User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 13 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Tookie WilliamsSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on November 26, 2005 - 12:26pm.
on Justice I think Stan Williams should receive clemency. His is the quintessential redemption story. As a nation we need to acknowledge redemption is possible. Governor agrees to Williams hearing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to hold a clemency hearing Dec. 8 for Stanley Tookie Williams, the condemned killer who has attracted a number of high-profile backers calling for his life to be spared. It is believed to be the first time a California governor has held such a hearing since 1992, when Gov. Pete Wilson considered the appeal of condemned killer Robert Alton Harris, Schwarzenegger's office said Friday. Wilson denied the appeal. No California governor has granted clemency since Ronald Reagan in 1967. "It's very positive, and we're very happy about that," said Williams' attorney, Verna Wefald of Pasadena. "We did ask for a personal meeting with the governor." The district attorney's office in Los Angeles County, which prosecuted Williams in the four 1979 killings for which he was convicted, strongly opposes clemency. State offices were closed Friday, and prosecutors could not be reached for comment. Williams, 51, was the co-founder of the Crips gang in South Central Los Angeles, but his defenders say he has become an anti-gang crusader behind bars. He is scheduled to be executed at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 13.
The sins of the son are to be visited on the father, I guess. He's supposed to get credit for being a different person. I don't approve of what he was. I approve of what he is. Redemption, Cobb. Do you believe in redemption? Do you want to live in a world where there is no redemption? Over on The Christian Prophet blog a message from the Holy Spirit today talks about forgiveness and says Schwarzenegger would find it easy to choose the right course. I approve of what he is. We don't know what he is. We know what he wants us to think.
You don't know what he is...but then you haven't looked. So what would it take for him to prove he's a different person? How can he show he's been redeemed? Stan Tookie Williams, has done his wrongs by starting the gang yes he was wrong for doing that because yes he should have found a different solution to his problems, but thats the only way he knew that's where he got love from, the streets. Tookie, has served his time and is regretting everything that he has done in the past, but because he started the crips everyone is out to get him, thats not cool at all. he did what he had to do to survive in his community. they want to kill Stan Tookie Williams, they have no reason to do so because they do not have any physical evidence against him and thats a main part of a case to convict someone. now a lot of people been on trial that did not have physical evidence against them and they got sent off the case, so why not him, get let go. I don't think that he should be killed, and their's not sufficient evidence against him. everyone want to do away with lynching, but here it goes again. yes he should be punished for starting the crips, but he should not die because no one has the right totake someones life the money that is bing used to kill him, could be going to schools that need to be fixed to educate children so that they don't go through what tookie has went through in his life. 'he did what he had to do to survive in his community' is the biggest load of crap imaginable. I survived in his community, and anyone who grew up around crips or other bangers in LA know survival has nothing to do with it, especially not for Tookie. Read the DA's report. Of all the people in the world that clemency ought to go to, Tookie should be one of the last in line. I can't see how any self-respecting black person could stand up for this four time murderer and his gang. Fortunately, no one has stood up for this four time murderer and his gang. And the question remains unanswered. What evidence would you accept that he's changed? Are you so merciless that you deny a person can change? What evidence would you accept that he's changed? Are you so merciless that you deny a person can change? The real question isn't whether he has changed. Everyone has changed. And everyone has remained the same. The real question is whether he will reoffend. If you evaluate that question on an individual basis, people will die. You have to evaluate it on a group basis. Williams is a member of a group, a group which could be titled "bully murderers". That group has historically been dangerous to other people when allowed the opportunity. Release 100 Williams', and twelve people will die because you released them. Whose lives are worth more, the 100 bully murderers or the twelve people left alive? By this equation, life without parole and death yield the same result. But we know it's more complicated than that. Life without parole has frequently yielded parole, and more victims. Times change. People become convinced by words. People unlikely to personally be the victims. Other people die.
You have the most curious way of flipping between individual and group methods of judging people.
Not anymore. What would it take to make you believe that? Are you capable of believing it? I don't think so. I think you subscribe to the psychological equivalent of the one-drop rule...once tainted, always tainted. I don't think you believe in change or growth or redemption or forgiveness.
Not anymore. What would it take to make you believe that? Evidence that he was mistakenly convicted. Are you capable of believing it? Sure. (but see later, I'm not being completely obtuse here) You have the most curious way of flipping between individual and group methods of judging people. There's other examples too. Why should drunk driving be illegal? Shouldn't we give each individual drunk a chance to show that he can really drive, and only prosecute those who kill or injure someone? And when the drunk kills someone, does his time, isn't the past in the past, we should presume he learned to drive drunk while in prison, so that he won't kill someone this time? After all, he says he learned a lot. No, we know a lot about drunk drivers as a group. They're high enough risk that we're going to arrest them on the spot simply for being a member of that group. But to your direct point: there are no words which can obscure some deeds. The deeds speek louder about projections of future behavior than do the words, and the consequences of being wrong are too high. Take a chance on burglers, fine. Even some kinds of murderers. But bully murderers are a high risk group.
You don't believe in redemption. There's no point talking to you...about a LOT of things.
Matthew 25:40:
The "members of my family" in this chapter include the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned. "Christian nation" indeed. You don't believe in redemption. Near as I can tell you're using redemption in a slightly different way than any of the dictionary definitions. If by redemption, you mean that a high risk offender (high risk in terms of both likelihood of reoffense and consequences of reoffense) can, by prison behavior, demonstrate that he is no longer high risk, then no, I don't believe in that. I believe prisoners can focus on the goal, release, and stay focused until they are released, at which time they lose that focus. Are there counter-examples? Of course. The problem is, we can't tell them apart while they're in prison. If by redemption you mean that a prisoner could make peace with his victims, such that he is recalled after death as a good man who had a positive impact, sure.
If we release a murderer, who then murders again, do we not bear some responsibility for the victim? Have we not "done it" to the victim? There's no point in talking to you.
Was "releasing" Tookie Williams part of this discussion? I musta skipped over that part.
I also musta missed the verse that instructs: "Do unto others, but hedge thy bets." the drunk driver analogy has to be among the worst to ever hit the sphere. the drunk driver analogy has to be among the worst to ever hit the sphere. Go ahead and explain why you found it lacking, T3.
It's lacking because this
...is the statement of a dick, not an argument. Again, you just make assertions as though anyone but you must accept them. "I can't see how any self-respecting black person could stand up for this four time murderer and his gang." I don't see how any self-respecting black person can stand up for mass murderer Bush and his gang ... but you do. From the Washington Post:
So can we dispense with the "what if he kills again" fantasies? You know what the problem is? The problem is we're interrupting the blood ritual. As far as I can see, American Christianity is an Old Testiment religion...I mean, pre-Job. I don't know and don't really care whether Williams has reformed himself and atoned for his past behavior. Williams' claims of innocence doesn't resonate well with me. If you do enough wrong eventually you will go down for something even if you aren't guilty of what the authorities accuse you of having done. I am simply opposed to the use of the death penalty for any reason whatsoever given the racist, barbaric and class driven peculiarities of the practices of the American criminal justice system that always seems to entail the sacrifice of black bodies and poor people.
Quite right. As a society, we're still in tune with the Code of Hammurabi which predates Jesus by about 1800 years. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that in the entire pre-colonial and post-colonial history of this country that only five white people have ever been executed for killing a black person.
nyet..., Charles Manson and a buncha other devilish muhfuhs got automagic clemency in 1972 under People vs Anderson - which declared California's death penalty cruel and unusual punishment - I'da thunk you Killa Kali old heads woulda aired this one out waaaaaay up thread after Cobb's first hasnamussian bleats of impotent resentiment..., Killa Kali old heads
Interesting phrase. What mean? Means you and Ourstorian..., Means you and Ourstorian...,
I got that from the jump but what does "Killa Kali" mean? It's a fairly common lyric used to describe Califor-nigh-ay. I remember hearing it nearly as far back as I've been listening to gangsta rap, and I been listening to gangsta rap ever since NWA proclaimed itself straight outta Compton. {more like straight out of the pipe dreams of Ted Fields, but that's another topic altogether} In any event, it seemed apropos the topic of this thread..., Hey ..... "old heads?" In the immortal words of the Kingfish: I resemble that remark! {...keeping a straight face while LMAO inside and pretending not to notice O quoting the Kingfish...haw!} So can we dispense with the "what if he kills again" fantasies? It turns out we have some evidence. In 1972 all death sentences were commuted. Here's what happened in Texas. 47 death sentences commuted. 40 of these people were eventually released. Three more murder victims that we know of (two more murder convictions, one murder-suicide) (I'd put the link here, but it goes to a create account page unless, I guess, you're referred by google. You can find this page at the top by googling for 'commuted "killed again"'. Death row cons could be free someday Recent court-ordered commutations may go way of '72's Furman 47 07:39 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The notion that 28 Texas death row inmates might ever walk the streets seemed far-fetched last month when Gov. Rick Perry commuted their sentences to life in prison.
