ALL TOOKIE THREADS MERGED HERE

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

by Mac Johnson
Posted Nov 28, 2005
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced that he would consider granting clemency to Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a murdering gang member sentenced to death for his part in four killings committed during two separate armed robberies.

Of course, Tookie probably killed a lot more people than that. I say this not just because it is a strong statistical probability, given Tookie’s youthful pattern of behavior (i.e. shooting folks), but because Tookie is one of the two founding fathers of the “Crips” drug gang, which along with the “Bloods” turned Los Angeles into a war zone during the Crack epidemic of the 1980s.

Even today, decades after Tookie was taken away from his illegitimate brainchild, his creation continues to murder, rob, rape, steal, extort, assault and maim. And, as is true of any other gangster, Tookie is responsible for the crimes of his underlings just as assuredly as he is for his own. So why is anyone campaigning for clemency?

Well, because Tookie is good people now. You see, Bad Tookie, the one who killed people and started a nationwide gang of drug-pushing thugs, no longer exists. Now there is only Good Tookie. Good Tookie writes children’s books and believes that killing people is just plain wrong. These philosophical accomplishments have so impressed some that Tookie was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the credibility and stature of which grows with every new round of nominations.

Good Tookie made his first appearance in prison and is the result of a remarkable personal rehabilitation. This rehabilitation did not happen overnight. At first Tookie couldn’t care less about his sins and victims (all of whom remain dead, I’m told), but as the appeals process became increasingly exhausted, he increasingly saw the error of his ways. If only California would apply its death penalty more swiftly, we might have known Good Tookie sooner. But since a drug dealer on death row has a longer average lifespan than one still on the street, the emergence of this peace-loving butterfly understandably took some time.

Tookie, both Bad and Good, had his days in court, where not even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could find substantive fault with his convictions, which is remarkable in itself. And now his execution finally looms, set optimistically for December 13. But Tookie did win one appeal--his appeal to the Court of Liberal America, centered in Hollywood, Calif.

There, Tookie’s the poster child of … well, where to begin? He seems to be the living symbol of redemption, prison education, poverty, black victimhood, institutional racism, youth outreach, death penalty abolition, and denim-clad prison philiospher-gurus. He’s had a movie made about him, Redemption, starring Jamie Foxx. Danny Glover and Snoop Dog are firmly on his side. Anti-American international human rights crusaders and their domestic enablers see him as a Jesus figure, except they like him. The Nobel committee was obviously impressed. And it is probably just a matter of time before he is legally adopted by Angelina Jolie. All in all, the transformation of Tookie is a fine example of the unheralded power of the death penalty to rehabilitate.

Tookie is not alone however. Dozens of cold-blooded killers have become writers, poets, lawyers, evangelical preachers, youth ministers, civil rights crusaders, animal lovers and professionally contrite appellants while awaiting execution.

Consider Karla Faye Tucker. She was the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War. I know she filled this important first for women because the media invariably affixed that fact to her as though it were part of a hyphenated surname: Karla Faye Tucker became the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War on Tuesday … the first state-sponsored killing of a woman in Texas since the American Civil War … clearing the way for her to become the first woman to be executed in Texas since the Civil War … Tucker, the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War.

In addition to being a pioneer for post-bellum feminism, Karla Faye was a “born-again” Christian. This was the only fact the media seemed to be more enamored with than her place in the history of the criminal women’s movement. Evangelical Christianity would have disqualified her from holding high office in their eyes, but they believed it made her a more pitiable gurney jockey, so they ran with it. Her conversion occurred on death row, of course.

Before her rehabilitation, she killed a man and a woman with an ice axe while robbing them for drug money. She straddled the victims as she repeatedly plunged the pick into their begging bodies, and afterwards she bragged that their panicked death throes had caused her to orgasm as she killed them.

But then Karla Faye found Jesus somewhere in the appeals process and decided that it had all been wrong. Indeed, she felt so bad about it, that she married her prison minister. The same sociopath who had felt so very good in such a very intimate way about killing people with her own hands (and they remain dead, I’m told), was later helped to rediscover Jesus Christ, conversational politeness, and girlish hair bows by that miracle of the justice system: impending death.

One could fill a thick book with the stories of other such soulless human hazards that have been turned into pleasant community-minded people by some quiet time with their own scheduled mortality.

Can we ever afford to lose this, perhaps the greatest, force for rehabilitation in our justice system?

If you believe in rehabilitation, how can you not believe in the death penalty? Nothing seems to trigger complete rehabilitation more surely than a death sentence. I am all for such rehabilitation. Let’s rehabilitate all child killers. Let’s rehabilitate most murderers of adults. Let’s rehabilitate all the poor misguided souls at Guantanamo. Heck, let’s rehabilitate a few email spammers while we’re at it.

But let’s rehabilitate them all a little faster than we have in the past. Why deny the rehabilitated the joy of understanding the value of decent human life one more day than is necessary?

Good Tookie has said he wants to serve as an example for America’s troubled youth. On December 13, perhaps he finally will. And then maybe they can work on their rehabilitations while such things still matter.
Copyright © 2005 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

It sad to see someone take such a cavalier and sarcastic attitude toward someones life.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
It sad to see someone take such a cavalier and sarcastic attitude toward someones life.
we'll just take it for granted that you're talking about "tookie" and the crips.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Yeah, especially since those mentioned only killed innocent people.

QueEx
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
we'll just take it for granted that you're talking about "tookie" and the crips.

I am talking specifically about all the individuals calling for the death of Tookie williams like it is some type of public stoning. They like I assume you do not respect the life of Tookie Williams. I find it Ironic and disturbing that individuals are so cavalier about the public execution of Tookie Williams. I don't put qualifications on human life. I feel as badly for the death of Tookie Williams as I would any premeditated murder.


