Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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.

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.

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]

>>>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]

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

:rofl:

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

Strange how that works out.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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."

'If the state can't execute a man who has killed innocent people from prison while serving a life sentence without parole for murder, then no one is safe. '

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/20/EDG46FQCEN1.DTL

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

Ah yes, Fallacy #9.11: The Republican Fallacy.

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

 

[heretic888]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.