  PAUL S. HOWELL/Special Contributor
'They'll have to do 40 [years], and after they do the 40, just as sure as the sun's coming up in the morning, they'll get out,' former death row inmate Calvin Sellars, part of 1972's mass commutation, said of inmates whose sentences were recently commuted. But if history is any indication, most of them will indeed be freed one day. Arthur Broussard was. Mr. Broussard, 58, was part of the Furman 47, the last mass commutation of condemned Texas inmates. That was in 1972, after the Supreme Court decision Furman vs. Georgia, which halted the death penalty for four years. Fourteen years after his commutation, Mr. Broussard was paroled. He had been condemned for killing a Houston grocery store clerk in 1969. "I never thought I'd get out," he recalled in a telephone interview recently. In fact, most of the Furman 47 were released. According to state prison records reviewed by The Dallas Morning News, 40 of the former death row inmates – 85 percent – have been released. Of the seven not released, two died in prison. Five others are still locked up. At least two of the commuted inmates killed again, including Kenneth McDuff, who drew two more capital sentences in the 1990s for the murders of Melissa Ann Northrup and Colleen Reed. He was executed in 1998. The collective fate of the Furman 47 contradicts the predictions of those who said inmates in the latest mass commutation probably would never again go free. Mr. Perry had no choice but to commute the sentences after the Supreme Court ruled this year that the execution of offenders who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes violated constitutional protections against cruel or unusual punishment. Most of the 28 men whose sentences were commuted recently were sentenced after the early 1990s, when a life term for capital crimes in Texas meant a minimum of 40 years. Texas added a life-without-parole sentence in the recent legislative session. These inmates were 17 at the time of their crimes, so most will be in their 50s when they first become eligible for parole. Some criminal justice experts doubt that succeeding generations will want to foot the bill to keep these men and thousands of other elderly prisoners behind bars that long. And, experts note, Texas prisons are nearly full again after a decade of tough-on-crime sentencing. "It's going to be an issue for the Legislature and the parole board, 20, 30 years from now, what they want to do with these people" said Shannon Edmonds, staff attorney for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. "But the reality is, those decisions are going to be guided more by the problems that those people are facing then, than what those people did back when they committed their offense," she said. "It's always been the way it's happened. "I would probably expect at least some of them to be paroled." Robert Black, spokesman for Mr. Perry said: "It's quite a stretch to try and predict what will happen 30 years from now, but in Texas we do have a system in place where the parole board will look at each case individually and make a recommendation. Gov. Perry has to put his faith in the system that's in place that it will work properly on behalf of the people of Texas." New crimes
Of those who were part of the 1972 mass commutation, 22 committed new offenses. They range from minor infractions such as trespassing to major crimes such as murder. The most notorious reoffender was Mr. McDuff. He's "the one that scares everybody," said James Marquart, a criminologist who studied the commuted inmates in the mid-1980s. Another inmate killed his girlfriend and himself shortly after he was released in 1985, Dr. Marquart said. He could not identify the inmate, and no records reflecting that crime are available. Of the 22 who reoffended, about two-thirds involved major felonies. Crimes committed in other states might not appear in state records. According to state records, one former condemned inmate was eventually pardoned, and two had their cases dismissed. "That's the thing with the death penalty," said Dr. Marquart of the widely varying outcomes. "You don't know." About half of those paroled returned to prison, either for new convictions or technical violations of their parole, but many of them returned to quiet lives in the community. Mr. Broussard, for instance, has met with his parole officer regularly for 19 years. He has, he said, done all right – even though he wasn't sure he would. When first told about his parole after more than 15 years of incarceration, "I didn't want to go," he said. "I didn't know nothing but the penitentiary." Despite his trepidation, Mr. Broussard found work, got married, has not been in trouble with the law again and doesn't expect to be. He said he prays daily for forgiveness. Relatives of his victim could not be located. Different laws
The sentencing laws under which Mr. Broussard and other inmates were imprisoned and released were far different from those now, even from when some of the current commutees were sentenced. In the 1960s, a death sentence could be handed down not only for murder but for armed robbery or rape. But inmates could accrue "good time" – time off a sentence for good behavior – and if someone got life, it usually meant about 14 years behind bars. At some points in prison history, when overcrowding was an issue, a lifer could come up for parole after serving far less time. Those commuted in 1972 spent an average of 10 additional years in prison. One got out six months later, when his case was overturned; that presumably could have happened even if he hadn't been commuted. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said experience dictates that some of the recently commuted inmates will be paroled eventually. "It'll depend on the crime and it'll depend on the individual," he said, "but sure, some of them will be certainly eligible, and some will be paroled." By the time they are paroled, however, they will be different people, he said, because of the difference between ages 17 and 57. Former death row inmate Calvin Sellars agreed that age is a factor in how well an ex-con will do in the free world. "Time takes care of everything," Mr. Sellars said. "They straighten up, not because of choice but because of age. Time – it takes a toll on you." Mr. Sellars, 62, spent more than six years on death row. His cell was 12 feet from the electric chair, and he came within 18 hours of execution. Six years after his sentence was commuted by the Furman decision, Mr. Sellars was released, not paroled. Representing himself, he convinced a federal judge in 1977 that he had been wrongly convicted on perjured police testimony. His case was dismissed. Mr. Sellars, who now works as a legal investigator, said he was not surprised to learn that most of the men he knew on death row had been paroled. "Time goes by, life goes on," he said, adding that the public eventually forgets even horrific crimes. He expects those recently removed from death row to walk free in the future. "They'll have to do 40 [years], and after they do the 40, just as sure as the sun's coming up in the morning, they'll get out," he said. Mr. Sellars returned to prison for three years in the mid-1990s for carrying a prohibited weapon. "You would have thought this guy would never get in trouble again," he mused. But, he said, he had a problem with alcohol and got into a confrontation at a bar while carrying a gun. He has quit drinking and hasn't had any other problems, and like Mr. Broussard, he doesn't expect to. Neither Mr. Broussard nor Mr. Sellars keeps in touch with fellow death row inmates. For Mr. Broussard, who is still on parole, it's against the rules. But Mr. Sellars said he has no desire to see the rest of the Furman 47. "No," he said, adding wryly that on death row, "there's no 'band of brothers.' " E-mail [email protected] A look at what happened to the 47 men whose death sentences were commuted to life terms when the U.S. Supreme Court abolished capital punishment in 1972. 40 were paroled or released 23 are alive today 22 have died 2 have undetermined fates 10 years served, on average, after commutation and before parole or release 18 of those released later had their parole revoked 22 of those released later had new convictions 9 of the convictions were for violent or sexual offenses* *The nature of one new conviction couldn't be determined.
What's your point? What's your point? Dead men don't murder. Redeemed men do.
Then there's no such thing as redemption, is there? Or are you choosing the word in an attempt to befoul it? I think you're befouling it. I think you're befouling it. How do we know if someone is redeemed? If we know by their prison behavior, then redeemed killers kill again. So we're left to befoul "redeemed" (pointing out that they kill), or we're forced to agree that we can't detect actual redemption by observing prison behavior. I'd be pleased to restate my entire point as the latter.
dw, you're arguing against release, not against commutation. Offenders of all sorts get "time off" for good behavior in prison. Reduction of sentences provides an incentive for prisoners to be cooperative and productive. So what incentive can we offer a death row inmate? Five years less of being dead? Do the people that he murdered recieve clemency? He did the crime, time to get what he deserves. dw, you're arguing against release, not against commutation. Here's what happened in Texas. 47 death sentences commuted. 40 of these people were eventually released. Three people were murdered that we know of. And did these people do all that Mr. Williams did to address his errors? Let me remind you of what someone who thinks he is wise said in this forum:
You refuse to accept the offer of peace, it's on you. Your stubbornness, your fault. Should a man die because of YOUR stubbornness? One of the several things that bothers me about you, DW, is the remarkable coincidence where you are all for treating people as individuals until YOU have you do it for someone outside your immediate circle.
And none were murdered by prisoners who were not released. QED, Jack. One of the several things that bothers me about you, DW, is the remarkable coincidence where you are all for treating people as individuals until YOU have you do it for someone outside your immediate circle. You yourself p6 don't live in California where a commuted Mr. Williams would eventualy be tested out on real people. If someone from my immediate circle were to be commuted, I'd be the test. You can bet I'd oppose the commutation. It's a lot easier to focus the closer the test is to you.
Has nothing to do with your hypocrasy. You don't live anywhere near where he'd be IF release was what we're talking about in the first place. Besides which, I know a bag of people in Cali that support clemency for Mr. Williams. No, you're just among the bloodthirsty. I find the terms interesting by which Tookie speaks of his so-called "redemption". For him to admit to the murders I suppose is too much to ask. Afterall, that would seal his execution. I wonder if he EVER executed anyone...hmm. ...and if so, does his redemption include all of his acts, or just the ones placing him in jail....hmmmm. That's some new math right there: Redemption = freedom from the punishment for living a LIFESTYLE of thuggery. If Tookie is "redeemed" as he puts it, let him man up and taste death from the same spoon he used to feed it to others. You know P6, hassenpfeffer's neverending claims of pervasive personal fear of the boogeyman images of muslims and bad negros suggests that he may simply be off his social anxiety meds..., nah..., You're right, he's just a stiff-necked vorpal bunny suffering from a preponderance of reptile brain mentation...,
Another one looking forward to the death ritual. From http://www.prometheus6.org/node/11668
What do you gain from his death? If I have a child that steals and then repents I am obligated and willing to forgive them. However, they still must pay the price. Williams not only was found guilty of murdering 4 people but started a gang that is responsible for many more deaths and much suffering. Nothing he can do could ever make up for the suffering he has caused but I do applaud his efforts to make at least some amends. However, since the death penalty is the law, if anyone ever deserved it, he does. From http://www.prometheus6.org/node/11668
Also
The death penalty is legal, not required. And you have put your finger on the problem: does anyone deserve the death penalty when equal crimes are known and go unpunished entirely? However, since the death penalty is the law, if anyone ever deserved it, he does.
I've decided to be the broken record here. I once knew a man, in fact we became friends, who murdered 26 people and he did less than three years in jail for it and that was only for the 26th murder. He and his 26th murder victim burglarized a house and stole some negotiable securities. The guy I knew later decided not to give his partner the partner's share of the loot so one day he marched the guy into the woods at gunpoint and forced the guy to dig his own grave and then shot him to death. He then told the two women who were with them that he would kill them if they ever said anything to anybody about what they saw. All of these facts came out in testimony during the subsequent trial. The FBI interceded on my friend's behalf and got the prosecutor to charge him with third degree manslaughter for which he served less than three years. If we live in a country where the police agencies of the state regularly and routinely let some murderers walk, then we cannot sensibly talk about some people deserving to die while others get off easy. I intend to keep repeating this story as long as people who are brain donors keep posting messages calling for Tookie Williams to be gassed. The death penalty is barbaric and cruel. The death penalty is barbaric and cruel. How do you feel about experiments which sometimes have fatal consequences being run on living people who didn't agree to participate in the experiment and have no way to avoid it? That's Black History. How do you feel about experiments which sometimes have fatal consequences being run on living people who didn't agree to participate in the experiment and have no way to avoid it? The same way I feel about people who knowingly gave Indians blankets that were infected with smallpox.
The same way I feel about people who knowingly gave Indians blankets that were infected with smallpox. Leaving Mr. Williams alive will, with near certainty, result in such an experiment.
Leaving Mr. Williams alive will, with near certainty, result in such an experiment. To paraphrase my late mother, you're going way 'round Rosie's house to make a point when you could have just walked up to the door. I fail to see how not gassing Tookie Williams puts you and other upstanding, law abiding folks in danger. I'm not advocating that he be released from prison. I am opposed to gassing him or treating him and other people who are imprisoned as if they are animals or beyond redemption. If he has been convicted of killing four people he would have a tough mountain to climb in my book but, what the hey, our government knowingly did business after WWII with Nazis who were involved in killing and enslaving Jews. I don't read anything from you about wanting to overthrow the government. My mother also used to say that sometimes some folks need to get their behinds off of their shoulders.
Americans are always seeking to murder, and kill something, someone. America is a OLD-Testament church: A eye for a eye. Now there in Iraq murdering. The Iraquis did nothing to Americans, NOTHING! All in the name of "justice". Thats ok though, America is in her death throes, only Americans self-righteousness has blinded them to this fact. PS: I was born in America.
What part of "without parole" do you not understand? Or are you just that bloodthirsty? No one say shit to him in this thread until he explains how this "experiment" will take place while Mr. Williams is locked away without parole. You people understand what you gain by his death, right? Tell me. How will your life be better if he's dead than if he's locked away or even released and law-abiding...don't focus on the likelihood of that third option because we will disagree. No one say shit to him in this thread until he explains how this "experiment" will take place while Mr. Williams is locked away without parole. I'm with you, but his shit has becomes so ridiculously predictable and lame.
Tookie didn't just found the Crips, he RAN the Crips, INSIDE the wall. He's president-for-life. Part of his rep for 'redemption' was that he helped negotiate the gang truce after the LA riots. If he wasn't a gang kingpin in 1991, while on death row, he wouldn't have had a seat at the table, OK? So if Tookie got out of prison, which he won't, then Bloods would make their bones by taking him out. Death Row has proven to be the safest place in America for Tookie - so safe that he's had time and liberty to write children's books and become an international celebrity. It doesn't sound like the appropriate punishment for a murderer, or is that simply a bloodthirsty opinion? Having had to deal with Crips through my youth in Los Angeles, and having met Tookie personally, I'm saying he's the kind who deserves to die by the sword. Like I said, there are certain things you simply cannot undo, like shooting a woman on her knees in front of her family. Killing Tookie shows that the state is willing and able to protect people from the most dangerous criminals. If people loose faith that the law is even capable of doing that, then they will take the law into their own hands. Which in the specific case of gangbangers of the sort whose own fantasies are intimately wrapped in the fate of Tookie, is just horrible for society. We already know their are scribbleheads out there who idolize Tupac and Biggie Smalls for all the wrong reasons. Tookie's case is self-evidently similar. He needs to serve this one example by accepting his death sentence and dying. We're all better off with him executed. Keep him on suicide watch too. How exactly does Tookie redeem himself for four murders without ever acknowledging that he killed anyone and without ever issuing any sort of apology to the families of the people you harmed? Shouldn't those things be pre-requisities for any type of redemption. I know he apologized for the gang violence that resulted from the formation of the Crips, but he has never apologized for /acknowledged the crimes for which he is to be executed. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, but this redemption-talk seems strange to me. The passage of time, a TV movie, the undying support of Snoop Dogg, and some nice children's books do not equal redemption.
A-Dub, how much sense does it make to apologize for something you say you didn't do? Every time I see someone fight going to jail, lose and apologize for their crime, I think "You're a lying hypocritical bastard! You should get more time for perjury!" Cobb, I knew you were capable of saying something sensible. You always come out the gate ass-first with me...you have no idea how annoying I find that to be.
from http://www.prometheus6.org/node/11668
And yeah
Not a legal point. But yeah, that's bloodthirsty.
You're not the only one that grew up on the edge of thug life. AND...
If you're a Christian there are no crimes that can't be forgiven.
Serious question: you yourself say he won't be released. He is already objective proof society can protect people by catching and punishing the most dangerous criminals. The case of the Gotti family proves it can be done as soon as society decides to, just like all the scary hip-hop will go away as soon as society stops selling it to little white You gain nothing by his death. No one gains anything from his death at this point. While he was running the streets there was a point to killing him...the guy I knew who tried to be Tookish was killed by a guy who was homeless because he'd just got out of jail with no skills, and I smiled when I heard about it...but there just is none now. What you gain from clemency is the spreading understanding that people who have done less ill than he can turn themselves around too, rather than the message that those who have gone less good are not saved by their change. Be a Christian, Michael. Choose life.
The single rational reason you've given for believing that is already served by his permanent imprisonment. uh, by the way, little white girls are really driving those sales. just thought i'd interject. can't hang around for the big silly stuff, but you're holding it down, P6 - however, the light lifting of cobb and d-dub is likely to lead to atrophy, not a trophy. LOL...you still the man. rock and roll d-dubya wrote, and I quote: "There's other examples too. Why should drunk driving be illegal? Shouldn't we give each individual drunk a chance to show that he can really drive, and only prosecute those who kill or injure someone? And when the drunk kills someone, does his time, isn't the past in the past, we should presume he learned to drive drunk while in prison, so that he won't kill someone this time? After all, he says he learned a lot. No, we know a lot about drunk drivers as a group. They're high enough risk that we're going to arrest them on the spot simply for being a member of that group. But to your direct point: there are no words which can obscure some deeds. The deeds speek louder about projections of future behavior than do the words, and the consequences of being wrong are too high. Take a chance on burglers, fine. Even some kinds of murderers. But bully murderers are a high risk group." d-dubya asked for clarification as to why this analogy was so poor. it should be obvious, but in the event it is not - here goes... drunk driving is illegal because of the threat it poses to society. every individual drunk driver poses this threat - regardless of whether or not they hit someone. hitting someone is beside the point. the increased risk is the issue - and it has been deemed illegal by this society. as to the second part of this woeful analogy, it would ludicrous to assume that prison would improve one's capacity to drive drunk - since alcohol consistently impairs one's ability to conduct the functions asociated with driving, etc. besides, unless the state opened up drunk driving training schools (with free booze and an obstacle course - complete with baby carriages and seniors) the question of training while incarcerated is moot. murder is quite different. murder is not illegal because it poses a threat to society (in the temporal sense of a future event - like drunk driving). murder is illegal because it is antithetical to a civil society. unlike drunk drivers, you can't arrest a murderer until someone has been murdered...and unlike the immutable impact of alcohol on reflexes, the desire and will to kill can change over time. the analogy does not hold because drunk driving and murder are categorically different crimes...the operative factors in one crime is immutable - in the second instance, it's mutable (the extent to which change has occurred is debatable - and that's the substance of this debate)...and thirdly, the analogy is poor because it's just damn lazy. if ya can't think of a better analogy than that, go muck up on Cobb's board - he goes for stuff like that. LOL i could write more, but it ain't that deep...have a drink, and stay off the road...have a great weekend folks - some of us R startin' early, wooo hooo!!!!! Thanks for the critique, T3. I originally used the drunk driver analogy to illustrate the point that groups of people exist which are so dangerous that they need to be imprisoned simply for being a member of the group, rather than treating each member as an individual and hoping for the best. P6 observed that I usually focus on individuals (as in "the success of individual black men") and don't see much use for groups, particularly large groups which consist of people who are involuntarily members ("the success of Black America"). I believe that analogy holds; dangerous groups include drunk drivers, bully multiple murderers, and people who store explosives in their homes. We don't really care what they say, they can't convince us that they're not a danger to other people. The ludicrous rehab embellishment to the drunk driver story, I should have left it off. Agreed, it was not analogous, and it ended up deflecting the real argument. go muck up on Cobb's board The problem is, Cobb writes so much better than me.. What part of "without parole" do you not understand? Did you read the article I posted? Here's a quick abstract. Keeping people in prison is expensive. The older an inmate gets, the more harmless he looks. After some 40 years or so, a guy now in his sixties starts looking really expensive to keep around. Particularly if he's exhibited 30 years of good prison behavior. And the "system" is inclined to let such people out of prison, with near certainty. If Williams is commuted, the only way he will remain imprisoned for life is if he dies before he's been in for 50 years. Somewhere between 40 and 50 years he'll be released. It's true that we now have "without parole" sentencing whereas we largely did not have that in 1972. However, this is a burden placed on bureaucrats far in the future, bureaucrats who will be looking to save money, and there is nothing stopping the state government from the second commutation, from life without parole to parole. Nothing. If Williams is allowed to live, and if he lives long enough, he will be experimentally released into an unwilling public. If he is executed, he will not kill again.
Then fix the prison system. We incarcerate far too many people, largest prison population in the world, second highest rate of imprisonment. Everyone agrees Williams will not be released, so your fears are baseless. And your refusal to treat him as an individual case puts the lie to all your principled positions. For instance, of the Texas killers you so fear, how many of the recidivists were over 60? How many were released for good behavior as opposed to over legal error?
...and how many were released by the California parole board?
Just like Charles Manson. Wait! Bad example. He hasn't been released. Just like Sirhan...um,... Really...how many folks are in prison that will never see the light of day again? To try to claim you can't keep someone imprisoned forever is just bullshit, plain and simple. I hear the logical next step of this dialogue approaching - which goes to the question of narco-trafficking and territorial competition - as it relates to state policing of drug laws, the economics of vice, the economics of incarceration, the legality of narcotics, the policing of users and distributors, alliances between producers, information dissemination about narco-issues, operational efficiencies of gangs as distribution networks for products, force and information, etc. so many topics, so little time. it seems like a logical place for a discussion - as well as the re-location of williams as an historical figure akin to luciano and/or carlo gambino or isaac sears (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h635.html). it seems to me that the question of his personal reformation is beside the point - as is the question of his execution. the question is only operative because class and race combine to make him "eligible" for state-sanctioned termination. i don't mean to suggest, narrowly, that a white, wealthy orchestrator of narco-trafficking in cali or the american west would face similar charges. hardly, it could happen. it has escaped my radar, but it could happen. it seems to me that the individual case of mr. williams is quite the red herring. i'll wait till friday for my fish. inadvertent double paste. I'd say non-voluntary members..."involuntary" suggests a Jacksonian (Michael) ethos to eblackuate or a lack of volition (expressed as cultural continuity - not the same as uniformity). i don't mean to suggest, narrowly, that a white, wealthy orchestrator of narco-trafficking in cali or the american west would face similar charges. hardly, it could happen. Not exactly what you're asking for, but I have one name for you T3: Scott Peterson. Only those who oppose the death penalty in all cases seek clemency for Peterson. I see himas pretty much equally a threat as I do Williams. It's got to do with the crime, not race or class.
I have to say that cobb's post about tookie's kid being a killer got me to thinking about cheney's kid being a thespian - and how he (Dick) probably should not be allowed to act anymore. you just can't make this stuff up. please, no posts outlining the distinction between homosexuality and murder. according to dick and his crew, both are sins before god, but one is deductible before taxes, if done on a grand enough scale. I agree with you. And more, Snoop Dogg is speaking on his behalf? Snoop Dogg? He is a Crip himself. Let's assume he's still feels some sense of loyalty to his gang. If that's the case, he's trying to save one of his own. What if Tookie were a Blood and not a Crip? Snoop would be at home smoking weed and watching the execution on T.V., drinking gin and juice. We incarcerate far too many people, largest prison population in the world, second highest rate of imprisonment. At the very least P6 you should engage the obvious relationship between executions vs life without parole while asserting that we incarcerate far too many people. The problem is, it follows from your analysis of the two questions that we SHOULD eventually release people like Williams. If we can't execute them and we need to incarcerate fewer people, what's left? If we can't execute them and we need to incarcerate fewer people, what's left?
You're putting us on right? Right? You do know don't you that the overwhelming majority of people in prison have not been sentenced to death. Were you aware of this fact?
Temple:
Haw! and Haw! again. ptc (and dw):
and have not been convicted of crimes of violence.
That's a discussion of a response to a diversion. I may engage the topic at some point in the future. For the record, I'm not approving any more anonymous comments that just amount to "he was a bad, scary man." I want someone seeking his death to tell me how they benefit from that death. ...and how many were released by the California parole board? Check into the case of Robert Lee Massie, QB. Another Furman commutee who went on to murder again. Paroled in California.
Snoop D-O-double G sips his gin and juice, laid back, with his mind on his money and his money on his mind. Killing Tookie shows that the state is willing and able to protect people from the most dangerous criminals. If people loose faith that the law is even capable of doing that, then they will take the law into their own hands.
Let's see if I got a handle on Br. Cobb's argument. The way to restore the alleged lost faith of African Americans in the commitment of the LAPD, in particular, and the California criminal justice system, in general, to combat evildoers in their community is by gassing Tookie Williams. I would have thought that the black community's feelings of antipathy toward the LAPD might have been lessened to some measurable extent if, for example, the four cops who were videotaped beating an unarmed and drug intoxicated Rodney King like an unwanted stepchild had been convicted. Or, if the sheriff's deputies who shot multiple times a mentally disturbed naked older black woman who was brandishing a paring knife while standing on the front lawn of her home had not allowed to skate free. But, no, no, nothing short of gassing Tookie will do here or folks, other than the LAPD who apparently do it more frequently than others, will take the law into their own hands. Do you think that it has ever occurred to people like Br. Cobb that the most that most black people ever expect from the police is that they will not shoot them when the orders to do so are actually given.?
No thank you. YOU were the one who brought up a study performed in Texas to explain the inevitability of specific behavior by a California parole board. I don't need to look up anything to recognize that your argument is phony. He's talking about white people. No thank you. You're willing to hold an opinion which is directly refuted by a case you decline to even look at?
