Posted on 12/12/2005 7:49:30 AM PST by SmithL
Stanley Tookie Williams, the convicted murderer, has done an impressive amount of stuff since his incarceration in 1981. He has written an autobiography plus eight books for children about gangs and gang violence. He has spoken eloquently about the destruction that drugs and gangs can cause. He has rallied an impressive array of people to the cause of his appeal for clemency from his death sentence. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize any number of times.
His supporters say he has turned his life around. He has become a force for good. He merits special consideration because he has been so important in motivating children not to choose the life that he did. Those arguments, quite frankly, make me nuts.
I have no opinion about whether Tookie Williams has been rehabilitated. I'm not even sure that "rehabilitation" is a meaningful concept. A lot of people in prison are con artists; it's a useful skill on the street. The way to clemency was undoubtedly clear to a man of Williams' intelligence, and the fact that he chose that path means that either (a) he has had a change of heart or (b) that he hasn't. I dunno. I can't judge from afar, and neither can you.
I think subjective judgments about character are not really relevant in death penalty cases. To believe that they are relevant is to believe that uncharismatic, untalented, surly and/or mentally retarded death row prisoners are not worth saving, while a really cool guy is. Are we saying that it's OK to kill sneaky little weasel-faced people and not OK to kill handsome, intelligent, well-muscled people? It's fine to construct a hierarchy of character if one is, say, choosing a mate or a president. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
UGH! Enough already! Hopefully this will clear things up....
Tookie is about to be punished for crimes he committed in 1979, he is NOT about to be punished for the life he has led SINCE then.
R3
And if his parents did not name him Tookie, why is he still using his 'hood name? I thought he turned away from gang banging.
Oh no, you didn't....
This Jon Carroll used to be the editor of the Los Angeles Times. The same sort of lefty drivel is what put the LAT in the financial tank and Carroll fired. Good riddance.
Nice this scum was able to turn his life around. Unfortunately the people he killed, never had the chance.
Unless Smith is the author, I think you mean "I beg to differ with the author." :>)
Capital punishment's effectiveness as a tool for prevention is really not even an issue.
1. We send a message that the life of the living is cheap if we don't have a death penalty. The price tag on a life should be extremely hight. What different messages are sent about a diamond ring in a storefront window if the price tag says either $25,000 or $125,000? The second price says the ring is more valuable, doesn't it?
2. Absent the court system that leads to a multi-million dollar appeals process, an execution should be far cheaper than a life imprisonment.
Finally, we should not execute anyone without absolute evidence that they are the ones who committed the crime. I'm not arguing here about whether someone has extenuating circumstances that mitigate his crime and make his a "non-capital" offense. I'm talking about the "act of murder" itself.
Not "within a reasonable doubt" but, rather, "absolute certainty" regarding guilt for the actual murder.
I dare not support the notion that people should be executed without proof. But, I am curious about the standard of "absolute certainty." What types of proof would constitute "absolute certainty"? DNA?
As my comment accompanied a quote from the author, I think my post was properly addressed.
You said: It isn't just death that the anti-capital punishment crowd object to. Since "society" is ultimately to blame for everything, they have a problem with significant punishment of any kind. If they win on the death penalty, we'll soon see a campaign to reduce sentences, esp. "life without parole" as this, too, is cruel and unusual.
***
I could not agree more, and have so posted on related threads.
I'll accept your interpretation on that one.
The proof must be such that it cannot be refuted. It could be one item or many, but there must be no doubt that the person convicted is actually guilty of the murder.
Last week we remembered the death of John Lennon who was murdered by Mark Chapman (if I remember correctly.) He was immediately captured and there was no doubt that he pulled the trigger. (Sirhan Sirhan was also captured immediately after pulling the trigger on Bobby Kennedy.)
There's also the case of the Kennedy kin recently imprisoned for a murder he committed when he was younger. That didn't seem as certain, even though he was convicted. I have no problem with his being imprisoned, and I think that "reasonable doubt" is a good standard for imprisonment. However, I don't think that they can absolutely demonstrate (after so long) that Smith(?) did the deed.
And I'm far too insensitive to worry about it.
; )
Strawman argument. The author is assigning properties to capital punishment that were never claimed. California penal code states that all incarceration (including execution) is punishment. There is no mention of rehabilitation anywhere therein. This is the key point on why the state legislature overturned California's short-term ban on capital punishment back when that stupid twit Rose Bird was California's chief justice.
"... But of course we're not sure, and that's the other point. Eyewitnesses are not infallible; law enforcement people will tell you that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence there is."
Yeah, uh huh, and two of the witnessses in this case aren't some nearsighted and absent-minded professors who witnessed the crimes from 100 yards away while travelling past the murder scene in a vehicle at night. They're Stanley Williams' own accomplices serving life in prison without the possibility for parole for their roles in the very crimes that triggerman Tookie was sentenced to death for. They've never recanted their original story about the murders in question.
"... defense lawyers could be drunks one step short of disbarment. Are we really prepared to kill people because their lawyers were drunks?"
I admit that the Public Defenders' office is where the lousy law school graduates usually end up -- followed closely behind by the District Attorney's office -- but if we catch a spree murderer red-handed, does it really matter if his lawyer sleeps through the trial? I mean, really now.
"... If a jailhouse witness can get time off for testifying in a certain case, of course he will. He might coincidentally be telling the truth, but I wouldn't lend him money on the basis of what he said -- and I sure wouldn't kill another man on his word."
That's not all the evidence, and the author knows it. Liberals called for, and got, firearms registration in California as a means to 'help the police solve violent crime'. Yet, when the police links a murder weapon to a killer based upon this registration as in Tookie's case, they jump up shouting that registration doesn't prove anything. Those arguments, quite frankly, make ME nuts John Carroll.
Never mind the witnesses, planned escape and murder, solicitation of murder, or anything else. Why, it's just all circumstantial evidence against poor Tookie.
"... Williams may be guilty of extremely unpleasant crimes; I do not have an opinion on his guilt."
John Carroll, you silly ass, Tookie is 100% guilty of these murders. You can't even be sure of that. Also, what's with this 'unpleasant crimes' shit? I bet you're the sort of slime that referred to 9/11 as 'the recent unpleasantness', didn't you?
"... When we're born, we are all the same sort of tiny wrinkly entities. We none of us have a rap sheet. It is useful to remember our common beginnings when contemplating state-sanctioned murder."
Oh good God. The liberal last ditch: The appeal to the chiillldren, and in this case tiny wrinkley helpless babies -- as if a liberal ever cared about people killing tiny wrinkley helpless babies by the trainload before. I suppose it all depends on the circumstances, HMNNN? Why, by executing Tookie we're killing a tiny wrinkley helpless infant just like I once was, except for the huge logical disconnection that I'm a grown man with choices and options just like Tookie Williams had when he decided to go rob and murder people for amusement back in 1979.
John Carroll, shut your flapping gums and find a new line of work.
Yep, you always seemed the insensitive sort to me... :>)
Merry Christmas!
(hope I haven't offended you by being intolerant...) LOL.
-- like this allegedly Republican governor.
----
Yes, some good points. Sad that it is that way. And as far as our Republican governor goes, the last few years has taught us the title "Republican" does NOT necessarily mean CONSERVATIVE. There once was a time when it did. We both know that is no longer the case.
Thank You,
And Happy Holy Days to you.
I wonder if the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" hasn't been hijacked. If you can conclude something beyond a reasonable doubt, then that would mean the only way to have a doubt would be for that doubt to be based on something other than reason. And, any decision as to the guilt or innocence of a person in a trial ought to be based exclusively on reason (think the OJ Simpson travesty).
Also, I wonder if we set up different standards for the guilt, would we then end up in a case where someone is just guilty enough to spend the rest of his/her life in prison, but not guilty enough for the death penalty? Would it not be better if the punishment were attached to the crime rather than the weight of the evidence against the accused?
"A society should be slightly more civilized than its sociopaths."
Justice is absolutely necessary for civilization.
Quite so. The death penalty, executing the person in a non-cruel and unusual manner is not intented as a deterrant, though it acts as one regardless for most criminal behavior.
A death penalty using cruel and unusual methods (i.e. drowning in pig's blood for Moslem murderers, slow and painful "nightmare" type deaths for others) would be intended as a deterant and act as one.
For example, S.H. in Iraq, via use of cruel and unusual punishments effectively ended any serious opposition.
Terror can be directed against the terrorists.
It is. Society applies the death penalty after due process. Dookie applied his own death penalty on a whim. "Murder" requires malice aforethought. There is no malice in the state's death penalty. There is simply the dispassionate execution (!) of justice.
Nice attempt to turn this into a moral equivalency, but no sale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.