# Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader



## Jeff Boler (Dec 12, 2005)

Probably going to get ugly.  Opinions?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.execution/index.html


----------



## Satt (Dec 12, 2005)

Who am I to judge? I just hope that there aren't huge riots from this mess.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

I would like to see people encouraged to improve themselves while in prison, but...I have to agree with the Governor's speechwriter that failing to admit guilt and apologize for his crime is a significant disincentive to sparing him.

Part of the problem is the drawn-out appeals process. This is for a murder he committed in 1981..._of course _he's a different person now. Who wouldn't be? How could you _not _be after 24 years? In a sense, the wrong man is being punished because of this...yet, had he gotten life imprisonment initially, he'd still be a different person now, and still in prison.

I'll shed no tears for him, but I do hope that it isn't discouraging to other inmates who are trying to make more of themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2005)

The state should not take the life of a convicted criminal if there are less severe, but equally remedial options available.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The state should not take the life of a convicted criminal if there are less severe, but equally remedial options available.



Michael,

What would you consider "less severe, but equally remedial options?"... Life imprisonment?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

I think the question is less, whether 'Tookie' deserves clemency, but more, what is the criteria that Hollywood and others use in picking their "Heroes" these days.  The hero worship of vicious criminals is a disturbing development.  It doesn't take very long looking at the list of the stated heros of Hollywood celebrities to become concerned....Fidel Castro, Tookie Williams, Che Guevara, Mumia Abu-Jamal, heck, give them a few more months, and they'll probably jump on the Saddam Hussein as martyr bandwagon.  

"You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him!"
Stanley "Tookie" Williams nominated for 5 nobel peace prizes and awarded a nobel prize for literature


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think the question is less, whether 'Tookie' deserves clemency, but more, what is the criteria that Hollywood and others use pick their "Heroes" these days. The hero worship of vicious criminals is a disturbing development.
> 
> "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him!"
> Stanley "Tookie" Williams nominated for 5 nobel peace prizes and awarded a nobel prize for literature


 
Indeed it is disturbing. Also, the Nobel "Peace Prize" lost all meaning when Yassir Arafat, a man responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, including Americans, was awarded it (I'm not anti-Palestinian, only anti-PLO).

Regarding clemency, either we have the death penalty or we do not. IMO, the issue of Clemency for an individual is separate from the debate over the death penalty. I was a bit concerned that the witnesses in the case had strong reason to implicate him; however, the murder weapons was William's and he did not co-found one of the U.S.'s most violent gangs for nothing. I would have to have seen more of the evidence to have a strong opinion either way, but his writing children's books does not sway me in the slightest - he helped start a chain of events that has literally led to hundreds or even thousands of deaths.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 13, 2005)

How could they grant clemency for a man who was known to violently rape fellow inmates while writing all those "peaceful books?" And if I'm not mistaken he killed a couple of inmates as well? How many guards has he injured and rebelled against? He was reformed? Like Mike Tyson this man is an animal. An educated animal to be sure but deep down inside a savage brute who probably doesnt care for the life standing next to him.  Created a blood-thirsty gang and is awarded a Peace Prize. 
But now he speaks out begging for mercy. Well of course anyone who fears for their lives (and even some who fear for their souls) will do almost anything to survive...to live. 
No, I think the Gov. made the right decision. 

Perhaps it will spark riots, perhaps not. If it does then it says volumes about his "peaceful influence." If it does not (spark riots) then it may say volumes about his present influence.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 13, 2005)

Satt said:
			
		

> Who am I to judge? I just hope that there aren't huge riots from this mess.


Indeed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> How could they grant clemency for a man who was known to violently rape fellow inmates while writing all those "peaceful books?" And if I'm not mistaken he killed a couple of inmates as well? How many guards has he injured and rebelled against? He was reformed? Like Mike Tyson this man is an animal. An educated animal to be sure but deep down inside a savage brute who probably doesnt care for the life standing next to him. Created a blood-thirsty gang and is awarded a Peace Prize.
> But now he speaks out begging for mercy. Well of course anyone who fears for their lives (and even some who fear for their souls) will do almost anything to survive...to live.
> No, I think the Gov. made the right decision.
> 
> Perhaps it will spark riots, perhaps not. If it does then it says volumes about his "peaceful influence." If it does not (spark riots) then it may say volumes about his present influence.


  What's more, redemption is about more than just being granted mercy.  Others don't redeem you, you redeem yourself.  

If he is truly redeemed, that's enough.  No one can grant him redemption.  Just because you are redeemed, doesn't obsolve you of responsibility.  

It just means you've changed who you are, from the person who committed that terrible act.  He can go out of this life a better man, leave a legacy.  Lets see how he meets the righteous and just punishment that he has earned.  That may say a lot about his redemption.


Also, why would someone get a Nobel peace prize for allegedly trying to end gang violence....THAT HE MOSTLY STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

Isn't that like paying someone to fix your car, after THEY wrecked it?  Or, giving them a reward for returning money they stole in the first place?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

I saw this little tid-bit on race, the death penalty and Tookie.