You shouldn't abuse the word "directly" that way. It never did anything to you. There's nothing "direct" about predicting the future behavior of a California parole board by looking at the past behavior of a Texas parole board operating under entirely different circumstances. If you want directness, then take up the challenge P6 put to you way back up yonder. Stop telling us why you don't think Williams should be released. Instead, address the question in front of us: how does killing him make us better? pookie and ray-ray are still slingin' rocks and cobbs buyin'. pookie and ray-ray are modern-day synonyms for american values of truth, justice and fairness (ie. free markets vs. equity)...it seems these rocks fit in most any pipe, and don't cost much at all...the first hit is always better than the second, but as you know, folks keep coming back...C to the O to the dubble, bubble B is no different. i will say that since he's met tookie, he probably knows the type of cat he is - deep down in side...in fact, it's why i compared him to luciano, gambino and sears (these folks have an ideal - and murder is usually part of their acceptable calculus). do you want someone who feels that way living in your neighborhood? maybe, maybe not...do you want someone like that consuming tax dollars in your state prison? maybe, maybe not. do you want someone like that consuming tax dollars on death row and consuming limited legal resources? maybe, maybe not. in any case, this is hardly a public safety question. this is even less a question of the fairness of the death penalty. c-o-double b wants to keep the convo there because it suits his broader point - and that's cool - it's based on an appeal to morality and an appeal to fear...something few folks need concern themselves with in cyberspace... i think cobb may simply be saying that any society that relies on intellectual competition (ie. capitalism meets information society) and home mortgages (democratic wealth building through real estate ownership) must terminate those who would 1) break the social contract in any domestic setting, 2)undermine the influence of the legitimate use of force and 3) strip the state of its power over life and death. the priorities of that state (as defined by its laws and its people) are supreme and warrant the right to take life. moreso than this is about faith in the LAPD, it's about faith in your banker and your internet connection and your high-speed downloads of kirk franklin approved porn and your access to well-stocked supermarkets...it's about the social/commercial contract. the same measure of justice, then, would be applied to an interrupter like timothy mcveigh. tookie williams broke the social contract in the same way that luciano, gambino and sears broke their contracts. sears was eventually victorious and luciano and gambino have been redeemed in popular memory, but in each instance, the trail of blood and tears was filled with innocents caught in the crossfire. tookie may or may not be a bad guy, but, it's beside the point. There's nothing "direct" about predicting the future behavior of a California parole board by looking at the past behavior of a Texas parole board operating under entirely different circumstances. There's something very direct about the California parole of a murderer who had his death sentence commuted, resulting in a new murder within a year. You're grasping at straws here QB. Most contrite, well behaved prisoners are eventually released, regardless of their past. In California as well as other states. The likelihood ebbs and flows, but eventually a combination of advanced age and lack of money results in their release. To claim that the past is not a predictor of the future in this regard is just silly. And once released, some of them kill again.
I'm grasping at nothing other than a straight answer, something you consistently avoid.
Where did this little fact come from? Also from your Texas study? Or some other source?
You're assuming the conditional on the flimsiest of evidence. If Williams' sentence is commuted; AND if he is granted a parole hearing; AND if he wins release; AND if his change of heart is not genuine; THEN he might commit another murder. And you say I'm grasping at straws? Why not take your argument to its putatively logical conclusion, dw: Some people convicted of murder aren't sentenced to death. Some of those people, upon their release commit additional crimes. Some people sentenced to death escape from prison before their execution date. Some people convicted of murder commit acts of violence against other prison inmates. Some file appeals and win, even though they're guilty. Therefore, all persons convicted of murder should be executed immediately. "Killing Tookie shows that the state is willing and able to protect people from the most dangerous criminals. If people loose faith that the law is even capable of doing that, then they will take the law into their own hands." Tookie Williams is not merely a "most dangerous criminal." At some point, he must be viewed as a master organizer and leader. There are implications to his death beyond four murders. Sure life is important - it's precious and irreplaceable...and wasted everyday. 73,000 (minimum) died during the last natural disaster in Pakistan. Four times that many perished in the tsunami. So murder and death are a part of life. Thounsands of Iraqis have died in a war not of their own choosing, nor wrought by the intelligent hand of benign leadership. Is Dubya "the most dangerous criminal," or simply a well-placed organizer and leader with access to WMD (destruction) and WMD (distraction)? Williams established the foundation and core principles for one of the largest, most viable criminal networks in the history of the world. Wanna kill him now? Start with Dubya? Why not? Some convoluted political answer predicated on recognizing the "legality" of the united states? that same definition would have resulted in isaac sears being hung by the brits three centuries ago. there are no rules or laws except what you can impose or cause to be imposed...tookie made his own rules and may die by someone else's, but not because he is the "most dangerous criminal." That's simply preposterous. What could be farther from the truth? - Maybe, the notion that some evil dictaker in a land far away has evil designs (as part of his axis of evil) to undertake an evil plan to attack this land...maybe, the leaders of this land sponsored and supported this man long ago when he was good, but now he is evil and so we must remake him and his land to prevent them from doing evil things...maybe we should do this thing because we are good and he is evil and we know he is evil because we said he is evil and we would not say he is evil if he were not really evil...right?? cobb probably liked nursery school alot more than the rest of us, and has simply decided not to leave. it's time for my nap. T3 runnin' the mojo down about pookie and ray ray and dem. They could run a fortune five, given half the chance. When you think about it, their business ethics or lack thereof differ little from the corporate dons Cobb genuflects to everyday. I'm all for capital punishment the minute it applies to white collar crimes like looting saving and loans, ripping off pension funds, war profiteering, or lying the country into war. Make Kenny-boy Lay's pillaging of Enron a capital offense. Then fry the bitch for wrecking the lives of thousands of innocent people. He deserves it far more than Tookie. Duke Cunningham's facing ten years in the joint for taking two million in bribes while sitting in Congress. Bubba and Skillet in the joint serving 25 to 30 for slinging rock on the corner at ten cents a hit. They call that justice in America. No wonder the Supreme Court's facade is cracking. but why is it a basketball-sized piece?? DC?? it's racial!! LOL. Therefore, all persons convicted of murder should be executed immediately. Ok. I'd make exceptions depending on the reason for the murder, and I'd investigate cases where doubt exists until doubt ceases to exist. But I wouldn't have any problem with all "murder with malice" convictions resuting in a quick execution. For exactly the reasoning you provided, QB.
But that means you'll run the risk that some of these people might get released and commit another murder. Better to just kill 'em, the sooner the better. Now that we've got all the convicted murderers out of the way, let's move on and see who else represents a risk of possible future murder, shall we? We can kill all them next. it could be like old Rome...get 'em all in the coliseum - make 'em fight each other to the death, charge admission...sign me up for the pay per view.
Hey! There's our shot at the big money. We'll put executions on the teevee at $49.95. What good is bloodlust if you can't turn a profit on it? Now that we've got all the convicted murderers out of the way, let's move on and see who else represents a risk of possible future murder, shall we? Everyone represents a risk of possible future murder, but: 1. Very few people do murder, on the order of 1 per 1,500 people, or less, depending on what you count as "murder". Even those who exhibit anti-social behavior remain highly unlikely to murder, so we can't act in a way which punishes someone who never has murdered. 2. The rate of reoffense is dramatically higher than the rate at which non-offenders murder (more like 1 per 15, would be far higher if not for long prison terms for murder conviction). A murderer has placed himself in a high risk group, a group which, when released, will go on to commit more murders.
OK, then let's limit it to serial murder.
So there it is. If we don't kill 'em, some of them will commit murder. It's too risky to experiment.
Oh, hell yes, T3, you are an entertainment genius. We can pop off two or three during halftime at the Super Bowl. We'll let Miss America throw the switch right after a roaring flyover by our newest and most expensive fighter jets. After that, the winner of the PowerBall drawing chooses whether to yank the costume offa Janet Jackson or launch some illegal Meskin immigrants out of a catapult into the shark-filled waters off of beautiful, sunny San Diego. Make it $54.95.
Because a "hockey-puck-sized piece" just doesn't sound right, does it? no, besides we all know that pucks are black. LOL i think we may be about 15 years ahead of our time, but there will be a demand for this stuff again - somewhere...maybe europe.
That's OK. I'm betting Ms. Jackson will still be looking pretty good, even then.
Say, YOU seem to be kinda "fascinated with authority" there yourself, dw. You know what we gotta do. No hard feelings. If Cobb is talking about white people's faith in the police agencies of the state we all know that it means little with regard to a black person having been accused of a crime. The town of Coatesville (Detroit Piston's guard Ray Hamilton's home town for all you roundball junkies) is within relatively short driving distance from where I live. Coatesville was the site of Pennsylvania's last recognized lynching which took place in 1913. A black man who had recently arrived from Virginia got into an argument with a white security guard at Lukens Steel Company. Their verbal tiff escalated into a full blown, knock down, drag out fight. The black man, who was known to have a taste for liquor and a bad temper, won the fight. In fact, the white security guard who was a well known and beloved local figure died as a result of the injuries he suffered during the fight. A white mob came into the hospital where the black man had been admitted because of his injuries and dragged him while he was still chained to a hospital bed out into the streets and to a local wooded area. The police had mysteriously disappeared from the hospital minutes before the crowd arrived. The black man was thrown into a pit and doused with a flammable liquid and set afire. The black man somehow managed to get out of that burning hell three separate times before being forced back by the crowd. He was literally roasted alive. White folks don't need much provocation or justification to take the law into their own hands when they feel that justice needs to be meted out to a black person. White folks don't need much provocation or justification to take the law into their own hands when they feel that justice needs to be meted out to a black person. Doesn't it seem important that that was 92 years ago PT, and it hasn't happened since?
oh, how soon we forget...the bombing of the Greenwood district in Tulsa was after 1913...so was the case of the Scottsboro Boys...and so were the assassinations of King and others...the case of Pennsylvania hardly stands as the last such national case of significance with respect to white folks transgressing their own laws. After all, in Rome, the "freedmen" and the slaves were in much the same category. Same thing here. So, I'd rather not dig it all up...head over to skip gates or lerone bennett and catch yo' sef up on all the latest happenings since 1913. It's not pretty... by the way, pt, i went to high school near coatesville - in pottstown, at the hill school...and don't say it!! You know it would be very cool to have Kody Scott in on this conversation. In many ways, he's just like Tookie, except Scott doesn't hide behind the facade of Nobel nominees. I happen to think that Scott, aka Sanyika Shakur had reformed, but I also did so placing a certain amount of faith in the system that put him away. Since he was released, and was never sentenced to death, in my eyes he had paid his debt to society. There was a certain leap of faith that he had to prove his right to be free in society again by never crossing over the line, but for all intents and purposes I saw him as redeemed. Scott recognized the entire dynamic of leadership in young boys and all that. I can imagine very well that Tookie understands the same thing, but Scott was smart enough to demonstrate that he had no desire to step back into that role. I am no convinced that Tookie has any such sense. Aside from his not paying his debt to society, which the jury has decided is death, Tookie hasn't even been forthcoming enough to admit to the killings. He won't man up, and what slimy supporter would blame him? He shot civilians in the back, a low crime in any society in any era. I don't see whites and blacks as any different in their proclivities to go wilding, and while it's an interesting inkblot to watch you guess what I'm trying to say, that's a non-starter. I see all people as peasants until they demonstrate their ability and willingness to work in the context of higher standards for themselves and for the commons. Most people are selfish, lawless rabble, period. Those of us with something to lose need to stand by fair laws and law enforcement. Further we should by noblesse encourage all rabble to put down their pitchforks from time to time. I have no problem putting down cops who defy their code of honor, but that has no bearing on the politics of the Coalition of the Damned. They don't care if its Fuhrman or Bratton, all they see are the billy clubs upside the heads of their lawless, peasant rabble cousins. They look for Robin Hood and end up with Tookie. Too bad, but also shame on us who are more capable of real heroics. On more point I'd like to make with regard to redemption, heroism and forgiveness. I'll keep it simple. Consider for a moment the moral standing of anyone here who has never been involved in criminal organizations and the murder of innocents. The same balance sheet that gives any of us the right to forgive Tookie for his ruthless killings, should tally up well in our favor were we to break into his prison and slash his throat. If I'm bloodthirsty in writing, I'm still an order of magnitude better man than Tookie. So are you. What do you believe hasn't happened since 1913? Most people are selfish, lawless rabble, period. Well, you can take black folks out of liberalism but you can't take away the effects of a liberal education. How many times did you read "Lord of the Flies'?
