Tookie Williams: clemency denied

[Tony]

Well, it is 2:14 Houston time which means its 12:14 in Cali. Tookie should be in the chamber as I write this. Let me reiterate that this whole situation, with the lives it has needlessly claimed, is a tragedy.

 

[mgidm86]

I read most of that PDF file as well. The evidence, testimonies, hand written notes. At 12:36 am he was put to death. My local broadcast showed the "leader" of the protest stating that this case proved that people could change and Tookie was just wonderful, etc. He obviously didn't see the same evidence I did.

I don't anticipate riots. I think most people around here believe Tookie to be exactly what he was judged to be. I agree that this entire mess is a tragedy.

Although I see that people are attempting to argue logically here, I find some posters' acceptance of the possibility that innocents will be executed a bit chilling.

I see no reasoning behind the idea of capital punishment over life imprisonment, only emotion. I suppose it will free up a bed in the system, but whatever advantages anyone has yet conjured in this thread do not, in my mind, balance out the fact that we allow our government to kill its own citizens as a form of punishment, which is not only shameful, but illogical as well.

I will say that I believe it was correct for Ah-nold etc. to uphold the ruling. The system should be changed, but not through pressure from a handful of misinformed celebrities and a knee-jerk political move by a Governor.

Perhaps I'll jump back in after a good 10 hours of sleep.

 

[Darat]

Why has it taken so long for him to be executed?

 

[mgidm86]

About the time delay...

All I heard were guesses from the reporters: maybe it took awhile to find a vein, maybe the witnesses weren't ready on time. Apparently it's not uncommon for some leeway in the schedule.

I missed the statements on TV from the witnesses, they may have filled in the details (I was too busy typing the previous post).


edit for spellllling, and this...

It's also interesting how everyone played this guy. I mean this really was a great poster boy for the anti-chair crowd, so they thought anyways. So misguided in their tactics...

- He's got a cute loveable little name...Tookie!!! Awwwwww!!!!!
- Tookie writes childrens book-ies! He loves kids!
- He's black!
- He thinks gangs are bad...BAD!
- He co-founded an organization to unite young black men (The Crips).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Can we have both?

Not quite. It's a sociological term. Societies of honor deal with criminal behavior through revenge, metted out by the wronged parties. Societies of law deal with criminal behavior by having a seperate, impartial justice system. Societies of honor exist in nomadic cultures, and sparsely populated regions, such as the old west. You can't really have it both ways.

 

[Ed]

The Tookser bought it.

Odd case, bad poster boy. All calm in LA.

Interesting how some racisists assume what black behavior will be.

 

[Mephisto]

I just hope that Tookies' final lesson sincerely reaches out to young potential gang members/criminals.

Kill someone ruthlessly and you could get the death penalty. Also, neither the passage of time nor your accomplishments on death row will blur the memory of your crime. IF you're inclined to be creative, spend your time doing that INSTEAD of committing crimes. Then maybe you won't end up like Tookie.

 

[bob_kark]

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.

I agree and I think the statistics on this back up your statement.

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 is why I favor prison labor. I think that inmates should have to work to help pay their costs. However, it is still more expensive to execute an inmate than to give him life in prison. In fact, I found this little quote:

Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis.
-- Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999

So really, if we don't kill them, we can have more money for homeless children. Although, I think you'll agree, prisoners are not really taking money away from homeless children and if these funds were saved by revoking the death penalty, its very unlikely that they would invest them in the homeless.

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.

The only reason why I would ever press for clemency is that I don't believe in capital punishment. I don't see the benefit of it but I do see the cost. When you live in a democracy by the people, for the people, you share in the responsibilty of the laws, rules, regulations, etc... I don't appreciate the fact that I have anyone's blood on my hands whether they are guilty or innocent unless an innocent life is at stake.

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.

I don't believe the law stops anyone personally from killing people. It deters it, but if you don't have the moral stability to control yourself, it certainly won't stop you. As far as Tookie's situation is concerned, he was a low-life heartless scumbag as far as I can tell. He may have had a revelation late in life but that in no way made up for his crimes. I really don't know how he may have answered that question and I really don't care. However, it still doesn't sway me from my position against capital punishment and I'm sure it wouldn't change anyone's mind that is for capital punishment.