People villify tookie williams as if he is the embodiement of the gang problem in America and his execution is some kind of public damnation of gang activity.
I am not blind enough to think Tookie Williams invented the gang problem in America today. I know for a fact he didn't. Gangs have existed in America since the 40's. Ever heard of the "Spook Hunters". The gangs of the 50's and 60's were a reaction to the racist killing White gangs of the 40's. In the 60's and 70's these gangs actually turned political and became very powerful community organizations. When the CIA targeted and destroyed much of the black civil rights infrastructure , the institution of the crack epidemic and the poor living conditions in LA County gangs flourished in the early 80's.

Now I don't say this because I am an anyway condoning Williams actions. I find any murder reprehensible. And putting aside my feelings on the death penalty. I think our whole tone when we discuss this matter is very disrespectful to human life in general. When people talk of another human being as if he is a piece of trash who needs to be publically executed its disturbing. If we as a society are going to publically decide life and death of our citizens we should at least have the dignity to admit the Williams life has value.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

People villify tookie williams as if he is the embodiement of the gang problem in America and his execution is some kind of public damnation of gang activity.

Well he DID organize one of the most violent ones in America with the specific purpose of committing crime. He wasn't trying to be Robin Hood.

I am not blind enough to think Tookie Williams invented the gang problem in America today.

Neither are any of the brothers here on this board.

Gangs have existed in America since the 40's.

Do you mean the 1740's, 1840's or 1940's, because there were gangs in this country at all of those times, with the express (although maybe not sole) purpose of engaging in criminal activity, using prople as victims.


The gangs of the 50's and 60's were a reaction to the racist killing White gangs of the 40's.
Not all of them. many existed to control vice. Which is what Tookie set out to do.

I can quote all day, but it is tiresome. The point is that it is folks with the belief system YOU have that have painted tookie as some kind of a victim, not us. We are merely reminding folks of what he and people like him have done. Of course Tookie grew up disadvantaged. Many of us did. But we did not turn to making our already besieged neighborhoods into violence and drug infested no-mans-lands. Tookie did, and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now regrets it. That makes him human, not innocent or a victim.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

i've commented in about 3 of these "tookie" threads and not once have i or have i seen anyone else say he invented the problem.

"tookie" admitted to being one of the founders of the crips. my personal opinion and the opinion of many other black people is there is no apology for that.

and everyone admits his life has value which is why taking it away is a form of punishment. no one is suggesting we take away his earwax from him. do you see the difference gengis.

now stop aplogizing for "tookie" and snoop and every other black person that is a detriment to all of us.

i really wish black people would have the dignity to write off a guy that admits to doing his part to handicap his own people. like white people being against us makes an excuse for "tookie" to be a total sellout to the race.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
Of course Tookie grew up disadvantaged. Many of us did. But we did not turn to making our already besieged neighborhoods into violence and drug infested no-mans-lands. Tookie did, and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now regrets it. That makes him human, not innocent or a victim..
excellent
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
and everyone admits his life has value which is why taking it away is a form of punishment. no one is suggesting we take away his earwax from him. do you see the difference gengis.

Bullshit you admit his life has value to him. But YOU do not value his life. Meaning his life has no value to YOU genius.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

if it has no value to me then why would i gain some type of satisfaction seeing it end?

genius.

value doesnt mean by default that i cherish it.

i find value in the usefulness extinguishing it will bring. one less harmful black person you can make apologies for.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
The point is that it is folks with the belief system YOU have that have painted tookie as some kind of a victim, not us. We are merely reminding folks of what he and people like him have done. Of course Tookie grew up disadvantaged. Many of us did. But we did not turn to making our already besieged neighborhoods into violence and drug infested no-mans-lands. Tookie did, and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now regrets it. That makes him human, not innocent or a victim.

If you think one black man is responsible for turning black neighboorhods into violent drug-infested no mans land you are a fool. Try poverty lack of education and a government invented, promoted and funded drug epidemic. Tookie was a tool of white oppression for many years. So does that mean we as black people should devalue his life to zero. Should we treat him with as little respect and dignity as he treated his victims. If we do we are morally no better than him as a society. How can we through away people like trash but yet claim we put such a high value on human life.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
if it has no value to me then why would i gain some type of satisfaction seeing it end?

genius.

value doesnt mean by default that i cherish it.

i find value in the usefulness extinguishing it will bring. one less harmful black person you can make apologies for.

Damn your illogical. You don't value his life you value his death. And this is my point.

Why do you value his death?
Why does the killing of another man bring you satisfaction?

You seem to share similar emotional responses that murderes share.

What use does extinguishing Tookies life serve?

You claim it is one less harmful black person. SO I take this to mean you find harm in his existence even though he is incarcerated and his ability to harm the public has been reduced to almost nil. We know from empirical evidence that murdering Tookie will not prevent another Tookie from popping up in poverty stricken neighboorhoods.

So what is the point of killing Williams? What as a society are we getting out of this to overide the value of his life?
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
Damn your illogical. You don't value his life you value his death. And this is my point.

Why do you value his death?
Why does the killing of another man bring you satisfaction?

You seem to share similar emotional responses that murderes share.

What use does extinguishing Tookies life serve?

You claim it is one less harmful black person. SO I take this to mean you find harm in his existence even though he is incarcerated and his ability to harm the public has been reduced to almost nil. We know from empirical evidence that murdering Tookie will not prevent another Tookie from popping up in poverty stricken neighboorhoods.

