To: calcowgirl
He was condemned for killing four people in 1981 and claims jailhouse informants fabricated testimony that he confessed to the murders. The testimony of four jailbirds regarding a supposed confession (to them) while in prison is hellishly thin to hang somebody over.
There are three thing I'd have to have before I'd ever feel good about capital punishment anymore:
- The criteria has to be beyond any doubt whatsoever. Beyond a "reasonable doubt" just doesn't cut it for capital punishment; you can't unhang somebody when you screw up.
- The person has to represent a continuing threat to the public should he ever escape or otherwise get out.
- The present adversarial system of justice would have to be scrapped in favor of an inquisitorial system in which the common incentive for all parties involved would be to arrive at the truth and facts of the matter.
This case clearly doesn't pass muster on any of those conditions.
To: tamalejoe
The testimony of four jailbirds regarding a supposed confession (to them) while in prison is hellishly thin to hang somebody over.If that was the sole basis for the prosecution argument for the death penalty then it's highly doubtful we'd be having this discussion.
To: tamalejoe
You're right. We should free Mumia while we're at it.
FREE MUMIA
Oh yeah, sarcasm off
31 posted on
10/11/2005 5:07:49 PM PDT by
ChuckHam
To: tamalejoe
He founded the Crips.
This is not a debate. Therefore, he is the founder of a domestic terrorist organization.
I'm pretty sure he's guilty too. There's other evidence out there.
47 posted on
10/11/2005 5:24:30 PM PDT by
Skywalk
(Transdimensional Jihad!)
To: tamalejoe
1. If the Ninth Circus Court failed to overturn the conviction of a black man convicted by an all-white jury, it must be pretty solid. That's the most liberal court in the country.
2. "The present adversarial system of justice would have to be scrapped in favor of an inquisitorial system in which the common incentive for all parties involved would be to arrive at the truth and facts of the matter."
With yourself as Grand High Inquisitor, I suppose?
Will you please reread and think carefully about that statement?
Hey, it ain't perfect, but our system of justice is still the best in the world. As Ben Franklin said, "It is better that a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be condemned." It is the adversarial system that ensures that the rights of the accused are protected.
When the defense attorney tries every dirty trick in the book to get their client off, goes after the credibility of the witnesses and the cops, questions the evidence, the testimony, everything- and the jury still convicts- that's when the system works.
This being said, we have to make sure defense counsel is competent, and that prosecutors follow the rules. When these do not occur, there is room for error.
52 posted on
10/11/2005 5:31:51 PM PDT by
Ostlandr
(Hey, Salada! I need a new Tagline!)
To: tamalejoe
"The criteria has to be beyond any doubt whatsoever. Beyond a "reasonable doubt" just doesn't cut it for capital punishment; you can't unhang somebody when you screw up. "
Taking away a person's freedom for any length of time is also irreversible. Would you apply the same standard to incarceration?
"The person has to represent a continuing threat to the public should he ever escape or otherwise get out. "
If there is a deterrent effect to capital punishment, not punishing the guilty party causes harm to society.
72 posted on
10/11/2005 6:28:30 PM PDT by
Tymesup
To: tamalejoe
The problem with life sentences is that they aren't for life.
77 posted on
10/11/2005 7:08:27 PM PDT by
badgerlandjim
(Hillary Clinton is to politics as Helen Thomas is to beauty)
To: tamalejoe
Some of the evidence presented against Williams include:
- Alfred Coward, known as "Blackie" testified that Williams came to his home and went to James Garrett's home, where Williams was staying. Williams returned from inside the home with a sawed-off shotgun and another friend named Darryl. The group smoked some PCP and then picked up Tony Simms. The group of four made two unsuccessful robbery attempts, first at a restaurant and then at a liquor store. They then went to 7-Eleven committed the robbery where Williams killed Owens. Upon returning to Simm's home after the robbery, Williams explained to the group that he did not want to leave any witnesses. Williams also bragged that he picked up the shotgun shells, making it harder to obtain any evidence.
