"Schwarzenegger denies clemency to ex-Crips gang leader"

Irish's reasons ("many many many") for hating Texas on another thread reminded me of this - sorry if you do not understand why.

I study criminology in law school and there I learned that jail's biggest goal is to 're-socialize' criminals. if one of them becomes one of the greatest peacemakers of the world and is still sentenced to death, something may be wrong. he was probably one of the most violent criminals ever, but he was. now he is a Nobel Prize in peace nominee. the Governator denied clemency "because he did not own up to his crimes and refused to inform on fellow gang members" - he was not a rat, and he did not give up trying to live.

"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defense attorney Peter Fleming Jr. asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?" - that's what I'm trying to say.

Why does jail have to be about KILL! KILL! KILL? Shouldn't it be about rehabilitating this convicts to be members of society again? Tookie Williams has been nominated for the nobel peace prize every year since 2001 for vocally being against gang violence and reaching out to kids about staying out of gangs. Tookie, to me at least, looks to be fully rehabiliated and should've been spared death.

What's the trouble in sparing another man's life?

I think we should just give con's candy. I mean, candy tends to produce endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people don't committ murder and rape and crime.

I'll be accepting donations for the "Cookies for Tookie" Foundation.

Because in this particular case, Tookie Williams KILLED, KILLED, KILLED 4 innocent people in 1971.

While it's very nice that he's been 'redeemed' and is now speaking out against gangs and violence, while it's nice he's been nominated for a 'peace' prize, it does not minimize nor change the fact that he committed murder 34 years ago. Anybody happen to know the names of his victims...one of them being a 4 year old girl at the time?

21 years worth of Appeals have been exhausted; one denied even by the 9th District Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal in the country.

The time has come for Tookie Williams to pay for his crime. He claims to not be afraid of death. He's refused his right to a last meal, claiiming it's wrong to accept food from those who are about to kill him. I wonder if his victims had any last requests that he refused to grant - like say, SPARING THEIR LIVES????

If he's truly rehabiliated, then he's ready. Good riddance.

Apple

Because in this particular case, Tookie Williams KILLED, KILLED, KILLED 4 innocent people in 1971.

While it's very nice that he's been 'redeemed' and is now speaking out against gangs and violence, while it's nice he's been nominated for a 'peace' prize, it does not minimize nor change the fact that he committed murder 34 years ago. Anybody happen to know the names of his victims...one of them being a 4 year old girl at the time?

21 years worth of Appeals have been exhausted; one denied even by the 9th District Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal in the country.

The time has come for Tookie Williams to pay for his crime. He claims to not be afraid of death. He's refused his right to a last meal, claiiming it's wrong to accept food from those who are about to kill him. I wonder if his victims had any last requests that he refused to grant - like say, SPARING THEIR LIVES????

If he's truly rehabiliated, then he's ready. Good riddance.

Apple [/b][/quote]So, basically, "Follow what I say, not what I do" ?

He was convicted of murdering 4 innocent people. He is co-founder of one of the most dangerous street gangs in the country. He deserves to die.

Put yourselves in the shoes of the families of those four victims. If this man killed one of my loved ones, I don't care what he's done to rehabilitate himself, I don't care how much of a better person he is now. He deserves to die, and he's gonna die. Case closed.

Yeah, but that's just human nature beating morality into submission. And, in all fairness, are humans always right?

A story from CNN.com

Here's an especially interesting quote:

He says that he has redeemed himself, that he is a changed man. And yet he refuses to indulge pertinent information to the FBI and other authorities, and he isn't sorry for the crimes he committed. As I stated above, he deserves to die, and he's gonna die. Case closed.

He doesn't deserve to die. He deserves to either: a.) remain in prison until he seems to have actually been rehabilitated, or b.) remain in prison for life, and serve a long, mind-numbingly boring sentence... a much more effective punishment, I think, because death is just their easy way out.

The whole "eye for an eye" idea has never gotten us far.

I want to say that I am a firm supporter of the death penalty. As a matter of fact there are criminals out there, like Charles Manson and his merry band, who I see absolutely no reason to keep alive with the tax dollars of honest, hard-working people.

But I think that this man has much to contribute to the world. I believe that his work, aimed at keeping young people out of gangs, can do much good. Do I believe he ever deserves to take a breath as a free man? No, but I do believe that he has work to do on this earth, work that can accomplish a great deal of good. Because of his past, he would be listened to by these kids who might be at a crossroads about getting involved in a gang.

Although the death penalty might be warranted for his crimes, I believe that his sentence should be commuted to life without parole under the condition that he continue his work as an anti-gang activist.

I agree totally with SB.

I just hope there isn't rioting...and more deaths.

The act of a few always makes it seem like all minorities are bad.

Minorities is the funniest title in the world. The majority of people in New York are minorities...

I don't know the details of his case, but I understand he admitted to 3 of the murders, but swears he didn't commit the fourth? Is that correct? I also heard today that there were eyewitnesses that testified against him at his trial.

Even though the guy "appears" to be remorseful, and on the surface anyway, seems he's changed his ways, he has to pay. I am against the death penalty, so I think he deserves to remain in prison for the remainder of his life. If he did the crime, he must serve the time.

TIS

It's funny you say that, because that was my exact example to my father when we were discussing this a little bit ago. One guy they had on Larry King said that all murderers should be put to death. While i agree with that, i believe that the scales are tipped here. He alegedly killed four people and is sentanced to death, while Charles Manson killed many more, than said that there were hundreds more to be found. Why is it the man who is playing a major roll in the anti-gang war, being executed by an act of premeditated murder by state, yet a man who killed many more and has nothing to contribute gets to live out his life. In my opinioin, if you are to exact a punishment on a murderer, the same should go for all, because that just sends the message that it is possible, in a sense, to get away with murder.

Well Charles Manson was a different story though... He did get the death penalty, originally. But that got overturned when the death penalty was outlawed in the state of California in 1972, and the sentences of all the inmates on death row (including Manson) got changed to life in prison or other sentences. By the time they reinstated capital punishment in 1978, they couldn't change the sentences back. But he was sentenced to death at the end of his trial.

I've got mixed feelings about Tookie, though. I mean, sure, he can say all he wants that he's rehabilitated, but he's ruined parts of Los Angeles that will now always be associated with gangs, and that destruction is so widespread that it reaches the other end of the continent, in NYC. He's responsible for an entire sub-culture in this country, and an enormous group of criminals. How many thousands of people have died because of this?

I agree with you long_lost_corleone. I feel this whole "tax dollars wasted" excuse doesn't convince me. If we don't "waste tax dollars" on Tookie, they'll just be another inmate we waste them on. I mean, really, who wants to spend the rest of their lives in a jail cell? I feel it's a much more effective example to society. Plus you let nature physically kill the inmate (which plays into my personal politics against capital punishment).

Still, Manson isn't doing anything to help life now, atleast Tookie is trying to keep kids from getting involved in something he started and atleast hes trying to prevent any more murders over senseless violence because of it.

I'm afraid rioting will probably happen.

But I do believe in the death penalty. What kind of message are we sending out to the people who will get the death penalty in the future? I murder people so what if I get the death penalty, I'll just do a few good deeds and they will spare my life I think not. You get the death sentence then it's "dead man walking." As Apple says "CASE CLOSED"

Actually, Charles Manson didn't kill anybody. He convinced his followers that he was Jesus Christ, and his followers did the killing. He was directly responsible for all those deaths, but he never actually took a life (or was never convicted of taking a life).

Charles Manson does deserve the death penalty, though. It would have been great, because he would have been executed by means of the gas chamber. However, as mentioned above, the death penalty was abolished in California after he was sentenced to death, and then re-instated after he was sentenced to life in prison. His life was spared on a mere technicality.

I still stand by what I said about "Tookie." He deserves what he's getting, IMO. Granted, people who have committed crimes as heinous as murder deserve to die in a more painful, torturous way than getting a couple needles to the arm. I won't deny the good things he's done since he's been in prison, but he murdered four innocent people. He was sentenced to death. The sentence needs to be carried out, and it will be.

First, let me emphasize that I know almost nothing about this case and, although I am against the death penalty, I am not attempting to defend this guy.

I wasn't in the courtroom, nor, presumably, was anyone else here. I didn't hear the testimony, but since he was convicted by a jury I have to go along with their decision (even though juries sometimes make mistakes) and assume that he is guilty.

However....

If Governor Schwarzenegger's statement quoted above is the basis for whether or not clemency should be granted, then I have a problem with that.

Suppose the jury was wrong and he really isn't guilty?

If he is innocent, should he apologize and express contrition for crimes that he didn't commit, just to save his life?

What would you do if you found yourself on death row for a crime you didn't commit?

Would you confess and apologize just to save yourself?

Yup. Nothing better and more stimulating than an execution. Sure would have been "great."

I wouldn't call not executing the guy because the death penalty was abolished a "mere technicality."

Not good enough to just kill them, huh? Let's torture 'em first.

This was taken to the CA Supremem Court right after the Governor denied clemency. I supplied the link, but here's a short portion with a little more detail:


"A jury convicted Williams of killing Owens by shooting him twice in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun while the victim was face down on the floor.

The jury also convicted him of shooting and killing an immigrant couple and their 41-year-old daughter less than two weeks later while stealing less than $100 cash from their motel."


TIS


web page

Man, the number of famous people that are gathered there outside San Quentin is staggering... Joan Baez was there, singing, I think Snoop Dogg is still there (I know he was there last week), of course Jesse Jackson is there, etc etc etc. There's a video from it on this link.

A lot of people think Arnold will step in at the last minute in the hour and a half that's left, and change his mind. I really don't think so.

Whether he deserves it or not, it is still kind of sad, especially the way some people around here are treating the "countdown," as if it's something exciting.

He deserves to die for what he's done.

And all his talk(as far as I'm concerned that's all it is) about warning kids not to get involved in gangs. Is just an excuse to try and save his miserable life.

It's funny he's preaching an anti-gang life now.

The lawyers asked the Governor one last time for a stay a few minutes ago, and he said no. The execution is taking place now, and they say it may be up to half an hour before he's pronounced dead. I'm not watching TV at the moment; how much coverage is there about this on there? I'm listening to the radio, and this is pretty much all they're talking about.

Its official. He's gone.

Let's pray for a calm week ahead of us... Like SaladBar said, the last thing we need is rioting. Someone from Compton (was it the mayor?) was saying an hour ago that the media should stop talking about the possibility of riots, because apparently that could put ideas in the minds of people who otherwise would not have thought of making a mess. Whatever, media or not, I just hope they don't.

Of course. This is how I think: I know I didn't do it, so I am innocent, so I should live, correct? In order to live, I should apologize. So I put away all my feelings of honor, I apologize, and that's it.

But then again, prison life, not having personal freedom is very hard. I don't know if I would want for the rest of my life.

I agree. He never showed any remorse or apologized. He brutally killed a whole family and others.


DS

RIP

The Death Penalty blows. State-sponsored murder is still murder

From CourtTV.com

Another especially interesting quote:

Sound like an innocent man to you?

I said that I wasn't defending him.

But you weren't there, nor was I.

Witnesses lie and make mistakes, as do juries.

I'm just asking, if he was innocent, should he have been expected to apologize and show remorse?

That is true. Look at Huricane Carter.


DS

Innocent or not "Tookie's Out Da House"

I don't recall anyone taking up for the lady in Texas a year or so back who was a former drug dealer that killed and became a born-again Christian. If anyone did, I apologize. I DO recall folks talking about how it was all a "put-on" to avoid the needle (which she wasn't afraid of, btw).

At any rate, I didn't shout "foul" for her then, nor will I now for this man. The bottom line is, born again or not, rehabilitated or not, there are consequences for actions. If there aren't, then burn all the laws and wreck all the courtrooms. Whether or not you're for the death penalty, you have to admit it sets a dangerous precedent if we start giving amnesty, cutting time, getting folks away from the needle, etc. for anyone who turns boy/girl scout. Who truly knows what's in someone's heart? You're either gonna put laws on the books and enforce them across the board, or you're not.

Well, at least Jesse Jackson got his usual fee for showing up, I'm sure.

Snake there was a to do about that woman, as there have been about many people who starty finding God, writing childrens books and poetry on Death Row. I am opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, however so long as it is on the books, it should be enforced, and what someone does after conviction, sentencing, appeals and a shot at DNA testing should not matter.

As for Jesse Jackson, I doubt anyone is paying him to show up. If anything I would think he would be paying them.

From CourtTV.com

Another especially interesting quote:

Sound like an innocent man to you? [/b][/quote]Yes but that was at his trial back in the 1970s. He could have been "reformed" or "rehibilitated" by then but now we'll never fully know. As Eustachius Brown said "state-sponsored murder is still murder"

QUOTE]Yes but that was at his trial back in the 1970s. He could have been "reformed" or "rehibilitated" by then but now we'll never fully know. As Eustachius Brown said "state-sponsored murder is still murder" [/QB][/QUOTE]

And what's more: it sends a horrible message to the rest of the world and, even worse, to our children. Murder is OK if we (the State) do it.

