Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency for Williams

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 It was a hypothetical example, only.

:rolleyes:

#2 In your view, a better laywer could help Williams to get away with his crimes. Am I correct ?

Possibly, that happens more often among the wealthy. We all know it. But more importantly, a better lawyer could exonerate him. After all we (as a society) really shouldnt do what we have accused HIM of. Killing innocent people.

#3 I am not sure whether you are serious on that issue.

Sure, 25 years is not long enough. The State should postpone murdering anybody, indefinitely. Once a criminal is arrested. The only time the State should kill is as a last resort, to prevent deaths of citizens or peace officers in society.
Society was not in any danger from this guy. He was contained. Who profits from his murder? Do you think the victims families profit? That revenge is so good, it should be carried out by Big Brother?

#4 In other words : - award a bandit

Putting a guy in prison for the rest of his life aint no prize.

[tman_ndsu08]

Regardless,

if someone is convicted of murder and sentenced to death, it should not take 20 years for them to carry out the sentence.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel ABC News The republican culture of death has spoken. California will murder, with malice aforethought, a man who may be innocent.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Imagine! Carrying out the sentence against a multiple murderer.

But Tookie wrote some kiddie books. That absolves all sin.

Who knows what the four victims may have done, were they to have been allowed to live. But that’s neither here nor there. We don’t know what they would have done. WE KNOW that Tookie wrote books and said not to join the Gang he helped to create.

The victims are dead. Dead at the hands of Tookie because he needed the $127.00 out the till. After all, he had as much right to that money as the store owner. And that guy lying on the ground was a threat to Tookie’s ability to write Kiddie books. They can’t be brought back. But Tookie may write another kiddie book.

Keep Tookie alive! Abort your children, because we don’t know what they may do, but we know Tookie writes books.

Euthanize the elderly. After all, their old and just what value can their life hold. Besides, they drain Social Security. Tookie writes Kiddie books.

Republicans have a culture of death. Tookie only causes death. But its not in his culture. He writes Kiddie books. That’s Tookie’s culture.

[M.M.Knox]

The victims are dead. Dead at the hands of Tookie because he needed the $127.00 out the till. After all, he had as much right to that money as the store owner. And that guy lying on the ground was a threat to Tookie’s ability to write Kiddie books. They can’t be brought back. But Tookie may write another kiddie book.

Well, America as a society would have likely benefited more from keeping Tookie writing books and promoting anti-gang mentalities than killing him because of some bullshit idea like moral absolution and revenge for the poor, dead 7-11 clerk.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: M.M.Knox Well, America as a society would have likely benefited more from keeping Tookie writing books and promoting anti-gang mentalities than killing him because of some bullshit idea like moral absolution and revenge for the poor, dead 7-11 clerk.

Do you oppose the death penalty?

[M.M.Knox]

Do you oppose the death penalty?

Not at all.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: M.M.Knox Not at all.

I take it then that you oppose this sentence because you feel his crime did not deserve the penalty.

If so, then we will disagree on that point.

If it is not the sentence itself, but rather the asserted "change of character" which Tookie has undergone, then we will disagree as to whether it matters how a person moderates in the interim between sentencing and carrying out the sentence.

It makes absolutely no difference how much a person changes after the crime. The crime earns the sentence. That is the behavior that defines the issue. Any subsequent change is suspect in nature, as such “changes” can be falsified in order to garner favor.

Tookie’s murderous behavior earned him the sentence I feel he deserved. After committing the crime, and receiving the sentence, every moment he exists is borrowed time. Time borrowed from the victims he slaughtered. Any change that occur in that borrowed time has no bearing on the eventual outcome.

Am I to assume that had Tookie not made some incomplete public statements of remorse, you would not support a stay of execution?

[Roberto]

Quote by: Apeman81 It makes absolutely no difference how much a person changes after the crime. The crime earns the sentence. That is the behavior that defines the issue. Any subsequent change is suspect in nature, as such “changes” can be falsified in order to garner favor.

There are three objectives for incarcerating someone.

1. Keep dangerous people away from society.
2. Punish criminals for their crime in the hope that punishment acts as a deterent to crime
3. Rehabilitation of the criminal so s/he can become a useful member of society instead of being a drain.

