Tookie Williams: clemency denied

[Tony]

By that logic, whether you support the death penalty or not, if you don't believe the system is perfect then you must find it acceptable that innocent people will be forced to rot in a jail cell by the government.

True. But I think you'll agree that an innocent person being executed by the state is a lot worse than an innocent person spending X number of years in jail.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I never said opposing the death penalty was opposing the principle of justice or that ending the death penalty would result in anarchy. Do not put words in my mouth. My point was that "mistakes might be made" is not sufficient reason to oppose the death penalty since mistakes can also made when doling out any other punishment.

Excuse me, you did say "the alternative is to never hold anyone respnosible for their crimes lest a mistake be made.", did you not?

 

[Jocko]

As long as the wrongly convicted person is still alive in prison, there is some hope that they could be exonorated. Once we've killed them, we've removed that possibility. What's objectionable about the death penalty (to me, I won't speak for others) is the finality of it.

No, I object to an unrealistically utopian requirement deciding what is and is not an adequate means to dispose of a murderer like Tookie.

Justice is adminsitered by humans, therefore it is fallible. Just like the guy driving the car next to yours, just like the babysitter you trust your kids with, just like anything and everything else that makes modern society run.

Simply telling me that the chances are that an innocent has been or could be executed by mistake is not going to shift my opinion. Yes, I concede it can, indeed probably has happened, or will happen someday.

Would you forego your car because of innocent deaths on the road? How about getting rid of your medication because one person in a million has a fatal reaction to it? Perhaps you'd like to abandon heart surgery because there isn't a 100% success rate.

It's a fallacious standard, a dishonest argument and a complete waste of time.

Ending the death penalty will not cause anarchy. Slippery slope.

Keeping it will not result in a rash of dead inncocents. Slippery slope, indeed.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Excuse me, you did say "the alternative is to never hold anyone respnosible for their crimes lest a mistake be made.", did you not?

Yes. The alternative to not accepting that mistakes would be made when meting out justice, not the alternative to having the death penalty.

 

[Freakshow]

True. But I think you'll agree that an innocent person being executed by the state is a lot worse than an innocent person spending X number of years in jail.

I'll agree to that. I'm a death penalty supporter, but I will agree to that statement. In the same way that I would say an innocent person serving 20 years is worse than an innocent person serving 1 year. As with just about everything in the human condition, it isn't all-or-nothing. It is a matter of finding where to draw the line.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I object to an unrealistically utopian requirement deciding what is and is not an adequate means to dispose of a murderer like Tookie.

Justice is adminsitered by humans, therefore it is fallible. Just like the guy driving the car next to yours, just like the babysitter you trust your kids with, just like anything and everything else that makes modern society run.

Simply telling me that the chances are that an innocent has been or could be executed by mistake is not going to shift my opinion. Yes, I concede it can, indeed probably has happened, or will happen someday.

Would you forego your car because of innocent deaths on the road? How about getting rid of your medication because one person in a million has a fatal reaction to it? Perhaps you'd like to abandon heart surgery because there isn't a 100% success rate.

It's a fallacious standard, a dishonest argument and a complete waste of time.



Keeping it will not result in a rash of dead inncocents. Slippery slope, indeed.

Rash? Of course not. I'm not that mistrustful of our justice system. But, in the U.S. more than 100 death row inmates have been exonorated since the death penalty was reinstated. You ask, would I give up driving because people die in car acidents? No. I do however drive a Volvo. I want a reasonably safe and reliable car. I also want a reasonably safe and reliable justice system. Not executing people, but imprisoning them for life instead is an admission to fallibility. Executing people is denying that, or is at best, considering fallibility to be relatively unimportant.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

True. But I think you'll agree that an innocent person being executed by the state is a lot worse than an innocent person spending X number of years in jail.

Sure and spending X number of years in prison is a lot worse than an innocent person paying an undeserved fine. I doubt anyone would argue in favor of merely fining criminals for certain crimes.

The death penalty is appropriate in degree to certain crimes, imo. The fact that it is sometimes wrongly applied is unfortunate but not a good enough reason in itself for abolishing it.

 

[Tony]

I'll agree to that. I'm a death penalty supporter, but I will agree to that statement. In the same way that I would say an innocent person serving 20 years is worse than an innocent person serving 1 year. As with just about everything in the human condition, it isn't all-or-nothing. It is a matter of finding where to draw the line.

So what are you saying? You support the implementation of the death penalty regardless of whether innocent people will die?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So what are you saying? You support the implementation of the death penalty regardless of whether innocent people will die?

Do you support imprisonment regardless of the fact of whether innocent people are imprisoned?

 

[Freakshow]

Do you support imprisonment regardless of the fact of whether innocent people are imprisoned?

Yeah, what he said.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure and spending X number of years in prison is a lot worse than an innocent person paying an undeserved fine. I doubt anyone would argue in favor of merely fining criminals for certain crimes.

The death penalty is appropriate in degree to certain crimes, imo. The fact that it is sometimes wrongly applied is unfortunate but not a good enough reason in itself for abolishing it.

Now that's a good point. Now the discussion's based on whether death is a punishment proportionate to some crimes. It probably is. However, aren't we supposed to be better than horrible criminals, rather than try to be at least as horrible as they are? Shouldn't there be some line we won't cross in administering punishment? That line is clearly drawn at "cruel and unusal punishment". Shouldn't that also include death?

 

[Tony]

Sure and spending X number of years in prison is a lot worse than an innocent person paying an undeserved fine. I doubt anyone would argue in favor of merely fining criminals for certain crimes.

Comparing death to spending time in jail or a fine is a false and dishonest comparison.

The death penalty is appropriate in degree to certain crimes, imo.

I agree, certain crimes. But I don't trust the state to find genuine guilt all the time, which is why I am against the implementation of the death penalty.

The fact that it is sometimes wrongly applied is unfortunate but not a good enough reason in itself for abolishing it.

Ahh, state sanctioned murder of innocent people is now "unfortunate". You surprise me Nyarlathotep, I thought you were better than that.

Actually, when it comes to the state murdering innocent people, the fact that it is sometimes wrongly applied is the best reason for abolishing it.

 

[Tony]

Do you support imprisonment regardless of the fact of whether innocent people are imprisoned?

Honestly, no, I don't. But that is a subject for another thread and is completely unrelated to the idea of killing an innocent person.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yeah, what he said.

No, I don't support it. Infact, having a syetm of appeals, further investigations from new evidence and etc. show that we admit it exists, and have built a system to accomodate those situations.

I'll ask you a related question. If the wrong person is found guilty of a crime, would you prefer that the true perpertrator go unpunished? If we wrongly execute someone for say, a murder, and later evidence exonorates them, we may have just executed a witness, aside from an innocent person.

 

[Freakshow]

Honestly, no, I don't. But that is a subject for another thread and is completely unrelated to the idea of killing an innocent person.

Please start that thread. It sounds like an interesting discussion.

 

[bagtaggar]

We should keep him alive. Really.

I love that my tax money goes into toilet paper he can wipe his arse with. That makes me happy on the inside.

He was nominated for the nobel peace prize, eh?

Didn't Yassir Arafat recieve one? And I believe even Hitler was nominated for it once, which is some indication of what a sham the prize really is.

But that aside, let the goofball fry. I have no problem putting someone to death.

Even better if they're actually guilty of something.

 

[Tony]

Didn't Yassir Arafat recieve one? And I believe even Hitler was nominated for it once, which is some indication of what a sham the prize really is.

So did Bush. Being nominated is nothing, anyone can be nominated.

 

[Jocko]

Rash? Of course not. I'm not that mistrustful of our justice system. But, in the U.S. more than 100 death row inmates have been exonorated since the death penalty was reinstated. You ask, would I give up driving because people die in car acidents? No. I do however drive a Volvo. I want a reasonably safe and reliable car. I also want a reasonably safe and reliable justice system. Not executing people, but imprisoning them for life instead is an admission to fallibility. Executing people is denying that, or is at best, considering fallibility to be relatively unimportant.

Fair enough, but I fail to see why pushing for the most reliable justice system possible precludes a death penalty. You treat it as if the one naturally follows from the other; I don't see that at all.

If you argue that the possibility of a wrongful execution precludes capital punishment, then what possible distinction can you draw between that and abolishing incarceration? You ask me what a life is worth; let me ask you what 40 years of your life is worth.

You're taking a leap of faith no matter what you do, but it's the same leap of faith you take when you trust the person standing next to you on the train platform not to shove you in front of a locomotive. Acceptable risks are an everyday phenomenon, we just rarely notice them.

 

[Freakshow]

No, I don't support it. Infact, having a syetm of appeals, further investigations from new evidence and etc. show that we admit it exists, and have built a system to accomodate those situations.

I'll ask you a related question. If the wrong person is found guilty of a crime, would you prefer that the true perpertrator go unpunished?

Of course not. If sometime later, some information comes out that the wrong person was executed, then that needs to be made available and properly dealt with.

 

[cbish]

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office recapitulates the case against Mr. Williams and adds some comments in their response to his clemency petition, here . (57 page .pdf file)

Thanks Manny. The evidence starts on pg. 17. I think everyone should read this.