So what is the point of killing Williams? What as a society are we getting out of this to overide the value of his life?
gengis, death isnt independent of life. his life will end in death. death is dependent on a life being there to be snuffed out. this is all about his life. his death is valued by people because its the culmination of the LIFE he led.

now i said clearly why his life should be extinguished.

so people like you will have one less sellout to continue making excuses for.

we know from empirical evidence that "tookie" is an abnormality in our community. the quote i isolated from Fuckallyall is perfect. "tookie" is not the typical response from black people when addressing white oppression. black people shouldnt be taking up for a cannibal.

fight for someone that is worth fighting for. "tookie" should never have been born and an attempt to correct that will occur soon enough.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
gengis, death isnt independent of life. his life will end in death. death is dependent on a life being there to be snuffed out. this is all about his life. his death is valued by people because its the culmination of the LIFE he led.

now i said clearly why his life should be extinguished.

so people like you will have one less sellout to continue making excuses for.

we know from empirical evidence that "tookie" is an abnormality in our community. the quote i isolated from Fuckallyall is perfect. "tookie" is not the typical response from black people when addressing white oppression. black people shouldnt be taking up for a cannibal.

fight for someone that is worth fighting for. "tookie" should never have been born and an attempt to correct that will occur soon enough.

Temujin is a name. Gengis is a title. If you want to call me great just call me great.

When you choose the ending date of a man's life. You have choosen what will represent his life. You have choosen to not allow his future. You have choosen to let all that which came up to the time of his death to represent him. You have choosen to elliminate all that will happen in the future. This is the life you do not respect.

Tookie Williams situation is typical of any impoverished area globally. He is not some symbolic archtype of a criminal. He is an everyday criminal who was more successful then most.

And not once did I ever make an excuse for his crimes. I do not feel the need to make excuses for grown men. I don't feel the need to make excuses for myself. I think Williams is not worthy of the mythical treatment many give him. The idea that he is some great innovator who developed one of the largest gangs in America is a joke. Williams has been in jail since 1982.

But anyway to me this is not about Tookie Williams. This is about the type of dialouge we as Americans have when discussing matters of life an death. We are trivial about the deaths of people we consider "guilty" but we boo hoo and lament over the deaths of people we consider innocent. We put this sick relative scale on the value of human life and it is disturbing. If we devalue life by actions does life increase value by actions. I am an absolutist when it comes to human life. I believe it is the most valuable thing on the planet and I can't be so hypocritical to say that my life has intrinsic value apart from my actions but the next man's does not.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

whats the mongol word for excuse maker.

so i can get your full title correct great one.

now look gengis, you live in a dream world. all human life is not equal. some people are animals. its a small number, but some people are. we should not equate these people with their victims. some poor old grandmother trying to raise her grandkids correctly has more positive value than "tookie," and if one was going to die i dont believe any rational person would be indifferent between the two because every human life is the same, whether you're a crip founder or a grandmother raising a second generation of children.

if you dont like the grandmother example then pick any one you want where its some person trying to live positively or at the very least not to the detriment of others. their life is not worth the same as the destructive lives of these cannibals that feed off our community.

and fuck his future. the benefits of his life does not outweigh the cost he's responsible for directly or indirectly. he can be sorry all he wants and want to do good now that he's been facing death for the past 20 yrs, but that doesnt negate the legitimacy of society wanting to exact payment from him. and living with the adoration of snoop and the other sellouts is not payment enough.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
If you think one black man is responsible for turning black neighboorhods into violent drug-infested no mans land you are a fool. Try poverty lack of education and a government invented, promoted and funded drug epidemic. Tookie was a tool of white oppression for many years. So does that mean we as black people should devalue his life to zero. Should we treat him with as little respect and dignity as he treated his victims. If we do we are morally no better than him as a society. How can we through away people like trash but yet claim we put such a high value on human life.
What are you talking about ? I did not say, nor infer, that Tookie is the only one who is responsible for those conditions. Please stop mischaracterising (sic) my statements. It's getting old. What I am saying is that Tookie has murdered innocent people in the name of a dollar (something that you and folks like you CONSTANTLY lambaste this current administration for doing), was caught red handed, and is facing the known consequences for his actions. He also recuited, sometimes through intimidation, others to do the same. His direct and indirect actions has led to much death and much suffering. In this society, you forfeit your life for that shit. And that is exactly what he did. I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that is why I believe in the eradication of predators of human life. Prisons are buildings, and people get out of them often. They can also do further damage in them. There are many instances where heads of criminal groups have ordered hits from thier cell. They also injure and kill other convicts.

Now, about Tookie specifically. He may be a true convert. I cannot read what is in a mans heart. But I can see what he has done. Tookie did not give a shit about loss of life until his life was the one to be lost. Now all of a sudden he is a victim. Please. His life was a valuble as mine, until his actions made him a threat to others. He has no right to be that. I wonder how forgiving you would be if Tookie, or somebody like he was, was beating a member of you family to death becauise they did not want to hustle drugs, guns or women for him. Think about it, because every one of his victims was at least somebodys child. And not all of the deaths he and his ilk caused were other gangsters. And other gangsters were not the only ones that suffered. Holla.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

There are some really great comments in this thread.

QueEx

 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
I can quote all day, but it is tiresome. The point is that it is folks with the belief system YOU have that have painted tookie as some kind of a victim, not us. We are merely reminding folks of what he and people like him have done. Of course Tookie grew up disadvantaged. Many of us did. But we did not turn to making our already besieged neighborhoods into violence and drug infested no-mans-lands. Tookie did, and succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and now regrets it. That makes him human, not innocent or a victim.
Well said.

QueEx
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
If you think one black man is responsible for turning black neighboorhods into violent drug-infested no mans land you are a fool.

Answer: Yes.

Try poverty lack of education and a government invented, promoted and funded drug epidemic.

Easy and common excuse. It's some government force that forced Tookie to arrange to sell drugs, in fact sell death to children. I guess he was afraid of something huh? Tell me what that was?

Tookie was a tool of white oppression for many years. So does that mean we as black people should devalue his life to zero.

Wrong question. Tookie is about to get a taste of his own medicine. His actions contributed to countless hundreds, maybe thousands of parents needed to burying their children or having to visit them in prison. What value should we place on those young boys and girls laying in the cold ground while we consider Tookies value to society?

