Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I just was wondering what everyone thought about what happened to him and the whole issue surrounding him. If you thought he was wronged and should have lived, or his past crimes were too sever to be made up for.

personally I feel that he should have been released. He was doing what he could to stop gangs, he 9 wrote children's books against gangs. With all his work he even got a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

so once again what is everyone else's opinions on the subject

a bit of background can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I personally do not support the death penalty (and not just because I am African-American. But because I do not think it deters crime) but WIlliams should be held responsible for the crimes he was found guilty of no matter how much he reformed. He may have changed but his four victims will never get to grow (or even fail) as people and for that he should still be punished for his crime.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

He was found guilty of multiple murders in multiple appeals

but he never admitted his guilt, which means he never apologized for his crimes. Remorse? if he says he was innocent then for what was he remorsefull?

From what I have read in the last few days he lived a very violent life, and never confessed to any crimes, so it sounds like he was dancing on the fence.

If he never commited any crimes, and he was the founder of the Crips, then being in a gang is not = to being involved in a violent criminal organization, right?

you cant have it both ways, but that is the role he was trying to play.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

He should have still been held accountable for his crimes. The way I see it, he was already on borrowed time. If the system was efficient enough, he wouldn't have had time to reform. Look at it this way: if someone gets life without parole, do they get released if they change?

A lot of people were using this case as a means to protest the death penalty. Personally, I feel that they were going about it the wrong way. He was already sentenced. If you don't like the death penalty, you need to work to get rid of it as a whole, not by trying to defend individuals.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Actually he was a co-founder of the Cribs, which became the Crips. Anyway, I'd have given him life. (life not 40yrs actually life) Not because he is "reformed" or anything, but because I personally think life is worse. I'd much rather get an injection and die (if I was guilty) than spend the rest of my lifespan in a prision.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

The notion of becoming more efficient at killing people is terrifying.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Honestly, the world is a better place after his execution...

Mr. Williams was a founder of the Crips gang and was arrested and charged with the brutal killings of 4 innocent people. There was sufficient evidence to sentence him with the death penalty. That's a very high burden.

While in prison he wrote children's books. He has claimed he is sorry for starting the Crips. Whoopdey-doo! Anyone who thinks that he has redeemed himself needs a reality check.

Here's what Mr. Williams has also done:

• He refuses to offer any information about the Crips structure or the identity of any other Crips members. He has never said he did not want to continue being a Crips member. It has been thought he was still running the gang from prison.
• Shortly after being incarcerated he attacked guards and other inmates. He needed to be put in solitary confinement.
• In the dedication section of one of his children's books he honors George Jackson, a prominent member of the Black Panther Party.
• After being found guilty of the murders he threatened the jurors.
• He has never apologized or shown any remorse for the murders.

Various news stories are reporting in the execution room witnesses invited by Mr. Williams showed their respect by holding their clenched fists in the air, a salute used by the Black Panther Party.

This is a perfect example of how activists, the media and celebrities pollute the justice system. Making "Tookie" sound like the next Dr. Seuss- unbelievable. This was a very bad man, and the system worked.

Wikipedia has a good article on Stanley Williams.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

There are legitimate arguments in favor and against capital punishment and it's something that really can't be adequately observed in a study, since you really can’t know who it deters from crime or if it even does. Personally, I don't care if the death penalty deters crime or not. I don’t think that our society can truly value the human life by condoning the death penalty, especially for people who are pro-life when it comes to abortion (unless their only concern is to try to increase the theoretical 'pro-life' voting block, while not actually caring about the human life itself). It’s ridiculous to think that you can value life by taking one out of vengeance. This doesn’t necessitate moral behavior or thought, in my not so humble opinion it makes you a LESS moral person.

Our prison system is supposed to be intended as a rehabilitation system for criminals and those wrongly convicted (don’t kid yourself by thinking that all people convicted of crimes actually committed them) as well as a punishment. Sadly, the feelings of the majority of Americans don’t seem to parallel the intent of the justice system, not to mention all the inequities that are in plain view within all the other facets of the system (aside from the prison system). As I was told by a prosecuting attorney for the state of California (who happens to be a friend), “if a person wasn’t a criminal heading into prison, they sure are when they come out.” I’m absolutely disgusted by the entire system, and especially capital punishment. Killing people should only be done as a last resort when your own life is at risk, not as a whim, not as a punishment, not as a deterrent, not as a means to get something you want, and most certainly not out of blind vengeance.

In this particular case, I think it’s an even worse mark on our country’s and especially my state’s record since the man was actually giving back to the disillusioned youth, adolescents, and adults who might possibly be lured by the gang life.

-Bill

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

released!?!?!?!?!?

Please tell me you're kidding. Life without parole, I would be fine with, but released?

People have been incarcerated for life, and executed for far lesser offenses than murdering 4 people in cold blood.

It costs us far more to execute people than to just keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. We can't even prove that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. People still kill each other, don't they?

If he has truly reformed, good for him. I don't think he should have gotten the death penalty in the first place, but it's absurd to think that someone can atone for murdering four people, and starting one of the most violent enterprises in the world that corrupts a good portion of our youth, just by writing children's books.

He can write all the books he wants, and do all the good he can--from inside the walls of a prison. He can never fully atone for taking the lives of four innocent human beings, however.

So basically...I thought he should have gotten life in prison without parole to start with, and I really don't care what he's done since then to enrich lives--the only way he should be leaving prison is in a casket when he dies.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. All you need is a letter from a lawyer, and you are nominated (According to a reporter I heard last night). I am personally opposed to the death penalty and feel that life in prison is a much more harsh punishment. In no way should he have even been given a parole hearing. He refused to apologize for his crimes, and would not provide information on the Crips.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I know that this is chit-chat, however I am issuing a caution. To this point the thread is fine, opinions are being expressed and ideas being debated. That is good.

Since this is such a sensitive issue I ask that this thread keep in mind that opinions are good to have as long as they are expressed in the proper way.

Keep it calm. keep it sane, keep it within the forum rules please.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

He murdered four people in cold blood. He should be glad that he is being executed humanly, his victims were not given that opportunity.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

This is accurate. The simple act of being nominated for a Nobel Prize is essentially meaningless; most such submissions are rejected early in the screening process. (You could nominate Saddam Hussein for a Nobel Peace Prize; in fact, some crackpot probably has.) The odds are very high that Mr. Williams' nomination was rejected swiftly, as Nobel Peace Prizes generally go to much more notable figures.

I'm in agreement with Bill's position on this point. The death penalty is a messy and uncivilized way of approximating vengeance.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

[political disclaimer]
I will keep my personal views on this issue private because I have learned that for me at least, it is best not to discuss politics with others. It tends to turn into a large debate that only causes hard feelings, something I definitely want to avoid. The opinions I am writing here may or may not be my own, I am simply trying to illustrate a point. The issues of abortion and the death penalty can be very different, depending on how you look at it. I'll take the role of the anti-abortion pro-death penalty citizen here, and try to demonstrate how these two positions, which may seem contradictory to begin with, can be reconciled.
[/political disclaimer]

The death penalty is a punishment devised to punish those who have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have comitted an unforgiveable crime, such as coldhearted murder. The issues with the death penalty are whether it is humane to kill someone no matter what they have done, and whether the death penalty is effective in detering crime.

Abortion is the pratice of eliminating an unborn fetus at some point during pregnancy. The fetus has certainly not comitted any crimes, and killing it will obviously not deter many criminals! These are the problems associated with the death penalty, and it is evident they do not apply to abortion. The issue with abortion is whether the fetus should count as a human being or not.