"At the end of 2004, the Justice Department had 1,390 Blacks on death row (compared to 1,851 Whites). While sixteen of the inmates are black women, black males are six (6%) percent of the nation's population but are 42% of the nation's death row inmates. White males are 34% of the nation's population, and 53% of the death row population. "

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=1514

The insinuation is that the justice system is racist.  Why else would black males consist of 6% of the population and 42% of death row inmates?  Is this true?  Well, only if you take those numbers out of context.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Black males committed 52.1% of the homicides.  Yet, they are 42% of the death row population.  White males committed 45.9% of the murder rate, yet represent 53% of the death row population.  That would suggest that black males are actually UNDERrepresented, per murder, on death row.  While, white males are OVERrepresented.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Does this mean that the justice system is prejudiced against white men?  Not likely.  What it likely means is that white males commit most murders in white communities.  Black males likewise in black communities.  

White communities, predominantly, are more inclined to cooperate with the police, and hence, white males are more likely to get caught and successfuly prosecuted.

Black communities, on the other hand, are suspicious of the police, so they aren't as incline to cooperate.  Therefore, black males are more likely to escape punishment on a per-murder basis.  Therefore, the most violent black criminals are likely to be free to commit crimes far longer than their white counter-parts.

But the allegation that black males are 'overrepresented' on death row is a bogus distortion and, in many cases, an outright lie.  They are underrepresented for their share of the murder rate.  There are some legitimate complaints about racial issues in America, this doesn't happen to be, by and large, one of them.  

It is not surprising, though, with that line of racist justice being sold, why the black community believes it is being persecuted.  The sad part is that it is a belief built on lies and distortions.

Sadly, this debate isn't even open as an issue increasingly in the US.  You can get labelled as a 'racist' for even pointing out the obvious.  That is why there can't be any honest dialogue about race relations in America, the label 'racist' has created a freezing effect.  There seems to be an understanding that we are to ignore facts that are 'inconvenient' rather than try and solve the root problems.  

The shameless worship of thugs and criminals, on false pretenses, doesn't help solve the problem, it compounds it.  The first thing that needs to be done, is for people in these communities to stop embracing people like 'Tookie' Williams as a hero of the community, or this cycle will continue.



"You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him!"
Stanley "Tookie" Williams nominated for 5 nobel peace prizes (for starting a criminal organization and brutally murdering at least 4 people) and awarded a nobel prize for literature (for books nobodies read).


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> What would you consider "less severe, but equally remedial options?"... Life imprisonment?


Yes.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes.


 How is that equally remedial?  Tookie will never commit another crime again.  That's a fail safe cure for recidivism.  Yet, those serving life, even in Supermax facilities like Florence, Colorado, are STILL able to operate criminal organizations from behind bars.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> How is that equally remedial? Tookie will never commit another crime again. That's a fail safe cure for recidivism. Yet, those serving life, even in Supermax facilities like Florence, Colorado, are STILL able to operate criminal organizations from behind bars.


 
What is the function of incarceration? 

If it is to punish the offender, then the ultimate punishment is the death penalty.

If the function of incarceration is to protect the citizenry, keeping an offender behind bars, and monitored until his natural death provides that function. It does it at less cost, and less intrusion, than the capital punishment.

It is my belief that capital punishment is about revenge.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What is the function of incarceration?
> 
> If it is to punish the offender, then the ultimate punishment is the death penalty.
> 
> ...


 The function is to protect the citizenry AND punish the offender.  The death penalty, from a hypothetical standpoint (though not as we practice it), does that from a perspective of FAR greater certainty than a life time of incarceration.  Also, it's hypothetically cheaper (Though, again, not as we practice it.)

There are many things that go wrong with lifetime incarcerations.  There are those that escape, and menace the public.  There are those who are eventually released, despite having been given lifetime sentences, and there are those who continue criminal enterprises within prison walls.

None of those things Tookie will ever be able to do again.

The statistics for those given lifetime incarcerations committing future crimes is FAR greater than for those who were executed.

Again, I say that capital punishment is far more pragmatic than a lifetime of incarceration...and far more humane.


----------



## Nanalo74 (Dec 13, 2005)

Well, he was executed this morning. So I guess that's that.

I've thought a lot about this situation ever since I received an email from a friend asking me to participate in the letter writing campaign to Gov. Schwarzenegger asking for clemency for Mr. Williams. I read the letter my friend wrote, then began to research this individual.

I found clips from a film about him starring Jamie Foxx called Redemption and saw that Mr. Foxx is one of the biggest names calling for clemency. I then saw that Snoop Dogg was also fighting for clemency. Snoop Dogg is a Crip, by the way. Of course he wants Mr. Williams saved.

I decided to think about this situation not in terms of racial injustice and all that. But rather in terms of right and wrong. I asked myself how I would feel if he had killed one of my loved ones and the answer was clear. It was sort of like that line from Kill Bill:

"You and me, we got unfinished business. And not a g******, m***********g thing you've done in the subsequent four years, including getting knocked up, is gonna change that."

Writing children's books about gang violence doesn't pay for the four lives he extinguished. He may have changed. He may have made peace with his God. Good. Maybe he will be granted mercy in the sweet bye and bye. But not here.

Vic www.combatartsusa.com


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 13, 2005)

He still could give orders to his gang from within the cel if he were alive.  He is now facing the ultimate judgement for all he's done.

Growing up in LA and OC, I lost friends to gangs. While Tookie published anti-gang material, he never once apologized for what he did.