Should we treat him with as little respect and dignity as he treated his victims.

Let me see what the families of his dead and wounded victims have to say.

If we do we are morally no better than him as a society. How can we through away people like trash but yet claim we put such a high value on human life.

Cry me a river. I'm sure Tookie expected that one day his ass would get strung up and quartered for his crimes. I'm sure he knew he would get caught, tried in court and convicted by those same whites you suggest are responsible for what he did in our communities to our children. Why in the hell are you crying the blues for him? Not one post from you on those Tookie killed. Not one post from you crying about the families who had to view the bodies of their dead young. Not one post to say to Tookie to cut that shit out he was doing but somehow you find the gall to hold up a banner and say this Tookie has value.

You need to let it go pal. We'll read about it in a book. Beyond that, this fool is nothing more than another drug lord who if given the chance, would do the same damn thing again. He failed his people and I hope the state doesn't fail. For years, he's had chance after chance to cut that shit out but chose wrong every damn time. He ain't learning shit. Every time he walked out of jail, he talked just as ignorant as you are now. Aint' learned shit about living in a society.

What value does his life have? NONE. Maybe his death would have value to show those who might push dope on our children that drugs kill.

-VG
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands
By Dennis Prager

Nov 29, 2005


Those of us who believe in the death penalty for some murders are told by opponents of the death penalty that if the state executes an innocent man, we have blood on our hands.

They are right. I, for one, readily acknowledge that as a proponent of the death penalty, my advocacy could result in the killing of an innocent person.

I have never, however, encountered any opponents of the death penalty who acknowledge that they have the blood of innocent men and women on their hands.

Yet they certainly do. Whereas the shedding of innocent blood that proponents of capital punishment are responsible for is thus far, thankfully, only theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which opponents of capital punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all. Thanks to their opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have been murdered by killers who would otherwise have been put to death.

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store burglary.

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.

According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

For 23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system -- not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals' loved ones -- to keep Allen alive.

Had Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer. Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

That in a nutshell is the attitude of the abolitionists. They are "willing to gamble with a portion of society" -- such as the lives of additional innocent victims -- in order to save the life of every murderer.

Abolitionists are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are moral inferiors, barbarians essentially. But just as pacifists' views ensure that far more innocents will be killed, so do abolitionists' views ensure that more innocents will die.

There may be moral reasons to oppose taking the life of any murderer (though I cannot think of one), but saving the lives of innocents cannot be regarded as one of them.

Nevertheless, abolitionists will be happy to learn that Amnesty International has taken up the cause of ensuring that Clarence Ray Allen be spared execution. That is what the international community now regards as fighting for human rights.



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

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2005/11/29/177026.html
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Abolitionists are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are moral inferiors, barbarians essentially.
nice that i'm not the only one that notices this.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
now look GREAT, you live in a dream world. all human life is not equal. some people are animals. its a small number, but some people are. we should not equate these people with their victims. some poor old grandmother trying to raise her grandkids correctly has more positive value than "tookie," and if one was going to die i dont believe any rational person would be indifferent between the two because every human life is the same, whether you're a crip founder or a grandmother raising a second generation of children.

QUOTE]

Your analogy is not what I am talking about. Maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to about the intrinsic value of human life.. We are not talking about an either or situation we are not talking about talking one mans life. Not taking one mans life to save another mans life.

Lets not get it twisted. Killing Williams will not save one man, women or child. It will prevent no future murders.

So you understand Greedy every human life has intrinsic value, every human has a right to live. (isn't that why you right wingers are anti abortion). I am viscerally sickened by anyone who takes life for any reason other than to save life. It does not equate to me.

I am through with you because from your view some human beings are animals. Because that sick ideology is the premise for racism, slavery and genocide I can't even waste time trying to explain to you why human life has value and why another man cannot devalue my life. The value of my life is mine.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that is why I believe in the eradication of predators of human life.

Now, about Tookie specifically. He may be a true convert. I cannot read what is in a mans heart. But I can see what he has done. Tookie did not give a shit about loss of life until his life was the one to be lost. Now all of a sudden he is a victim. Please. His life was a valuble as mine, until his actions made him a threat to others. He has no right to be that. I wonder how forgiving you would be if Tookie, or somebody like he was, was beating a member of you family to death becauise they did not want to hustle drugs, guns or women for him. Think about it, because every one of his victims was at least somebodys child. And not all of the deaths he and his ilk caused were other gangsters. And other gangsters were not the only ones that suffered. Holla.

That is the type of ideological hypocrisy I am talking about. How can you value the sanctity of human life yet be so cavalier about its end.

As far as your second paragraph. I don't want to get into a debate about why I don't agree with the death penalty system because that is not the issue. Obviously we live in a society that certain actions allow one to forfeit their right to life. But in mind this is not justice. Tookie was convicted of killing 4 people. We can't kill tookie four times. Killing Tookie does not bring life. It does not prevent murder or improve life. It is simply societies revenge mechanism. I understand this.

My question was what did Williams do to YOU that you devalue his life and support his murder. I clearly don't support his public execution not because he isn't guilty. I don't support his murder because the taking of his life serves no purpose. I still don't see a valid reason that would overcome the intrinsic value of his life and his future existince. Revenge is not ours, revenge belongs to the family members of those slain.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

VegasGuy said:
Answer: Yes.



Easy and common excuse. It's some government force that forced Tookie to arrange to sell drugs, in fact sell death to children. I guess he was afraid of something huh? Tell me what that was?



Wrong question. Tookie is about to get a taste of his own medicine. His actions contributed to countless hundreds, maybe thousands of parents needed to burying their children or having to visit them in prison. What value should we place on those young boys and girls laying in the cold ground while we consider Tookies value to society?



Let me see what the families of his dead and wounded victims have to say.