Because these are two entirely different issues, it follows that someone could have a certain opinion on one, and an entirely different opinion on another with no contradictions between them.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Does this logic seem strange to anyone else or is it only me?

If its wrong to kill humans, then its always wrong to kill humans. Killing someone else to save your own life should not be the only exception to this rule. If you really feel its wrong to take someone elses life then the opposite should apply: you should sacrifice your own life to save the life of the other person. Even if the other person is the one who kills you.

Would that not be the highest standard to live up to (if you really feel that life is sacred?) Killing someone else to save your own life, isnt that nothing more than self-preservation? Where is the morality in self preservation at all costs?

Some day we may all have phasers set to stun, and when someone is out of control we can subdue them without harming them, and without risking our own lives, and then restrain or confine that person until they are reprogrammed/ rehabilitated / reformed / renewed / reborn... whatever it takes to make them safe to release into society again.

But until that day, anyone with $129 can walk into Walmart and buy a lethal weapon, sit on an overpass or hill, and take many human lives.

People have been killing each other for all of recorded history. Nobody likes this fact, but it is a part of human nature. Fear of punishment is one of the few tools we have to keep civilization intact. Justice.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

While you certainly can choose to call a fetus a collection of cells, or a human life, pro life advocates choose the latter.

Bill's point is how can you justify killing a human being for one reason, when you can't justify killing a "human" (undeveloped fetus) for another reason?

All we show when we execute prisoners is that we're no better than them. We may have killed them in a more humane manner than they did their victims, but that's about it.

There's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. We are one of the few civilized nations that actually puts people to death, and we still have an absurdly high rate of violent crimes compared to many of these countries that don't use the death penalty.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye will eventually blind the entire world.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

Look at Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was a brutal dictator who would involke capitol punishment at the drop of a hat. People lived in fear for their lives, and it kept them in line. Remember how the Iraqis looted for weeks when his government fell?

Extreem examples, but none the less: when people actually believe they will be put to death for their crimes, the crime rate is lower.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

By that same note, do some more research, Ken, and note that in the EU capital punishment is outlawed and they have a lower homicide rate than the USA. Go fish, dude.
Sadly, he can. Look at United States' "interpretation" of the term "torture." "Oh... it's okay to torture as long as it's not done on our domestic soil. We'll just open up CIA prison camps in Europe and Guantanamo Bay so that we can legally get away with any kind of behavior we want." This is inarguable and irrefutable. Don't even bother, Ken and others.

Ugh. This thread is going to get out of hand one way or another. I'm tired of feeling I have to defend my position against people who are incapable of thoughtful dialogue. Say good-bye to Bill Gold's opinion, because apparently none of you seem to deserve it... at least until you guys piss me off enough to come back and set some people straight.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Ken, I'd like to see some proof that capital punishment is an effective deterrent here in the US.

China and Iraq are not good examples. Both countries rountinely oppress their citizens who essentially have no rights. Capital punishment surely is an effective deterrent there, because people live in constant fear of the government. When was the last time you felt compelled to keep your mouth shut about an opinion you had of the president? You probably haven't, because we know we aren't going to be put to death.

Furthermore, it's not an arbitrary process here. Criminals know that even if they kill multiple people, it's not a sure thing that they'll even be convicted, or sentenced to death, and if they were, they can spend 20 years appealing. So really...I'm not seeing any supreme fear of being put to death.

Do you think people living under Saddam even knew what a trial, letalone an appeal was? We don't go around killing people on a whim, so I'm really at a loss as to how you can invoke any meaningful comparison here.

China would probably be considered a borderline "civilized country" by some. They're one of the worst human rights offenders in the world. Again, how can you compare us?

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I'm not surprised that one might consider it strange, but perhaps this will clarify my interpretation of it. I've assumed that the avoidance of killing is by no means an immutable law of nature, but rather a construct of society. Interpreting it in that light, it is a practical matter, rather than one of absolute morality. I would conjecture that these conventions tend to keep society from falling into disarray, and on that basis alone, there is significant merit. But that doesn't make them inviolable. (Conveniently, this opens the door to all sorts of extrapolations with respect to relative morality being abused in grevious ways. I'm not advocating any of that, and neither am I prepared to state in absolute terms exactly what actions I would consider to be moral—there are far too many considerations, and every judgment is made on the balance of the factors in play at that time, rather than on a codified set of axioms.)

I'm not going to go so far as to say that it is impossible to concieve of a situation where, on balance, a killing is warranted, but I think it is sufficiently clear that in the vast majority of circumstances, there are better options.

There is inarguably some truth to this, but so far you've demonstrated correlation, not causation. There's much more that needs to be shown, before I would accept those conclusions, as stated.

Uh-oh.... :ahh:

Edit: Here's an interesting article on the original subject of the thread. I think it offers the fairest portrayal of the events so far; no false heroes, no false villains—just an honest appraisal.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

there is a big difference between the effectiveness of capitol punishment as a deterrent to crime, and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in any given nation or society.

Crime is an antisocial activity that carries consequences. Many people will balance the rewards of committing a crime against the potential punishment, and then decide to proceed or turn away.

It took me 20 years to earn $1M salary as an engineer. Are there other ways I could have gotten $1M in less time?

I could have worked as an engineering consultant in the middle east, and gotten 5X my salary per year, tax free. So I could have gotten $1M in 4 years instead of 20. But the risk to my life, and the loss of freedom to spend my off time doing what I want with my friends and family kept me from taking that path.

I could have stolen the money, for example, by getting 100 credit cards, and taking a $10,000 cash advance on each one, then skipping town and refusing to pay it back: ie, stealing the money. How many years would I spend in prison if I got caught? how many years did Martha Steward spend in prison for the amount she leached from the stock market? less than 20 for sure, less than 4? A year with good behavior?

The point is, we all know from our personal experience, if the penalty is too great we will not risk the activity. To say that capitol punishment is not a deterrent to crime is silliness.

The manner in which capitol punishment is administered in this country, the way its used, and the amount of time it takes to carry out the sentence may make it ineffective as a deterrent, but that does not mean capitol punishment itself is not effective. It simply means our justice system is inept.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

The fundamental problem with citing other countries as examples is that there is always different variables that can effect the outcome. The EU has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The USA is quite the opposite where it's very easy and legal to own guns.

Your second paragraph reads like anti-Bush propaganda. I haven't seen any credible evidence by an impartial party on the subject of torture at these camps. Are the prisoners going to say they were tortured? Of course, that will play right into the hearts of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists abroad. Of course the US government will say the torture doesn't occur. The only thing inarguable and irrefutable is that no one other than the people there know the truth about what it's like in those prisons.

Regardless of what research has been done to prove or disprove the effectiveness of capital punishment I like to leave it to common sense. If you knew that if you killed someone, and were caught and convicted, you yourself could be put to death; would you do it? I don't think so.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

OH great one! Remove yourself from our presence for we are not worthy to hear the words you speak.

The very radiance that flows from your face is more than your humble servants can bear, and we fear our hearts will stop beating from sheer awe and reverence!

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Again, Ken--Where's the proof?

