I watched the PBS interiew with Mr. Williams regarding his position on the events of his past and input on being given a stay of execution. LA is concerned that there will be riots should it take place, the Gov. is in the position of deciding his fate... Does a man who has done the things that he acknowleges he did and is convicted of murder be allowed to have his sentence altered because he sees the light and has written childrens books? He also claimes that it was a setup. Let's say he is innocent of murder as convicted, is it still OK to execute a person because even if he was framed, chances are very stong that he murdered others and got away with it? Does a person who was instrumental in creating a street gang like the Crips even warrant compassion of any sort?

My opinion- let the law take it's course, and make his life as miserable as possible while he waits for his last day.

Wow, harsh... one of the few apparently obvious examples of someone reformed and you want to flip the switch. To what point?

Is there something better about killing him than letting him spend the rest of his life in jail where apparently he is contributing to society in a manner.

Life in prison or death... in neither case does he kill again. Kill him and he possibly becomes a martyr, leave him alive and he's an example that even with as bad a past as he's had, you can turn your life around and do some good. Does that get him a 'get out of jail free' card? Hell no, but what is the point of offing him?

I feel when someone is put to death, they are getting off easy.
I vote for life in solitary confinement.
In a 4x4 cell, without light.

Now in some cases where the murder was particularly gruesome, a slow death via torture is acceptable.

I am a very firm believer in capital punishment.
However......And if I were a family member of one of the victims, I would probably NOT agree on this....I believe that the man should be allowed to live.
If they were going to execute him, it should have been done in a timely manner.
Not decades later when the man is obviously not the same person that that they arrested.

Yep, and they should let ol' Charlie out for time served too.
Honestly--if the condemned, but commuted to life has one day they enjoy, orone thing that makes them happy or smile, then they got away with it. They beat the system. They took EVERYTHING from their victim, but they got to keep living and being happy--even if it's only being happy to still be alive. Better than what their victim got.

I would rather be killed then spend the rest of my life in prison..

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Wow, harsh... one of the few apparently obvious examples of someone reformed and you want to flip the switch. To what point? Is there something better about killing him than letting him spend the rest of his life in jail where apparently he is contributing to society in a manner. Life in prison or death... in neither case does he kill again. Kill him and he possibly becomes a martyr, leave him alive and he's an example that even with as bad a past as he's had, you can turn your life around and do some good. Does that get him a 'get out of jail free' card? Hell no, but what is the point of offing him?

Yep, pretty amazing isn't it?--how many of them are able to transform themselves into almost model prisoner citizens----as soon as they realize someone is about to stick the needle in their arm?
A shame he couldn't have felt the same way he does now--- before he committed the crime. Or, even while he was committing it. Or, even right afterwards, when he was bragging about it. Yeah, emminent mortality will do strange things to a person, even a cold blooded piece of human garbage.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Wow, harsh... one of the few apparently obvious examples of someone reformed and you want to flip the switch. To what point? Is there something better about killing him than letting him spend the rest of his life in jail where apparently he is contributing to society in a manner. Life in prison or death... in neither case does he kill again. Kill him and he possibly becomes a martyr, leave him alive and he's an example that even with as bad a past as he's had, you can turn your life around and do some good. Does that get him a 'get out of jail free' card? Hell no, but what is the point of offing him?

I totally agree. I also agree with isthiswhereiputausername said.
"Vengence is MINE, sayeth the lord." Not for man to decide.
I USED to be a firm believer in capitol punishment, but as I learn more about the legal process, and some other things, I have come to believe that it is nothing more than vengance, at best, and legalized murder at worst.
The death penalty is NOT, unfortunately, a deterrant to other potential killers.
Murder is usually a "crime of passion"- I.E. it happens so fast that the killer does not even think about the possible consequences.
So society as a whole gains nothing from an execution.
I am sure the vigilantes here will (once again) flame me for looking at both sides of the issue and making a rational decision.
So be it.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Hell no, but what is the point of offing him?

The same point in all capital cases. If you take someone's life, yours is forfeit. If you want to debate capital punishment, that's another argument. In this case, I see no reason to stay the execution.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Do you believe "crime of passion" applies in this case?