There are some cases where I support capital punishment and this is one of them.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Yup, it's over:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/williams...kkEcP8A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Let's hope no violence follows this evening.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 13, 2005)

It's about time. You couldn't get away from that stuff these last few days. I have no problem with the deaths of notorious individuals. However, now we can sit back and wait for the next wave of people committing scuicide by killing as many people as they can, and waiting thirty years for the government to get its act toguether.
Sean


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

:wavey: 

Bu-Bye


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 13, 2005)

little tookie-bear got what he deserved.  good riddance to the bastard.

he killed four innocent people for petty cash.  he created one of the most violent gangs of American history.  this ****bag has personally ruined thousands of lives.  if he really gave a damn out of redemption, the best he could do is volunteer his own life in return.

albeit, no suprise, i saw a pic of Sean Penn at a candlelight vigil last night outside of the prison.  what the hell is wrong with all these crackhead celebrities anyway?

oh well, may Stanley "Tookie" Williams burn in hell.

_**** Post edited for profanity. Please consult the Rules link on the blue menur bar to review this policy - G. Ketchmark_


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 13, 2005)

my apologies to anyone offended.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> keeping an offender behind bars, and monitored until his natural death provides that function. It does it at less cost, and less intrusion, than the capital punishment.


 
Is it really cheaper to keep someone incarcerated for 50-60 years then to kill them after say 10-20?

How much does an executuion cost?

How much does one inmate in Prison cost?

Thats interesting...


----------



## Satt (Dec 13, 2005)

That whole cost issue has allways pi**ed me off... ONE 9mm round to the head really wouldn't cost that much would it???


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> How much does an executuion cost?


 
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." 




			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> How much does one inmate in Prison cost?


 
Figures from the General Accounting Office .... Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year. 
_(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )_


http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2005)

Its only cheaper when you figure in the costs of the endless appeals.....


----------



## Kreth (Dec 14, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> albeit, no suprise, i saw a pic of Sean Penn at a candlelight vigil last night outside of the prison.


Did Sean bring his own cameraman this time?
And as far as the relative cost of death penalty vs. life imprisonment, a lot has to do with our screwed up justice system that lets a convicted murderer make appeal after appeal. You should get one shot to appeal your case, and the penalty for a baseless appeal should be instant execution.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 14, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Did Sean bring his own cameraman this time?
> And as far as the relative cost of death penalty vs. life imprisonment, a lot has to do with our screwed up justice system that lets a convicted murderer make appeal after appeal. You should get one shot to appeal your case, and the penalty for a baseless appeal should be instant execution.



I'm not a fan of endless appeals. However, instant execution for a baseless appeal might be a bit harsh. I'd be a fan of enforcing a strict cut-off time frame, say 5 years. Or perhaps a strict cut-off in number of appeals. I'd also like to see some practicallity for very cut and dry cases, where evidence is totally overwhelming (video, DNA, host of witnesses, weapons, ect). With cases where the evidence is totally overwhelming, endless appeals seem a bit ridiculous...

I can understand the difficulty here. Everyone will feel they have a right for another appeal, because of course, their case is not cut and dry. Having a panel to review cases and be a bit more strict in allowing appeals might be helpful.

Perhaps allowing appeals only to higher courts? That way, if a higher court refuses an appeal, its over. there also is a practical limit on appeals (can't go higher than supreme court). Having a single higher court will also limit the number of cases that have reasonable merit of being passed. They don't have time to hear every single appeal!

MrH


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Dec 14, 2005)

I've always thought death was the easy way out. Let him suffer in this life before he moves on.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 14, 2005)

What I find amusing is if someone is given a death sentence and they then say they don't want all the appeals, they just want the sentence carried out, then suddenly they are interviewed by shrinks and put on a suicide watch...


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 14, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> What I find amusing is if someone is given a death sentence and they then say they don't want all the appeals, they just want the sentence carried out, then suddenly they are interviewed by shrinks and put on a suicide watch...



interesting!

So, the question must be asked, why put them on suicide watch? If suicide is committed, isn't the same end reached? And in a cheaper way? Paying additional for a psychologist seems a bit odd... why not simply let the execution be carried out?

MrH


----------



## Kreth (Dec 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> interesting!
> 
> So, the question must be asked, why put them on suicide watch? If suicide is committed, isn't the same end reached? And in a cheaper way? Paying additional for a psychologist seems a bit odd... why not simply let the execution be carried out?
> 
> MrH


Probably for the same reason that they use an alcohol swab before a lethal injection, ie. no sensible one...


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 14, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> interesting!
> 
> So, the question must be asked, why put them on suicide watch? If suicide is committed, isn't the same end reached? And in a cheaper way? Paying additional for a psychologist seems a bit odd... why not simply let the execution be carried out?
> 
> MrH


 
I think the reason for a suicide watch is that they don't want him to end his life, but rather want the decision taken out of the prisoner's hands and put into that of the states and death the come when they say not when the inmate says....or so I've heard....


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 14, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> I think the reason for a suicide watch is that they don't want him to end his life, but rather want the decision taken out of the prisoner's hands and put into that of the states and death the come when they say not when the inmate says....or so I've heard....



I've not related to a victim (via family/friend being murdered), so I'm honestly asking this question. Would those seeking justice feel cheated in some way? Or do they feel vengeance is not being met in this circumstance? I've heard alot of women/children victims claim that they want people behind bars or dead so they won't victimize again. Is this a general idea? Wouldn't suicide answer that just as well as state execution?

MrH


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Probably for the same reason that they use an alcohol swab before a lethal injection, ie. no sensible one...


 I always thought that was humoruous as well.  The reality is that the medical technician who injects the condemned is simply following the guidelines he always follows when doing an injection or blood draw.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life."


