Tookie Williams: clemency denied

[Jocko]

No, it's not irrelevant. It highlights the flaws of your system and the fact that people have been wrongly convicted and executed.

So, let's check the score so far:

Lack of evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.
Contrary evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.

Have I missed anything here, Tony? I mean, since no one ever seems to look into these things after an execution (ImaginalDisc), and since two exonorated prisoners proves that safeguards are ineffectual(!?), then there really isn't much left to your argument than puerile appeals to emotion, isn't there?

Right about now is the time you drop in some 7th-grade insult, of course, so by all means get to it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Jocko, I'm sticking to the facts here, no need for the ad hominem. Please try visiting the link I provided. It lists scores of exonorated persons, not merely two.

 

[WildCat]

So, let's check the score so far:

Lack of evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.
Contrary evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.

Have I missed anything here, Tony? I mean, since no one ever seems to look into these things after an execution (ImaginalDisc), and since two exonorated prisoners proves that safeguards are ineffectual(!?), then there really isn't much left to your argument than puerile appeals to emotion, isn't there?

Right about now is the time you drop in some 7th-grade insult, of course, so by all means get to it.

You're missing the point. Look at all the convictions overturned based solely on DNA evidence. Did wrongful convictions only start happening in the last 20 years or so that DNA testing has become available? You must accept that premise to make the claim that innocent people haven't been executed.

 

[Tony]

So, let's check the score so far:

Lack of evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.
Contrary evidence=evidence that innocents are put to death.

Have I missed anything here, Tony?

Yes you have. Your position is based on the assumption that the justice system was perfect and that no innocent people were executed or convicted prior to DNA testing.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

And as I have pointed out, most of these overturned convictions were the result of DNA testing and DNA testing alone. Do you really think it likely that no one was wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed before the advent of DNA testing?

I have no doubt they were. How far do we want to go back to the days before DNA testing? Before blood typing? Before fingerprinting? I have no numbers but I would bet that as you go back before each of these major advances you get more and more false convictions. And as future advances are made you will get fewer and fewer. But the fact that the system is not perfect is no reason to scrap it all together because no system is perfect and it will never be. We throw people in jail for life knowing full well that some innocents get thrown in by acident too. If society deems execution a suitable punishment for some crimes then we have to accep that some mistakes will be made. It is harsh, but its a fact.

 

[Jocko]

Yes you have. Your position is based on the assumption that the justice system was perfect and that no innocent people were executed or convicted prior to DNA testing.

Show me where I - or anyone, for that matter - have even suggested that assumption is true.

I'll even start the ball rolling by showing you where I said the opposite:

Now, as a DP supporter, I understand that the odds clearly dictate an almost certainty that it has happened, and will eventually happen again.

Comment?

 

[Tony]

I have no doubt they were. How far do we want to go back to the days before DNA testing?

Since we're talking about this issue in an American context. Let's go back to the time when the Constitution was ratified.

But the fact that the system is not perfect is no reason to scrap it all together because no system is perfect and it will never be.

Strawman. No-one is proposing that we scrap the whole system.

If society deems execution a suitable punishment for some crimes then we have to accep that some mistakes will be made.

That is a non-sequitor. No matter what "society" (read: politicians) deems acceptable, we never have to accept that mistakes will be made.

Besides, you're moving the goal posts. You ask for evidence that people have been wrongly convicted/executed, we give it. Now you say "that's the way it has to be". That is a position founded in cowardess.


It is harsh, but its a fact

 

[Jocko]

You're missing the point. Look at all the convictions overturned based solely on DNA evidence. Did wrongful convictions only start happening in the last 20 years or so that DNA testing has become available? You must accept that premise to make the claim that innocent people haven't been executed.

Is DNA testing the only means of reversing a conviction? Come on, that's obviously not the case, even if I DID say no innocents have ever been exectued, which I didn't.

I'm an Illinois boy myself, and the hoopla over Ryan's purgatory-dodging clemency has much more to do with incompetence of defense attorneys and loose ethics of prosecutors than it does with the DP itself.

Put it this way: the same problems that resulted in all those overturned sentences probably - statistically, one could almost say definitely - have resulted in hundreds and hundreds of non-DP convictions over the same period of time. And yet, no one seems interested in reviewing those. So how many centuries of incarceration are worth one executed innocent?

 

[Tony]

Show me where I - or anyone, for that matter - have even suggested that assumption is true.

Now, as a DP supporter, I understand that the odds clearly dictate an almost certainty that it has happened, and will eventually happen again.

Aww, so when you claim there is no evidence, you're just wasting bandwidth? Playing dumb? Just trolling? Why are you even posting in this thread? Its clear from this post that there is no coherance or consistency to your position and your demented mind has already decided that you accept government murder of innocent people.

Let's all drink to the fruit of Jacko's ideas:

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Since we're talking about this issue in an American context. Let's go back to the time when the Constitution was ratified.

I don't think you can make a Constitutional argument out of this. The death penalty is not forbidden in the constitution and was applied in the days that the constitution was created for a wider range of crimes and at a flimsier standard of evidence. The founding fathers quite obiviously did not see it as 'cruel and unusual' nor apparently does the majority of citizens living now.

That is a non-sequitor. No matter what "society" (read: politicians) deems acceptable, we never have to accept the mistakes will be made.

Besides, you're moving the goal posts. You ask for evidence that people have been wrongly convicted/executed, we give it. Now you say "that's the way it has to be". That is a position founded in cowardess.

Yes we do have to accept it. We can try to rectify mistakes, we can try to keep mistakes from being made int he future, but nothing will ever change the fact that people screw up on occasion and mistakes are made, occasionally these mistakes cost lives. If we avoid doing everything where a mistake might cost a life or two then there is very little we can do.

And I am not moving the goal posts at all. If you can't provide evidence of any cases where a person has actually been executed who was later exhonorated (since the death penalty made a comeback in 76) that leads me to conclude that it is a very rare thing, though I have no doubt that it could happen.

 

[Jocko]

Aww, so when you claim there is no evidence, you're just wasting bandwidth? Playing dumb? Just trolling? Why are you even posting in this thread? Its clear from this post that there is no coherance or consistency to your position and your demented mind has already decided that you accept government murder of innocent people.

Sorry to upset you, Tony, but when you claim to knock down an argument I never made, well... that's call a straw man. Now, you can be an adult and back up your contention that I declared the justice system perfect, or you can just stick to your juvenile mudslinging.

As to why I'm posting here... well, why don't you see who started this thread?

Let's all drink to the fruit of Jacko's ideas:

Looks like you've already had enough to drink, Tony.

 

[Ladewig]

I take the list of exhonorations as proof that the system DOES work, the innocent were set free, weren't they?

I take many of these exhonerations as evidence that the system doesn't work because journalism students are not part of the criminal justice system.
(http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/specialprograms/innocence/) When undergraduates who are not even studying law can find mistakes as big as putting an innocent person on death row, then it is absurd to suggest that the legal system is working. Furthermore, during the period when all these innocent people were sitting on death row, the police were not searching for the real murderers.

 

[Santa666]

Everybody seems to be playing ring-around-the-rosie here and not actually accomplishing anything. An argument has been made that the death penalty should be abolished because innocent people may be executed. This very unfortunate result has not been refuted. The counter argument is that innocent people are punished/killed all the time but we do not abolish those practices. I would like to answer both ideas and counter arguments.

Argument: Ban capital punishment because a single innocent life is more valuable than that of a murderer. You cannot abide the killing of innocent people.

Counter argument: Innocent lives are shed all the time for many different reasons, even under unfair circumstances, yet we do not ban those practices. Why jail people because innocent people might rot in jail for the rest of their lives? What value do you place on the next 20 years of your life, or the next 40?

Santa's dual answer: Capital punishment is the only government policy where the intended end result is death. That end result is only intended for a minute segment of the population, those who commit crimes warranting the death penalty. Other goverment policies or actions, while they may result in the death of innocent people, are not intended to result in death. If the goverment must execute its citizens, then it needs to be damn sure it is executing the right ones. In a situation where absolute guilt cannot be discerned, no room is left to rectify the situation if you execute the convicted. Death cannot be undone. A life sentence can. No, years lost cannot be given back, but freedom can be restored. No part of the death penalty can be corrected once implemented. We hold death as the ultimate punishment, yet we do not require ultimate proof. We only require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You cannot compare imprisonment to execution. One cannot be fixed, the other can. While I cannot place a dollar value on the next 20 years of my life, I would still like to live those years. I could not do that if I were executed.

Side note: Many here have also brought up the issue of prison expense for feeding and housing and entertaining inmates. I do not in any way agree with this. Prison is a place of punishment and one should not be able to go to prison and acheive a more fulfilling life than they had outside of prison. This is the case for some places and it absolutely uncalled for.