 

[Ed]

I just hope that Tookies' final lesson sincerely reaches out to young potential gang members/criminals.

Kill someone ruthlessly and you could get the death penalty. Also, neither the passage of time nor your accomplishments on death row will blur the memory of your crime. IF you're inclined to be creative, spend your time doing that INSTEAD of committing crimes. Then maybe you won't end up like Tookie.

Hmmmm..... brings this movie to mind


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029870/

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I just hope that Tookies' final lesson sincerely reaches out to young potential gang members/criminals.

Kill someone ruthlessly and you could get the death penalty. Also, neither the passage of time nor your accomplishments on death row will blur the memory of your crime. IF you're inclined to be creative, spend your time doing that INSTEAD of committing crimes. Then maybe you won't end up like Tookie.

While that might be a comforting fairy story, all the research I am aware of indicates that the death penalty does not deter other criminals.

Nothing was gained by this twenty-year legal boondoggle and the subsequent judicial killing. No crimes were prevented or deterred. The only "benefit" is that some people who enjoyed the idea of a man being put to death had their fantasy gratified.

 

[punchdrunk]

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.

At some point you have to accept that the system is imperfect, mistakes will be made and move on; the alternative is to never hold anyone respnosible for their crimes lest a mistake be made.

IMO, it is acceptable that innocent people will be forced to rot in a jail cell because the alternative is as you say: never holding anyone responsible for their crimes, never getting bad people off the streets. In other words, I accept the possibility of innocent people being incarcerated because the alternative is unacceptable. So the question is, what is the alternative to never putting an innocent person to death? Better asked: what does the death penalty do for us and is the absence of that benefit unacceptable? Unlike incarceration, whose societal benefit is obvious and hopefully indisputable, I see no benefit derived from the death penalty that cannot be accomplished otherwise with life in prison.

 

[rikzilla]

While that might be a comforting fairy story, all the research I am aware of indicates that the death penalty does not deter other criminals.

The death penalty does however boast a zero% recidivism rate amongst those to whom it was applied. Tookie will not kill again; and that is an assurance that a "life" prison sentence cannot give.

Nothing was gained by this twenty-year legal boondoggle and the subsequent judicial killing. No crimes were prevented or deterred. The only "benefit" is that some people who enjoyed the idea of a man being put to death had their fantasy gratified.

True...the appeals process should be accelerated and these convicted murderers should be dealt their death sentences within 5, not 20 years. As far as crimes prevented or deterred; you have no evidence for your statement. Simply; you have offered an opinion. The opposite opinion and everything in between is just as valid.

You are correct that some sick individuals get their rocks off watching other people die. "Tookie" was one of those kind; only his fantasy was not "gratified"; he fulfilled it. Good riddance.

-z

 

[bagtaggar]

Oh NOOOOOO!!!

TOOOOOOOKIE!!! LAWDY NO!!!

OH NO TOOOOOKIE!!!

*ahem*

I never understood the whole idea of "so, so, taking the murderer's life somehow rectifies the death of the one murdered?" That's so damn silly, as if somehow justice is measured by the ratio of innocent deaths to guilty deaths? What?

The point is this: a consequence of taking someone elses life is that you put your own life at risk. If you are willing to kill someone, the government will kill you. Whether or not this is a deterrant to actual murder is beside the point. It's a matter of principle. I fail to see how justice is served when you kill four people, only to have hard working innocent tax payers work to keep you alive for 20 years. No one needs you. You made a mistake. You pay for that mistake with your life. If you kill someone, even with the knowledge of the death penalty, that's your own prerogative. But the consequence is death.

You may redeem yourself in the eyes of your deity, your community, etc by doing good works after the murder. And that's fine. You're still going to die. The least you can do is make good on the time you have left, and your reward should not be life, but the sense of honor in doing the right thing for a change.

 

[punchdrunk]

The death penalty does however boast a zero% recidivism rate amongst those to whom it was applied. Tookie will not kill again; and that is an assurance that a "life" prison sentence cannot give.