So it does make a big difference how much a person changes after the crime.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Apeman81 Imagine! Carrying out the sentence against a multiple murderer

First of all I am not absolutely positive that he did the crime. His trial was unfair:

The U.S. Supreme Court, on October 11, 2005, ruled against Tookie on his final appeal and set his execution date for December 13. Thus they disregarded 9 of the 24 Ninth Circuit Court judges' assertion that the District Attorney at Tookie's trial employed "reprehensible and unconstitutional" racist tactics, using animal-in-a-jungle metaphors to refer to Tookie and to the South Central environment in which he lived. This landmark ruling means that minorities can now legally be rejected from juries based on race. This is now the law of the land. (download fact sheet about Tookie's case)

Thats from http://www.tookie.com/.

Sounds like you have your mind made up and you wont be budged by facts.

I am not saying he hasnt done anything that doesnt deserve life in prison. Just that they didnt have a very strong case for the crimes that they finally murdered him for.

He was contained. He was an advocate for good. Killing him didnt end crime.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Roberto There are three objectives for incarcerating someone. 1. Keep dangerous people away from society.

For a time, yes.

2. Punish criminals for their crime in the hope that punishment acts as a deterent to crime

For some crimes (such as murder) it takes a certain genetic make up to be capable of the act. If you have the genes and the right situation comes about, you will murder. If you don't, you won't. Simple as that.

So there is no punishment that can ever act as a deterent.

3. Rehabilitation of the criminal so s/he can become a useful member of society instead of being a drain.

Again, it's a genetic make up. Unless you're performing costly gene therapy, they will not ever be rehabilitated.

So it does make a big difference how much a person changes after the crime.

But they still commited the crime. Justice must be served.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Why Tookie should not have been murdered.........

From the link in my last post:

[M.M.Knox]

For some crimes (such as murder) it takes a certain genetic make up to be capable of the act. If you have the genes and the right situation comes about, you will murder. If you don't, you won't. Simple as that.

Genetic makeup? Are you sure? I seriously want a link.

But they still commited the crime. Justice must be served.

This is a profoundly stupid notion that some behaviours actually merit a purely symbolic reaction. Justice? What the hell do you think justice is?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Roberto There are three objectives for incarcerating someone. 1. Keep dangerous people away from society. 2. Punish criminals for their crime in the hope that punishment acts as a deterent to crime 3. Rehabilitation of the criminal so s/he can become a useful member of society instead of being a drain. So it does make a big difference how much a person changes after the crime.

Tookie was not incarcerated. He was held for execution. The sentence of death negates the objectives you quote as the sentence implies that society has judged that the third is unobtainable.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: M.M.Knox Genetic makeup? Are you sure?

Are you saying it's not?

Psychologists like to think they can change a persons personality. But personality is as genetically defined as a persons arm or leg. You can't change a persons genetics by talking to them or shocking them with electricity.

This is a profoundly stupid notion that some behaviours actually merit a purely symbolic reaction. Justice? What the hell do you think justice is?

Justice is doing to a person exactly what they did to you.

[M.M.Knox]

I take it then that you oppose this sentence because you feel his crime did not deserve the penalty. If so, then we will disagree on that point.

No, and I don't understand how this misunderstanding could have occurred. I stated specifically the fact that the anti-gang efforts on the part of Williams are greater in benefit to society than killing him, and for that reason, he should have been granted clemency.

It makes absolutely no difference how much a person changes after the crime. The crime earns the sentence.

A past-committed crime is never a continuing danger, threat or affecting agent to anyone, nor could it's hypothetical reverberations exterminated by locking up it's perpetrator. I really don't understand this concept of symobolic, arbitrary justice.

Am I to assume that had Tookie not made some incomplete public statements of remorse, you would not support a stay of execution?

Please, you must think me a liberal.

[M.M.Knox]

Are you saying it's not? Psychologists like to think they can change a persons personality. But personality is as genetically defined as a persons arm or leg. You can't change a persons genetics by talking to them or shocking them with electricity.

I want a link. Don't post bullshit if it's unsubstatiated. Some people may have incurable pathological conditions that cause them to murder, but I doubt it's ever caused by one's genetic makeup because murder, the concept and desire at least, is socially introduced.

I also doubt if incurable murderous compulsions are very prevalent, because it would seem that most murders are correlative with social conditions.

Justice is doing to a person exactly what they did to you.

Why would we even have a moderator such as the justice system if this were true?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Putting a guy in prison for the rest of his life aint no prize.

Which is more cruel punishment, in your opinion :
- life sentence
- death penalty