 Most of that includes the court cost of endless appeals.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Figures from the General Accounting Office .... Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
> _(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 ) _




That's the 'average' inmate, who is usually minimum or medium security.  Someone like Tookie, even if he avoided the death penalty, would likely end up in a maximum security holding facility.  Ultimately, if he continued his gang leadership inside, they'd move him to a supermax facility where he'd be in lockdown 23/7.  That costs considerably more than $16100 per inmate/year.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

It seems many of Tookie's supporters were professing that they wanted Tookie around to continue the message about the 'dangers' of gang violence.  Well, it seems that Tookie IS continuing the message.....as an object lesson.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It seems many of Tookie's supporters were professing that they wanted Tookie around to continue the message about the 'dangers' of gang violence. Well, it seems that Tookie IS continuing the message.....as an object lesson.


 
Yes, indeed. I'd also like to know what other murders he was involved with while he led the Crips in person during the 1970's. They did commit murders in the 1970's didn't they? Or maybe they were just plain harmless entrepeneurs (LOL). What exactly do his supporters think he did during that time?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2005)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed. I'd also like to know what other murders he was involved with while he led the Crips in person during the 1970's. They did commit murders in the 1970's didn't they? Or maybe they were just plain harmless entrepeneurs (LOL). What exactly do his supporters think he did during that time?


 Well, considering he executed 4 people without batting an eye, at the age of what? 26? He was a gang member starting at least in 1969.  You don't just wake up one morning and say, at 26, 'i'm going to commit a couple armed robbery and shoot 4 people in cold blood'.  

These weren't his first murders, and they sure as heck weren't his first violent acts (or his last)...they were just the ones he got caught doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tookie_Williams

"Court records show that as Darryl and Sims walked to the counter area to take money from the register, Williams walked behind Owens, pulled the sawed-off shotgun from under his jacket and told Owens to &#8220;shut up and keep walking.&#8221; While pointing the shotgun at Owens&#8217; back, Williams directed him to a back storage room and ordered him to lie down. Coward said that he next heard the sound of a round being chambered into the shotgun. He then heard a shot and glass breaking, followed by two more shots. Records show that Williams shot out a security monitor and then killed Owens, shooting him twice in the back at point blank range as he lay prone on the storage room floor."

"Back in L.A., Williams, Darryl, Coward, and Sims then fled in the two cars and returned home to Los Angeles. They had netted approximately $120 in the robbery. Once back in Los Angeles, Sims asked Williams why he had shot Owens. Williams said that he &#8220;didn&#8217;t want to leave any witnesses.&#8221; Williams also said he killed Owens &#8220;because he was white and he was killing all white people.&#8221; Coward testified that Williams had bragged about the shooting, stating, &#8220;You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him,&#8221; as he made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens&#8217; death."

It strikes me that, in all these years, he never voiced any regret for executing a man who simply had the misfortune of being a store Tookie wanted to rob.  All these years, and not one 'You know, I was young, and I was wrong, he still haunts me."

"According to court transcripts at approximately 5:00 am on March 11, 1979, Stanley Williams entered the Brookhaven Motel at 10411 South Vermont Avenue. After entering the hotel lobby area, Williams broke down the door that led to the private office. Inside the private office, Williams shot and killed 76 year old Yen-Yi Yang. Williams then shot and killed Yang&#8217;s wife, sixty-three year old Tsai-Shai Yang. Lastly, Williams killed Yang&#8217;s daughter, 43 year old Yee-Chen Lin, after which he emptied the cash register and fled the scene."

"Robert Yang, son of Yen-Yi and Tsai-Shai, was asleep with his wife in their bedroom at the Brookhaven Motel when he was awakened by the sound of somebody breaking down the door to the motel&#8217;s office. This sound was immediately followed by the sound of a female scream, followed by gunshots. When Robert entered the motel office he found that his mother, his sister, and his father had all been shot, and noticed that the cash register was open and money was missing. It was later determined that the robbery of the Brookhaven Motel robbery/murders had netted Stanley Williams approximately one hundred dollars. Paramedics transported Yee-Chen Lin to Centinela Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 7:36 am."

"Witnesses testified that Williams referred to the victims in conversations with friends as "Buddha-heads", a derogatory term for Asians."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tookie_Williams


http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie15.htm

These are just a few of Tookie's activities AFTER being convicted


On June 30, 1981, just two months after being sentenced, Williams was involved in a violent fight with another inmate. Williams was observed kneeling over the other inmate and striking him in the head with his closed fists. When Williams was ordered to cease fighting, he ignored the order. Only after repeated orders to stop, did Williams stop his violence. (P. Exh. 6). 
On January 26, 1982, Williams was ordered to lineup for his return to his cell. Williams refused the order and became hostile. The guard then explained the line-up procedure to Williams. Williams responded by saying "you'll get yours boy, I can do anything now because I know what the gunmen will do&#8230;one of these days I'll trick you boy." (P. Exh. 7). 
On January 28, 1982, Williams had two separate instances where he threw chemical substances at guards. In one of these instances, Williams threw a chemical substance in the eyes and on the face of a guard. As a result of that assault, the guard suffered from chemical burns to these areas and had to be taken to the hospital where he received emergency care. (P. Exh. 8).
On February 16, 1984, a guard saw Williams bending over another inmate and striking him with his closed fists. In an effort to stop the attack, the guard blew his whistle and drew his weapon. Williams, however, continued to fight. Only after a guard fired a warning shot, did Williams stop fighting. (P. Exh. 10). 
On June 8, 1984, Williams was observed participating in inappropriate behavior with a female visitor. When the guard advised the female of the prison policies, Williams became verbally hostile and stated, "you are looking around too much and that's not your job. I have dusted many officers on the street, one more would not make any difference." (P. Exh. 11).
On October 10, 1988, Williams was involved in a fight that led to him being stabbed. Prison officials subsequently learned that this stabbing was done in retaliation for a September 22, 1988, stabbing of another inmate ordered by Crips leader Stanley Williams. (P. Exh. 13). 