It seems to me that it's pretty much common sense that this isn't happening...crime rates haven't gone down...they've actually gone up in some states that have the death penalty.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

If it were a matter of the goverment saying outright, that torture didn't occur, and would never be permitted to occur, things would be simpler. However, for various reasons, there have been attempts by numerous officials to downplay, redefine and justify all sorts of actions that might reasonably be associated with torture. These range from intelligence personnel defending violent or psychologically damaging interrogation techniques in the name of the so-called "War on Terror", to the sadistic actions of American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib incidents. The rhetoric about "using any means necessary" continues to be spouted; it's not Bill's fault that Bush and others (not just in the administration) use these catchphrases to justify their actions.

While that may be sufficient to convince most of us not to kill anyone (assuming that we were ambivalent in the first place), we should be aware that not everyone operates on this level. There are all sorts of reasons that cause people to ignore this seemingly basic principle: apathy, sociopathy, indoctrination in the name of a "higher cause", etc.. Perhaps most prevalent, however, is the temptation to play the odds; there's always a chance that you won't get caught. And if people are innumerate enough to play the lottery, can you imagine what they'd do with 1 in 20 odds* of getting away with capital murder?

*Deliberately false statistic. But I'll vouch for it, give or take an order of magnitude....

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Cory, Ive already given examples, and you dismissed then out of hand for un-related reasons.

If you define 'civilized' and 'society' to preclude civilizations and society's that go against your way of thinking, then you are rigging the discussion to force you own point of view to be correct.

If there is a credible threat of death for a given action, then any rational person will carefully consider their actions. Do you really believe that no one cares if they live or die? No one?

if any percentage of the population stops and reconsiders their actions, then the threat of capitol punishment has acted as a deterrent.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Given that you've argued extensively in the past that women do not deserve the right to vote, forgive me if I find your brand of common sense idiotic; particularly so when you advertise it as being formulated irrespective of evidence that suggests whether or not it's effective.

No loss of human life makes the world a better place; ever.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

A single man with the passion to kill thousands can do so with technology that is readily available. He thinks of himself as a soldier representing his god. He is unconcerned about the consequences of his actions and is willing to die for his cause. A single person capable of killing thousands...

We are in one of the most difficult times in history. Traditionally, a country declares war on another country. They fight and one side is the clear winner with the other county admitting defeat. The modern day terrorist has no government support. Most Middle Eastern governments aren’t even concerned if their citizens are committing acts of terror. The terror is supported by a group of individuals who share the same ideals. Recruitment happens when someone else shares the ideals. However, these are not soldiers we are not fighting a traditional war. One day a member could be on a roof top sniping the next day he is in a market selling vegetables. This is why they are called terrorist, insurgents or enemy combatants.

The US has to deal with terrorism in very unconventional ways. Otherwise, we are just sitting ducks for the next terrorist attack. We need information on where the terrorists are, who they are, and what their next move is. They are not going to announce their attack, they just do it. They know they can't actually win they know that they just want to cause pain, fear and death- terror. Try to kill as many Americans as possible; hit a US landmark, the goal is to erase our resolve for peace. The US doesn't want to control another country. We just want that country to act responsibly and deal with terrorism.

I don’t feel there is enough public information to judge whether the US is committing acts that could truly be considered torture. One method of information gathering is forcing a detainee to be awake for long periods of time without sleep. Some would say that is torture, most would not. I think the word torture conjures images of splinters under finger nails and there’s no evidence to support torture in the truest since. There’s simply no evidence to support similar events.

To wrap things up, certainly the United States is using unconventional methods to interrogate prisoners. The inhumane treatment at Abu Ghraib was condemned and the responsible parties were punished. Learning information from prisoners is crucial to understanding and stopping terror throughout the world. In this very untraditional war on terror the United States absolutely needs to use “any means necessary” to extrapolate information about terror from suspects. Any means neccessary is simply referring to the unvonventianal approach needed to be taken to win this war. Regardless of the wording of the President’s slogans or other military officials speeches there is no reason to believe they have authorized torture of US prisoners.
Ms. Krass, I’m welcome to your ideas and thoughts but please refrain from baseless personal attacks. Thanks.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I believe a review of my comment will reveal that I've questioned nothing but your definition of 'common sense' -- a comment that is certainly not without merit.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Ideals should be ideals. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Due process is a thing that is supposed to guarantee that the government will respect all of your rights all the time. In the United States, due process is "implicit in ordered liberty." Life, property, and freedom from imprisonment are the three best known and always agreed on rights. These can NOT be taken away without due process. The government has used terrorism as a means to ignore due process.

How can we call ourselves a civilized country if we can not maintain an ordered liberty?

A jury of his peers, several times, and various judges have given Mr. Williams his due process. Unfortunately, vengeance rather than rehabilitation is still the way of the criminal justice system in this county and Mr Williams has been killed for his actions.

Wetzel

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I would argue that it is not/should not be vengeance that guides us in these matters, but deterrence. If Mr. Williams life had been spared then we are only sending a message to future potential criminals that they will not be held accountable for their actions, thus further eroding the "effectiveness of our criminal justice system".

Another example of how well deterrence works ... My father-in-law worked in Iran for a couple of years (15-20 years ago) and personally witnessed public executions (beheading) for rape and other violent crimes, and cutting off of hands for stealing ... etc ... By his account the crime rate there was very low.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

In all seriousness, why must the majority of the country be so utterly petrified of a terrorist blowing something up? Let's step back for a second; you contend that the U.S. has to deal with terrorism. Do they? Does the U.S. have to invest billions of dollars, and thousands of lives, in support of campaigns that might save thousands more, but also unreasonably restrict the rights of individuals, both American and foreign? At some point, these actions go beyond "reasonable and prudent", and become obsessive. The fact that infiltrators with terroristic aspirations are, by their very essence, subversive and difficult to detect makes it a fundamentally losing proposition to attempt to catch them all. The American government crows loudly when a top terrorist is killed or captured—but it is fundamentally misguided to claim this as a victory in their phantom war. For every terrorist emblazoned on a playing card, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of others who are just as willing to set off a car bomb, or grenade, or fire off a few thousand rifle rounds, or poison a critical resource. One would be insane, utterly and positively insane, to believe that even a police state could prevent every single one from slipping through their web of impediments. And if even one does get through? If it's a suicide bomber that you're dealing with, well, you might as well give up. If escape isn't a concern, it's suddenly a whole lot easier for the terrorist that got away to pull off all sorts of outrageously violent things.

The fact of the matter is, you'll never be safe from terrorists, because there are too many of them, and they will forever be able to cause havoc in innovative and unexpected ways. So why obsess over it? If it's the loss of American lives that concerns the nation, why not campaign aggressively against smoking, or improve automobile safety? At least then, the benefits will be tangible, and substantially more significant to the well being of the locals.

And that brings up another problem: what to do about the loss of life in general? After all, we hear plenty about how America is safer for Americans; but if you're going to invade another country, unless you follow the Ghengis Khan school of thought, it's very much your responsibility to plan for the bloodbath that might well ensue. When America went marching into Iraq on a platform of "fighting terror" and "searching for WMDs", it's relatively obvious that they didn't anticipate staying as long as they have, and having the blood of thousands on their hands, just a few years later.

America has committed itself to an unwinnable conflict, which has the potential to exist in perpetuity, so long as ideologues on both sides refuse to seek common ground. The only way to win a war on terrorism, is to fight a different battle: earn the respect of those with whom you would do battle, and come to a consensus. Obviously, this is not an overnight solution; it is a long-term goal, which may require decades, or even centuries, if history is any indication. In the mean time, America must stop living for the cheap thrill of dominating over hapless despots, and pursue policies that earn the trust of other nations, lest they be doomed to do battle over their differences later. If it is in the interest of human rights, to depose a dictator or junta, then seek the opinion of all of the stakeholders; if it's in the interests of promoting an ideology and political message (e.g. "War on Terror"), forget about it.

