Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

If you think he's innocent or wrongly convicted, read this article.

If you think he had an all white jury, read this article.

If you think he had a lousy legal team, read this article.

This guy is guilty as can be!!!

1 posted on 10/31/2005 4:22:21 PM PST by Imnotalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Imnotalib

Yep,kill him.


2 posted on 10/31/2005 4:24:54 PM PST by JOHANNES801
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib

If California had the electric chair, I would say, "Make hime extra crispy".


3 posted on 10/31/2005 4:28:40 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."


5 posted on 10/31/2005 4:30:25 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib; Wally_Kalbacken; Cougr
Here's what Wally_Kalbacken said in a previous thread.

For founding the crips alone, he deserves the drip(s).


Jamie Foxx Wants B-Day Present From Governator

7 posted on 10/31/2005 4:34:36 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey hey ho ho Andy Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib

Sounds like he's being championed like that cop-killer in Philly.


10 posted on 10/31/2005 4:50:53 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib

Fry em. I read it. Still a loser.

"Ironically, in 2001 Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for the message in his books and as a political statement to bring attention to our nation's death penalty laws. As a result, Williams, a four time murderer, continues to receive a lot of positive publicity from a variety of organizations and professionals who are unfamiliar with his life and the circumstances of his crimes."

He didn't even write the books.


11 posted on 10/31/2005 10:30:32 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people believe in Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Imnotalib

I read it. Let's be rational here, instead of letting our emotions get the best of us. The evidence strongly suggests that he was linked to the crime scene. It does not, however, prove that he himself committed the murders.

Maybe he's guilty. Maybe he's innocent. The sensationalism of posting pictures of the murder victims doesn't answer this question. Neither does the liberal spin, for that matter.

Regardless, I don't understand the personal satifaction many people on FR seem to have for having this person killed. Ignore your "death penalty" = "justice" belief for one moment, and ask yourself how your life will personally change if he is not killed, but remains locked up for life. Will gang violence end if he is executed? Will gang violence end if he is spared? In both cases, the answer is probably NO. Even if the claim that he is secretly running the Crips from prison (which is absurd because why would free-roaming gangsters listen to someone who will never see the light of day), someone would just take his place if he were executed.

I consider myself, for the most part, socially conservative. I oppose gay marriage. I oppose abortion. Both are detrimental to society. I also accept that Evil exist in this world, but you can't get rid of it, by putting it on Death Row. Some of you believe that the Death Penalty invokes fear in Evil, and that fear somehow prevents crime. This is not true. People who join gangs do not fear death any more than suicide bombers. The risks of being killed by a rival gang member are far greater than the likelihood of being killed by lethal injection! So if someone is willing to accept the former, they will certainly accept the latter.

No, to have a society that enforces "justice" by fear, you must go much further and not just execute those who are guilty of murder, but also kill those who are guilty of lesser crimes like armed robbery, drug possession, vandalism, gang association, etc. We could be like Singapore. That is the only effective way to enforce justice by fear. But is it the society we want to live in?

Many of you will say that Stan Tookie Williams must be guilty because the Court has decided he is guilty. If he IS innocent, then the chances are good that there other innocent people who have been put to death in the State of California.

Obviously, there are a lot of people who are not getting as much media attention that have better cases than him. But is this a good reason for him to die?

It may help you sleep easier at night thinking that no one will ever be executed who is innocent. But to actually BELIEVE this, you must believe that our justice system has 100% precision, and is thus as precise as God. Even supposing that our justice system was VERY accurate, this is an extremely improbable claim. No matter what standard you use, it is statistically likely that at some point, some people who are innocent will be executed. Maybe it is less than 10%. Maybe it is less than 1%. Maybe it is less than 0.1%. Whatever, it is some number.

And I'm not saying that someone who is innocent has been put to death yet in California. I'm saying I can guarantee you that if it hasn't happened, it WILL happen. That is, unless the Death Penalty is repealed. Just as sure as someone will win the lottery. Statistically guaranteed.

Maybe that doesn't bother you, if most of the time you "get" the right guy, it's okay to execute an innocent person every now and then?

But it certainly bothers me. It bothers me that we have to kill innocent people just to preserve some intangible and non-productive notion of "justice" in society. I think that former Illinois Governor George Ryan realized this. It is my hope that Schwarzenegger will realize the same thing.

Finally, think of all the people that were "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" with eyewitness reports and other loads of circumstantial evidence, sentenced to die, and would have been executed except new DNA evidence proved they were innocent. This proves that without DNA evidence, the system is very capable of sending innocent people are sent to their death. I think that the at the very least, DNA evidence should be manditory to give someone the death penalty. Not the other way around, where you need DNA evidence just to save someone's life.

Is Stan innocent? And is he redeemed? Nobody knows the answer to either of those questions with absolute certainty. And maybe he isn't redeemed, but he could still be innocent of the murders he was convicted for. I certainly buy the possibility that some of his former buddies tried to pin the murder on him.

But the real important question, is should we be betting on someone's life in the first place?


13 posted on 12/05/2005 2:30:31 AM PST by star2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson