Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[Alex Burman]

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

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Grayswandir-75

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

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.

[KenWittlief]

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.

[lukevanoort]

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.

[sciguy125]

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.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

If the system was efficient enough, he wouldn't have had time to reform.

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

[Bill Gold]

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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Grayswandir-75

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.

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.

[sciencenerd]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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)

[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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sciencenerd

[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.

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.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

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.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cory

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?

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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.

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?

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

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.

Again, Ken--Where's the proof?

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

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.