Be that as it may, there's almost nothing (reasonable) that can be done about this problem. The more we talk about fighting terror, the more we perpetuate the notion that we must kill "them" all. Every government feels the pressures of history; despite this, to claim that this is "one of the most difficult times in history" is hyperbole in the extreme. What of the real wars, the economic crises, the natural disasters, the famines and the plagues? To compare the deaths of 3 000 citizens to those things is pure sensationalism. What of the 25 000 who died in the recent earthquake in Iran—shouldn't we say that they had a slightly more difficult time than we did? When 200 000 died in the recent tsunami? When millions died in pandemics, or in droughts? In fact, tens of millions have died in the past century as a result of natural disasters; mere tens of thousands have died at the hands of terrorists. It is abundantly clear that America is not living through a particularly difficult period in history; it merely tells itself that, as perverse justification for all manner of counterproductive and uncivilized behaviour.

I wouldn't say no evidence; merely that proof is difficulty to obtain, when facilities like Guantanamo are not open to inspection by impartial observers, and when courts are not permitted to publish their evidence into the public record, on the basis of trumped-up national security concerns. (Self-perpetuating terror, at work.)

There's no fine line between torture and aggressive interrogation; but who speaks for the prisoners, when the loosely defined boundaries are pushed too far? Who speaks for the prisoners, when they're held too long? Isn't it valid to note that what may not be torture when applied once, can be rather torturous when applied over a period of several years of incarceration? One of the most grevious injustices against the American prisoners, is the unavailability of proper legal representation, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If they're war criminals or terrorists, charge them, try them, and prove it. If they're prisoners of war, then, by definition, America must be at war with their country of origin, in order to hold them—since it is not, they are being held in violation of the spirit of the historically recognized conventions of war. The "enemy combatant" designation is not a recognized one—it's simply a construct designed to avoid the procedures established for the protection of the imprisoned; as such, it is fundamentally contrary to their rights as individuals. Terrorists have rights, too, insofar as they are entitled to certain "unalienable Rights", simply as members of the species; to claim otherwise is to reduce yourself to their level, by adopting barbarism when it is convenient to avoid the niceties that society provides for everyone.

And now, we return to our regularly scheduled discussion of Mr. Williams, already in progress....

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Sorry to continue off topic ... but I have to say it ... Now THAT may be the most intelligent thing I have ever read on this forum ...

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Forgive me Ken, I missed when the debate switched from whether or not capital punishment is an effective deterrent in the US, to whether or not it's an effective deterrent in Iraq or China.

You're right...I did dismiss them, because Iraq and China are not the US. There is absolutely no similarity between our governments, societal values, or culture in general. When you can find a statistic that shows that capital punishment in the United States of America is an effective deterrent, I'll be glad to listen to what you have to say. Until then, you're presenting nothing more than anecdotal evidence that is entirely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

If loseing lives is the major issue, why not push for global gun ban. It would stop all the killing. If you think it would be a probem to get other countries to listen to you, you form a trade embargo along with other aligned/UN countries against a select country(ies). A potential peacful solution to world politics.

edit: I missed when it switched away from being about Mr. Williams

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I don't think you've thought this one through.

Wetzel

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

where did you limit the discussion of the death penalty to the US only?

oops! you were the one who brought up the crime rates in other nations to compare to the US.

Why do you get to choose which nations the US can be compared to, and which ones are not relavant to this discussion?!

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Ok--throw out my comments. It doesn't matter, since we're trying to focus on a purely domestic issue. We shouldn't need any international perspective.

This debate pertains to whether or not capital punishment is an effective deterrent inside the US.

I have so far not seen a single ounce of evidence from you that this is so (remember...you made this claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you). You continue to debate semantics about sidetracked conversations that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Back on the topic for Mr. Williams for a moment, the one point about the death penalty that I surprisingly have not yet seen arise is how many people are put to death and then late found innocent of the crime which they were killed for. They all went down pleading innocence. Ignoring entirely my personal moral beliefs, this simple fact seems enough to me for the end of the system. Even if we are saying a life for a (some) life(ves), how can you justify that with so many people who have been killed now having evidence found that they were innocent?

[Personal belief time, not necessarily backed by fact as above statement was]

As (I believe it was) Bill said, the only real time that one really ought be not horrifically punished for killing another is in self defense. There have been numerous studies that tell that the defense of one's own life is the only natural instinct: survival. Anyone who truly believes in the death penalty must be willing to die themselves. If someone is given the death penalty, someone has to push the button to give them the injection. The button pusher therefore is a murderer himself and must now be killed. He knew about this ahead of time and had everything planned out and did it all in sound conscience. And so on and so on until all but 1 person who believes in the death penalty are killed. But they have a right to kill that person some may say. Who determines the right to kill? Who says "you may kill" "you may not"? Who has the right to say who will live or die?

Some of you are arguing that capitol punishment is a way to detur murderous crime. It isn't though. You're solving a murder with a murder. Most people who commit these murders probably are not the type that think like most of society anyways because most of society does not go around killing each other. So you can't say "well this will scare most people from commiting murder" because the people commiting these murders, in doing so, have rejected the view of most of society who wouldn't have done what the murderer did in the first place. (sorry, that was a really bad run on sentance)

FINAL STATEMENT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO READ THAT WHOLE THING: There are too many problems with the death penalty for it to seriously be used. Period.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Come on Cory, every time you get backed into a corner in a serious discussion, you toss out this "the burden of proof is on you" stuff.

Capitol punishment is the law of the land. At the state and federal level the people we have elected and appointed to study this issue and reach the proper conclusions have made their decisions.

If you and hollywood actors and the media want the law to be changed, then the burden of proof is on you.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

What is your definition of "murder"?

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person esp. with malice aforethought"

When the law allows the death penalty, the executioner is performing a legally-mandated killing and is therefore not a murderer. The majority of killings in this country are not murder. Many of them are accidents; some of them are manslaughter, a lesser crime than murder. And not all murders are intentional (example: an armed bank robber killing someone in the course of committing the robbery, and claiming it was unintentional, will still be held liable for first-degree murder unless the court is very liberal).

In 2004, there was a shoot-out at our motel during a regional competition. Fortunately, most of the team was at the stadium and was not exposed to the danger. This is what happened: a man was misbehaving in the motel lobby. The police came and tried to deal with him. He pulled a gun on them. A running gun battle ensued from the motel lobby, across the front courtyard, alongside some of our rooms, and into the rear parking lot, where the police finally killed him.

Now, the guy was probably on drugs or crazy or something, so it's too bad this happened, but what else could the police do? Let him go on shooting up the motel? Would you call the police "murderers" because they were defending themselves and the immediate community (motel staff and guests) from a clearly dangerous person? (I have pictures of the bullet holes in the wall 2 rooms down from the room where one of our team moms cowered during the shooting; a light fixture was shattered just outside the door of the room where our vice-principal was.)

Please be careful of how you use words. "Murder" is being expanded by some people to include any kind of killing, including killing of animals, or even plants. Overused, the word can lose its meaning and make rational discussion of this subject difficult or impossible.