This is a sad day for anyone involved in the rehabilitation of criminals in America.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe that this particular case comes down to being for or against the death penalty. I think that the question here is if you believe that the death penalty should be applied in this particular case. I, personally, feel that there are cases where the death penalty should be a given (Charles Manson comes to mind. I think that Ted Bundy got his just desserts), but I think that this man's life should have been spared.

I think that he created a horrific gang that has wreaked mayhem on good people. I think that he was probably a mean and wicked person. However, I also think that he saw the error of his ways. I think that he did a great deal of good in his last years on this earth, and that he had a great deal more to do.

Should his victims be forgotten? Never. Even if he was not guilty of this particular crime, as founder of the Crips, I'm sure he had gallons of blood on his hands. I think that he should have stayed in prison for life and continued as an inspiration for young people to stay away from that lifestyle.

I agree with you. Except that DNA testing is quite a reliable and valid basis for proving someone innocent.

SV thats what I said... everyone should have the right to dna testing whether it was available at the time of conviction or not.

Exactly. I am for Capitol Punishment, but in this instance I felt he should've been spared.

R.I.P.

Don Andrew and Sicilian Babe: Therein lies exactly what I'm talking about. We either enforce all the laws equally across the board, or chunk the whole system. And, as I mentioned, who knows what's in a man's heart, really? If we give a death row inmate a break from the needle on account of what he's written, preached, or whatever, well, who's to say that he's not just a better actor than some other schmuck that ends up getting the needle? And what exactly is the "time limit" to give a convict to turn boy scout?

Everyone forgets that this con wasn't the victim here. His victims were already 6 feet under. And their poor families still have to go on somehow, still victimized until they pass on by what he did. I don't care how many good deeds he's done since, there aren't enough to compensate for what he did. Why aren't their lives ever taken into consideration? Why is his misery (which was self-made, btw) worse than theirs?

Excellent point Snake! I'm still against the death penalty myself but you bring up a great point!

Which is a major problem with the death penalty.

It is not, IMO, applied equally across the board.

Excellent point Snake! I'm still against the death penalty myself but you bring up a great point! [/b][/quote]That's all I'm sayin', brothers. Thanks.

But Snake, then we're no better than the murderers themselves.

The US lawsystem is no better than a murderer.

Think about that.

But that's where we differ. I don't consider that to be murder. Murder is what people like this guy did; what he got was punishment, or justice, if you will.

Furthermore, I'm amazed that folks take the death penalty issue and say, "Well, I'm against it in principle, but a serial killer who tortures and molests little children before he kills them deserves it." Frankly, I see a contradiction there. Either you're placing "life" above all else and therefore it shouldn't be snuffed out--regardless of whose life it is--or you're not. I see no middle ground or compromises.

Hmm. That's a difficult moral problem you bring up.
When being pro-death penalty, and when not?

I'm consistent: ALWAYS. As I said, as long as it's the law, it should be enforced equitably.

When the crips were formed back in the late 60's early 70's they were a peaceful movement. They basically protested against police violence and the discrimination they had in LA. Then a couple of em started fueding with each other and a part of the gang split, they calld themselves the mob Pyrus, the present day bloods. And from then on it's just been gang banging and drug slanging. If anyone of us were born in those areas we would all be in gangs too. Beleive me I know its horrible, uncivilized and their a buncha criminals, but you just need to walk in peoples shoes who live in the ghetto to understand that how they live (life of crime) seems just as normal to them as to how we live and go about our lives. The police corruption in LA is staggering, people get pulled over because they are black, and they can throw anyone in jail for any particular made up reason they want. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the cops couldve framed tookie. Just look at the killing of B.I.G. He was killed by cops, hired by Suge knight and his Blood gang affiliates, the reason why none of this got to court is because half of the LA county police are on the payroll, the other half are just crooked and the most racist people Ive ever heard of.

You make it sound like gang banging is still a big thing in South Central. It simply isn't. And I agree, Suge Knight is a piece of shit. He had Tupac killed, IMO, too. Good day sir.

What?? SCLA has, is, and will be Gang banging for a long while. It's just so common place that no one bothers to report it on the news anymore. Beleive me there are shootings on a daily basis there.

What?? SCLA has, is, and will be Gang banging for a long while. It's just so common place that no one bothers to report it on the news anymore. Beleive me there are shootings on a daily basis there. [/b][/quote]There may very well be shootings on a daily basis, but if you compare today's homicides and murders in Compton with the homicides and murders from the late 80's and early 90's, it's isn't anything.