The same balance sheet that gives any of us the right to forgive Tookie for his ruthless killings, should tally up well in our favor were we to break into his prison and slash his throat. I don't want to forgive Tookie for murdering people. My complaint, my good brother, is simple: I don't believe in putting people to death for their crimes. I believe that folks who can't control their behavior need to be placed in environments where their behavior can be controlled to some extent and monitored. Tookie has given ample proof that he can't control or finds it extremely difficult to control his behavior. I am not willing to risk my life or the lives of others by putting him back on the street but I don't understand your lust for his blood. You keep trying to teach what you need to learn.
Your faith is misplaced. Prison is for punishment.
Okay, he renounced the gangs and thug life, accepted responsibility for creating the Crips and took action to cool them out. Writes childrens books, but only after being convinced to go public by a researcher that became convinced he'd changed. Behaved as well as Shakur did. There's nothing else he can do...but you've already said that. No matter how you justify it verbally, you just want him dead and nothing will change that.
The whole "debt to society" angle is bullshit because no reparations are paid. This is about vengeance...which the Lord says is His.
Boring. Repetition. Responded to about three times... (Silly rant ignored - on to the next comment)
If you really believe that, you're of the same material as Tookie, just poured into a different mold. God's not in the revenge business. That's the job of the people. If God didn't want us to have revenge, he would have made us incapable of comprehending it. You're damn right it's about vengeance, and the proper context of that is The People vs Stanley Williams. It's interesting to speak of the 'debt to society' as bullshit with regard to reparations. What Tookie took in lives, he paid back with children's books and fluffy pronouncements of redemption. How does this square in your mind? The people of the jury and every lawyer under the sun he could get in 25 years under all possible circumstances the system allows have not been able to repay the debt or even show that the death sentence was not appropriate to the case. He has met absolutely none of the criteria society has set out for legal recourse except this last one - which he certainly has a right to. I am not convinced that he deserves clemency. It's a subjective matter, but we're all giving subjective arguments. What is objective is that the People of the State of California have decided as well as they could that Tookie deserved capital punishment. None have been able to undo that decision. Tookie is as dead a man walking as the law is real. Whether I personally want him dead is beside the point. I want the system to work, and I believe it will.
That's not what The Book says. Now ptc and Cobb both said something similar, but using different words. ptc:I don't want to forgive Tookie for murdering people. My complaint, my good brother, is simple: I don't believe in putting people to death for their crimes. Cobb: Whether I personally want him dead is beside the point. I want the system to work, and I believe it will. Let's get over the idea that this argument is about what anyone wants for Mr. Williams. This fight is about what we want for the rest of us.
I've remained conspicuously quiet about Tookie because he's stank and frankly, I don't give a damn about him. It's really only your unquestioning and uncritical allegiance to the stank system and the extreme example of Tookie that you've milked for all it's worth to justify the same - that is worthy of scrutiny in this whole mix. Your enthusiasm for this one example, while understandable, greatly diminishes you. Enjoy it while you can Cobb. Once Tookie is gone, you'll have lost perhaps the single best anomaly you'll have ever had for justifying what are otherwise mainly uncritical and unworthy apologetics for a system by no means less stank than Tookie's damn self.
Gawd I love it when the Internet demonstrates the reality of quantum entanglement and orchestrated objective reduction at a distance..., that's what i said...hey today's friday...serve up the red herring. I've taken the trouble to read DA Cooley's report on the case of the People vs Stanley Williams. Having done so, I have satisfied my curiosity about the validity of the claims against Tookie. My presumption about the operation of the justice system is not that it evenly distributes a certain fraction of corruption across every case, rather that it processes cases well or poorly. Show me what's stank about this particular case given that same PDF and we'll see who's making apologies and who's blowing shit for the purpose of blowing. My allegiance to the system is indeed critical and closer than the average bear. I can't say that I discuss such matters as capital punishment on a regular basis with Doc (my brother, the LAPD officer) but I have come to some conclusions about the abilities of the system to do right. But I think Quaker is right. We should think about what we want for the rest of us. I should also recant/clarify about most people being lawless rabble, I really don't believe that of Americans, given our system. I believe that most people obey the spirit of the law. Absent law, they would be lawless rabble but that's not the case. We have a long history of being a law-abiding country - in fact so much so that we pretty much assume that reform of law reforms people. What do you believe hasn't happened since 1913? I took your word for it, PT:
I read Cooley's report too and I haven't raised a single objection to Tookie's imminent demise. Fuck Tookie. The only thing in question here is your allegiance to and unfailing apologetics for a system in which the immoral stank is as plainly immanent as it is in that now shriveled little troll Tookie. Sadly, Tookie is about the best hand you've had in this rhetorical game for about as long as I've read your writings. Enjoy it while you can. From my perspective, the objective of the game is conscience.(because conscience is the one thing that elevates us above other animals, as long as we are responsible to that conscience). Damn near everything you've written that I've read is about the suppression of conscience, and that's the conservative way. Extending you maximum benefit of the doubt as would-be spook who sat by the door, intentionally telling lies to get a seat at the republican table, it still and always seems to me like a hella dubious way to "work your show". When you cheerlead so enthusiastically for the darkside Cobb, it makes me wonder whether your souless disguise has become, or worse still has always been, your underlying reality.
You have a greater belief in the power of government than any progressive I've ever heard of. ya got 'gressive right, it's the pro- i gotsta question. holla!! Corn on the Cobb slathered in bullshit. Ourstorian, are you sure your name ain't Colonel Stinkmeaner? Cuz you is blind, toothless and about to be on the ass end of a nigga moment. Don't even start with me, homie. As a civil libertarian, I am staunchly law and order. That is the single most imporatant role of government, not as progressives would have it, to do economicially & culturally for people what they can't do for themselves. It's not a faith in government, but an acknowledgement of the organization and institutions which must be preserved in order to maintain civility. In this case a proxy for direct revenge and mob/gang rule. We could go down the line and delineate the proper functions of government, but that's tangential. Bottom line, there is no better organization to handle capital punishment of civilians than our style of criminal justice system - police, courts and executive review. We want to break that down? Sure - go for it. Still, I challenge the assertion that corruption in those organizations is evenly distributed across all cases or that it has reached a level at which it cannot be trusted, black conspiracies notwithstanding. But, hey. I'm not even saying that Tookie's execution is a litmus on the system, but it sure as hell will cost Arnold politically. Where is y'alls beloved 9th Circuit in all this? Punked out on you, or wised up enough to stay mute? Craig you are right though. This is fish in a barrel. I'm done. What do you believe hasn't happened since 1913? I took your word for it, PT:
Okay, but you didn't really think I was only making reference to Pennsylvania did you?
OK. Let's list a few things. I think public peace and safety is pretty high on everybody's list. Nobody especially likes it when some people run around blasting other people with shotguns. To that end, a fair system of justice is requisite. Without rushing into specifics, I think a free society has to value the lives of all citizens. These are all big, easy-to-bluster generalities, but they're points of potential agreement among all sides of the debate. The friction comes when we talk about how to get there. glad to see folks moving on...
hmm.., is it just me, or is this mighty redolent of P6 writing about solving the racism problem....? tookie was on the radar of law enforcement and other public safety agencies long before he got at those four folks...his case may be exceptional, but not unique. it seems to me that the question of his legacy transcends these murders - as well as it transcends the question of his redemption. cobb has outlined the history of a predator who went unchecked for years...if tookie had been on a different program (say one that used force to elevate his community) the state would have intervened long time ago - and he'd either be dead already or living in exile.
I dunno. Just trying to get a grip on the argument by looking ahead to see where it is we want to go. Waaaay back up this thread, P6 put out the challenge for death penalty supporters to explain the benefits of executing this specific defendant. That was a mighty good question that got lost in some peripheral rabbit punching. I thought I'd take one more crack at putting it on the table. ...and to that end, lemme toss out this chinscratcher: Is "justice" forward-looking, backward-looking, or both? That is to say, does a society exercise a system of justice to even the score for past acts or does it seek to improve the future? cobb has outlined the history of a predator who went unchecked for years...if tookie had been on a different program (say one that used force to elevate his community) the state would have intervened long time ago - and he'd either be dead already or living in exile. True, all too true. In any case, given the above it is hard to see how folks, i.e., black folks' sense of faith in the criminal justice system and the police agencies of the City and of the County of Los Angeles will be restored, as Cobb implies, by gassing Tookie Williams. If folks in East L.A., Compton and Brentwood knew what Tookie and his boys were up to then it stands to reason that the police knew too. Way back in the day whenever anybody scored a very large quantity of weed we would say that they must have gotten it from the cops because nobody else that we knew except the cops were holding any large quantity of drugs. Cops and Robbers is a Fortune 500 game in the United States.
c-o-dubbbble b...how do you figure the principal role of government is law and order? is that putting the cart before the horse. it seems to me that one might argue powerful interests (ie., those opposed to the redistributive functions) form governments precisely to establish law and order to maintain long-standing commercial.spatial.physical relationships. further, one might argue that the american example of the federal reserve bank (as a private creator/governor/regulator and arbiter of national policy) usurps an authentic expression of "law" by obfuscating what is legal and what is not - thereby increasing the importance of "order." one might also argue that the american example of slave-owners dominating the electoral and judicial structures of the nation in the years leading up to the civil war provide another example of the importance of "law and order" vs. equity as considerations - and this juxtaposition of priorities is actually a "class-based" interpretation of normative social organization? simply, who defines what governments should do? or is life so chaotic that the absence of government suggests the need for tax-payer dollars to subsidize law and order? are tookie-esque strongmen organic creations of societies run without government (or by governments that don't really emphasize law and order)? by extension, are you suggesting that the rule of law or absence thereof, is the primary reason why certain nations/communities are still in a relative economic stone age? 's'all um sayin' PT...'s'all um sayin'...feel me! "Is "justice" forward-looking, backward-looking, or both?" In amurrica justice is blind; bitch don't know which way she goin'. But, to answer your question QB, IMHO I think justice must be like the Sankofa bird in spirit. Backwards looking to be forward thinking, is not a bad way of putting it. But justice in amurrica, when it comes to black folks, is just plain backwards. It can conceive of no future for us beyond bondage or servitude (prisons are the new slave quarters). The beat down of Rodney King and the sodomizing of Abner Louima by law enforcement serve as cogent examples of backwards patterns of policing grounded in the nation's past. In a society founded upon the dehumanizing of blacks folks, contemporary instances of the same, while no less reprehensible, are nonetheless comprehensible to juries and certain bloodthirsty sectors of the public as sanctioned uses of force to maintain a type of control and status quo predicated in the past when every "free" black man was a threat, a fugitive from some white man's slave quarters. Two years ago, when the police tasered and beat my unarmed cousin to death in the parking lot of a fast food joint I knew they would get off. Looking backwards, I could see it coming. I hear you, O. My question doesn't even begin to address any of what you wrote. I'm still trying to drive at P6's question: What good does it do to execute this man? The answer depends on what people think is the reason for having any justice system at all. The dysfunction of the system is way more complicated than my narrow little question. And I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. My sympathies. temple, why don't we start this with a comparison of the principles of three states. I'll take it up here under a new thread if our moderator would be so kind. As soon as you went back to slavery, my knee jerked. But let's look at both Iraq and South Africa as newly remade countries which have been heavily influenced by principles outlined in the American Constitution. There are probably 20 or 30 high level principles upon which all laws in a modern society can be drawn from. I take issue with the notion that redistributive impulses scale to the size of nationhood. But then again, there are tiny nations that do just that. "What good does it do to execute this man?" It perpetuates the bloodlust and the killing machine that keeps the system intact. Human sacrifices to the god(dess) of justice justify the so-called rule of law(lessness). Like the mob rule of pillage and conquer disguised as spreading democracy, like the enslavement of black folks justified as spreading christianity, it's just so much smoke and mirrors to maintain the cult in power and the power of the cult. I'm no Negrodamus, so this ain't no prediction, but I'm not sure the "black plowman" (Schwarzenegger) will allow the execution to go down. Tookie Williams' recent history gives the governator cover if he wants to play the same "I'm an independent" pr game that got him elected in the first place. Thanks for the condolences. My cousin never hurt anybody in his life. He was a recreational user who unwound one night after work but got too loose. When the cops kill a man with drugs in his system (even an unarmed man who didn't put up any more resistance than the average saturday night drunk) it's an automactic walk for them. The civil suit is still pending. It ain't about money. It's just the only way left to have a day in court where the truth can be told.