Another point about the executioner: By instituting a governmental justice system, society takes vengeance for killings out of the hands of the victim's immediate friends and family, thereby curtailing the endless "eye for eye" cycle. Whatever flaws our justice system has, it is still much more impartial -- police, courts, and executioners--than an enraged parent or sibling who is thirsting for revenge.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

As I said, who gives the right to kill? Who has the right to kill? Murder by my definition is intentionally killing someone, knowing what you're doing. Who gives the right to kill?

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

There's been some good discussion in this thread, it's refreshing. On the other hand, there have been some personal attacks in this thread. That's not cool. Let's try and keep things on track here, as opposed to singling people out and making sarcastic comments about them.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Tristan made a really good post above and I did rep him for it. I can't disagree with most of his post. I do have my 10 cents that is mostly opinion as an American who sees a ton of his money go to taxes.

The US Federal Goverment has few major tasks to complete with roughly ~30% of mine and everyone elses salary. One of those tasks is to provide security for US citizens. You're right, we'll never be safe from terrorists; but that doesn't mean we should abandon strategies that could keep us safer. After the 9/11 attacks America did institute some very obsessive policies on terrorism (the Patriot Act comes to mind.) Unfortunatly, if policy makers didn't act swiftly and harshly they probably wouldn't have been re-elected. With the TSA loosening restrictions I think we're stepping away from overbearing policies. Basicly, I'd rather see them do something to fight terrorism rather than nothing.

Regardless of whether or not Iraq has WMD; because they did have WMD, they used WMD on 100,000 Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War (Source). It was a "good thing" to liberate the country from an oppresive dictator who also happened to use his WMD on his own citizens during the Kurdish Genocide (Source). Whether or not the Colaition of the Willing finds WMD seems to be a moot point with Saddam Hussein's track record.

I'm not going to lie to you and say that there weren't less altrusitic reasons for freeing Iraq, they certainly have a lot of oil. There's also debatabley better things the military could be used for such as in Darfur. However, wherever the United States military does go they are doing their work for peace for the United States, other countries, and the citizens of the invaded countries. It's disheareting to hear much of the critissim over the Iraq war coming from the French. We all know what the US military did for the citizens of France during World War 2.

I do have a problem with this line...
I am vehemently opposed to seeking common ground with idiots. Their defintion of normal and acceptable behavior is far different from ours. The United State's idealog is that they want peace for not only of every United States citizen, but every citizen of Earth. That means we simply can't meet minds with terrorists or countries who routinely torture their citizens. For instance the president of Iran wishes for Israel to be wiped off the face of the Earth and thinks the Holocaust is a myth. How can you meet idealogs with people like this? The United States was formed with the pricipal idea that there should be a seperation of church and state. Terrorist countries see another country's religion as a pretense for war. We will never meet idealogically because we do not consider one's religion a reason for violence.

I am rambling now, so I'm going to stop and return to the subject of the thread...

In Mr. Williams's case it was the People of the State of California. It was someone's job at San Quentin to push the button and administer the deadly fluids. We do have a representative governemtn and the people in his state decided under what circumstances the death penatly is used.

What's wrong with vengeance? Isn't the greatest form of retribution to have your own life taken for taking another's. Is it not the victim's family's right to closure?


I found a really great article on Wikipedia about capital punishment and have brought some new ideas for the death penalty:

• If the death penalty were abolished, a criminal would have little or no reason not to kill potential witnesses during the commission of a robbery (assuming that robbery would earn the criminal a life sentence or a very lengthy prison sentence).
• By waiving the threat of a death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against their co-conspirators, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. The threat of the death penalty can be a powerful mechanism for greasing the wheels of justice.
• People who have committed the most heinous crimes (typically murder) have no right to life.
• The death penalty shows the greatest respect for the ordinary man's, and especially the victim's, inviolable value.

It's food for thought.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I don't know too much about this guy but I see the situation something like this: It is kind of like purposely denting someone's car and handing them a can of Bondo. Yes it is an attempt to "make it right" but it'll never be as good as it once was. No amount of children's books or "don't join gangs" campaigning will bring back those 4 people's lives he took.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Its more than that. Since he never admitted any of the violent acts he committed he was reformed on his own terms.

His actions are very much like the stages of grieving that people go through: denial, anger, bargaining...

He denied being a murderer, he was angry when convicted and threatened the jury, and he bargained for his life with his kids books and phone-lectures

but he never made it to acceptance - he never accepted guilt for his actions, and never accepted the sentance that was imposed on him.

Imagine what it must have been like, to be a family member of one of his victims, and to hear his supporters say "the state has executed an innocent man"

what does that say about his victims? Where they not human? Was their life of no value, and therefore their death was not a crime?

The victims became non-people. Everything was all about tookie.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I agree with Karthik. There is some quality debate happening here, but I also see some personal attacks. I generally shy away from political discussions like this for that reason, but I do feel the need to add a few thoughts. I suppose it's more a blanket statement than anything else, but it's something to chew on.

In any given political discussion, there are an infinite number of opinions, and no completely right answers. The purpose of debate is to throw opinions out there for others to consider and critique, in the hopes of formulating a more informed opinion as facts and ideas are put together. It's one thing to hold a thought up and say "this is how I think things should be" and accept criticism with dignity and respect. It's another thing to hold a thought up and say "this is how things ought to be" and dismiss anyone offering criticism as wrong or an idiot. Bickering about fine points or who the burden of proof is on does nothing to further the discussion. If anything, furthering the discussion can sometimes mean knowing when to back down, without feeling the need to prove yourself right.

That said, I also have some opinions to offer, for whatever they're worth to the discussion. For a while, I was in favor of the death penalty in situations extreme enough to warrant ending someone's life. To an extent, I still am. The trouble is, and reading through this discussion has only given me more to think about, it's tough to determine when or if death is an appropriate punishment for any given situation. Certainly ending one person's life prematurely is reason enough for the friends and relatives of the victim of such a crime, but at the same time, what of the family and friends of the accused? Why should they be punished by losing a relation for the actions of that individual?

To address what others have said so far in relation to capitol punishment as a deterrent to murder- I'd ask you to define each type murder (short of the dictionary definition given above). Pre-meditative murder vs. spontaneous/emotional vs. killing in self defense vs. killing in defense of another vs. killing in a military environment. The movie Minority Report gave me a few thoughts that might apply here. In situations where a murder is planned and thought out, of course the killer has time to weigh the consequences of the action vs. the repercussions. In these situations the potential of the death penalty can help prevent further action from being taken. However, in spontaneous or emotional murder, say a husband coming home to his wife with another man, there is no planning involved. It happens there and then as a result of intense, uncontrollable emotions- without stopping to consider the consequences. Often, these cases are plead as temporary insanity. But the point remains, in that situation the threat of the death penalty never makes it into the killer's head because it happens so fast.

Without knowing all the details of Mr. Williams' case, I'll refrain from forming an opinion there. As far as the other political discussions go, I'll keep out of those as well, as they seem to be taking this thread off it's original topic.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Why demand retribution? One life has ended early, why should another? Violence breeds violence. Capital punishment is disproportinatly droped upon the undeserving poor. That is a whole other subject, but Gans has written well about it, and a good synopsis is here.


I don't understand how killing one person makes someone else worth more.

Wetzel

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

In most cases not involving a pre-meditated murder the death penalty would not be pursued anyway.