Cry me a river. I'm sure Tookie expected that one day his ass would get strung up and quartered for his crimes. I'm sure he knew he would get caught, tried in court and convicted by those same whites you suggest are responsible for what he did in our communities to our children. Why in the hell are you crying the blues for him? Not one post from you on those Tookie killed. Not one post from you crying about the families who had to view the bodies of their dead young. Not one post to say to Tookie to cut that shit out he was doing but somehow you find the gall to hold up a banner and say this Tookie has value.

You need to let it go pal. We'll read about it in a book. Beyond that, this fool is nothing more than another drug lord who if given the chance, would do the same damn thing again. He failed his people and I hope the state doesn't fail. For years, he's had chance after chance to cut that shit out but chose wrong every damn time. He ain't learning shit. Every time he walked out of jail, he talked just as ignorant as you are now. Aint' learned shit about living in a society.

What value does his life have? NONE. Maybe his death would have value to show those who might push dope on our children that drugs kill.

-VG

You understand very little about criminal behavior. Let me explain some things to you.

Criminals almost never consider the repurcussions of their crimes on themselves or on their victims. Part of being able to deal emotionally with deviant behavior is normalizing the behavior and rationalizing it. So no Tookie nor anyone else on Death Row thought they would end up their.

Everything else you said was beyond the point and made little sense. I am not defending tookie or his actions. I am being very clear that all human life has intrinsic value. What you can't seem to realize is that you admit that all human life has value. However you have devalued Tookies life based on his actions. What I am trying to make all of you realize is that this is a sick slippery slope. When we start allowing murders to take place in our society not because we are protecting life but simply to make a point it is disgusting.

Understand killing tookie is a violent act. His life will end by the will of the people. You have taking part in many killings just by your participation in this system. Understand the blood of this man is on your and my hands and my value of human life is so high that I take this matter very seriously and not easily. Many of you start out with a low intrinsic value of human life so for you its like throwing away the garbage. This is what disturbes me.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands
By Dennis Prager

Nov 29, 2005


Those of us who believe in the death penalty for some murders are told by opponents of the death penalty that if the state executes an innocent man, we have blood on our hands.

They are right. I, for one, readily acknowledge that as a proponent of the death penalty, my advocacy could result in the killing of an innocent person.

I have never, however, encountered any opponents of the death penalty who acknowledge that they have the blood of innocent men and women on their hands.

Yet they certainly do. Whereas the shedding of innocent blood that proponents of capital punishment are responsible for is thus far, thankfully, only theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which opponents of capital punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all. Thanks to their opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have been murdered by killers who would otherwise have been put to death.

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store burglary.

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.

According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

For 23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system -- not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals' loved ones -- to keep Allen alive.

Had Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer. Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

That in a nutshell is the attitude of the abolitionists. They are "willing to gamble with a portion of society" -- such as the lives of additional innocent victims -- in order to save the life of every murderer.

Abolitionists are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are moral inferiors, barbarians essentially. But just as pacifists' views ensure that far more innocents will be killed, so do abolitionists' views ensure that more innocents will die.

There may be moral reasons to oppose taking the life of any murderer (though I cannot think of one), but saving the lives of innocents cannot be regarded as one of them.

Nevertheless, abolitionists will be happy to learn that Amnesty International has taken up the cause of ensuring that Clarence Ray Allen be spared execution. That is what the international community now regards as fighting for human rights.



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

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2005/11/29/177026.html

Intresting article and its almost true but it is not accurate.


The author may or may not be aware of the laws in this country but you cannot kill someone unless he is posing an immenint threat to kill you or someone else. So supporting the death penalty with a self defense argument is baseless. Its without legal or logical merit. I can't murder someone because he might murder me three years from now.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Greed said:
nice that i'm not the only one that notices this.

Yes Greedy you are a barbarian. You believe some human beings are not human they are animals.

Everybody else just doesn't think life has much intrinsic value outside of what you have done in the past.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

i thought you were through with me. then you post again 20 minutes later.

1st i'm a rightwinger then i'm a barbarian.

is this the part where you take the higher moral ground based on logic and principle.
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
You understand very little about criminal behavior. Let me explain some things to you.

Criminals almost never consider the repurcussions of their crimes on themselves or on their victims. Part of being able to deal emotionally with deviant behavior is normalizing the behavior and rationalizing it. So no Tookie nor anyone else on Death Row thought they would end up their.

You are right, I don't understand criminal behavior. Mainly because I am not a criminal but I don't fuckin need to "UNDERSTAND" criminal behavior. I only need be conserned with the effect of what criminal behavior has on my community. I have to be conserned with how it affects my children and the children in the neighborhood and how it stunts their growth and leverages their futures. The same future I expect to live in when they are making the decisions. I can't be so conserned with all the bleeding heart nonsense you and people like you feel you must embrace to not be viewed in your circles as mean people. I don't have the same kind of love you pretend to have for a criminal who does a drive by and one of those bullets hits a little girl in her bedroom. Why in the hell should she be dead, her family and friends suffer, society as a whole suffer at her loss but the gangbanger get compassion? WHY? Because is makes us less civil to want to make him less comfortable alive in his cell watching cable? I don't think so.

Everything else you said was beyond the point and made little sense. I am not defending tookie or his actions. I am being very clear that all human life has intrinsic value. What you can't seem to realize is that you admit that all human life has value. However you have devalued Tookies life based on his actions.

Don't bullshit me. It's makes perfect sense to you and you damn well know it. And life having intrinsic value is bullshit psychobabble in this question. Because cancer, HIV, hell the common cold is intrinsic life but how does that intrinsic value impact the community or society? Those are the questions we are dealing with as a member of society. Not simply that Tookie has the ability to breathe. So I gotta ask, what intrinsic value to the community did Tookie have during his tenure as a free man?

