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 ...
Seems to me that spree killer Charles Starkweather was executed about a year after his conviction (1958). Now THAT was a death penalty!
Seems to me that spree killer Charles Starkweather was executed about a year after his conviction (1958). Now THAT was a death penalty!
----
There should be a statute of limitations on how long a death-sentenced criminal can be held before execution. This is a classic example of abuse of the system and the taxpayer. But as usual, follow the money.
The proposition that DNA evidence has confirmed execution of the innocent is often stated but never proven. I have yet to see any proof that DNA evidence has shown that an innocent person was wrongly executed.
John Wayne Gacey made some really neat clown cartoons for kids ,too. Where's his Nobel prize? if childish writing content wins you a Nobel, there are pretty of liberal columnist who should own one.
It's an excellent question.
The source of my concern is the very few innocent people who are convicted of murder and then executed.
Additionally, I believe in the death penalty. I think we send a terrible message that human life is cheap if the death penalty doesn't exist.
Trying to balance my concern for the execution of the innocent and my support for the death penalty has led me to search for a middle ground. It would be easy to take the path of least resistance and simply oppose the death penalty, just so no innocent person could ever be executed. That would be a way out, though, that ignores that some murderers must be executed, imo.
The punishment phase must be different than the trial phase. In the trial "reasonable doubt" is the best standard to use for conviction. Afterwards, for all of those convicted who are also eligible for the death penalty, the prosecution must prove to the judge that there is absolutely no way that the convict will ever be found to be a party innocent of the murder. (This is not about those who would be guilty of the murder but found later to be eligible for a murder sentence less than execution. I will not lament an actual murderer who has been executed who could have been merely imprisoned for life.)
I don't care how the prosecutor has to prove zero chance of innocence to the judge in the sentencing phase, but he should have to do it.
One of the most basic tests we could apply would be simple comparisons. Some of the states utilize the death penalty, and some don't. When we compare these states, do we see a marked decline in capital crimes in the states that execute?
It's a good idea, but it would be hard to isolate the variables. For instance, my home state of New Jersey "has" the death penalty, but hasn't actually used it for several decades. So, is a person bent on homicide in the Garden State deterred by the fact that the death penalty is on the books, or encouraged by the fact that the libs in the state government never use it?
Then you have the following variable: some states (like most Red States in America's heartland) might be populated to a high percentage by law-abiding, God-fearing citizens who would never consider committing murder; they might put capital punishment on the books because they believe it is just retribution. On the other hand, Blue States with a high minority population might put people in the legislature who are less likely to opt for the death penalty, since that's what the voters want. But the relatively high murder rates in liberal, non-death penalty states might be due to intrinsic population factors, rather than capital punishment laws.
In other words, it's not as if we have a totally homogenous population across the country. One is a lot more likely to be murdered in Camden or East St. Louis than in Salt Lake City or Bismarck. The presence or absence of the death penalty is only one factor in a state's murder rate, and its impact would be difficult to judge.
Sure, there are variables. However, if the death penalty were truly a deterent of any measure, we could for example speculate that Texas, where I live, would have just about deterred murder out of existence. Is Texas' homicide rate remarkably lower than the states that don't execute, or is it actually higher?
Any number? How about 432?
I HATE that figure of speech.
He was found guilty November 28, 1958
He was electrocuted in the Nebraska State Penitentiary on June 25, 1959. Less than 8 months.
That means nothing. Those states might have more miscreants to start with.
Here's my argument:
Lib: "Capital punishment is not a deterrent."
Me: "The Hell it ain't"
Lib: "And how do you support that position? Studies say..."
Me: "Screw your studies. If it weren't for the chair your fat ass would be dead. I'd kill you myself."
Pity what passes for an argument these days. FYI, I'm not a liberal, and I'm against the death penalty.
Pity for whiny sympathy.
1) He will never kill again
2) He knew the laws when he killed those people
3) He stops costing the taxpayers money at midnight
4) The family has closure
5) More space in prison for another murderer to take his place
6) I'll feel better that the system works
want more, let me know
Well, I'm glad you feel better. I won't. I doubt that there is any reconciling our views.
In the spirit of Tookie Delenda Est! , I ask what are the odds that his last words are; "Qualis artifex pereo!"
HO HO HO 5 and 1/2 hours to go!!!!
Well, that's all you're getting. Go find yourself a corner and pity in it.
Artist indeed! I haven't finished coloring my Nobel-nominated Tookie books.
I thought it had to be a college professor to nominate anyone for a Peace Prize? At any rate, the same Indian (from India?) has been the professor to nominate Williams each time.
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.