Later the morning Coward heard Williams tell his brother "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams then made a growling noise and laughed hysterically.
- At the Brookhaven Motel where William's murdered the Yang family, the police recovered two shotgun shell casings. A firearms expert determined that one of the shells could have ONLY been fired from a weapon identified as having been purchased by Williams in 1974.
- Samuel Coleman testified that he saw Williams on March 10 at the Showcase Bar. He last saw him at the bar at 2:30 am. He saw Williams the next day. Williams bragged to Coleman that he robbed and killed some people on Vermont Street. Williams told him he was going to use the money to buy PCP.
- James Garrett testified that on March 13, 1979, Williams told them that some Chinese people had been killed on Vermont Street. Williams told them that he thought a professional killer must have done it. Williams then started making statements about the murder, with inside knowledge about the crimes, which had yet to be released to the public. He said that he heard the murder occurred at 5 am and that two men knocked down the door and had taken $600.00. Williams then said he heard the guy lying on the couch was "blown away", a woman at the register was shot twice and another woman was also shot. Williams then admitted to Garrett that it was he, who had done the murderers. Williams later talked about committing another motel robbery and Garrett tried to talk him about of it, stating there were too many people who stayed at the hotel. Williams then told Garrett, "No problem," he said, "I'll blow them away like I blew them away in the motel." Williams also expressed to Garrett the idea of killing Alfred Coward.
- Esther Garrett testified that Williams had inside knowledge of the murders. She heard him say that the 'killers' were using the money to buy "juice" (PCP). She also stated that Williams later admitted he committed the murder with his brother-in-law.
- George Oglesby was in the same cell block as Williams. In late April, 1979, Williams approached Oglesby with an escape plan complete with drawings. Williams also planned to kill a person on the bus who would testify against him with the assistance of two people on the outside. Williams talked about disarming a guard during the transfer from jail to court. The plan was later modified to blow up the bus to give him more time before authorities determined who had escaped. Williams also admitted to Oglesby that he robbed some people and shot a man, a woman and a child.
- Williams spoke to several other inmates about escaping and even showed another inmate places in the jail that were vulnerable to escape. He even told a few inmates that he was attempting to get some hacksaw blades into the jail. It was within days of making these comments, that two women were arrested for attempting to smuggle the blades into the facility.
78 posted on
10/11/2005 7:18:36 PM PDT by
BraveMan
To: tamalejoe
Except for the one about 'no doubt whatsoever', I don't buy your conditions, however, despite having supported the death penalty for most of my life, I now object to it for several other reasons.
One, there have been too many (it doesn't take very many to be TOO many) people on death row found to be innocent when modern testing was used, and too many times, it was found that the cops were in a hurry to solve and crime and didn't care how they did it.
Two, it isn't sure enough or fast enough to be a deterrent. Potential criminals figure they aren't going to be caught, if they are, they won't be convicted, and if they are, they won't be sentenced to death, and if they are, it'll take 20+ years.
To: tamalejoe
The present adversarial system of justice would have to be scrapped in favor of an inquisitorial system in which the common incentive for all parties involved would be to arrive at the truth and facts of the matter. And how long would that take?
25 years?
50 years?
100 years?
And in the meantime you'd stop executions?
Seesh, why can't you be more honest and dipense with the first two objections?
96 posted on
11/28/2005 8:26:05 PM PST by
Balding_Eagle
(God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
To: tamalejoe
While in prison, Tookie raped others and he went after prison guards with shivs.
Many times, in order to catch and convict criminals, you have to rely of testimony of some very unsavory characters.
If you demand that there must be 100%, completely undeniable proof for every crime, you aren't ever going to convict most people who commit crimes of any kind.
Are you sure that you're on the right forum for you ? That bleeding heart is making a mess on the floor.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson