ALL TOOKIE THREADS MERGED HERE

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

POSTLOGUE:

I wanted to see if you could argue some real credulity into your Absolutist Approach. In my view, the exceptions tend to make it less sound. Then, it loses more traction when you try to prop up the exceptions with the "instrinsic value" argument because it relies upon a distinction between permissible killing, as with self defense, and the government doing the same thing many victims would have done had they had the means and the opportunity. Yet, in my opinion, you haven't shown where there is a difference in the value of human life in either case.

QueEx

 

[Temujin]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to 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.


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.

I think there was a disconnect somewhere down the line. I don't have a problem with society using defense of others as a justification of the death penalty. However I feel that is patently impossible for our criminal justice to use that as a justification because there is no situation where it could apply.

You cannot use self defense argument to justify the defense of someone who is already dead. So there is no way that we could possibly say the judge and jury are standing in the shoes of the victim. Self defense only works when the murder is about to happen or is imminent.

As you noted the only exception in my opinion is self defense. The way this applies to the intrinsic value argument is very simple. All life begins with equal value man or women black or white our society grants people the right to live upon birth equally this means all men are equal. As noted the right to continue life and have your life protected by societies laws is the most fundamental right to existence. So in order for society to take that right away there must be a reason that is of equal weight as the individuals right to continue life. In our law system the reason is the individual commited a murder with some type of aggravating circumstance. I understand reason but what is the justification and this is where our system in my mind falls short.

Our criminal justice system uses punishment as a means to keep order in society. We intend our punishments to be punitive in order primarily to deter other criminals. We also intend our punishments to act as a direct deterent of future behavior against society by removing that individual from society.And another reason which I don't agree with is retribution or pain for pain.
Unfortunatley for our society rehabilitation is not a major concern of the system but that is for another discussion.

Our criminal justice system is for the most part non-violent. The only direct physical punishment our system inflicts is the death penalty. It of course is the most violent and for that reason it is an anomoly in a system that's main goal is deterrence or prevention the main goal of the system is to influence people not to commit crimes through punishment for those crimes.
In that manner the death penalty stands alone as a punishment. The societal goals of the punishment are not deterrence (though it does serve as a direct deterrence it is clear that direct deterrence could be achieved by other means). The only justification that I can gleam is some sort of retribution/revenge type of argument.

If you think my theory is shaky Que our system is even worse because they have two justifications for the taking of life, self defense and retribution. Society can murder people as a punishment for an act this is revenge this is a concept not found any other place in our law but the death penalty. Society does not have to prove a murder was imminent they have to prove a murder happened and that this act is retribution.

This is where the value of human life comes back in because if human life is the most valuable thing and worthy of the most respect then why can society use revenge as a justification but not individuals. Revenge as a concept does not equal life. It cannot. Only life equals life (Absolute intrinsic value). That is why self defense is the only justification for the individual and it should be the only justification for society to use. His past act is not a justification for a punishment that takes life.

 

[Duece]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

didn't know Tookie was born in New Orleans (according to wikipedia) kinda crazy the supposed founder of a such a large gang was born in a city where there are none

 

[nittie]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

seems to me that if life has intinsic value so does death. in that case taking a life is no different than giving birth they are both intrinsic, if they are intrinsic why should one act be punishable by death and the other a cause for celebration. we all know life is no picnic and if you really think about it bringing a life into this world could be worst than taking one out. the question it seems is who has the right appraise life, deem what's circumstances make taking life a crime and decide the penalty? last but not least can america be a fair judge? all things considered a eye for a eye seems fair if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

<font size="4">Question:

In his rehabilitation, has Tookie apologized for any of the killings that are attributed to him; and, has he fingered any of his fellow criminals who took part in the muders ??? </font size><font size="3">(of course, the question may irrelevant if he claims he didn't do any of the murders and knows nothing about them).

QueEx</font size>

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/03/tookie.execution.ap/index.html[/frame]

 

[Chitownheadbusa]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

i dont believe in the death penalty.
i think letting a man suffer and serve his time is more torture than knockin him off.
the only person that should decide if they shoud die or not is that person.

but on another note...........................
i heard he said he apologize for creating the crips.
what a bitch move.
trying to please them white folks i guess.
i aint neva heard no boss from the Chi say no corny, sell out ass shit like that.
what he should have said was that he apologize for not keeping the shit organized.
a bunch of black men riding together aint the problem, it the stupid shit they do that makes them look like ignorant niggas.
i understand he trying to die a natural death, but dam, be a man about your homie.
he dont display the demenor of ah real G.

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

i dont believe in the death penalty.
i think letting a man suffer and serve his time is more torture than knockin him off.
the only person that should decide if they shoud die or not is that person.

but on another note...........................
i heard he said he apologize for creating the crips.
what a bitch move.
trying to please them white folks i guess.
i aint neva heard no boss from the Chi say no corny, sell out ass shit like that.
what he should have said was that he apologize for not keeping the shit organized.
a bunch of black men riding together aint the problem, it the stupid shit they do that makes them look like ignorant niggas.
i understand he trying to die a natural death, but dam, be a man about your homie.
he dont display the demenor of ah real G.

What about an apology to the families of those he "supposedly" killed.

QueEx

 

[Jim_Browski]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

The Crips were founded in the late 60's-early 70's, which is right about the time when Black people decided that the "ghetto" was below them thanks to the programming Affirmative Action, as a result of integration/Civil Rights Movement, put in place....

I won't go into the effects of the best and brightest leaving a community FOR GOOD, but I will just say that when that happens it opens up a scenario where the "inmates are running the asylum".

Unfortunately, there will always be those who will curse a sneeze but totally ignore the flu virus....

This is my take on Stanley "Tookie" Williams and his creation of the Crips, an "organization" that is being blamed for everything from Jimmy Hoffa to shoplifting from the Korean liquor store....

Whyizzit that there can be so much malice toward Stanley "Tookie" Williams from Black people who seemingly have no ties to the "hood" besides having gone to a college that may be located there...or driving your BMW through your old neighborhood just to see "how far you've come"?

The Crips aren't encroaching on your little version of White suburban living...at least not yet, so again, why is this man a magnet for hate from Black people who really consider themselves "better Black people"?

Why don't I hear the same form of malice toward the Mexicans in LA who have killed Blacks for decades in the penal system and are now bring that violence to the streets...why don't/didn't I hear the same support for the men who dragged James Byrd until his head was pulled off...why don't I hear the same clamor for "justice" in regards to the capture of the Klansmen who are responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hangings/bombings/etc?

My take on the imminent execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is indifference.

If he get the injection it's fine with me....

If he's granted clemency it's fine with me....

The crux of the matter for me is just how Black people can "attack" each other with such impunity and still have the nerve to want to call each other "brother", while the Adversary gets a blank check to break his foot off in our a55es at his whim....

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

From The Boston Globe

JEFF JACOBY
Misplaced sympathy for killers
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 7, 2005

(First of two parts)
STANLEY ''TOOKIE" Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection in California's San Quentin prison next Tuesday. His death will occur nearly 27 years after he brutally murdered Albert Owens, a 7-Eleven clerk in Whittier, Calif., and three members of the Yang family -- Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and their daughter, Yee-Chen Lin -- at the Brookhaven Motel in Los Angeles.

Unlike the peaceful, painless demise awaiting Williams, the deaths of his victims were horrific: He shot each of them at close range with a 12-gauge shotgun, shattering their bodies so that they died in agony. Their suffering amused him. ''You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him," Williams bragged after killing Albert Owens. According to the district attorney's summary of the evidence, ''Williams then made gurgling or growling noises and laughed hysterically about Owens's death."