Dosen't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your mother ever tell you that?

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: Murder is perpetrated under one of the following circumstances: 1) Crime of passion - killer doesnt consider consequences. 2) Killer believes he has nothing to lose and doesnt consider consequences. 3) Killer believes he will not get caught or is above the law. 4) Murder is committed to avoid being caught and prosecuted for some other crime. This is basically a combination of 2 and 3. If the people of California wanna get their rocks off by killing Tookie (or anyone else), thats their deal. Just don't expect society to be any better nor any safer for it.

Well said.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 12-10-2005).]

quote Kill him and he possibly becomes a martyr, leave him alive and he's an example that even with as bad a past as he's had, you can turn your life around and do some good.

A martyr?? I really doubt the gangs in LA are going to go on a killing spree "in the name of our co-founder-the great, wonderful, and misunderstood Tookie".

More to the point, if left alive, he becomes a legal precedent.

I can hear the juvie conselors now.
"You see? It's not too late for you son. So you stole and wrecked someone's only vehicle. Big deal. And even if you go on like this till you kill someone, it's ok. It'll turn your life around and you can become a good little citizen just like Mr. Williams. Yes, it's a real shame about your future victim, but that's the price we have to pay to get a bad guy rehabilitated and turned around. Collatteral damage."

If California has the death penalty & he is convicted of 1st degree murder.
Kill the POS.

OUT>

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Dosen't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Oh, but it does matter, as far as the law is concerned. That's why the law differentiates between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

Like I said before, if you want to argue capital punishment, that's a different subject. But as far as the law as it stands today and applies in this case, I see no reason to stay the execution.

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: Killer believes he has nothing to lose and doesnt consider consequences. Killer believes he will not get caught or is above the law.

Since Tookie is now into rehabilitating gang bangers, his highly publicized execution will give them one more lesson. His advice books are already written, his message is out. What more can he teach them ? His death can eliminate the above thoughts. His life spared will teach the wrong message, that you may get out of suffering the consequences.
He was judged by a jury of his peers and found guilty and scentenced to death. He refuses to admit guilt. He offers no apologies to the victim's families. Even if innocent of these murders, as the leader of the Crips, how many other murders was he involved with directly or indirectly ? I do not know the facts on his defense but I would think he had money (illegally gained) to hire lawyers.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-10-2005).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Since Tookie is now into rehabilitating gang bangers, his highly publicized execution will give them one more lesson. His advice books are already written, his message is out. What more can he teach them ? His death can eliminate the above thoughts. His life spared will teach the wrong message, that you may get out of suffering the consequences.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.
His execution will be the final punctuation to all his "teachings".
If he really means all the stuff he's been saying, he will hold his execution up as the ultimate example of what can happen.
I'm certainly not holding my breath.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: The death penalty is NOT, unfortunately, a deterrant to other potential killers. Murder is usually a "crime of passion"- I.E. it happens so fast that the killer does not even think about the possible consequences. So society as a whole gains nothing from an execution.

Not true, what society gains is the knowledge that if you take a life and get convicted, you will forfeit your own life. The death penalty may not be a deterent to crimes of passion, but one way to reduce gang violence is to eliminate the leadership that condons it. Lose someone to such stupidity and you might feel differently.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's always earned.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Since Tookie is now into rehabilitating gang bangers, his highly publicized execution will give them one more lesson. His advice books are already written, his message is out. What more can he teach them ? His death can eliminate the above thoughts. His life spared will teach the wrong message, that you may get out of suffering the consequences. He was judged by a jury of his peers and found guilty and scentenced to death. He refuses to admit guilt. He offers no apologies to the victim's families. Even if innocent of these murders, as the leader of the Crips, how many other murders was he involved with directly or indirectly ? I do not know the facts on his defense but I would think he had money (illegally gained) to hire lawyers.

Capital punishment teaches people the following:
1. There is no equal treatment under the law. Money, politics, geography, sex, and race determine the treatment.
2. Might makes right.
3. Murder is justifiable.