A life sentence properly applied should mean just that - life in jail, no possibility of getting out, no possibility of recidivism.

As far as crimes prevented or deterred; you have no evidence for your statement. Simply; you have offered an opinion. The opposite opinion and everything in between is just as valid.

How about an article from Skeptical Enquirer?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

Many more articles about the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent are on that site as well.

 

[punchdrunk]

Oh NOOOOOO!!!

TOOOOOOOKIE!!! LAWDY NO!!!

OH NO TOOOOOKIE!!!

*ahem*

'ahem' indeed. What is the point of this?

 

[Mephisto]

While that might be a comforting fairy story, all the research I am aware of indicates that the death penalty does not deter other criminals.

Well, it certainly deters at least one criminal. I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily deter other criminals, but that's not the purpose of the death penalty.

Nothing was gained by this twenty-year legal boondoggle and the subsequent judicial killing. No crimes were prevented or deterred. The only "benefit" is that some people who enjoyed the idea of a man being put to death had their fantasy gratified.

I don't think anyone here enjoyed the idea of executing anyone. It should be seen as a failure by society in general that executions are deemed necessary, but life imprisonment for truly dangerous convicts could endanger other inmates serving time for lesser offenses - you don't think a convicted murderer would hesitate to kill another inmate.

It's a sad affair to be true, but it's sadder yet that the impact of Tookie's crimes have been blurred by time.

 

[Mephisto]

The only reason why I would ever press for clemency is that I don't believe in capital punishment. I don't see the benefit of it but I do see the cost. When you live in a democracy by the people, for the people, you share in the responsibilty of the laws, rules, regulations, etc... I don't appreciate the fact that I have anyone's blood on my hands whether they are guilty or innocent unless an innocent life is at stake.

Well put, Bob. I understand your views completely and I wish it could be otherwise, but I firmly believe that some people simply don't deserve to live, and people willing to kill a family or an unarmed man rate high on that list.

The problem with Democracy is that we're often asked to swallow those things the majority agree upon, but are directly opposed to our own sensibilities. I feel the same way about the war in Iraq where thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people have died.

 

[Mephisto]

'ahem' indeed. What is the point of this?

Indeed!

 

[DoubtingStephen]

I'll side with Cleon and Ryokan, but I can't deny that I feel much more sorry for Tookie's victims.

My problem with the death penalty is that it's handed out so unevenly. Technological advances in forensics have proven the innocence of many a death row inmate, and that is a mistake the State cannot afford to make in a democratic society.

But, in the instances where guilt is proven beyond a doubt in crimes as heinous as those committed by Mr. Williams my sympathies lie with the victims.

Of course it is correct to sympathize with the victims, and I do agree that society has often executed innocent men and women, but my concern goes beyond these two issues.

As human beings, we should value human life above all other things, mythical or real.

In order to teach, promote, and reinforce the value of human life throughout our entire society the state should take a leadership role by refraining from intentionally killing human beings.

Even if we do not all agree that human life is of the greatest value, certainly it must be obvious that there is a horrible contradiction when the state says it is wrong to kill people, then proceeds to kill people.

This man who was just executed was a monster who deserved no support at all, but we should not cheapen ourselves by stooping to his level.

Murderers must be restrained, of course, but killing only reinforces killing.

 

[Mephisto]

As human beings, we should value human life above all other things, mythical or real.

I agree wholeheartedly, but there are others who don't feel the same way and wouldn't hesitate to kill you or anyone in your family if A. the advantage to them was great enough, or B. they thought they could get away with it.

Murderers must be restrained, of course, but killing only reinforces killing.

But I see a definite difference between killing (what the criminal does) and execution (the method used to carry out the death penalty). I'm not sure if you're aware of the recent spate of prison escapes in the U.S. but they are happening at an increasing rate (off the subject, but many experienced guards are in Iraq) and some very dangerous people have been at large for days in each instance. Is being humane to the criminal putting the innocent at risk?

Still, the punishment in this case fit the crime.