My two cents,

Santa

 

[Miggins]

Tookie, hmm, well no one but his reletives and his hysterical hangers on are going to mourn his passing, are they?
The thing is, you can`t really have an er um death penalty. Either the governent sanctions killing people, or it doesn`t, and if it does, there are always going to be innocents murdered. In my opinion, the death penalty is a crude and medieval answer to crime, too open to corruption and media manipulation.
Couldn`t they have put Tookey in a cell and played ABBA to him 24 hours a day, whilst manufacturing braille books for blind children?
We got rid of capital punishment years ago in this country, and I think it has made us a better society.

 

[WildCat]

I have no doubt they were. How far do we want to go back to the days before DNA testing? Before blood typing? Before fingerprinting? I have no numbers but I would bet that as you go back before each of these major advances you get more and more false convictions. And as future advances are made you will get fewer and fewer. But the fact that the system is not perfect is no reason to scrap it all together because no system is perfect and it will never be. We throw people in jail for life knowing full well that some innocents get thrown in by acident too. If society deems execution a suitable punishment for some crimes then we have to accep that some mistakes will be made. It is harsh, but its a fact.

Is DNA testing the only means of reversing a conviction? Come on, that's obviously not the case, even if I DID say no innocents have ever been exectued, which I didn't.

I'm an Illinois boy myself, and the hoopla over Ryan's purgatory-dodging clemency has much more to do with incompetence of defense attorneys and loose ethics of prosecutors than it does with the DP itself.

Put it this way: the same problems that resulted in all those overturned sentences probably - statistically, one could almost say definitely - have resulted in hundreds and hundreds of non-DP convictions over the same period of time. And yet, no one seems interested in reviewing those. So how many centuries of incarceration are worth one executed innocent?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm in favor of the death penalty. But if we're going to put people on trial for their lives, we'd better make damn sure they have a proper defense, and to fund it appropriately so the defense also has access to expert witnesses, lab testing of evidence, attorney's who are experienced in death penalty cases, etc. And the prosecution and police must be above board and fully transparent, in an attempt to avoid the misconduct and shenanigans we've seen here in Illinois. This includes video taping interrogations and confessions.

All I'm saying is that we could do better.

And of course Tookie got the proper punishment.

 

[WildCat]

Couldn`t they have put Tookey in a cell and played ABBA to him 24 hours a day, whilst manufacturing braille books for blind children?

Clearly a violation of the eighth amendment.

We got rid of capital punishment years ago in this country, and I think it has made us a better society.

Surely, you jest...

 

[Jocko]

Don't misunderstand me, I'm in favor of the death penalty. But if we're going to put people on trial for their lives, we'd better make damn sure they have a proper defense, and to fund it appropriately so the defense also has access to expert witnesses, lab testing of evidence, attorney's who are experienced in death penalty cases, etc. And the prosecution and police must be above board and fully transparent, in an attempt to avoid the misconduct and shenanigans we've seen here in Illinois. This includes video taping interrogations and confessions.

All I'm saying is that we could do better.

And of course Tookie got the proper punishment.

Totally agreed that the system should always be improved and made more accountable. I'm just saying that as a consequence of that improvement, people of good conscience should be more confident in the DP; people like Tony, however, just use the issue as a smokescreen for their hatred of authority and social order, which is why NO system will ever satisfy his need for "justice"... because justice isn't what he's after.

 

[Jas]

Let's all drink to the fruit of Jacko's ideas:

Is there a reason that you feel the need to post thatpicture repeatedly? Am I missing something.

For the record, I'm pro death penalty, and I wish that we had it in Canada.

I'm also pro-castration and flogging as well.

I suppose that would be capital punishment in general.

 

[mgidm86]

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.

Sorry to quote myself but where is the logic behind the death penalty? I have not seen a good example of why this is better than life in prison.

On the other hand, I have seen logical arguements against capital punishment such as cost, no evidence of deterrent, innocents being executed, not to mention the more emotional notion that the idea that our government kills people deliberately is wrong.

Perhaps we should keep score.
***********************
Against Capital Punishment:

Logical:
- more expensive than life imprisonment
- no evidence that it is a deterrent
- likelihood of innocents being executed

Emotional:
- state sanctioned killing of its citizens is barbaric


Pro Capital Punishment:

Logical:
- frees up a prison bed
-

Emotional:
- revenge
- prison is too easy

*********************

Please help me fill in the blanks! So far I see the negatives far outweighing the positives.

For me personally, my arguement is mostly emotional in that I believe, in a nutshell, that "state sanctioned killing of its citizens is barbaric". That alone is reason enough to abolish it. However, I can also use the above logical arguements against it as well.

To everyone: what is your logical arguement in favor of capital punishment? Feel free to add to my list above.

 

[Rocky]

At the risk of fanning the flames, consider: At no point during Tookie Williams adult life could he be considered an "innocent" person.

-R