If that is what you want to teach kids, you should continue to support capital punishment.

Capital punishment is not a deterrent, for the reasons I previously stated. If it were a deterrent, I would support it wholeheartedly. But in reality, it is a net negative, not a net positive, for society.

The price of a free society is treating every person as a human being whether or not they have merited such treatment.

No stay. Finish the job. He knew the consequenses going in, now it's time to pay the fiddler. It should have been taken care of years ago.

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: The price of a free society is treating every person as a human being whether or not they have merited such treatment.

Wrong! Living in a free society is having the freedom to choose, having the opportunity to excell in life in all the ways your potential allows you to, and being responsible for the actions you take. You have the freedom to chosse to take someone else's life, but you are responsible for that action. The state has that authority and responsibilty to protect the rest of it's citizens.

------------------
Ron
Freedom isn't Free, it's always earned.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

There has yet to be a documented case of someone being executed and then getting out of jail to kill again.
There are plenty of examples of convicted killers who were not executed who have done just that.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Wrong! Living in a free society is having the freedom to choose, having the opportunity to excell in life in all the ways your potential allows you to, and being responsible for the actions you take. You have the freedom to chosse to take someone else's life, but you are responsible for that action. The state has that authority and responsibilty to protect the rest of it's citizens.

If that is the thought process that prevents you from killing people, far be it from me to talk you out of it.

There's also plenty of examples where innocent people have been executed, too. Presumably that left the real murderers on the loose to commit murder again, eh?

As far as the Crip goes, basically it boils down to whether or not one believes that redemption is possible. If one's view is that a person can never, ever change for the better, then there's not much to argue.

I happen to believe that redemption is possible, that people can change. Look at Charles Dutton as a good example.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There has yet to be a documented case of someone being executed and then getting out of jail to kill again. There are plenty of examples of convicted killers who were not executed who have done just that.

1. How many of those killings involved ESCAPED killers? I don't recall anyone here advocating foolishly short terms as opposed to life in prison. That is a separate issue.
2. Are you advocating the death penalty for ALL murderers? If you are, just remember that a murderer who has not yet been caught will have nothing to lose. And there is nothing more dangerous than that. Such a policy would cost the lives of police officers, witnesses, and hostages.

[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 12-10-2005).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Yep, and they should let ol' Charlie out for time served too.

I know that was sarcastic, but regarding the Manson case, I do believe Leslie Van Houten is a changed person and should be freed. She's the poster child of what parole is intended for. But because it was such a shocking crime, and to this day any mention of it gets big coverage, she will probably never get out.

I don't know enough about the Tookie thing to comment on it.

quote Originally posted by buddycraigg: Now in some cases where the murder was particularly gruesome, a slow death via torture is acceptable.

And unconstitutional:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: And unconstitutional: Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ya, well, I never said I agree with everybody.

Lets say that I caught someone red handed, bludgeoning my 68 year old mother to death after raping her.

They would never find the body, not much of it anyway.

Since when did a penalty become equated with a deterrent? Capital punishment is a PENALTY, first and last. Somebody with a 'Social Conscience' tagged the deterrent bit on much later after executions were started to be carried out.I don't give a damn whether it is a deterrent or not. That is not the point.The point is you took somebody's life, and the penalty is death.What is so hard about that? You deliberately take a life, you deliberately lose yours.IMHO.
Nick
Edit..dyslexia getting worse..

------------------
fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!!

Responsibility: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
Yahoo messenger:nickcannspain
MSN Messenger-nicholascann@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-10-2005).]

Reformed?

Find me the quote where he disavows the crips and tells the current members they're wrong for doing what they're doing.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Wow, harsh... one of the few apparently obvious examples of someone reformed and you want to flip the switch. To what point? Is there something better about killing him than letting him spend the rest of his life in jail where apparently he is contributing to society in a manner. Life in prison or death... in neither case does he kill again. Kill him and he possibly becomes a martyr, leave him alive and he's an example that even with as bad a past as he's had, you can turn your life around and do some good. Does that get him a 'get out of jail free' card? Hell no, but what is the point of offing him?