I don't see anything about increasing anyone's worth. I believe what Mike said was that the death penalty shows respect for the value of the victim's life.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Ken's got a good point about Williams; despite his conviction, he continually maintained his innocence. Maybe he really was innocent; more likely, he was not sufficiently rehabilitated to acknowledge his crimes and their effects. But that in itself shouldn't enter into the rationale for putting him to death, unless we're really talking about a 20 year sentence, followed by death, if he hasn't proven his innocence or rehabilitated himself.


One might argue that since they don't expect to be caught and sentenced to 20 years, they shouldn't particularly care what happens if they shoot the place up, too. (I'm oversimplifying, but I wonder how many violent criminals really consider all the possibilities, before going on a rampage.)


There's probably been a Law and Order episode where an innocent person was set up for a crime, and was forced to plead to the charge, to avoid one of those "special circumstances" murder charges which require execution. In fact, it's not an impossible scenario to contemplate.

More broadly, it exemplifies the problems with plea bargaining in general. We've become so accustomed to it, that we don't question its efficacy, or even its morality. But consider Sweden, where they have a so-called absolute duty of prosecution (absolut åtalsplikt), wherein pleas bargains are not binding, and therefore, any information provided to the government may or may not be used as a mitigating factor in sentence. (Yes, this probably leads to many unsolved crimes, but other factors, like their differing standards of evidence and testimony must also be considered.) Can we say that it is ethical for our justice system to essentially offer people the opportunity to bring their penalty down from an (arguably) unreasonable one (which they were liable to face), to the (again, arguably) correct one, provided they supply the evidence that will inevitably convict them? I'd have to say that it's acting in bad faith to charge them with a greater offence, if the lesser offence is sufficient (as evidenced by the acceptance of the plea bargain)—something about the punishment fitting the crime.

And what of too much grease on the wheels? Our system allows someone to make false accusations in a plea-bargaining session, in order to secure more lenient sentence. There are cases where this has led to prosecution of innocent individuals, because someone decided to place their own well-being (namely, preferential sentencing) above the well-being of the one that they wrongfully accused.


That's open to debate. After all, how do we define murder? Karen quoted a dictionary earlier; but in law, the definition is far less clear-cut. In American (and Commonwealth) law, all sorts of case law must be considered, in addition to constitutional and statutory requirements. Then, the judge's own bias will inevitably influence the interpretation. Ultimately, every case will use a slightly different "official" definition of murder. This makes it difficult (and probably, essentially impossible) to legislate that every murder should be punishable by death, even if that is the general belief that you might hold.


I'm not sure how the value of the ordinary man, or the victim, enters into the eventual fate of the criminal. Objectively, shouldn't they be separate issues? If we recognize the value of human life, a priori, do we still have to reaffirm it when someone is murdered?


Back to the diversion....
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is exactly what I'm talking about: an ideologue that refuses to discuss the reasoning behind these beliefs, and refuses to provide evidence to support his point. (In fairness, there's a very real possibility that the translation of "myth" would be more appropriately rendered as "legend" or "legendary"—meaning not that it was a falsehood, but that it had acquired mythical proportions. I don't speak Farsi, so I couldn't tell you what he really meant. His other statements on this issue certainly paint him as far from the mainstream on this issue.) It's people like him that will drag the process of reconcilliation on for decades—because until someone willing to listen and discuss their views is in power, progress will be suspended.

The principles that America stands for in theory, are not necessarily the same as those principles for which some Americans stand; I don't dispute the fact that America, in general, is a reasonably good place to be. But when the ideal of "equality for all", becomes, for all practical purposes, "equality for Americans (and who cares about the rest)", then, you've got less than your founders bargained for. The trouble is that many people believe the latter, explicitly or implicitly. It's an attitude like this, much more so than a hatred of freedom and the American way, that causes people worldwide to express their displeasure with America.

In fact, the mentality that all of America's founding principles are unimpeachably correct is also unhelpful. Unfortunately, it's just like the question of relative morality; when do you change an important principle? Upon which authority or evidence have you based this change? America has all sorts of constitutional principles that have been kept well past their shelf life. Look at the 2^nd amendment. It's a grammatical nightmare which fails to clearly distinguish or link its two clauses, and as a result, all sorts of idiocy has been perpetuated in its name. (Since it was ratified in 1791, the grammar is not surprising—but look at the trouble that would have been saved, if it had simply been written with two articles, rather than a sentence who's second portion does not necessarily follow logically from the first.)

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

You cannot not plea bargain your charges down by simply pointing a finger at an innocent man. You would need to have possession of evidence, knowledge of evidence sufficient to convict the other person.

How can you plead guilty to a murder (for example) if you are innocent, and then tell the police where the body is?

Plea bargains are only accepted by the courts when the accused has access to real information and evidence, not just finger pointing.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Good point, it's the same as drugs. Take cocaine, nowadays it is illeagal almost everywhere, but back when it was discovered it was a wonder pill. Cocaine was in almost everything (Coke actually had very little), and there weren't all these stories of people breaking into houses to get money to buy it, or innocents killed in drug wars. Cocaine labs didn't explode, or release dangerous chemicals. Even the Pope drank cocaine laced wine. Now it's illeagal and these things happen. If a drug/gun ban would work then it would be a excellent thing to enact, but this isn't and won't be the case

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Neither will his death.

-Andy A.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I think that you're missing the point. I constructed two separate scenarios above (the first and third paragraphs following Mike's quotation); let me explain with a hypothetical example.

Referring firstly to a criminal pointing the finger at an innocent individual, imagine that a person, named Alpha, wants to murder someone, named Bravo, but would prefer neither to go to jail, nor be executed. Alpha decides that Charlie (whom Alpha knows) should take the fall. Alpha takes certain steps to ensure that Charlie has no alibi, plants certain circumstantial evidence implicating Charlie, then kills someone. In the ensuing chaos, Alpha is rounded up on suspicion of murder, but there isn't enough evidence available to charge him for it. Meanwhile, he is charged with something lesser (for which there is significant evidence), like possession of a concealed weapon. Alpha doesn't want to go to jail, so Alpha tells the police that he has knowledge of the murder, and wants to bargain down his weapons charge to probation. He claims Charlie talked to him about doing it, and the police round Charlie up, connect the planted evidence to Charlie, and off they go, to probably to court, maybe jail, and possibly execution.

Of course, there's a significant possibility that the police will figure out that there's treachery afoot, and go after Alpha for obstruction of justice, in addition to first-degree murder. But that's not the point. He still got an opportunity to bargain for his sentence by giving the prosecutors what they wanted. Charlie still runs a far greater risk of dying at the hand of the state than he otherwise would have; more so if the police are incompetent, or the jury is bloodthirsty.

In the second case, where one pleads to a lesser murder charge, to avoid the death penalty, imagine that Charlie is informed that there's a strong case against him, and that because Bravo was in fact a police officer, there's a "special circumstances" notation on his charge; the penalty, if convicted, is a mandatory death sentence. He can fight it, and hope that evidence implicating Alpha, and exonerating him comes to light, or, he can plead it down to a regular murder charge, with a sentence of imprisonment for life, with the possibility of parole in 20 years. Not a fun choice, but because Alpha was a meticulous criminal, Charlie is in an intolerable situation.

This situation reads like a Law and Order script, but you must grant that it is only improbable, not impossible. By no means did Alpha need to provide enough evidence to convict Charlie on his own; he only had to provide evidence leading to a trial. And never did I mention anyone finding a body based on the deposition of someone unrelated to a crime; that's just a red herring.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

There has been some good discussion on Tookie and why he did or did not deserve the death penalty.