See, your ass jumped all the way from his biology to him being used as the white mans tool and absolutely excused everything else up to and including those dead and buried victims. People who did not a damn thing to deserve to be killed by Tookie. And you say it isn't his fault. Fuck if it isn't. This is what makes your rationale so fuckin' nutty sounding to me. And Tookie isn't even contrite, not even now!

What I am trying to make all of you realize is that this is a sick slippery slope. When we start allowing murders to take place in our society not because we are protecting life but simply to make a point it is disgusting.
Do you believe in killing unborn babies too?

Understand killing tookie is a violent act. His life will end by the will of the people. You have taking part in many killings just by your participation in this system. Understand the blood of this man is on your and my hands and my value of human life is so high that I take this matter very seriously and not easily. Many of you start out with a low intrinsic value of human life so for you its like throwing away the garbage. This is what disturbes me.
Yes I understand and accept that by killing tookie at the hands of the state that it is a violent act. But it too is besides the point. I am not convinced that Williams was unaware of the consequences of his willful actions. The people of the state agreed that when heinous crimes involving the taking of a human life by anyone, the punishment meted out is the loss of your own life. It didn't say "unless you are a tool of the white man."

-VG
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

VegasGuy said:
You are right, I don't understand criminal behavior. Mainly because I am not a criminal but I don't fuckin need to "UNDERSTAND" criminal behavior. I only need be conserned with the effect of what criminal behavior has on my community. I have to be conserned with how it affects my children and the children in the neighborhood and how it stunts their growth and leverages their futures. The same future I expect to live in when they are making the decisions. I can't be so conserned with all the bleeding heart nonsense you and people like you feel you must embrace to not be viewed in your circles as mean people. I don't have the same kind of love you pretend to have for a criminal who does a drive by and one of those bullets hits a little girl in her bedroom. Why in the hell should she be dead, her family and friends suffer, society as a whole suffer at her loss but the gangbanger get compassion? WHY? Because is makes us less civil to want to make him less comfortable alive in his cell watching cable? I don't think so.



Don't bullshit me. It's makes perfect sense to you and you damn well know it. And life having intrinsic value is bullshit psychobabble in this question. Because cancer, HIV, hell the common cold is intrinsic life but how does that intrinsic value impact the community or society? Those are the questions we are dealing with as a member of society. Not simply that Tookie has the ability to breathe. So I gotta ask, what intrinsic value to the community did Tookie have during his tenure as a free man?

See, your ass jumped all the way from his biology to him being used as the white mans tool and absolutely excused everything else up to and including those dead and buried victims. People who did not a damn thing to deserve to be killed by Tookie. And you say it isn't his fault. Fuck if it isn't. This is what makes your rationale so fuckin' nutty sounding to me. And Tookie isn't even contrite, not even now!


Do you believe in killing unborn babies too?


Yes I understand and accept that by killing tookie at the hands of the state that it is a violent act. But it too is besides the point. I am not convinced that Williams was unaware of the consequences of his willful actions. The people of the state agreed that when heinous crimes involving the taking of a human life by anyone, the punishment meted out is the loss of your own life. It didn't say "unless you are a tool of the white man."

-VG

What you don't realize VG is that your respect of life has a direct result on your childrens respect of life. Societies respect of life also has a direct impact on your childrens respect of life. If you tell your children some people's lives are worthless and they deserve to die, how do you tell your children you come to this conclusion.

My point is this Williams just like you VG believed at some point in his life that certain individuals lives were worthless and they deserved to die. He by the actions of his own hand killed people based on this premise. How can you now use the same argument to justify his killing. You must think your justification for killing him is somehow morally superior to his justification for killing. I just want you and others like you to take this more seriously than Williams did.

Since you think the intrinsic value of human life is silly let me explain it to you a little simplier. I know you are familiar with the idea of equality. The idea that all men are created equal. I am also sure you are also familiar with the idea of human rights. The idea that all individuals regardless of who they are or where they are from are subject to rights as human beings. The most important of these rights is the right to continue life. This right being the most important is why we have the most extreme punishment for its violation.

Human rights and equality must be enforced for everyone. From the most good to the most evil if you truly believe that everyone should be afforded these rights you fight for them regardless of how evil the person may seem.

Lets get it clear guys. I am not necessarily against the death penalty. However I am definitely against the death penalty SYSTEM in the United States. One of the reasons I am is the public does not take putting someone to death seriously. Just like criminals don't empathize with the victims of their crimes we do not empathize with the victims of the death penalty. We in our minds dehumanize them in order to carry out what we believe as justice. We don't see them as you or me we see them as enemies of society.

We live in one of the most violent societies in the world. One of The reason s our murder rate is so high in comparison to other countries is because WE all of us in society do not value human life. We kill with no remorse. We do not see the humanity in Williams because of his actions.

Be rational in your decisions to publically kill people. Yes williams killed people. But we don't execute every murderer in the U.S. We probably execute less then 1% of the murderers in the U.S.

Most of you who support his death know little about his case little about his life. How can you stand in judgment of the life of a man so easily. This is my problem with all those who find it easy to kill Williams. I am just trying to figure out why is it so easy to KILL.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
Intresting article and its almost true but it is not accurate.


The author may or may not be aware of the laws in this country but you cannot kill someone unless he is posing an immenint threat to kill you or someone else. So supporting the death penalty with a self defense argument is baseless. Its without legal or logical merit. I can't murder someone because he might murder me three years from now.
Once again, you are trying to make a straw man, instead of dealing with the issue at hand. You really should stop trying, because you are not that good at it. And you do not know the law. It is legal for the agents of the state to take the life of another IF THE CONDEMNED HAS BEEN CONVICTED BY A JURY OF THIER PEERS OF A CAPITAL CRIME, THEN IN A SEPERATE PROCEEDING, SENTANCING THE CONVICT TO DEATH. What you are referring to is the right to self defence by a civilian. Also, I notice that you do not agrue that those heinous crimes were committed by those accused in the article. That is because you cannot.

