is wrong; if the killing is not illegal (i.e. execution) then it is not murder. :headbang:

So when a state decides the killing of people of a certain minority is okay that´s acceptable in your view?

Sjeez, you pretty much validated the actions of nazi germany there...

Killing is wrong, even killing in the name of the state. One does not deterr criminals from crime by the image of the guillotine, one deterrs them from it by first and foremost taking their incentives away from trying to earn a livelihood from crime away: i.e. legalisation of certain drugs, neighbourhood programs and educational programs (books in prisons instead of televisions everywhere).

But I already went over some of these things in my first post.

I think the death penalty is wrong, but if we are going to have the death penalty as a law then we have to execute all the people that we apply this law to. We can't make exceptions just because he found (insert random stupid diety here). That's my take on it and i'm glad he was executed. This may be the first and last thing Arnold has done right.

I support the death penalty BUT not the way we implement it in the USA . To me a law must be fair and reasonable to be effective .
So tell me how Sammy " the Bull " Gravano a contract murderer and all around human crime wave as well as plain old killer is still breathing air ?
Why is Tookie a cookie and Sammy still in the slammy ?
How is that fair and reasonable...add to the fact that he's also a rat bastard.

It's funny how liberals have so many more words they've made dirty - starting with "Christian". And of course, newly invented words like neocon.

I'm a liberal Christan. Nice try Sierra.

(actually I'm an anarcho-communist/modern Liberal but you'd probably class me as liberal, of course since no-one around here probably understood that little lot it doesn't matter...)