Let's move this discussion to a new murderer, 18 year old David Ludwig. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Do you think if convicted should Mr. Ludwig receive the death penalty?

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I lied. Here's another opinion...

Second verse is the same as the first. No.

I'm not going to even both responding to Ken, Mike, or some of the other posts in this thread. It's not worth my time. Go Tristan, Beth, and Andy!

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I don’t agree that an execution won’t make the world a better place. There is a small percent of the population who are downright evil. From what I’ve heard about Tookie, if he was not evil, then few have ever been. He killed multiple times and then joked with his gangbangers about the way one of them gurgled as he drew his last breath. Good riddance to Tookie! My only regret is that he wasn’t done in 22 years ago. Better yet, in a perfect world, the All Mighty would have taken him just before he managed to do his first evil deed.

But the world isn’t perfect. Unfortunately, both karma and justice work after the fact, if at all, and if you believe there is either. On the one hand, I’d like to see all the incorrigible done away with before they get to the point of no return. On the other, and here is the rub, I can’t think of whom or what body should condemn them. History is packed with times when evil sat in judgment.

The crux of the matter is what should be done about evil. Let’s face it! We are stuck with it. Execution is evil. But it may be a necessary evil because we can’t have thugs going around shooting people just to watch them die. Abortion is evil. But it may be a necessary evil because we can’t have unwanted children living mistreated lives. Terrorism is evil. But some see it as freedom fighting. The war on terror is evil. But some see it as the only means for survival.

So, I have no problem with evil. It has existed since man changed the physical reality of natural selection to the metaphysical reality of selection by choice. Tookie chose to perpetrate an unnecessary evil. Society chose to carry out the necessary response.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I can probably make a list of all sorts of people with questionable moral fiber. After you've finished deciding from the comfort of your armchair whether this kid should live or die, let me know and we can start a full-fledged witchhunt!

I'll bring the stake if you bring the firewood.

(That is to say, it's probably mildly inappropriate to so casually discuss the future of complete strangers based on what you read on Wikipedia.)

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

I have refrained from this thread solely based on the fact that I don't know enough about the person at hand to judge his life one way or another. Most of you don't either, and I wish you'd realize that and take it into consideration when you post.

Maddie did bring up something that I thought important for me to say, though. No living, breathing human being has the right to end the life of another living, breathing human being. You have no right to walk up to someone and shoot them. You have no right to walk up to someone and strangle them. You have no right to suffocate someone. Essentially, you have no right to kill another living, breathing human being in any way, shape, or form where you are directly responsible for their death. But apparently, if you are in a high enough position in American government, you can. A justice system of any kind automatically determines something as black and white, right or wrong.

So here's the next essay question I post to you kids:

Assuming that people are not inherently evil (since as far as I know, DNA researchers and scientists have not discovered an 'evil' gene), and since we have proven statistically that the death penalty has not worked as a threat to criminals and in some states the crime rate has gone up since the implementation of the penalty, what is the solution? If you were a governor, would you want millions of Americans protesting you, with the blood of convicted persons on your hands, or would it be for the best? Could you deal with their families and friends afterward?

And more importantly, since this is already the subject at hand... could you have given the order to kill Stanley Williams and live the rest of your life knowing you killed another human being? Answer honestly, carefully, justifiably, and <b>politely</b>.

(I'd answer myself, but I'd be afraid of swaying someone or sparking even more hateful and disgusting behavior as some of you have already displayed in this thread, apparently without remorse. Please remember that this is a public forum, that opinions are tolerated but attacks are not.)

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Amanda,

I have to completely disagree with your assessment of capitol punishment in the US. No person in a high position, Governor or judge 'gives the order' to end someone's life.

The accused is tried by a jury of their peers, ordinary people from all walks of life, chosen randomly from the pool of registered voters. The laws have been established by both state and federal legislators.

When a person is tried the duty of the court (judge and jury) is to decide which (if any) law has been broken.

The only person truly responsible for the execution of a person who committed a capitol crime, is THAT person: the criminal. He is the one person who had a free choice, and the ability to stop the crime before it was committed.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Let me clarify even further: if I can recall, Stanley Williams asked for clemency. I'm referring solely to that when I made mention of higher government pardoning or damning a person on Death Row (I should have explained that but thought it was fairly obvious).

I didn't make mention of the trial because, as I said, I don't know enough about this individual case and therefore am not going to argue aspects of something I haven't researched. However, I encourage anyone else who has researched it to use it in their answer.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

To add onto that, what if someone was attacking you or otherwise posed a threat to your or your family? Were the actions of those on Flight 93 (The one who fought the terrorists, presumably killing them, to try and save the lives of those onboard and possible targets) justified? Did those living, breathing human beings have the right to end the lives of other living, breathing human beings in order to save the lives of other living breathing human beings?

My vote is yes.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Jurors are not chosen at random.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Bill, you've made some of the worst posts I have ever seen in this thread. Simply stating that we're not worth the time is takes to respond in a thoughtful manner. We're not barbarians and have put time in our posts. The people who support the death penatly are not some cult phenomenon; 74% of the country is in favor of the death penatly for a convicted murderer! (Source)
I'm sure you'd put me on a list of people with questionable moral fiber based on posts 27 and 29 of this thread. I find it mildy inapropriate that you can spit out the ridiculous comments about me like you've had in this thread without citing anything. But hey, what's integrity?

I make my desicions based on a collection of news sources. Not just Wikipedia. Mr. Ludwig is not surrounded by a property battle between Salem Town and Salem Village. He had a motive to kill the parents and he admitted to it. I'm not saying this kid wasn't mentally ill. I think he should plead insanity. However, this is hardly a witch hunt.
I don't think we've proven the effectiveness of the death penalty.
Honestly, I would feel a little remorse. You can always find some redeeming quality of a person to make them likable. That's why Mr. Williams was able to generate such a media frenzy. However, I think that I could justify "pulling the switch" because when he committed the act he knew the consequences.

I'm sure the mentality of the executioner is similar to being in the repossession business. When you are towing away the car of a single mother who couldn't pay the bill. You know what you're doing will deal a tremendous blow to the person and their family. You also know that we have rules, contracts and laws in this country. You're just in the unsavory position of holding them accountable for their actions.

The answer is, yes, I could have killed Stanley Williams. That doesn't mean I'd feel great about it, or that I'm a barbarian; I'm just a positively contributing member of society.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

Surely you haven't forgotten that you said, women do not deserve the right to vote. What more evidence that your behavior and opinion are ridiculous and reprehensible am I to cite than what you've provided on these forums?

You are, for better or for worse, afforded the same opportunities to share your ideas here as anyone else, but you should not be allowed to call on children to decide if someone -- thusfar, convicted of no crime -- should be killed. We should not have a discussion that is simultaneously tactless, tasteless and without merit.

I don't expect for you to do anything but hand me a pitchfork and impale yourself upon it, Mike, but I am at least hopeful that some others will see exactly how inappropriate it is to judge people at random when neither we nor they have had the benefit of trial. Given that, so far, nobody has answered your question, I'm now confident that is the case.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

That's taken out of context. My point in that post has more to do with equal rights for everyone. Why don't women have to register with the SSS when they turn 18? Why don't you champion a cause to include yourself in a draft? Oh, because you just want the positive rights, apparently not the equal rights.
Maybe because they don't want to voice their opinion and be attacked from someone like you? Hmm.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

technically no one on this forum has the authority or the power to pass judgement on Ludwig, and he is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

There is a difference between passing judgment and having an opinion. The biblical command to 'judge not' is talking about an action that carries with it punishment. If you have been judged guilty then penalties follow.