let's skip Iraq. it doesn't count in my book...not yet...and let's skip South Africa too...why don't you pick three european countries that are G-7 members... i hope you didn't hurt yourself jerking your knees. your landing in the straw should have been nice and soft. as a point of information and reiteration (i restate you have little or no use for history - so this new thread may constitute a walk on the wild side) i didn't go back to slavery, i went to foundation of the nation - which slavery preceded...so, we'll see how this dance goes...more waltz than tango, i'll take my time and ask that you do the same. Temple/Cobb, why don't y'all jump on this unused open thread that P6 setup for corollory ruminations..., I for one am keenly interested in seeing how Cobblerstiltskin spins this here reverently proffered patch of straw;
into anything even remotely resembling logical gold. What doesn't scale - at all - is Adam Smith's libertarian free market superstition, which upon reaching a certain threshold morphs into corporate capitalism and the fascist corporatism which threatens us all at this very moment. How Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" has become a Visible Foot
Hello, Just some ideas for all to chew on. :) I think Tupac said it best when he said ," we are hungry please let us in, 3rd time I have to say it I'll be picking the lock." Sounds fair to me. Thats called survival with a politenes. (it would beheeve every human to be generous under all circumstance, and not just walk past someone in obvious need. Law of averages proves that just walking by will get your clock cleaned and your lock picked.) Regarding Tookie he certianly deserves clem. When he formed the gang it was Maslows Theory, heirarchy of human needs, desire to belong to a tribe of sorts. Humans dont like time on theyre hands when doing the 80 yr on earth plan birth to death. They need a sense of belonging, and sense of purpose. When you are the last rung on the ladder, it doent make a shit , cause your mind is busy in the shiit, what the definition of purpose is, or what tribe your a member of, because really you are not able to get off the bus an commit suicide, you have to do the time on earth in some fashion to stay busy. Tookie trancended any fear of death back then, because his own ass was probably on the line often. Once the fear of death is trancended it is forever trancended. Tupac trancended it as well. Humans cling to this life on earth for 1 of 2 reasons. Generosity, or selfishness. Survival is what it is when one is in the midst of it. When the drama of getting basic needs met is removed humans become what should be there otherwise "normal civilized selves." If in survival mode it is easy to think to ones self,"my ass or your ass, what makes your ass better than my ass? That BMW your driving? Oh hell no! POP POP. Now I am driving. You didnt escape that burial, but I did till its my turn. Etc. Tookie aint afraid to die,( I mean hell they aint gonna peel his skin off piece meal .) Most of the people reading this are scared of the enivitable. (Thats right folks, yau'll will die eventually. You'll leave shitting in the same pants you arrived in.) Why that idea pisses folks off is beyond me. Generosity and compassion during your handsome and mobile years is the only thing thats going to cause someone to wash your adult ass . Yau'll know God created life and death, why you have a problem with the death stuff is beyond me. Tookie found a way to belong on earth in a productive way, the way God created him to be in the first place. The prison met his basic needs consistantly, he had no druggs, so he was clearheaded, basic needs + clearheadedness= productive, compassionate, generous, creative, etc. I say keep Tookie on earth he is useful. (I also cant deny I appreciate the crips cleaning the real bullies any chance they get, they come most often in uniform with handcuffs. They are aslo schooled on Maslows Theory in training, but most choose to ignore the education, and remain bullies.) Like I said , just a little something to chew on . Life is fun when you balance blowing it with fixin it. If we are all honest, we are all guilty of blowing it a few times. Just some use verbal oozies, as opposed to real oozies, and some get caught but most dont. I would rather be shot with a bullet than cuffed and shot up with some assholes mouth. "If we live in a country where the police agencies of the state regularly and routinely let some murderers walk, then we cannot sensibly talk about some people deserving to die while others get off easy." The solution to this inconsistency is to punish the murderers who are getting off easy, not to let off the murderers who are being punished. The solution to this inconsistency is to punish the murderers who are getting off easy, not to let off the murderers who are being punished.
So until that time comes, if it ever comes at all, we should continue to execute some murderers and let other murderers walk away.
No, we should apply a more rigorous standard across the board, and hang the unquestionable murderers across the board. I generally support death penalty moratoriums, for fear of hanging the wrong person, and because of the obvious bias to blacks in handing out death. But there was never a more clear decision in the case of Tookie. But there was never a more clear decision in the case of Tookie. This is a fairly bold assertion given the tens of thousands of people who have been charged with murder in the United States. What, for example, about my friend, Joe Barboza/Joe Bentley, (and weirdly enough he was my friend) who killed 26 people? Twenty-six murders is a lot of murders. The last murder he was known to have committed (some people suspect that he committed more murders) was in California. He made the victim dig his own grave and then shot him. He was charged with third degree manslaughter and did less than three years. Seems pretty cold blooded and heartless to me.
He was charged with third degree manslaughter and did less than three years. Seems pretty cold blooded and heartless to me. The facts of that case are more than a bit murky PT, but even if we grant that the FBI protected their informant while he committed further murders, what we end up with is the FBI being accomplice to such murders. We should prosecute any FBI agents who behaved in such a criminal way. I don't see any connection to the execution of Mr. Williams. OJ should have been executed too, but there's no connection there either. Jimmy Hoffa's murderer: same story. Some people beat the system. Not all of them do.
The facts of that case are more than a bit murky PT, but even if we grant that the FBI protected their informant while he committed further murders, what we end up with is the FBI being accomplice to such murders. We should prosecute any FBI agents who behaved in such a criminal way. The facts of the case are not murky at all, DW. There were two women who were eyewitnesses to the murder. The man who was killed was the boyfriend of one of the women and the other woman was having an extramarital affair with Barboza/Bentley. The only reason the facts regarding the crime emerged was because Barboza had bragged to his cellmate in Massachusetts, where he was doing a short stint for a parole violation, of his crime. The cellmate, angling for a reduction in his own sentence, told the sheriff's department of Suffolk County which subsequently informed the authorities in Sonoma County. The two women were tracked down and they led the investigators to where the body was buried. Do you think that Barboza/Bentley's burglary accomplice shot and buried himself? As for prosecuting the FBI you don't mean a word you wrote. I don't see any connection to the execution of Mr. Williams. I thought we were discussing people who commit especially heinous murders. Twenty-six murders is a lot of murders. OJ should have been executed too, but there's no connection there either. Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of the crimes that he was charged with. How would justice be served by executing people who have been declared not guilty by a jury of their peers? I thought you believed in law and order? Jimmy Hoffa's murderer: same story. Tony Provenzano did not kill Jimmy Hoffa. Some people beat the system. Not all of them do. In the Fortune 500 game of Cops and Robbers the Cops, more often than you might want to admit, decide who walks down the courthouse steps and who walks to death row. It seldoms has little to do with guilt or innocence. Barboza/Bentley gave the FBI information it wanted on the Patriarca Crime Family. That information didn't stop the Patriarca Family from committing crimes because several years later one of its soldiers killed Barboza/Bentley as he was getting into his car in San Francisco. It's all Cops and Robbers, DW, Cops and Robbers.
Orenthal James Simpson was acquitted of the crimes that he was charged with. How would justice be served by executing people who have been declared not guilty by a jury of their peers? I don't of course. Expand my comment to "OJ should have been convicted and then executed". Tony Provenzano did not kill Jimmy Hoffa. I don't know who killed Jimmy Hoffa, but I do know that he's not been executed for the crime. It's all Cops and Robbers, DW, Cops and Robbers. I don't disagree with you on this point, PT. I just don't see that one man beating the system implies we should modify the consequences when another man fails to achieve that goal.
First you assert that the facts surrounding one of Barboza/Bentley's crimes is murky. I provide contradictory information, which you then ignore. Then you amend your wish to have OJ Simpson put to death for a crime that the system says he did not commit to expressing a desire that he had been judged guilty and executed. All of the people suspected of having been involved in the murder and disappreance, save for his so-called "adopted" son, of Jimmy Hoffa are dead. Barboza/Bentley didn't beat the system. His don would have had him killed if the FBI had not wiretapped a conversation between the family's boss and underboss. Apparently even his crime bosses were afraid of him. The FBI subsequently played the tape for Barboza/Bentley. He switched his allegiance to the Cops' team. Years later when he was no longer of any use to the Cops' team, the Robbers' team executed him. I find it hard to believe that the Cops' team didn 't have a tape of those planning discussions, too.
First you assert that the facts surrounding one of Barboza/Bentley's crimes is murky. I provide contradictory information, which you then ignore. Break it down, PT. Person A asserts a factual analysis of a 1971 case. Person B asserts that the facts are murky. Person A re-asserts the original analysis, adding a bit more detail, but provides no reference. Now, as person B, I checked into what might be avaialble regarding hard evidence of the Barboza case in Santa Rosa in 1971, which I believe is the case you cite. I found no hard evidence. I found people who claim as you do. People who themselves cite unnamed people who believe that Barboza killed 26 people. People who claim, without citation, to know what happened in the Santa Rosa case. People who cite unnamed eye witnesses. I claim such evidence is murky, but I'm willing to just let the question rest. You can believe it's not murky. I made my case. You made yours (or can add to it if you like), and we can move on to the next question.
Break it down, PT. Person A asserts a factual analysis of a 1971 case. Person B asserts that the facts are murky. Person A re-asserts the original analysis, adding a bit more detail, but provides no reference. Now, as person B, I checked into what might be avaialble regarding hard evidence of the Barboza case in Santa Rosa in 1971, which I believe is the case you cite. I found no hard evidence. I found people who claim as you do. People who themselves cite unnamed people who believe that Barboza killed 26 people. People who claim, without citation, to know what happened in the Santa Rosa case. People who cite unnamed eye witnesses. I claim such evidence is murky, but I'm willing to just let the question rest. You can believe it's not murky. I made my case. You made yours (or can add to it if you like), and we can move on to the next question.
So what is your counter narrative, DW? Do you believe that Barboza/Bentley was found guitly of manslughter in California solely on the strength of the testimony of a jailhouse snitch in Massachusetts? What is it that you found no hard evidence of? The story of the trial was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. Barboza/Bentley said at the time he was being vetted by the FBI that he killed 25 people. A Massachusetts attorney who represented a man who B/B falsely accused of having been involved in the murde of another man believes that B/B killed more than 26 people. In fact, this attorney believes that B/B continued killing people while he was in the Witness Protection Program. I am not making any claims regarding B/B. Do you believe that Barboza/Bentley was found guitly of manslughter in California solely on the strength of the testimony of a jailhouse snitch in Massachusetts? Near as I can tell PT, he took a plea bargain. There was no trial. Do you know otherwise?