My first thought is to ask where the switch is. Then I understand that in some cases, the death penalty has been given to innocent people. So how about a compromise, commute his sentance to life in prison at hard labor, if and only if he admits to his crime (and apologizes), apologizes to those affected by his gang, (the nation) and dismisses the gang he co-founded as the trash they are. If not, if anyone's execution should be a public spectacle, it should be his.

------------------
Wudman
Home of the one and only Fiero Photo-Rama
www.fierodriver.com
Friendly City Editor of:
www.StLouisMojo.Com

[This message has been edited by Wudman (edited 12-10-2005).]

He should have been executed 25 years ago. Helps with the prison overcrowding issues.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Since when did a penalty become equated with a deterrent?

I realize we are in agreement of sorts. Let me answer that question though.
With me, a prescribed penalty became a deterrent when I was sure it could happen to me if I violated certain rules. It started when I was warned what would happen if I lied to my parents, stole anything, cheated, hit my brother or sister, etc. As it is with this individual, punishment was known before hand and was realized that it was possible to increase in severity.

Exactly!!! The deterrent tag is a consequential appendage, not an integral part of it. Even if the penalty should never deter a single person from committing the crime, the penalty stands for itself. It is a stand-alone reprisal..but if it DOES deter future would-be murderers from commiting the same crime, then that is an added bonus, not a requirement to justify it.IMHO.
Nick

quote Originally posted by cccharlie: 2. Are you advocating the death penalty for ALL murderers? If you are, just remember that a murderer who has not yet been caught will have nothing to lose. And there is nothing more dangerous than that. Such a policy would cost the lives of police officers, witnesses, and hostages.

Not necessarily across the board. I don't believe in zero tolerance policies and mandatory sentences. I believe the circumstances should dictate the sentence.

But I believe your "nothign to lose" argument is flawed. In the mind of a criminal, I don't believe they're thinking about what happens if convicted - only not getting caught. So whether they're going to jail for life or execution, I'd expect them to behave just as desparately as before. A murderer will already be acting in a "nothing to lose" mindset, regardless capital punishment. The deterrant doesn't come after the first murder - it's only effective before the person murders.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Reformed? Find me the quote where he disavows the crips and tells the current members they're wrong for doing what they're doing. John Stricker

http://www.tookie.com/apology.html

hope this helps

And the apology to the people he killed, their families??

He'd need thousands of apologies because the Crips(and other street gangs) are his legacy. The problem has only gotten worse, and media promotion and gloification of the Gangsta lifestyle has only increased the draw to disaffected youth in urban environs. I used to be a correctional officer for an Illinois prison(my bachelors is in Police Administration). I worked internal affairs and taught in-service training; my "specialty" was the gang situation within the walls. Very few inmates were not affiliated with some gang- it was a matter of survival. The Chicago street gangs used to have membership in the tens of thousands:the only way to get out was to die. As these people migrate(d) into smaller hamlets throughout the country, they take their culture with them. I remember driving through their neighborhoods in the eighties prior to Christmas and seeing gang insignias sprayed onto windows with the white snow stuff that others normally use to spray "Merry Christmas." Gang-bangers know very little but death, vice and and violence. I hope the governor sends them all a message!! Goodbye Tookie!!

quote Originally posted by Uaana: And the apology to the people he killed, their families??

It seems as though he and his supporters claim that his conviction was purely racially based and therefore he does not owe those who died an apology

from a pro Williams page

http://www.savetookie.org/bio.html

"His trial was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of several witnesses, all of whom were facing a range of felony charges, including fraud, rape, murder and mutilation. Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated in a September 10, 2002, ruling that the witnesses in Stan’s case had “less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie in order to obtain leniency from the state in either charging or sentencing.”

hope this helps

Hmm. I never heard of Stanley Tookie Williams until now. Nor have I read his books. I never needed a "book" to tell me that being in gangs is a bad thing. I learned that from my parents. As for his "Stay of Execution"....hmm? If there isn't any issues with evidence, police tampering, or lies from snitches-----it's the Governors' call.

------------------

Archie's Choptop conversion #11, #15, Redux & The Stealth