As far as I know there is no biblical or legal command that we should 'not have opinions' or be allowed to express them freely.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

This thread will be closed tomorrow evening. Everybody who wants to voice their opinion has been given over a week to do so, and the discussion is turning more & more into bickering and personal attacks. Please gather your final thoughts on the main subject of this thread and post them sometime before tomorrow evening. The thread may re-open at a later date to spawn further discussion, but for now the topic needs time to rest.

If it's not closed by 6PM Eastern tomorrow, moderators, please close this thread and reference this post when doing so.

Re: Stanley 'Tookie' Williams
 

That deadline is a little sooner than I wanted, but I guess I'll have to live with it. I have jury duty this week, so I wanted to see if I get put on a jury before I respond to this. But here it goes anyway...

I present the following information as I see and understand it.

In discussions as controversial as this, I don't like to look at things on a case by case basis. Doing so often muddies the discussion with irrelevant information and petty bickering. Get ready for a long one...

I begin by exploring the morality of he death penalty. Aside from the beliefs of a higher power or force, religion is also a framework for the moral values of many people. With that, I decided to start my search there. I had a Catholic upbringing and, as such, can only give in-depth comments about Catholicism. I have had limited exposure to the details of other religions, so I can only present what I have read. Wikipedia's article on capital punishment covers several religions. Buddhism's pacifist believes apparently extend to its take on the death penalty. In essence, you are not to take anyone's life, particularly for vengeance. So, the death penalty is out. Judaism has some laws explicitly concerning the death penalty. It is allowed under certain circumstances. These circumstances are so specific, however, that it is hard to use them to put someone to death as a punishment. Islam also allows for the death penalty. So long as the law allows for the death penalty for their crime, and they are given due process, the death penalty can be administered if they are found guilty.

And now, on to Catholicism and Christianity. There are several places that the Old Testament allows for the death penalty. In Genesis 9:5-6, God tells Noah that the punishment for murder is death. God will kill the animals the kill people. However, humans that kill humans are to be put to death by the hand of other humans. Deuteronomy 17 outlines the laws given to Moses from God concerning the use of the death penalty. Worshiping false gods is grounds for a stoning if found guilty by the local judges. In the case of murder, the priests at the place of worship have the final verdict that must be followed. Presumably, this allows the death penalty for murder. On a side note, disobeying the priests' decree concerning the case is grounds for being put to death.

In the New Testament, however, things get murky. For those that don't know, the New Testament is about the life and teachings of Jesus. The Old Testament is about things before Jesus' time, namely Creation and the beginnings of Judaism (Noah, Moses, and their descendants). There are a few places that Jesus seems to dislike the death penalty. In Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus talks about revenge and loving your enemies. When someone hits you, you're supposed to let them hit you again. If someone mistreats you, you're supposed to go above and beyond and show them that you don't mind. You are also supposed to love your enemies to separate yourself from them and to be more like God. God loves everyone and you should too. In John 8:1-11, Jesus stops a woman from being stoned. The law allowed for her to be put to death for committing adultery. Jesus, however, preached forgiveness. He argued that someone who was free of sin should throw the first stone. Nobody present was, so they left, but Jesus told the woman not to sin again. This would seem that Jesus was against the death penalty. I don't disagree that he was, but he also mentions something else. In Matthew 4:17-20, he says that the Law of Moses should be obeyed. It seems that he calls upon people to follow the spirit of the law, not the word.

The Catholic Church has taken a stance against the death penalty. A brief look at the official stances of some Protestant denominations reveals that they too have decided that the death penalty is not compliant with their beliefs. There are many, however, whose beliefs are not inline with the official positions of their churches. Google reveals that there are many Christian fundamentalists that hold that God and Jesus are in support of the death penalty.

So what about something from a more secular stand point? Many argue that by killing a murderer, we are lowering ourselves to their level. We are committing the crime that we are trying to amend. I fully agree with this. It's like stopping a fire by setting another one. But wait, I thought they do that. Remove a section of forest and the fire can't jump it. The death penalty is a deterrent. It tells people that if they kill someone, they themselves will be killed. Some argue that it doesn't work. I'm sure that, to an extent, they are right. It won't deter everyone. But, it will deter some. Isn't some better than none?

As for the criminal's right to live, I contend that they can give up that right when they commit their crime. Society gives you your rights. Americans have the right to free speech because we gave it to ourselves. People have the right to live because the society that they live in gave it to them. Rights can be taken away as easily as they are given. If someone chooses to commit a crime, they will loose whatever rights their society deems necessary to punish them. If we can take away someone's right to move about freely, we can take away their right to live. You live by whatever laws your society gives you. So long as you have the right to leave, you have to abide by them and accept whatever punishment your laws prescribe.

Now, what about the innocent people that are executed? What's the ratio of truly guilty to wrongfully accused? I don't know, but I have a feeling it's relatively low. They're collateral damage. How many times has the threat of collateral damage stopped a war? Serving the wellbeing of the many is more important than protecting the few. There is an important aspect to point out here. These innocently executed people are collateral damage, they aren't sacrificed. If I go out and kill someone to harvest their organs, I can probably save several people by killing that one. That person, however, would be a sacrifice. It's not the same as harvesting the organs of someone who is dead or dying.

Wherever you stand on the moral aspect of this argument is up to you. I'm not going to sit here and try to change your moral beliefs. Not only because I don't feel that is right, but because I can't. People will believe what they want to believe. What I can change however, is your logical perspective.

The death penalty permanently eliminates threats to our society. Many, including Pope John Paul II argue that, with respect to that, the death penalty is no longer needed. We have the ability to securely hold dangerous criminals and keep them away from the public. But, there's always a way to get out. Many may refute that by saying it's possible for me to be struck by lightning and win the lottery in the same day, but it's not going to happen. Well, I could easily increase my odds of that happening by carrying around a long metal pole and buying a bunch of lottery tickets. Similarly, we can easily prevent the possible release/escape of a hardened criminal by executing them. (I include release because people get off on technicalities sometimes.)

There's also the need to put the victim's family at rest. If it helps them to know that the person that hurt them is no longer around, then so be it. It might hurt the criminal's family, but they should have thought about that before they committed their crime. I'm sure that families don't like to see their relatives in jail either. So does that mean that we should let them go? I realize that prison and execution are not the same thing, but I contend that the reasoning is still sound.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. What else can we do? Well, one I idea I was toying with is to give everyone a gun. If you knew for a fact that I had a gun and that all the people around me have guns, would you try to hurt me? It's called mutually assured destruction. It seems to have worked to prevent nuclear war. Of course, this has a problem. If I give a gun to everybody, it only takes that one crazy guy to destroy everything. It would be a very delicate balance that could easily be upset. So, obviously, this wouldn't be a very good solution either.

I assert that we will never find a good solution. Everything will have some flaw. In the end, we will need to figure out what we want and what we are willing to sacrifice to get it. For the last few years, I've been calling this the Imperfection Principle (see Uncertainty Principle). Everything has some amount of baseline imperfection associated with it. If you finally filter down to the best ideas, you'll only end up with things that require sacrifices. What you have to work with will all be equally good, but require trade-offs.

So, is the death penalty good or bad? Whatever you think is up to you. I, however, feel that it's the best we have at the moment. Until you can think of something better, we'll have to go with it.