http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie15.htm

Again, 4 innocent people executed in cold blood.  Yet, in all these years between then and now, not one 'I was wrong'.  Not one 'Their faces still haunt me'.  Not one word to the family, 'I was an animal, and I'm sorry.' Tookie talked a lot about gang violence leading to being where he was, yeah.  But he NEVER said one word about the 4 lives he snuffed out.  Not one apology. Not one whisper.  Redemption?  Hardly.

And what's more, Tookie was supposed to be rewarded because, late in life, he decided 'Killing and violence is wrong'....Well, no crap, Tookie.  Most of the rest of us learned that as little kids.  It took you being placed on deathrow to figure that out?  Sorry, no sale.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, considering he executed 4 people without batting an eye, at the age of what? 26? He was a gang member starting at least in 1969. You don't just wake up one morning and say, at 26, 'i'm going to commit a couple armed robbery and shoot 4 people in cold blood'.
> 
> These weren't his first murders, and they sure as heck weren't his first violent acts (or his last)...they were just the ones he got caught doing.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly! He was a worthless specimen of humanity and for the life of me, I do not understand why people are trying to turn him into a hero. We destroy rabid dogs, don't we?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 16, 2005)

Now that Tookie Williams is gone, we can work on ensuring Mumia Abu-Jamal's trip to the great beyond.  He's been waiting his turn since 1982, when he murdered Officer Daniel Faulkner in coldblood.  If anything, Mumia's death watch should draw an even bigger celebrity crowd, as many of his supporters describe him as a 'political prisoner'.  

The lies fabricated in the Mumia case on the part of his defenders have now become legendary.  

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/running.htm
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/


----------



## bignick (Dec 16, 2005)

Nanalo74 said:
			
		

> I then saw that Snoop Dogg was also fighting for clemency. Snoop Dogg is a Crip, by the way. Of course he wants Mr. Williams saved.



An ex-Crip, actually, who has stated a number of times publicly that he no longer believes in drinking, drugs, or violence.



			
				Satt said:
			
		

> That whole cost issue has allways pi**ed me off... ONE 9mm round to the head really wouldn't cost that much would it???



We could just do it the Chinese way...take him out back, shoot him in the head, and bill his family for the bullet.



			
				Kreth said:
			
		

> our screwed up justice system that lets a convicted murderer make appeal after appeal. You should get one shot to appeal your case, and the penalty for a baseless appeal should be instant execution.



Actually, I've always found allowing people opportunities to prove their innocence to be one of America's bigger mistakes as well.  Honestly, a little hyperbole there...although I agree the level it's taken to is often excessive.

*"I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all." - Mohandas Gandhi*

Doing things right can take time, and if we are going to employ the death penalty, we damn well better be right.  Though, I understand the frustration at seeing an obviously guilty killer languish on death row, I really don't think that 5-10 years is too long to make sure that no exhonerating evidence surfaces.  A couple of decades...too long.


----------



## modarnis (Dec 17, 2005)

>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nanalo74*
_I then saw that Snoop Dogg was also fighting for clemency. Snoop Dogg is a Crip, by the way. Of course he wants Mr. Williams saved._


An ex-Crip, actually, who has stated a number of times publicly that he no longer believes in drinking, drugs, or violence.>>>

An  ex crip who still flashes crip gang signs in his videos and wears clothing in a crip specific manner in his videos.  For a guy who dopesn't drink, he usually is dancing with his snoop logo chalice


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> An ex-Crip, actually, who has stated a number of times publicly that he no longer believes in drinking, drugs, or violence.


 :rofl:




			
				bignick said:
			
		

> We could just do it the Chinese way...take him out back, shoot him in the head, and bill his family for the bullet.


 Heck, i'll pay for the bullet.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> Actually, I've always found allowing people opportunities to prove their innocence to be one of America's bigger mistakes as well. Honestly, a little hyperbole there...although I agree the level it's taken to is often excessive.


 Actually, since it is the burden of the state to prove guilt, you don't have to PROVE your innocence.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> *"I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all." - Mohandas Gandhi *


 Gandhi was an idealist.  Great for inspiring people, lousy at actually doing anything. That's why spiritual idealist leaders never survive their revolutions.  They can only inspire people against what they perceive is wrong, they are rarely able to actually create anything better themselves.  When the reality of what it takes to operate society day to day hits, they are pretty much disillusioned.  



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> Doing things right can take time, and if we are going to employ the death penalty, we damn well better be right. Though, I understand the frustration at seeing an obviously guilty killer languish on death row, I really don't think that 5-10 years is too long to make sure that no exhonerating evidence surfaces. A couple of decades...too long.


 
5 years might not be too long, 10 years definitely is.  What's going to take 10 years?  Nothing should.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 17, 2005)

Ive had to shoot Coyotes and I feel bad because they are only trying to survive, they have no malice, anger or hate.

People are the only creatures that are capable of 'deserving' death as far as Im concerned. Calling them animals is an insult to animals. They dont know better. People do.


----------



## bignick (Dec 17, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> An ex crip who still flashes crip gang signs in his videos and wears clothing in a crip specific manner in his videos. For a guy who dopesn't drink, he usually is dancing with his snoop logo chalice



Wouldn't know, don't watch the videos or follow all that closely.  Just going off of a couple of interviews I've caught over the years.  There are things called "image" and I'm sure he's trying to capitalize on the street culture.  No different than any other entertainer, whether they have a valid connection to the culture they are exploiting or not.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, since it is the burden of the state to prove guilt, you don't have to PROVE your innocence.


Sounds a little idealistic...:wink:

If you're sitting on death row I'm guessing you've been tried and found guilty, at that point you are guilty in the eyes of law.  Forgive my lack of technical understanding of the law, but at that point wouldn't your appeals have to prove your innocence?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Gandhi was an idealist. Great for inspiring people, lousy at actually doing anything. That's why spiritual idealist leaders never survive their revolutions. They can only inspire people against what they perceive is wrong, they are rarely able to actually create anything better themselves. When the reality of what it takes to operate society day to day hits, they are pretty much disillusioned.



There is truth to that, however, that doesn't invalidate the thoughts or ideals.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 5 years might not be too long, 10 years definitely is.  What's going to take 10 years?  Nothing should.



No, nothing should, and in a perfect world, I think that if someone is found guilty of a crime worthy of death the sentence should be carried out with haste, but we don't live in that perfect world, and if we did, the crap that Williams did and is responsible for wouldn't happen.

But things do happen, any reliable statistics for the people on death row that have been exhonerated and length of time between conviction to exhoneration?  New analysis techinques, new witnesses, new confessions, etc all happen.  Although I'm sure the probability for any of these happening falls to almost zero after a decade, I still don't think 5-10 years is too long to wait to make sure justice will be served


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

bignick said:
			
		

> Wouldn't know, don't watch the videos or follow all that closely. Just going off of a couple of interviews I've caught over the years. There are things called "image" and I'm sure he's trying to capitalize on the street culture. No different than any other entertainer, whether they have a valid connection to the culture they are exploiting or not.


 The difference is that he is a criminal, still endorsing a criminal lifestyle, while simultaneously trying to silence critics by saying he's really NOT endorsing a criminal lifestyle.  If it looks like a duck....



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> Sounds a little idealistic...:wink:


 Having worked in this system for nearly a decade, I can assure you that, despite what people may try to tell you, it is exceedingly hard to convict anyone of anything.  Far more guilty people go free in this country than actually end up in jail for crimes they commit.  The average criminal commits dozens of crimes for each one they get caught committing.  

Of course prison is full of innocent people who got rail roaded....just ask them.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> If you're sitting on death row I'm guessing you've been tried and found guilty, at that point you are guilty in the eyes of law. Forgive my lack of technical understanding of the law, but at that point wouldn't your appeals have to prove your innocence?


 Actually, you've been found guilty by a jury of your peers.  The appeals process is not about proving your innocence.  What you are trying to prove is that the trial court made some precedural error that merits a new trial.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> There is truth to that, however, that doesn't invalidate the thoughts or ideals.


 No, it doesn't necessarily invalidate them.  It just means they should be taken with a grain of salt.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> No, nothing should, and in a perfect world, I think that if someone is found guilty of a crime worthy of death the sentence should be carried out with haste, but we don't live in that perfect world, and if we did, the crap that Williams did and is responsible for wouldn't happen.


 The problem is that nothing of evidentiary and precedural value will take 10 to 20 years to undertake.  The only thing that DOES happen in 10 to 20 years is that attorney's are able to muddy the waters because witnesses die, evidence is archived and lost, police stations are moved (or even burn do, in one case), in short, as time goes by it makes it easier for an attorney to attack even the most air tight case.  Time has a way of making a good case disappear.



			
				bignick said:
			
		

> But things do happen, any reliable statistics for the people on death row that have been exhonerated and length of time between conviction to exhoneration? New analysis techinques, new witnesses, new confessions, etc all happen. Although I'm sure the probability for any of these happening falls to almost zero after a decade, I still don't think 5-10 years is too long to wait to make sure justice will be served


 Those statistics are distorted.  

Usually, when they win on appeal, the appelate court decided that they deserve a new trial, because some motion or plea wasn't allowed at the first trial.  If it's been 15 years, the original trial court lacks the witnesses and evidence to pursue a new capital case (because it's been 15 years and witnesses have died, for example) so they simply don't contest a commuting of the sentence to, say, life.  They have not been exonerated.  

The extraordinarily few exonerations don't really make the case.


----------



## bignick (Dec 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course prison is full of innocent people who got rail roaded....just ask them.



  Strange how that works out.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, you've been found guilty by a jury of your peers. The appeals process is not about proving your innocence. What you are trying to prove is that the trial court made some precedural error that merits a new trial.


 
Thanks for the clarification.  Studying computer science doesn't leave a whole lot of time for or overlap a whole lot with learnig the finer points of the U.S legal system...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't necessarily invalidate them.  It just means they should be taken with a grain of salt.