Near as I can tell PT, he took a plea bargain. There was no trial. So you believe that a career criminal took a plea bargain solely on the basis of his fear that he would be convicted on the strength of the testimony of a jail house snitch based in Massachusetts? The only reason I would take a plea bargain is: (a) I thought there was a better than even chance I would be convicted if I went to trial; or (b) folks interceded on my behalf to ensure that whatever time I feared receiving if I went to trial was cut back.
P6 - Can we put this thread to sleep? DW already did...
What about the lives he destroyed and the families he devastated? What about the lives he destroyed and the families he devastated?
So how will gassing Williams make these individuals and families whole again? That's the hidden problem about revenge. Nothing that the vengeful can do will equal the pain caused by the initial offense. Vengeance does not bring closure. Ron Goldman's father doesn't feel any better about the murder of his son because he secured a civil judgment against O.J. Simpson. His son is still dead and taking away Simpson's Heisman trophy will not restore his son to life. Tookie Williams' victims are not going to be made whole by Williams' death. He will be dead forever and so will their loved ones.
You, Mary, are a problem. I can dismiss political posturers, editorialists with axes to grind and voodoo priests that think killing Tookie will kill the attraction of thug life. I have a harder time with grief because my reaction has nothing to do with Tookie. It has to do with grief, and may sound harsh to some. You have to let go. And again, that's not about Tookie. What do you gain by his death? A release from fear? Really? Have you been waiting for his death to move on? Do you depend on his death to move on? I really hope not... wow...the juice shoulda been juiced. that's deep. i really have to say that reactions to his case will always provide tremendous comedic relief to me. scarcely little else has been more hilarious than the manner in which folks betray their willingness to go straight totalitarian-fascist when it comes to stuff they don't like...natural-born killers all. is all so nathanbedfordforrest, lynch-mob, tulsa terra-nasty...it's all-american. thanks ta d-dub for keeping it really real - in an aryan conqueror, teutonic entitlement, saxon sumthin' sumthin' sort of way. great post. cat's really outta the bag now...you and cobb could have a "kill the guilty/innocent black men who annoy/embarass us fest" and then top it off with an "all-time white guy ostrich fest - for folks who like their sand neck high." that should be some shin dig!! bernie ebbers could hook up some sponsorships to save on phone calls to the invite list...ken lay would make sure the place was heated...rummy would cover the security detail...dick cheney could bring in some lesbian strippers...bush could have his boy (military man) from the 'press corp' cover the event in true flaming red carpet fashion. be sure to post the pictures on the web...oughta be the most outta sight grey boy hedonism adventure since Tail Hook - and of course, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. you really slay me!! Last night I finally caught the PBS Frontline documentary about O.J. Simpson's trial. One of the more interesting comments about the trial's aftermath came from Alan Dershowitz, who served as one of Simpson's co-counsels. Dershowitz said that he could not believe the number of racist letters that he received following the jury's verdict acquitting Simpson. He said that these letters were across the board, that is, they came from conservatives and liberals alike. One letter, in fact, written by a Jew, according to Dershowitz, actually accused Dershowitz of betraying his own Jewish heritage. Dershowitz said that it was as if all the pent up racism that whites had harbored against blacks since the 1950s and were prevented from expressing during all those years could now be fully vented and even justified by whites as a result of the jury's verdict. What cats like DW never want to answer is why does the Simpson verdict so greatly bother them. It's not as if O.J. was the first guilty person who was ever acquitted of a crime in the United States and he won't be the last. The Simpson trial just eats and eats at them. Black folks who feel this way about the murderers of, say, Fred Hampton or Amadou Diallo are told to get over it and move on. Can't fool me, I know this is America. What cats like DW never want to answer is why does the Simpson verdict so greatly bother them. PT, I've answered exactly how I think on a variety of topics, although not this one. If you'd like to know what bothers me about OJ's walk, just ask. Indeed there's a racial angle, but I'm unsure how to relate it to to how you feel about Fred Hampton & Amadou Diallo. In a spirit of genuine communication, I'll ask of you, so if you'd like, we can compare. How do you feel about the cases of Fred Hampton or Amadou Diallo? How do you feel about the case of Nicole Simpson?
In a spirit of genuine communication, I'll ask of you, so if you'd like, we can compare. How do you feel about the cases of Fred Hampton or Amadou Diallo? How do you feel about the case of Nicole Simpson? I don't believe that you are interested in genuine communication.
Todd Boyd, who is black and teaches at the University of Southern California, said that O.J. was able to buy the same sort of justice that wealthy white men get all the time in America. I don't believe that you are interested in genuine communication. Is there anything I might say or do which would convince you to reconsider?
Nope, the Barboza/Bentley exchange pushed me to my tipping point although I see could see it coming a week or so ago. There are one or two people on this list who piss me off although we probably have more in common than not. With you I just feel a sense of futility, if not fatigue, but you don't piss me off. Ok. We'll leave it rest. I do feel a desire for genuine communication with you. Maybe another time and place. well, if nothing else, the juice is still on the loose...and still, providing those of us who were not at all surprised by big al's goodie bag of hate mail, with tons of laughs. to paraphrase sally field in that seminal american celluloid classic (in the film with the character named after the founder of the klan - at the maxwell house hotel, no less), "Run OJ, Run." i have read the posts about tookie and although my heart goes out to any victims i still firmly believe the death penaltly to be archaic and barbaric and executing anyone for whatever reason can not be the answer, killing him for killing is not right , no one says he should be released but life without parole is still a powerful punishment. i am fully aware of how angry and hurt victims families are when any atrocity takes place but killing the perpertrator is never the answer, i have over the years been open to both sides of the arguement and have studied all literature about it but im afraid i do not agree with state sanctioned murder, not only for tookie but for all convicted of crimes which ask for the death penalty.Another way has to be found in todays so called humane society and not execution which is mainly a revenge act.When life without parole is given it means they never regain their freedom , surely this is punishment, so punish but do not murder them. I am aware of many terrible crimes committed against other human beings, and that is wrong , to take a life is so wrong but that means under any circumstances. So i am hoping california s governor not only decides to grant LWOP to tookie if he sees fit but also call a moratorium on the death penalty, saying this does in no way mean i want to see criminals let free, they must pay for their actions and rightly so ,but giving life without parole takes their lives as punishment,but without state sanctioned murder. I hope the rally against Tookies death sentence also brings to the fore the death penalty in general. I have a question. I don't mean to be facetious or anything of that sort. I wonder how much of a punishment life without parole is for certain people. Sure, you don't get to see blood relatives, but those individuals with whom you share consecrated relationships are right in front of you every day. What if you've spent most of your years in jail and lack the internal fortitude or external support to adjust to life on the outside? (Of course, that can change once you get outside, but this is not always the case.) What if you're more comfortable in jail? If you've achieved a certain legendary status within the walls and retain an operating network beyond the walls, you remain relatively immune from physical attacks and you receive deferential treatment from prisoners, guards, wardens, etc. Were you to re-enter society, you would jeopardize this status, unless you returned to a life of crime OR were embraced as "a quintessential redemption story." Society can handle only so many of these stories - so the line is likely to be long - and the wait for props could be just as long. For some, life without parole is truly a punishment...for some, it may not be. Best case scenario - our society comes to value the craft and possibility of building redemption. It can be done. In the meantime, it's not so obvious that this "punishment" is any more of a disincentive than the death penalty. Both are expensive propositions that do little to add safety to a society. Both are often built on "cruel and unusual punishment." Just a thought... Speaking in the abstract
It's not obvious that any punishment is a disincentive. The odds of getting caught are the disincentive. they should let him live because he is human like each and everyone of us and if we were in his place we woulndt want to be executed and we would do anything in order to get a second chance in life and thats what tookie is doing he wants a sencond chance in life and he deserves it because all of us arent perfect so what makes him diffrent from us?? we do things that we regret later in life and he regrets everything he did hes human like us!!!!!! so in my point of view he should have a second chance in life and hopefully god helps him in his time of need!!!!!! yeh i agree that LWOP can also be construed as a cruel and unusual punishment , but i also understand that there are some criminals who can never be released and allowed to go back into the community , be it because they are deemed insane , evil or dangerous. I also understand to be incarcerated for the rest of ones life without any slight hope of release in the future is about the worst punishment a society can bestow, short of murdering them by execution, but execution is far more expensive than allowing LWOP and maybe any saving made there could be used to further help victims, is just a thought. I also know there are maybe some who are genuinely remorseful and are capable of change and rehabilitation , those who desperately wish they could turn the clock back and undo the deeds they have been convicted of , we as human beings have to find a middle ground here and never condone murder either by a perpertrator or by a state. Victims of violent crime deserve never to be forgotton and their loved ones left behind helped in every way possible , but not by becoming caught up in acts of revenge and state sanctioned murder. I know there are no easy answers here and i dont have the answer, only my thoughts of wanting to exist in a humane society, and believing that killing some one because they have killed makes us as bad as the perpertrators, This is not an easy topic as many hold passionate views on the subject,or i doubt there will be an easy solution . But we must for the sake of us all find a way, an alternative way must be found and state sanctioned must stop. these are just my own personal views and i understand there are many with opposing views which i respect. take care all I don't favor the death penalty, generally. Although, in the case of military attacks against civilians during peace time (Oklahoma City), I think the death penalty is appropriate because you're trying military personnel for military action that stands in clear violation of the code. Did they get the right guy in McVeigh? Maybe, maybe not. Did they get the responsible parties? Absolutely not. So, even in this extreme case, the death penalty is an excessive measure because certainty does not belong to the state - even with confessions, biological evidence. So many individuals have incentives to cheat, lie, fabricate that justice remains as elusive as she is blind. I would argue that his "humaness" is not the point at all. If the extent of our decency is tied to biology (to the exclusion of the living environment), then we are doomed. Being human, in my book, doesn't mean anything. There are situations when humans enter into conflict and deadly force is required. This is not such a situation - nor was the situation when he is alleged to have killed these four people. Still, these four folks are dead, and some humans will kill some more humans tomorrow. In New Jersey, right now, fathers and sons are out shooting bears because the state has sponsored a 6-day open hunt on bears. Why? Because humans are encroaching on the bears territory and have had more contact than they can handle. I'm saying you sanction this bloodletting, but it seems that "humaness" is a poor criterion for establishing a base line of decency and mercy. In this case, the bears are actually innocent. It does not seem that Mr. Williams shares this trait. He may be redeemed, but then again, innocents have no need of redemption - unless you believe a particular esoteric fable that states we all do. Tookie is the lock-up 'cause he couldn't evade the po-po when it mattered most. Were he a relative of the Kennedy's, he might have fled to Switzerland and spent his days on the Alps, skiiing and bonin' blonds and occasionally going over to Austria to impress Arnold's countrymen with his musskulls. Such has not been his fate. A price must be paid, to be sure. Death at the hands of the state seems barbaric. It most certainly is. And then, given his circumstances, life without parole seems to be not much punishment at all. That is the irreconciliable difference. His death solves nothing. His life behind bars provides no balm. It has been said that time heals all wounds. We should be so lucky. "In New Jersey, right now, fathers and sons are out shooting bears because the state has sponsored a 6-day open hunt on bears. Why? Because humans are encroaching on the bears territory and have had more contact than they can handle. I'm saying you sanction this bloodletting, but it seems that "humaness" is a poor criterion for establishing a base line of decency and mercy. In this case, the bears are actually innocent." I'm cheering for bears everywhere. The bear has great wisdom and is a fierce warrior. (with apologies for the link to Faux News). I agree that Tookie's death solves nothing. As I stated up thread, executions are not punishments for crimes. They are human sacrifices to the god(dess) of law(lessness). They signify and maintain the power of the cult(ure) and the cult(ure) in power. When the just-us system bloodies its hands in the name of the state, it makes us all accomplices to murder. Just like Tookie's actions, if he in fact killed those "innocent" people, implicates our entire society. One of the things that I find disturbing in the discussions here and elsewhere about Tookie Williams is that many of the people including myself who oppose putting him to death also believe, unlike me, that he has undergone some conversion or that he has redeemed himself and consequently should be spared the gas chamber or what ever barbaric method my homestate uses these days to kill off its prison inmates. I don't care whether Tookie Williams has redeemed himself or not. He is in jail because he either cannot or will not control his behavior and he has a long history of demonstrating that he cannot or will not control his behavior. When people have demonstrated that they either cannot or will not control their behavior the only appropriate response is to place them somewhere where their opportunities for menacing the rest of us are significantly reduced. I have no desire to punish him or any other person who is placed in these settings. It doesn't bother me if he or anyone else in a similar situation is allowed conjugal visits, color television sets, access to the internet, porno magazines, Bibles, Korans, kosher food, halal meats, a daily shower, access to library books or birthday cakes. The desire to punish lies at the bottom of many of the inconsistencies, contradictions and cruelties that infect all levels of our criminal justice system today especially if the accused and convicted is poor and black. (One of my wife's cousins who was poor and black and had no prior criminal record was denied early parole because the parole board felt that his four year strict adherence to all the rules and policies of the prison he was in demonstrated that he had not really accepted responsibility for his crime. Makes you wanna holler, throw up both your hands!) ....only God can forgive sin.......and even of those who had sinned in the Bible i.e., Samson, David, they still had to pay the consequences of their sinful deeds......williams is of no exception....only God knows if he's repented.....only God can forgive...... his 'redemption' is not in this world but in the next.....weep for the victims of Williams crimes.....T.