As cofounder of the deadly Crips street gang in 1971, Williams's criminal legacy goes well beyond the four murders for which he was convicted. The gang violence he unleashed 34 years ago has destroyed thousands of lives and left countless other victims scarred by rape, assault, and armed robbery. Though he now claims to have reformed and has written books with an antigang message, he has never admitted his guilt or expressed any remorse for the slaughter of Albert Owens and the Yang family. If his supposed contrition amounts to anything more than lip service, he has yet to prove it. Williams adamantly refuses to be debriefed by police about the Crips and their operations or to provide any information that could help bring other killers to justice. In fact, officials at San Quentin have said he continues to orchestrate gang activity from behind bars.

Incredibly, this thug is the object of the left's latest craze. For many anti-death penalty fundamentalists, it is not enough to oppose the execution of a savage killer -- the killer must be extolled as a noble soul whose death would be a loss for humanity. Thus Hollywood has honored Williams with a made-for-TV movie. The media have weighed in with sympathetic stories. A slew of celebrities, including such moral giants as Tom Hayden and Snoop Dogg, are clamoring for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant clemency and spare Williams's life. And all but forgotten amid this orgy of adulation are the victims Williams so cruelly murdered nearly three decades ago.

What is it that makes victims so easy to forget? When Kenneth Boyd was executed in North Carolina last week, it was reported everywhere that he was the 1,000th murderer to be put to death since the resumption of capital punishment in 1976. But how many stories devoted more than a passing mention to the two people Boyd sent to early graves -- his estranged wife, Julie Curry Boyd, and her father, Thomas Curry? Why doesn't the media's round-number fetish extend to the victims of homicide as well as the perpetrators? If the 1,000th execution made headlines, why didn't the 1,000th murder? Or the 10,000th? Or the 100,000th?

Actually there have been close to 600,000 homicides in the United States since 1976, and the total climbs by roughly 15,000 each year. Where is the uproar over those round numbers? Where are the protests, the petitions, the Hollywood rallies aimed at stopping those deaths? I understand that some people think capital punishment is wrong as a matter of principle. What I cannot understand is how anyone can be more outraged by the lawful execution each year of a few dozen murderers than by the annual slaughter of thousands of victims at the hands of such murderers.

Opponents of capital punishment make much of the theoretical possibility that an innocent defendant might be killed. What they never acknowledge is that the abolition of capital punishment guarantees that innocent victims will die. That isn't only because executing murderers has a powerful deterrent effect, as a number of recent studies confirm. It is also because prison bars can't keep some killers from killing again.

In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, ''Capital Punishment, 2004," the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees. Lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key may sound appealing. But some murderers will always escape and murder again. Others will kill in prison.

Ultimately, the case for putting murderers like Williams and Boyd to death isn't just a practical one, strong though the practical arguments are. It is also a moral one. When the state executes a murderer, it is making a statement about the demands of justice and the sanctity of human life -- a statement as old as Genesis, and as essential as ever.

Next: The bishops and the death penalty.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.



© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

 

[Chitownheadbusa]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

What about an apology to the families of those he "supposedly" killed.

QueEx

hell i dont know if he killed them folks.
and i dont think others know either.
only him and whomeva he was with that day of the murders knows the truth.
if he did do it, i think its to late to admit after all this time.
that will just make him look worst and fuck up his chances of getting life instead of death.

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

hell i dont know if he killed them folks.
and i dont think others know either.
only him and whomeva he was with that day of the murders knows the truth.
if he did do it, i think its to late to admit after all this time.
that will just make him look worst and fuck up his chances of getting life instead of death.

Well, you'll notice that I said "Allegedly". I thought admitting you were wrong is part of showing rehabilitation and compassion. Regret is usually considered a good thing when you're asking for leniency. Of course, if he really didn't didn't do what they said he did, then, I guess he wouldn't say he's sorry.

QueEx

 

[Temujin]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Actually there have been close to 600,000 homicides in the United States since 1976, and the total climbs by roughly 15,000 each year. Where is the uproar over those round numbers? Where are the protests, the petitions, the Hollywood rallies aimed at stopping those deaths? I understand that some people think capital punishment is wrong as a matter of principle. What I cannot understand is how anyone can be more outraged by the lawful execution each year of a few dozen murderers than by the annual slaughter of thousands of victims at the hands of such murderers.

Opponents of capital punishment make much of the theoretical possibility that an innocent defendant might be killed. What they never acknowledge is that the abolition of capital punishment guarantees that innocent victims will die. That isn't only because executing murderers has a powerful deterrent effect, as a number of recent studies confirm. It is also because prison bars can't keep some killers from killing again.

In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, ''Capital Punishment, 2004," the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees. Lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key may sound appealing. But some murderers will always escape and murder again. Others will kill in prison.



Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.



© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

As to the first paragraph. I don't see how someone can possibly equate being anti-death penalty with being pro murder. It's the same old myth that the death penalty deteres murder when it clearly does not. The author debunked his claims in his own article when he admits that the murder rate rises every year.

Check out this article
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176


"Figure 1 is an example of the kind of chart Sellin prepared, using recent data. The graph compares homicide rates per 100,000 population in Texas, New York, and California. From 1982 to 2002, Texas executed 239 prisoners, California ten, and New York none. The trends in homicide statistics are very similar in all three states, all of which follow national trends. These states were chosen arbitrarily, but data for other states are readily available. If you prefer to compare Texas to Oklahoma, Arkansas, or New Mexico, the data are readily available in back issues of the Statistical Abstract of the United States and Uniform Crime Reports. The results will be much the same.

Hundreds of comparisons of this sort have been made, and they consistently show that the death penalty has no effect. There have also been international comparative studies. Archer and Gartner (1984) examined fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty and found that abolition did not cause an increase in homicide rates. This research has been convincing to most criminologists (Radelet and Akers n.d.; Fessenden 2000), which is why Janet Reno was told that there was no valid research linking capital punishment to homicide rates. "

Or this from the FBI

"FBI Report Reveals Murder Rate Rise in the South
According to the FBI's Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the murder rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the murder rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Read the report. (FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report 2002, June 16, 2003). "
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf


As to the third paragraph. It is ridiculous to say that this multi-billion dollar prison industrial complex that exists in America cannot keep inmates from killing each other so therefore we should execute rather than give life sentences. The public should be outraged at the amount of tax dollars we spend on the prison system that obviously can't keep the public safe from convicted criminals.

Also the author clearly plays a shell game with readers. He states that 101 inmates on death row commited their crimes while in jail. He however does not state how many of those 101 were convicted murderers. If 75 of those 101 where in jail for something other than murder then his example makes no sense because it does not apply. He also does not state how many of the victims of these murders where inmates themselves. If they were then this clearly is the responsibility of the prison system to maintain safety. Executing people because the prison system is ineffective at keeping inmates and/or the public safe is ridiculous at best.

Let's be clear. The death penalty does not deter murders it does not save lifes. It ends lives period. It is a violent action by the state with zero social impact. All it does is satisfy the publics thirst for revenge and create the illusion that this revenge is justice because it is performed by the government.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

As to the first paragraph. I don't see how someone can possibly equate being anti-death penalty with being pro murder. It's the same old myth that the death penalty deteres murder when it clearly does not. The author debunked his claims in his own article when he admits that the murder rate rises every year.

You miss the point twice here.
First, he is not saying that you guys are pro-murder. Not at all. Stop it. He IS saying that you efforts are misapplied. And I agree. When was the last time an anti-capital punishment group hang out on a corner in an inner-city protesting the violence that occurs there ?

Second, you at least misspoke when you mention that the murder rate goes up every year. He said that the total number of murders goes up every year. Do you ever get tired of this ?


Also, the studies that show that there is no correlation between the murder rate and capital punishment is also pretty useless in this discussion because the vast majority of homicides do not meet the high bar for capital punishment. Most homicides are crimes of passion, not a planned and particuarly gruesome act such as the type that John Wayne Gacy of Jeffrey Dahmer committed. That is one of the reasons why I think the death penalty should be applied more. Only then would the "average" murderer actually think that thier life might be on the line, just like thier potential victim.

As to the third paragraph. It is ridiculous to say that this multi-billion dollar prison industrial complex that exists in America cannot keep inmates from killing each other so therefore we should execute rather than give life sentences. The public should be outraged at the amount of tax dollars we spend on the prison system that obviously can't keep the public safe from convicted criminals.

Dude, don't you get it. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. THEY LIKE TO HURT PEOPLE. Like I said before, a jail is a building. And I also find it amusing that insted of facing up to the fecklessness of your argument, you try to further the burden of the already heavily taxed and scared republic. And also, what you said lays lie to the to your rant. They cannot keep even criminals safe, so what do you do with them. Because of the criminal advocates, a life sentance of solitary is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Anyway, keep coming with the sideways rhetoric, and I will keep exposing them for what they are; empty, misguided expressions aimed at the ones who you can influence, because the root cause (the murderers) don't give a shit about what you think.

 

[Temujin]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

You miss the point twice here.
First, he is not saying that you guys are pro-murder. Not at all. Stop it. He IS saying that you efforts are misapplied. And I agree. When was the last time an anti-capital punishment group hang out on a corner in an inner-city protesting the violence that occurs there ?

Second, you at least misspoke when you mention that the murder rate goes up every year. He said that the total number of murders goes up every year. Do you ever get tired of this ?


Also, the studies that show that there is no correlation between the murder rate and capital punishment is also pretty useless in this discussion because the vast majority of homicides do not meet the high bar for capital punishment. Most homicides are crimes of passion, not a planned and particuarly gruesome act such as the type that John Wayne Gacy of Jeffrey Dahmer committed. That is one of the reasons why I think the death penalty should be applied more. Only then would the "average" murderer actually think that thier life might be on the line, just like thier potential victim.

Dude, don't you get it. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. THEY LIKE TO HURT PEOPLE. Like I said before, a jail is a building. And I also find it amusing that insted of facing up to the fecklessness of your argument, you try to further the burden of the already heavily taxed and scared republic. And also, what you said lays lie to the to your rant. They cannot keep even criminals safe, so what do you do with them. Because of the criminal advocates, a life sentance of solitary is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Anyway, keep coming with the sideways rhetoric, and I will keep exposing them for what they are; empty, misguided expressions aimed at the ones who you can influence, because the root cause (the murderers) don't give a shit about what you think.

First off I don't see to many Pat Robertson anti-murder rally's in the ghetto either.

Secondly what sense does a rally make to you death penalty cats. Ya'll think the death penalty is a deterrent. Are you know saying rally's would be more of a detterent. I don't get the point.

Next sense you pretty much discount all statistical studies that prove unequivically that the death penalty has zero detterent effect on overall murder rates or capital punishment murder rates. How about this fact. The amount of inmates sentenced to capital punishment in death penalty states continues to increase.

Let's keep it simple. Prove that the death penalty has a detterent effect. All my statistics show that it does not.

Basically since you can't prove that capital punishment has any deterrent effect your entire argument is based on this emotional sense of vengence you feel. We are discussing social policy hear. Social policy is meant to influence the behavior of the public. If the social policy has no influence on the behavior of the public it has no use. I could name you ten things that have more of an effect on murder rates then the death penalty but you would not choose to focus social policy on those. You would choose to execute more people.

I have no idea how can you support a system that does not work.

Bottom line is the death penatly does not make you safer. It does nothing for the public. ZERO. I will be amazed if you can show me one real thing the death penalty accomplishes other than killing people and satisfying the publics bloodlust. Countries without the death penalty have lower murder rates then us. You know what countries execute as many people as us. IRAN and China.

And as far as prisons. You apparently have not been to many prisons nor have you studied the American prison system. It is absurdly ineffecient. Do you realize that in other countries like Canada the thought of a prison murder is absurd. Our country does not respect life so we don't respect the lives of prisoners (some of whom are innocent). I find it very hypocritical for you to say we should kill criminals to prevent them from murdering again but then you say we should not do anything to improve the prison system so that prisoners can't kill each other. Do you want to prevent murder or not. Or is your whole goal just to kill criminals. If that is your goal many of the men on death row were doing that for you while they were free.

 

[Great1]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

I have been and continue to be of the mindset that Stanley "Tookie" Williams' sentence could be commuted to Life without the possibility of parole. NOT because he is a great man, a folk hero or anything of that nature, but because there is a bigger issue at stake than the "eye for an eye" death penalty mentality. The black homicide and incarceration rate is through the roof. Contrary to people's belief that he is inneffective with his books, Stan Williams has been instrumental in creating gang truces (if only temporary) and reaching SOME young people to turn away from gangs. If "Tookie" Williams can reach some of these young black men to turn away from gangs and crime, then we need to use that resource. To me, this is a better way of "paying his debt to society" rather than executing him.

Let me restate that I DO NOT BELIEVE, he is a hero, a great man, or anything noble. He started one of the most destructive forces in the Black community and for that, he should never be totally forgiven and should NEVER be relased from prison. THIS IS NOT ROBIN HOOD I agree with many of the people on the board that thinks it is ridiculous to hold him up as though he is some folk hero.

Now I know some of you are sitting there reading this saying "What about the lives he took? Don't they deserve justice" For that, I say absolutely. Having lost one of my best friends to gang related violence, I totally undestand that need for vengance. I honestly believe that Stan Williams should pay for his crimes FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. The questions should be, what is the more effective way to pay back that debt he owes society.

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

I have been and continue to be of the mindset that Stanley "Tookie" Williams' sentence could be commuted to Life without the possibility of parole. NOT because he is a great man, a folk hero or anything of that nature, but because there is a bigger issue at stake than the "eye for an eye" death penalty mentality. The black homicide and incarceration rate is through the roof. Contrary to people's belief that he is inneffective with his books, Stan Williams has been instrumental in creating gang truces (if only temporary) and reaching SOME young people to turn away from gangs. If "Tookie" Williams can reach some of these young black men to turn away from gangs and crime, then we need to use that resource. To me, this is a better way of "paying his debt to society" rather than executing him.

Let me restate that I DO NOT BELIEVE, he is a hero, a great man, or anything noble. He started one of the most destructive forces in the Black community and for that, he should never be totally forgiven and should NEVER be relased from prison. THIS IS NOT ROBIN HOOD I agree with many of the people on the board that thinks it is ridiculous to hold him up as though he is some folk hero.

Now I know some of you are sitting there reading this saying "What about the lives he took? Don't they deserve justice" For that, I say absolutely. Having lost one of my best friends to gang related violence, I totally undestand that need for vengance. I honestly believe that Stan Williams should pay for his crimes FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. The questions should be, what is the more effective way to pay back that debt he owes society.

Regardless of how either you, I or anyone else feels about capital punishment, your point is well taken.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4510778.stm[/frame]

 

[nittie]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

My atittude about the death penalty is I'm for it but I wouldn't want to be the one pulling the switch. I feel this way because I don't think I'm innocent enough to judge another and take their life. As for Tookie Williams I think he prolly deserves to be where he is, if he didn't kill those people he knows who did and he refused to snitch so he in effect took blame. It comes down to does America have the moral authority to execute anyone? The answer is obviously no, any country that has openly condoned genocide does not have the right to put anyone to death.

 

[QueEx]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

... It comes down to does America have the moral authority to execute anyone? The answer is obviously no, any country that has openly condoned genocide does not have the right to put anyone to death.

Now thats an interesting concept ...

QueEx

 

[nittie]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

it's not so much a concept it's really about who's so righteous that they can kill with impunity. Tookie can't do it so why can the U.S.A.

 

[ronmch20]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

Fuck Him. Can The Four People He Killed Have Their Death Sentence Commuted?

 

[Billy Slowhands]

Re: To Rehabilitate a Man, Sentence Him to Death

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

Cot Daymn that was an intelligent come back!!

I'm with the writer also. This kat killed so many parent's dreams for their children. His work on earth is done. Let him make peace after he gets sum of that goverment syrup

 

[Kid Rasta]

Do y'all think Arnold will spare the life of Tookie Williams??? If he doesn't, how would y'all feel about Arnold??? If he does, does Arnold get a "Black pass"???

I find it incredible that a Austrian-born 'action' movie star will decide the life or death fate of African American man....but, as Don King would say, "Only in America!".

 

[TRUFICTION]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

FOR THE LAST TIME
NO​

 

[gangstatrading]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

Of course they should. As I said in another post the man is behind bars for life already. Why not spear him his life rather then cause hundreds and maybe thousands more to loose theres because if he is killed you know there will be riots. White people are still killing thousands everyday (Phillips Morris, Dupont)
yet because white people run out Judiciary system we think he should be put to Death. There are many other people that have done far worse with no contribution to society that have gotten life and not Death. Lets be real.

 

[Gaggz]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

Oh cool this topic again.... Well if he realy needs and values the "IGNANT" black voters support then he will.... Otherwise probably not...LOL i think I Arnold lets "tookie" die he will be doing all blacks a favor...

 

[shams]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

kid, you cool with me, but you be mad late with the news.

 

[LSN]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

Honestly I don't care either way.

 

[LSN]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

The fukked up thing is Arnold probably has already decided in his favor but ain't gonna say shit until dude is strapped down...then that phone gonna ring at just the last second...lol...

 

[jumbo0307]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

im mixed bout the situation. he might be innocent of the murders but sumthin tells me he killed other people. it would be a shame if they did all this work to get clemency and he died a week later from prison violence or health problems

 

[Kaffeine]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

no!!!​

 

[Gaggz]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

im mixed bout the situation. he might be innocent of the murders but sumthin tells me he killed other people. it would be a shame if they did all this work to get clemency and he died a week later from prison violence or health problems

yeh well...

 

[bigblackafrica]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

if tookie admitted to the deeds, serious consideration for clemency could have been considered. but the way things are now, acknowledging guilt would not be a good look even if everyone 'implicitly' suspects you did it.

terminator is screwed no matter what decision he makes, but it's probably a safer bet for him to not intervene.

i've tried to find info out about the case(s) and it never sat well with me that tookie and his crew never offered an alternative story for what went down. at least mumia has some type of defense, but tookie really has nothing. first he tried to say he wasn't there, then that fell through, and now his only defense is 'i'm innocent' it's a conspiracy. dude, that's every cat in prisons claim, come on. give us more to work with. i've read the DAs report:

http://www.lacountyda.org/pdf/swilliams.pdf

no one is his crew has tried to shoot holes in this beyond, those dude's are snitches and the man helped them set me up (check tookie.com and savetookie.org; they never discuss or offer any alternatives to what purportedly went down).

i'm fairly convinced that he was at the 7-11 murder. the 2 of the 3 dudes with him said he did it, his brother was the third dude and didn't say anything. at least give me it wasn't my brother. at least say it was 1 of the other 2. nope, nothin'.

this case has been in rotation for 25 years. and still no solid defense or exculpatory evidence. there's no mark furhman, no mystery assailants, nada. unfortunately the only guidance i see on this is occam's razor.

so, the point is, there's extremely high probablity he did this, no credible evidence to the contrary, and no acceptance of guilt (for the murder OR being involved/at the murder, which cannot be refuted in the 7-11 case).

terminator, no matter how democratic cali is, might not feel compelled to make a clearly 'political' move that is unecessarily risky and grant clemency. i think he won't.

 

[Rahman95843]

Re: Should Schwarzenegger Grant Tookie Clemency???

Let me give you a first hand look at whats going on at San Quentin. I worked all weekend and let me tell you its crazy there. They've called all the S.E.R.T. (special emergency response team) from every prison in California. There will be Coast Guard in the water around the prison as well as Highway Patrol and local PD driving outside the prison. Schwarzenegger has signed off on all of this, meaning that its causing the state a lot of money for this event. So if he was gonna save Tookie he would have done it over the weekend. Too much money is invested in the thing and plus if he does save Tookie, just think how bad this will look for his party as well as his political future.