I posted this article in support of my assertion that although they may be in prison, these horrible people (and they are horrible because of thier proven actions, not my "disregard" for thier humanity) continued to prey upon others.

I also noticed your assertion that there is a right to life. I agree with you to a certain extent. There is more than merely a civil law based right to life. I believe very strongly that life is the most precious gift that there is. And that is why I feel we should eradicate predators when we can. With rights come responsibility. People like Tookie abdicated that right when they eschewed thier responsibility not to kill others for fun and profit.

I make no mistake or excuse when it comes to the death penalty. I know and accept that I am advocating the taking of a life that I have control over. I do not engage in this belief system cavalierly. I do so with regret. But the reason why I believe the way I do is because of the horrible acts those people have committed. I, and many experts on the human mind, believe that it takes a special type of evil to commit the crimes that are eligable for the death penalty. These are people who just about invariably have previous violence in thier background, and show no remorse (until thier ass is on the line). Then, when it is them looking down the barrel, all of a sudden realize that they ARE human, after all, and start screaming "human rights, human rights". And then here come folks like you, captain save-a-crip, screaming bloddy murder AT US. Isn't that just a little misguided?

It is horribly irresponsible for folks like you to attempt to make folks like me feel bad for something that we take very solemnly and regretably. The next-to-last thing I want to do is kill someone. But the last thing I want is to be killed. And that is why guys like Tookie may have to go.

You have nothing but passion for you arguement (it isn't nice to kill). But I have both passion and reason on why the death penalty should be.

Holla back only if you respond directly to what we are discussing.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin,

I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, especially since I don't believe it acts as a deterrent and I've seen how it has been disproportionately meted out. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your "Absolutist Approach" either. As you said:
"I am an absolutist when it comes to human life. I believe it is the most valuable thing on the planet and I can't be so hypocritical to say that my life has intrinsic value apart from my actions but the next man's does not."​
From your arguments, I take it your absolutism means that human life is to be valued over everything and that no one has the right to take the life of another. The problem I see with that is, life, like everything else, is conditional. While no one should have the right or be permitted to take someone else's life, that premise only stands true, perhaps, so long as each person places that same value on the life of every other person. However, when one devalues the life of another (i.e., by murdering another) he has thus devalued his own life, leaving his life in peril to society's laws. Hence, the sanctity of each man's life is conditioned upon one recognizing the sanctity of every other man's life.

And, while you've argued absolutism and against the value or sanctity of life being conditional, you've actually recognized that it is conditional. In one of your responses to Greed, you stated:
"So you understand Greedy every human life has intrinsic value, every human has a right to live. (isn't that why you right wingers are anti abortion). I am viscerally sickened by anyone who takes life <u>for any reason other than to save life</u>. It does not equate to me."​
While that statement might sound good, you cannot simultaneously maintain your absolutist view on the one hand and make an exception to it, on the other. When you do, you fall down the same "slippery slope" that you accused someone of doing up above. Once you create an exception to your absolute rule its no longer absolute and it leaves the door open for other exceptions. To argue otherwise makes you hypocritical.

QueEx
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

QueEx said:
Temujin,

I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, especially since I don't believe it acts as a deterrent and I've seen how it has been disproportionately meted out. Nevertheless, I don't agree with your "Absolutist Approach" either. As you said:
"I am an absolutist when it comes to human life. I believe it is the most valuable thing on the planet and I can't be so hypocritical to say that my life has intrinsic value apart from my actions but the next man's does not."​
From your arguments, I take it your absolutism means that human life is to be valued over everything and that no one has the right to take the life of another. The problem I see with that is, life, like everything else, is conditional. While no one should have the right or be permitted to take someone else's life, that premise only stands true, perhaps, so long as each person places that same value on the life of every other person. However, when one devalues the life of another (i.e., by murdering another) he has thus devalued his own life, leaving his life in peril to society's laws. Hence, the sanctity of each man's life is conditioned upon one recognizing the sanctity of every other man's life.

And, while you've argued absolutism and against the value or sanctity of life being conditional, you've actually recognized that it is conditional. In one of your responses to Greed, you stated:
"So you understand Greedy every human life has intrinsic value, every human has a right to live. (isn't that why you right wingers are anti abortion). I am viscerally sickened by anyone who takes life <u>for any reason other than to save life</u>. It does not equate to me."​
While that statement might sound good, you cannot simultaneously maintain your absolutist view on the one hand and make an exception to it, on the other. When you do, you fall down the same "slippery slope" that you accused someone of doing up above. Once you create an exception to your absolute rule its no longer absolute and it leaves the door open for other exceptions. To argue otherwise makes you hypocritical.

QueEx

I don't think the stances are contradictory. My value of human life is absolute there are no variations in relative value when it comes to decisions of life and death.
I never said that taking a human life is never neccessary. I feel the only situation where it is necessary when it is inevitable that a choice must be made.

There is nothing more valuable than human life. However all human life is equal. So the only equality situation dealing with the taking human life would be a situation where a human life is saved.

My stance is exactly the stance the law takes when citizens individually take life. The only true defense to murder is self defense or defense of others. I would like the same standards to apply when society takes life. Society should not take life unless it is for the express purpose of saving a life.

I feel most people agree with me. Most people would not allow an individual defense of murder to be. "That person was a piece of trash." or "That person was an animal" however we use that as our moral ground to justify public murder. What I feel most people are scared to admit is that they agree with the death penalty on strictly revenge/retribution grounds.

Revenge/retribution is not a valid defense for an individual and it should not be a valid defense for a society. However we as a society do not believe in an absolute value of human life. We put valuations on peoples lives based on their actions. My whole point in this thread was to try to figure out how people actually come up with these valuations. And if people do believe in these valuations then they cannot believe life is the most important thing on this planet. Apparently revenge/retribution in some cases is more important than life but not all life just life that has been devalued by an individuals actions.
 

Temujin

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuckallyall said:
Once again, you are trying to make a straw man, instead of dealing with the issue at hand. You really should stop trying, because you are not that good at it. And you do not know the law. It is legal for the agents of the state to take the life of another IF THE CONDEMNED HAS BEEN CONVICTED BY A JURY OF THIER PEERS OF A CAPITAL CRIME, THEN IN A SEPERATE PROCEEDING, SENTANCING THE CONVICT TO DEATH. What you are referring to is the right to self defence by a civilian. Also, I notice that you do not agrue that those heinous crimes were committed by those accused in the article. That is because you cannot.

I posted this article in support of my assertion that although they may be in prison, these horrible people (and they are horrible because of thier proven actions, not my "disregard" for thier humanity) continued to prey upon others.

I also noticed your assertion that there is a right to life. I agree with you to a certain extent. There is more than merely a civil law based right to life. I believe very strongly that life is the most precious gift that there is. And that is why I feel we should eradicate predators when we can. With rights come responsibility. People like Tookie abdicated that right when they eschewed thier responsibility not to kill others for fun and profit.

I make no mistake or excuse when it comes to the death penalty. I know and accept that I am advocating the taking of a life that I have control over. I do not engage in this belief system cavalierly. I do so with regret. But the reason why I believe the way I do is because of the horrible acts those people have committed. I, and many experts on the human mind, believe that it takes a special type of evil to commit the crimes that are eligable for the death penalty. These are people who just about invariably have previous violence in thier background, and show no remorse (until thier ass is on the line). Then, when it is them looking down the barrel, all of a sudden realize that they ARE human, after all, and start screaming "human rights, human rights". And then here come folks like you, captain save-a-crip, screaming bloddy murder AT US. Isn't that just a little misguided?

It is horribly irresponsible for folks like you to attempt to make folks like me feel bad for something that we take very solemnly and regretably. The next-to-last thing I want to do is kill someone. But the last thing I want is to be killed. And that is why guys like Tookie may have to go.

You have nothing but passion for you arguement (it isn't nice to kill). But I have both passion and reason on why the death penalty should be.

Holla back only if you respond directly to what we are discussing.

I feel you and I respect your opinion. If you feel solemnly and regretably about your responsibility as a member of society to take human life then we are exactly the same. I however don't believe revenge is a justifiable reason for a taking of human life. Regardless of their past, human life is so precious that nothing but the prevention of certain future murder with no other recourse would justify in my mind the killing of another. You cannot honestly say you know for sure Williams will ever kill another man or be responsible for the death of another. You nor I have no idea. To kill him because we think he might do is not just and does not exist anywhere in our law.

But you must admit you cannot logically use self defense as an argument for the death penalty. Prisons could easily be changed to assure no prisoner could harm another. Supermax prisons are built specifically for that purpose.
We have an option to prevent future murders with out killing and that is the option we should take.

And if you truley take this situation seriously you should seriously look at the manner in which our society decides to put people to death. But I don't want to diverge into a discussion about the ills of our system. I specifically wanted to talk about our support of any system that uses revenge/retribution as a moral justification for the taking of human life and how the support of such a system devalues human life in the minds of the members of our society.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
I feel you and I respect your opinion. If you feel solemnly and regretably about your responsibility as a member of society to take human life then we are exactly the same. I however don't believe revenge is a justifiable reason for a taking of human life. Regardless of their past, human life is so precious that nothing but the prevention of certain future murder with no other recourse would justify in my mind the killing of another. You cannot honestly say you know for sure Williams will ever kill another man or be responsible for the death of another. You nor I have no idea. To kill him because we think he might do is not just and does not exist anywhere in our law.

But you must admit you cannot logically use self defense as an argument for the death penalty. Prisons could easily be changed to assure no prisoner could harm another. Supermax prisons are built specifically for that purpose.
We have an option to prevent future murders with out killing and that is the option we should take.

And if you truley take this situation seriously you should seriously look at the manner in which our society decides to put people to death. But I don't want to diverge into a discussion about the ills of our system. I specifically wanted to talk about our support of any system that uses revenge/retribution as a moral justification for the taking of human life and how the support of such a system devalues human life in the minds of the members of our society.
Respect.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Temujin said:
I don't think the stances are contradictory. My value of human life is absolute there are no variations in relative value when it comes to decisions of life and death.
The contradiction is not in the fact that you value all human life equally, it lies in the exceptions to your own rule. You make the following exceptions:
- I feel the only situation where it is necessary when it is inevitable that a choice must be made.

- So the only equality situation dealing with the taking human life would be a situation where a human life is saved.

- self defense or defense of others.​
As you said, your exceptions are the same ones permitted by law. The only difference is that your exceptions allow "individuals" to make the life or death decision and with the death penalty, a judge or jury makes the decision. There is no fundamental difference in the value of either life being taken -- just a difference in who does the killing. In other words, you (like probably everyone else on this board) hold life in the highest regard, however, you allow an exception to that highest regard to be made by individuals but not by a judge or jury. What fundamental difference in the value of human life is there between the two? I suggest that there is none. You simply "would like the same standards to apply when society takes life. Society should not take life unless it is for the express purpose of saving a life." That is, you're against the death penalty. period.

I feel most people agree with me. Most people would not allow an individual defense of murder to be. "That person was a piece of trash." or "That person was an animal" however we use that as our moral ground to justify public murder. What I feel most people are scared to admit is that they agree with the death penalty on strictly revenge/retribution grounds.
Now you know damn well that merely because someone says a person is a piece of trash is <u>not</u> the reason the person is sitting on death row. In all likelihood, the S.O.B. is an animal, a piece of trash or even worse, a piece of shit. But the reason people say that is because that SOB committed a heinous murder. Its taking the life of another under aggravated circumstances that forms the basis for taking that SOB's life.
 
Top