Did God's people kill them? ....only God can forgive sin.......and even of those who had sinned in the Bible i.e., Samson, David, they still had to pay the consequences of their sinful deeds......williams is of no exception....only God knows if he's repented.....only God can forgive...... his 'redemption' is not in this world but in the next.....weep for the victims of Williams crimes.....T. I thought that one of the messages implict in Jesus' appearance was that forgiveness was no longer the exclusive perogative of God but was something that human beings were also capable of granting. I will say, however, that I suspect that when Jesus called for us to forgive one another he was referring to the type of trespasses that can and will occur on a daily basis as we interact with each other. In other words, I'm not convinced that Christian forgiveness has any role to play when we are talking about the likes of, say, Goeffrey Dahmer, Byron de la Beckwith, Prince Leopold of Belgium or Jonas Savimbi. The Catholic Church, for example, has a really shrewd and sophisticated understanding of forgiveness and repentence through the rite of Confession. It recognizes that human beings cannot forgive themselves no matter how strong their desire for repentence so it offers Confession as the vehicle for releasing people from their past deeds. The Catholic Church and other Christian denominatons certainly believe that sinners can attain redemption in this world. When carried to extremes, however, the Church covered up for years the actions of child molestors and pedophiles and in some dioceses in the U.S. it is still attempting to wriggle out from under its responsibility. Thie Church's difficulties in this area may speak well to the problems of trying to use the quality of forgiveness when the transgression itself exceeds our moral and ethical boundaries. There may be crimes that human beings cannot forgive because the magnitude of the crimes are beyond the human scope of comprehension. We can't seriously talk about forgiving slavers who threw their captives overboard when they spied a British frigate approaching their ships on the high seas. I think the same restricted latitude must be applied to mass murderers and serial killers. There may be legitimate and justifiable reasons for putting to death people who have stepped that far over our ethical and moral boundaries simply because we cannot forgive them.
I'm just against unnecessary death and/or destruction. That's all. I live in the UK,many people who were convicted of crimes for which they would have been executed have since been found to have been set up by the police or the system. NO DEATH PENALTY means no murder by the state. yes i m from the UK also and wrote a previous message, my own thoughts on the death penalty , you are so right ,murder by the state mustnt happen anywhere, it must be stopped . however i am not saying crimes must go unpunished but killing perpetrators is not the way, never has been and never should be . as we still await word from the governor ,i cannot condone state sanctioned killing as much as i dont condone killing of any sort, im not an extremist in any way , Im just against the death penalty, yes i know the arguements that victims never had a second chance but killing for that reason is not right, victims have had a terrible atrocity comitted against them and i no way condone or see the convicted murderer in a good light but i believe there is another way to punish , certainly not by commiting the same act and called it the law.when executing someone , it is so premeditated, every step calculated leading up to the killing .it is revenge in the worst possible way, it is yet another murder, however one chooses to look at it ,murder is murder I hear cries like fry him, kill him,juice him, and i have to admit i am sorry that i hear those phrases from other human beings, it is not the answer and althought people are entitled to their own views this is so barbaric ,its an eye for an eye mentality which really has no place in todays society. Society must rise above this mentality and find another way to make a murderer pay for his crime .dont just lock them away for years then exterminate then, that solves nothing apart from the lust some have for revenge and blood ,lock them away for the rest of their lives if you have to but make sure they put something back even if it is from a prison cell,some i have no doubt get caught up in the spectacle of it in a macabre sort of way, but society also shouldnt allow murder cos someone has murdered, sadly i hold little hope that the governor will grant clemency,i feel strong politics might come into play here which is wrong but that is the world today . But i hope he finds the courage to alter the path of history and the law that is influencing murder by the state .peace to you all Thanks (kinda, I guess). i believe that tookie has changed. and i am glad. but while i don't believe in the death penalty, this is not the case where i say "NO!" this for me is the penal equivalent of reparations. i understand why people fought for him, but i wouldn't fight for him myself.
if he were white, and his victims black, we wouldn't be arguing about him--even working on the assumption that he changed.
he is the closest thing that black people have to a war criminal. i won't be celebrating his death though.
ditto.., Because the system that will push the plunger on Tookie at around midnight is demonstrably foul. But Tookie was no poster child on behalf of whom one might mount a credible critique of that selfsame feared and hated system. nurtured on the thinner than skimmed-piss soup of protestantism, or still worse fundamentalism, methinkst folks greatly underestimate the level of effort involved with redemptive change, as well. But Tookie was no poster child on behalf of whom one might mount a credible critique of that selfsame feared and hated system. Given the way the process works there is little likelihood that any one suitable for being a poster child will ever appear on death row as one of the condemned. Tookie himself said that he never saw any millionaires there and he had been on death row for more than two decades. Death Row is the exclusive province of the wretched of the earth.
The only problem here is that it took too long to kill him, and that’s appeals and all the perks these murderers get. They forget about the victims and we spend millions of dollars for these murderers to play around with the system. YES! All these punks find God in jail.... who wouldn’t they don’t have anything else to do in there. I find it a riot that these murderers are allowed to write books and make a profit...means while the victims family get squat! And NO! he shouldn’t get life in jail… we already waste enough tax payers money. well i dont think he did it Tookie was indeed a wretch, and there was no amazing grace to save him. The difference between punishment for crime and that of banishment from society is, and ought to be the difference between imprisoment and commitment to an institution for the criminally insane. I believe that Tookie was a sociopath who fortunately got busted before he could do even more wreckage. He was on a killing spree, first one then three. In Arnold's review of his clemency petition, he pointed out that Williams cited George Jackson as a hero. I am in agreement with the Governor that such a dedication is adequate to demonstrate that redemption has not taken place. Society benefits from the execution of sociopaths of Tookie's degree precisely because they have a cultivated desire to do damage. That's why the bangers who defended him on my blog called him a True Gangsta. Tookie's aim to become a political hero miscalculated the people's willingness to construe his murders as revolutionary. It's strange what he must have believed about himself.
At which point, the entire Republican Party should sentence itself to death. Did you enjoy the execution as much as the asshole that live-blogged it? Unnecessary death, and the celebration thereof, really annoys me. No one was raised from the dead by this. And we've had this discussion...the only thing that's changed between then and now is a human was killed unnecessarily. Oh, and a really disgusting display of joy. The difficulty in responding to Cobb's arguments favoring Mr. Williams' execution is that the justifications offered for killing him are so extreme that one can easily fall into the trap of defending the indefensible by offering a contrary or opposing viewpoint. I don't want to offer a defense for Mr. Williams actions. I believe there is strong and substantial circumstantial evidence that indicates that he committed the crimes of which he was accused and convicted. On the other hand, I doubt that he received a fair trial. When the prosecution is allowed to refer to the defendant as a "caged beast" and the judge permits a defendant in a capital murder trial who is disputing his guilt to be chained and shackled as if he were in fact a "beast" then the presumption of innocence means little to a jury in which prospective black jurors have also been systematically excluded. I recognize that I hold a minority view on the issue of punishment for criminal offenders. I fail to see how punishment changes them for the better or improves their ability to live easily later amongst the rest of us. I have no problems about placing people who will not or cannot control their behavior in places where they cannot easily menace the rest of us but why punishment should be added to their banishment from society seems unnecessarily cruel and warped. Mr. Williams' identification or fondness for the late George Jackson seems in particular to have rubbed California's governor and Cobb the wrong way. George Jackson probably means many different things to many different people. The George Jackson, however, that I try to keep in mind is not the George Jackson who died in a bloody shootout with prison guards who later claimed that he had somehow smuggled a nine milimeter pistol into jail by concealing it in an Afro wig. I try to keep this George Jackson at bay and try to remember a young black man who was already serving his twelfth year in state prison for a robbery that had netted him about $54 and some change as I recall. That works out to about $4.50 a year. Does anyone think that Ken Lay or Jeffrey Skilling are going to do 12 years for looting and bankrupting Enron? Since Mr. Williams denied to his dying day that he had killed the four people he was convicted of murdering it seems bizarre to claim that he wanted these murders to be construed as revolutionary acts. Is the presumption here that if the murder of a poor convenience store clerk and a store owner and his family came to be seen as revolutionary acts then Mr. Williams would have "manned up" and confessed that he did it? Who exactly would have viewed the murders of these poor unfortunate people as acts of revolution? Not Huey Newton, Bobby Seale or Eldridge Cleaver. Not Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown. Certainly not Fidel or Chairman Mao. What revolved and danced in Mr. Williams' head had to have been strange at times but it appears that his thought dreams were no less strange than those of the people hankering for his death by the state.
The only problem here is that it took too long to kill him, and that’s appeals and all the perks these murderers get. Murderers like anyone else convicted of a crime get due process under the laws of this nation, which includes the right to appeal one's conviction. Murderers don't receive perks (perquisites), members of Congress like Randy Cunningham do. They forget about the victims and we spend millions of dollars for these murderers to play around with the system. You live in a country that loves murderers. Faye Dunaway got an Oscar for playing Bonnie Parker. Nobody is interested in seeing a movie about the people who Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker killed. we already waste enough tax payers money. Yep, I agree. The war in Iraq is a huge waste of money and so is stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody in the world seven times over. |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Tookie William's own son is a convicted murderer, and he's supposed to get credit for writing children's books with an anti-gang message? I guess the Coalition of the Damned doesn't give up without a fight. I only hope they get their hopes up to be dashed.