A good idea is a good idea, period.  If no one ever pursued a good idea because it was impractical the great majority of developments throughout human history would not have happened.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem is that nothing of evidentiary and precedural value will take 10 to 20 years to undertake. The only thing that DOES happen in 10 to 20 years is that attorney's are able to muddy the waters because witnesses die, evidence is archived and lost, police stations are moved (or even burn do, in one case), in short, as time goes by it makes it easier for an attorney to attack even the most air tight case. Time has a way of making a good case disappear.
> 
> Those statistics are distorted.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your perspective and info on the matter.  If the country continues to use the death penalty, I think that a cap on time before execution is a good idea.  Of course, who decides how long and why is a whole other discussion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

There's been some controversy over the level of fanfare and praise rendered to Tookie at his funeral.  I took a little time to think about that, and whether Tookie deserved it, and I came to a conclusion.  Tookie was an SOB early in his life, no one can dispute that.  Some claim that he tried to make up for that later in life, I don't know.  I do know this.  Tookie was issued a price for his heinous deads, and he paid that price.  Whatever we might think of Tookie in life, we know that under his name is marked 'Paid in Full'.  I don't begrudge him his eulogy.

To paraphrase Shakespeare's Julius Caesar "We come to bury Tookie, not to praise him."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

A couple of good articles on the Death Penalty in the use, with emphasis on race.  

One is a Cornell university study that refutes the assertion that the death penalty is racist in application, citing that blacks actually receive the death penalty LESS than their share of the murder rate.  (Duh, any look at the murder rate versus death penalty rate tells us that)Though, they then turn around and try to claim that the Death Penalty is racist BECAUSE blacks aren't given the death penalty as often because their VICTIMS are black (I guess you can't win).  http://www.lawschool.com/cornellstudy.htm

The other is a pretty balanced article about European views (Specifically Germans) on the Death penalty in the US, and how they contrast with those of the US.  I think the point is made pretty well that difference is that of an individualistic culture such the US tends to view each issue on a case by case basis, the death penalty being no exception.  Americans put a lot of stock in personal responsibility and accountability.

Europeans take a more universal ideological approach (i.e. universal human rights, etc).


http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2005/12/the_state_of_no.html


Also, one last article, cited above, that makes a compelling argument about why life in prison is not always enough.



> "By committing a capital crime while having already been maximally punished and while behind walls thought to protect society, Allen has proven that he is beyond redemption and that he will continue to pose a threat to society."
> 
> And: Allen "has shown himself more than capable of arranging murders from behind bars. If the death penalty is to serve any purpose at all, it is to prevent the very sort of murderous conduct for which Allen was convicted."
> 
> ...




I do find ironic, however, the argument that the 'possibility that even one innocent man is executed is too much', given that those arguing that have no problem with the deaths of many more people at the hands of obviously guilty people.  Seems a strange paradox that those who seek to save an obviously guilty person, have less concern that those obviously guilty men remain a persistent danger to society.  

Though, likely the explaination for that paradox is that they can escape feeling any moral culpability if a criminal murders, even if they could have stopped them, because that criminal is allegedly not doing that act 'in their name', unlike the state who is executing criminals.  Moreover, most who oppose the death penalty still believe that economic disparity causes crime, despite much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 24, 2005)

I know that this is going to sound bad from the get go but.  How many 'innocent' people who have been executed had no prior arrests, murders, violence in their past? How many 'innocent' people executed were just normal family guys who were framed and executed. That were upstanding citizens before this? Id bet that everybody executed was far from saint and did so many things that deserved it anyway. No proof and I know its not justice but  its what I wonder.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Though, likely the explaination for that paradox is that they can escape feeling any moral culpability if a criminal murders, even if they could have stopped them, because that criminal is allegedly not doing that act 'in their name', unlike the state who is executing criminals.


 
In other words....

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences

This is a logical fallacy because it essentially replaces a valid logical argument with a form of intellectual bullying: "believe my position, or bad things will happen --- and you wouldn't want that, would you??" In essence, it is a subtle attempt to threaten one's opponent into silence.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Moreover, most who oppose the death penalty still believe that economic disparity causes crime, despite much evidence to the contrary.


 
I oppose the death penalty primarily on the basis that two wrongs don't make a right, that murdering does not justify murdering.

That being said, I would argue there is no single "cause" for criminal activity. However, there is clearly a significant positive correlation between poverty and criminality, just as there is between violent crime and certain genetic composites.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is a logical fallacy because it essentially replaces a valid logical argument with a form of intellectual bullying: "believe my position, or bad things will happen --- and you wouldn't want that, would you??" In essence, it is a subtle attempt to threaten one's opponent into silence.



Ah yes, Fallacy #9.11: The Republican Fallacy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In other words....
> 
> Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences
> 
> This is a logical fallacy because it essentially replaces a valid logical argument with a form of intellectual bullying: "believe my position, or bad things will happen --- and you wouldn't want that, would you??" In essence, it is a subtle attempt to threaten one's opponent into silence.


 Actually, there is no bullying, merely an attempt to understand the mentality that opposes the death penalty.  I don't recall a consequence being given in that sentence, so no bullying existed at all.  In fact, it was not even a discussion of whether or not the death penalty was wrong, merely an exploration of the motives behind that belief.

However, assuming it was an argument against that mentality, merely calling it a logical fallacy doesn't really make it so.  The mentality is such that it argues that the killing of any human being is wrong, even a murderer.  I point out, however, that that mentality is faulty in that it assumes that by preventing one killers death, then the only consequence is that he doesn't die.  

However, it has been shown, conclusively, that the majority of murders are committed by the same, few, violent killers, who usually commit multiple murders.  Therefore, it is NO logical fallacy to assume that the execution of those individuals will prevent future murders.

Hence, my argument, that merely incarcerating individuals CAN and HAS lead to the deaths of innocent people, and that the death penalty is the only sure way to guarantee that certain individuals are not a threat to society.

What's more, the only defense for that is 'We have no way of knowing what a past killer might do in the future'.  To which I add that statistically, those who have killed in the past are more likely to kill in the future, and that, again, most murders are committed by a small minority of individuals. 

So, please, point out the logical fallacy. 

If we apply the 'appeal to consequences' on any argument discussing consequences, then it pretty much makes ALL arguments logical fallacies.  

"It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. "

As I have provided rational supporting evidence to support the fact that those who commit murder, are more likely to commit futher murders, and that most murders are committed by a small minority, the i've given rational reasons, not prudential ones.  

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I oppose the death penalty primarily on the basis that two wrongs don't make a right, that murdering does not justify murdering.
> 
> That being said, I would argue there is no single "cause" for criminal activity. However, there is clearly a significant positive correlation between poverty and criminality, just as there is between violent crime and certain genetic composites.
> 
> Laterz.


 Yes, important and subtle distinction you made.  General criminal behavior has a link with poverty.  Violent crime, such as murder, has a much less clear link with poverty, and since it is murder we are talking about, discussions of overall crime in general are moot.

Moreover, I think you yourself argued rather well that there are no moral absolutes.  So using the word 'wrong' is rather subjective, don't you think?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Ah yes, Fallacy #9.11: The Republican Fallacy.


 As in 'believe my position or the Republicans are going to steal your freedom' argument?


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, there is no bullying, merely an attempt to understand the mentality that opposes the death penalty. I don't recall a consequence being given in that sentence, so no bullying existed at all.
> Merely a knee jerk reaction on your part for me trying to surmise the difference between the two positions.
> 
> Moreover, merely calling it a logical fallacy doesn't really make it so. The mentality is such that it argues that the killing of any human being is wrong, even a murderer. I point out, however, that that mentality is faulty in that it assumes that by preventing one killers death, then the only consequence is that he doesn't die.
> ...


 
Already did, and you're still engaging in it.

In essence, all you are saying is that if we don't accept your position on the subject that terrible things will happen (i.e., more people will die). This is an Appeal To Consequences. It does not demonstrate your position is actually correct or right, but is a form of intellectual intimidation whereby one attempts to scare one's opponents into submission.

A similar argument is often made concerning gay marriage, that if we start allowing it to happen, then "X terrible thing will overtake the country" (usually some kind of moral breakdown or bestiality or other silly nonsense). That is also an Appeal To Consequences. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, important and subtle distinction you made. General criminal behavior has a link with poverty. Violent crime, such as murder, has a much less clear link with poverty, and since it is murder we are talking about, discussions of overall crime in general are moot.


 
I have yet to read any peer-reviewed studies that claim there is no significant correlation between poverty and violent crime.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Moreover, I think you yourself argued rather well that there are no moral absolutes. So using the word 'wrong' is rather subjective, don't you think?


 
Sure, but "subjective" doesn't mean "relative".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As in 'believe my position or the Republicans are going to steal your freedom' argument?


 
I believe arnisador is specifically referring to Vice President Cheney's claim during the 2004 election that if people voted against President Bush, another terrorist attack would happen. This is also an Appeal To Consequences.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Already did, and you're still engaging in it.
> 
> In essence, all you are saying is that if we don't accept your position on the subject that terrible things will happen (i.e., more people will die). This is an Appeal To Consequences. It does not demonstrate your position is actually correct or right, but is a form of intellectual intimidation whereby one attempts to scare one's opponents into submission.


 Not what I said at all.  What I asked was why the rational consequences of not dealing with violent criminals was ignored.  In your own source, it specifically claimed that rational, evidenced, consequences are not what the 'Appeal to Consequences' is referring to.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> A similar argument is often made concerning gay marriage, that if we start allowing it to happen, then "X terrible thing will overtake the country" (usually some kind of moral breakdown or bestiality or other silly nonsense). That is also an Appeal To Consequences.


 Except...that multiple murderers have been PROVEN to be far more likely to kill again in the future.  A general idea such as 'moral breakdown' has nothing to do with the specific, and statistically proven, dangerous propensity of multiple murderers.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I have yet to read any peer-reviewed studies that claim there is no significant correlation between poverty and violent crime.


 There have been many studies that show that violent crime is not caused by poverty.  Genetic factors, dispositional factors, as well as cultural factors are more of an indicator of violent behavior than poverty.  

If poverty induced violent crime, then we'd see violence GREATEST among the most poor.  However, that isn't the case.  What we see is cultural differences in violent crime.  We also see consistent dispositional factors in common among violent criminals.

If you've got peer reviewed studies linking poverty as a CAUSAL link to VIOLENT crime, i'd like to see it.  However, the evidence seems to suggest the contrary.  While a link exists between some types of crime, non-violent stealing for example, and poverty.  Links between violent crime and poverty are much more problematic.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As in 'believe my position or the Republicans are going to steal your freedom' argument?



As in, 'Vote for George Bush because if you vote for John Kerry the terrorists will surely attack again!'


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> As in, 'Vote for George Bush because if you vote for John Kerry the terrorists will surely attack again!'


 Or, as in 'Voting for George Bush will guarantee that the country turns in to Nazi Germany' ala George Soros.

There's more than enough logical fallacies to go around on BOTH sides.


----------

