• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tookie Williams: clemency denied

casebro said:
Just to get at the root of the argument, just exactly how many proven cases of inoccents being executed are there?
Click to expand...
How many appeals can be done after an execution?

Here's a list of Illinois death row inmates exonerated recently (and it's more than the number actually executed here), and here is a breakdown for all states. It's an unacceptably high number, IMHO.
 
corplinx said:
Its a poorly implemented system. I just want the "three strikes" rule revised to be termination versus incarceration. I want to clear defective people out of the population even if one of their three felonies is a mistaken identity. I don't hold life especially sacred or anything. I kill germs every day when I wash my hands. I think humans have a cool thing going on here with science and technology and summary executions for people convicted of three unrelated felonies is a nice way to thin out the defectives. We can always re-process their bodies into nutritious foods for the poor.
Click to expand...

Next time. Just raise your hand and say you're white trash, it will use up less bandwidth.
 
manny said:
Yes, and we can disarm the cops and take out the airbags (or at least put on the cut-off switch so many people begged for when they were correctly predicting the outcome of the pre-'97 airbag regulations) and make vaccines voluntary. But we don't because we, collectively, see a benefit to offset the innocent lives lost -- other innocent lives saved, people protected from criminals, better building insulation. Society believes it gets a benefit from the implementation of the death penalty against guilty people. Recidivism among post-executed people is zero, victims achieve justice, some believe there to be a deterrent effect (or would be if the death penalty were accomplished with fewer checks and balances), etc.
Click to expand...

I agree that the deaths you mention serve a greater good, with the exception of the death penalty. Life without the possibility of parole or consecutive life sentences can also achieve the goal of keeping the criminal off of the streets. I have yet to see any proof that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. It also could be argued that the victims achieve vengence rather than justice.
 
bob_kark said:
It also could be argued that the victims achieve vengence rather than justice.
Click to expand...
No doubt about the vengeance part, but just because it is vengeance doesn't preclude it from being justice.
 
Vengence is a characteristic of societies of honor. Justice is a characterisitc of societies of law. Which do we have?
 
Im still waiting for a list of benefits we will recieve from having the death penalty. Not counting that it will give some people a patriotic boner as a benefit.
 
Panelman said:
How many felonies can a person commit in 24 years in prison while waiting.
Click to expand...
Well, there's rape, assault, murder, theft (but not enough worth to be a felony), and drug selling/use/posession (yes, there is even a drug trade in our prisons; what does that say about the effectiveness of our war on drugs?)...all of those happen in prisons.

Some organized crime members or gang members have still run things while being in prison. Conspiracy to commit certain crimes is a felony.

So...there is lots of potential.
 
RandFan said:
Great question. I would posit that when justice and vengeance collide then justice must prevail. I don't necessarily see a defacto conflict as it applies to the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Actually, I meant have both honor and justice. I think that as it was presented, it was a false dilemma.
 
WildCat said:
How many appeals can be done after an execution?

Here's a list of Illinois death row inmates exonerated recently (and it's more than the number actually executed here), and here is a breakdown for all states. It's an unacceptably high number, IMHO.
Click to expand...
If I read it correctly, those are people that were convicted, not yet executed, and then exonerated. How many have been executed and later found to be innocent?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't actually know what the number is, and thought you or someone else here would have a good link.
 
bob_kark said:
Life without the possibility of parole or consecutive life sentences can also achieve the goal of keeping the criminal off of the streets. I have yet to see any proof that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. It also could be argued that the victims achieve vengence rather than justice.
Click to expand...

I've heard the "deterrent to crime" argument and although it might prove a deterrent to a potential criminal who might stop to ponder, I believe the purpose of the death penalty is to remove the threat from society.

Besides, why should society punish the most horrible crimes by guaranteeing food, shelter, entertainment, sex, drugs and whatever is available to to the worst in our society when there are homeless children? Why should a death row inmate's well-being take precedence over innocents who will go to bed (if they have a bed) hungry and cold tonight?

This entire argument rests on whether or not Tookie knew the death penalty was a possibility when he committed the crime. Now, I PERSONALLY know that if I commit capital murder then capital punishment is a possibility, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone here who doesn't know that.

Now, answer this question - does the law STOP you personally from killing people, or is it just not in your constitution? Now, think about Tookie's situation and how he might possibily answer that question.
 
Freakshow said:
If I read it correctly, those are people that were convicted, not yet executed, and then exonerated. How many have been executed and later found to be innocent?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't actually know what the number is, and thought you or someone else here would have a good link.
Click to expand...
Problem is, once there's an execution there's no appeals, and very little investigation of any sort. I once saw a list somewhere, but these are more conjecture than fact because there simply isn't enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion.

The fact that Illinois has more exonerations than executions since the death penalty was reinstated, and that it was only the advent of DNA testing that did it, makes it logical to conclude that many innocent people have been executed in the past, before we had such technology. If it's one thing that DNA testing has proven, it's that the eyewitness testimony thought so reliable in the past isn't really reliable at all. Many people went off to Old Sparky on eyewitness testimony alone.
 
manny said:
Of course it is. But the deliberate part is killing guilty people. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm in error, that the death penalty is fatally (heh) flawed because it may have the undesired outcome of also killing some unknown but tiny number of innocent people. That argument does not hold water unless one is an anarchist. Governments do lots of things all the time which have the unintended effect of killing innocent people in furtherance of a larger goal (say, preventing a swine flu epidemic or reducing automobile fatalities or protecting the citizenry from criminals). But no one (other than anarchists and deluded woos) says "stop vaccinating people because some innocent people will die from it" -- indeed, anti-vac types are widely and correctly derided on these boards. But it's a fact -- more innocent people died from the single year of swine flu vaccinations than innocent people were killed by execution in this country since the death penalty was reinstated. So it can't be the possibility of innocent people dying alone that serves as an objection to the death penalty.
Click to expand...

While I do not wish to speak on behalf of Tony, since I tend to agree with him, I will jump in here for a moment. Automobile safety, flu vaccinnes, asbestos mining; these are all things in which the end result is not a death. In fact, the intended end result in these cases, is to prevent death. It is unfortunate that anomalies do/did occur and death resulted in some cases. In regards to the death penalty, the end result is always death. The death penalty is not in place to save lives (like vaccination or automobile safety), it is in place to end lives. This inherent difference between capital punishment and EVERY other government policy with unintended results is the problem. When the intent of the policy itself is to end lives (albeit, the intent is only to end guilty lives), and there is no foolproof method of determining guilt (thus, determining whose life is to be taken), then the policy should be reconsidered.

Everybody who supports the death penalty; for a moment place yourselves in the shoes of someone who has been convicted of a henious crime, but is actually innocent. You are now on death row. Of course, you would fight tooth and nail to prove your innocence, and hopefully the justice system will correct itself and you will be released. But what if it does not, or what if you are executed before your innocence can be proven. A loss of 20 years or 40 years of your life is grevious, but you are still alive. You NEVER get a second chance once you are dead.


Santa
 
Freakshow said:
If I read it correctly, those are people that were convicted, not yet executed, and then exonerated. How many have been executed and later found to be innocent?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't actually know what the number is, and thought you or someone else here would have a good link.
Click to expand...
Also, have you read up on how those wrongful convictions were attained? We have to do better, in terms of caliber of defense and in prosecutorial conduct and integrity, to seek a verdict as final as death.
 
An argument can be made that the death penalty simply shouldn't exist at all and an argument can be made that even if the death penalty exists we can't yet administer it in a just fashion and therefore we shouldn't execute anyone. But unfortunately for those opposed to the death penalty the most prominent voices in the media against the death penalty take neither of those tacks and instead choose the "Aw, c'mon, cut him a break, he's not that bad" approach to arguing against executions, which naturally does nothing but annoy many viewers.

Without exxageration I say that people like Mike Farrell literally do more harm than good when they go on TV to argue against a pending execution. More generally, making something, anything a cause celebre amongst celebs accomplishes nothing but make a large chunk of non-celebs lurch reflexively in the opposite direction. The celebs that engage in this must be either clueless as to how a certain segment of the public reacts to these issues or else they're only in it for publicity.
 
Hell, I'm just waiting for the riots. CNN reported that there were some, "concerns," a few days ago. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/10/tookie.clemency/

Now, I could have sworn that they were concerned last year that L.A. would have riots and I couldn't remember over what and I'm terribly afraid it was Michael Jackson.

On the upside, if they do riot, rents will go down and maybe I'll get a reprieve on my finals.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom