Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
No Mercy for Tookie
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has denied the clemency petition for former Crips gang leader Stanley Tookie Williams.
Schwarzenegger:
After studying the evidence, searching the history, listening to the arguments and wrestling with the profound consequences, I could find no justification for granting clemency.
Unless a federal court intervenes, Williams will be executed shortly after midnight for murdering four people.
|12.12.05 @ 4:41PM|#
"After studying the evidence, searching the history,
listening to the arguments and wrestling with the profound
consequences, I could find no justification for granting
clemency."
Translated: "I am in deep trouble politically and I can't afford
loosing the "law & order" voters by being lenient with this
guy."
(Remember folks, it sounds even funnier when you say it in
Ah-nold's Austrian beefcake accent.)
Killing Tookie won't make the world a better place. On the other
hand, all the kiddie books and speeches won't make up for the
crimes he's committed. What's a society to do?
|12.12.05 @ 4:43PM|#
"Clemency cases are always difficult and this one is no
exception," Schwarzenegger said.
Actually, Arnold, many clemency cases are very simple.
|12.12.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Whatever one thinks of the death penalty in general, the idea of
killing someone in cold blood for something they did twenty-five
years ago seems grossly inappropriate. Of course, we also have to
think of the children: last night they/we killed a guy who spent
the last ten years writing nice childrens' books and working
against gang violence. Explain that to your seven-year-old.
It'll certainly teach convicted murderers not to bother attempting
to better themselves, no matter how they try, or how successful
they are.
|12.12.05 @ 4:47PM|#
What took them so long? Killed a clerk and a family. Finally, some closure for the victims' families and loved ones. I hope this piece of crap rots in hell.
|12.12.05 @ 4:48PM|#
Here is a good argument for why justice should be swift. Had it been, we wouldn't be hand-wringing now.
Timothy|12.12.05 @ 4:53PM|#
Yeah, did it 25 years ago...and has been appealing ever since
which is why this took so long. And I'm fine with that, we have a
robust appeals process for a reason.
I'm against the death penalty, but I can't find that much sympathy
for Tookie "WHOO CRIPS!" Williams. Why don't these activists get
behind the Maye
case?
|12.12.05 @ 4:56PM|#
Well played Arnold. This was a simple clemency case. No politician in his right mind would have granted this monster clemency. But Arnold somehow manipulated the media into thinking there was something to see here. And then, when he makes the inevitable popular decision, he looks like a hero who stood up for justice against the the onslaught of pressure from the Hollywood elite and French. intellectuals.
|12.12.05 @ 4:56PM|#
I'm basically anti-death penalty but I'm also not particularly
impressed with the "but Tookie's a humanitarian, dammit" lunacy
from the so far largely ineffective anti-death penalty folks who
think they can gain traction by accusing lawmakers of murder (as
former B.J. Hunnycut(sp?) Mike Farrel did last week on NPR).
While I sincerely wish them some success, I DO hope they try on
some more successful tactics in the future as so far everything
they've tried has largely failed.
Anyway, imagine my surprise upon googling around for some facts on
the case against the *ahem* esteemed mr. williams.
Seems (of all people) a Village Voice writer named Marc Cooper
summed it up for me. This little snippet putting Tookie's redmption
and good works in some perspective...
"In my ledger books, that might�I repeat, might�balance out the
wholesale evil that Williams has wrought earlier in life. Ask me
what I feel about him, and if in a generous mood, I would stay
coldly and begrudgingly neutral. Ask me to celebrate him, however,
and I�m likely to go the other way. While his sentence stems from
the murder of four individuals, any judgment of Tookie Williams,
the man, must also weigh the terminated lives of literally hundreds
of poor, black youth who had no trials, no appeals and no defense
campaigns before they were summarily executed by the Crips�
shooters.
Village Voice...whodathought...
|12.12.05 @ 4:57PM|#
Geoff,
We'll just tell the kids he was a smoker and a bad roll model and
had to die.
|12.12.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Whatever one thinks of the death penalty in general, the
idea of killing someone in cold blood for something they did
twenty-five years ago seems grossly inappropriate. Of course, we
also have to think of the children: last night they/we killed a guy
who spent the last ten years writing nice childrens' books and
working against gang violence. Explain that to your
seven-year-old.
It'll certainly teach convicted murderers not to bother attempting
to better themselves, no matter how they try, or how successful
they are.
Man, are you f'd up.
The problem here is that they didn't fry him in 1985.
And here's the lesson for my 10-year-old: If you don't want to die
by the needle, then don't summarily execute innocent people with a
shotgun.
|12.12.05 @ 5:08PM|#
"last night they/we killed a guy who spent the last ten years
writing nice childrens' books and working against gang violence." -
Geoff Nathan
Maybe Alvin Owen would have liked to have some children to read
nice childrens books to. Maybe
Yee Chen Lin would have liked to have a family and read some nice
books to her chilren. Maybe Thsai-Shai Yang and Yen-I Yang would
have like to read some nice children's books to their
grand-children. We'll never know. But at least Williams spent the
last ten years writing those nice childrens books. Thanks
Tookie.
"I'm against the death penalty, but I can't find that much sympathy
for Tookie "WHOO CRIPS!" Williams. Why don't these activists get
behind the Maye case?" - Timothy.
Exactly on both counts. There are lots of death penalty cases that
cry out for some protesting - but the activists always seem to pick
the worst ones. BTW, I'm not against the death penalty on
principle, but in, pardon the pun, execution. It's an awesome power
that we should probably not cede to a corrupt state. But in
principle - you end someones life, hopes, and dreams... Fuck you,
good-bye.
|12.12.05 @ 5:09PM|#
what exactly is "closure"? how does it help?
This is interesting. Part of the same interview on NPR made a point
that the "closure" in these cases comes from whatever finality is
struck.
If the final act is an execution, then there is no closure for
family until after the 15 plus years of repeated appeals and
attempts for commutation until the act of execution is finally
carried out.
If the sentance, on the other hand, were life in prison without
possibility of parole, the folks at DeathPenaltyFocus.org argue
that "closure" would begin at the sentence.
I have been mulling that one since last week and think they may
have a point.
Warren|12.12.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Tookie Williams is an interesting subject in the death penalty
debate. His example can be used to validate both sides. On the one
hand, he was once a brutal, unprincipled, thug. He committed
countless unspeakable acts, and built a criminal organization upon
fear and violence. Any tragedy inherent in his execution is
overwhelmed by the many vicious acts which can be laid at his
feet.
On the other hand. Tookie has undeniably matured during the time of
his incarceration. While one can legitimately question his motives,
his actions in recent years have unquestionably demonstrated
education and nuance as well as advancing the cause of peace. The
man who is to be executed is not the same man who committed the
crimes which supposedly justify the execution.
I am against the death penalty, but I have no sympathy for Tookie
Williams. He is one of the few people who seem to have benefited
from years of incarceration. I say let him stay there. But I
wouldn't single him out, clemency for Tookie would mean clemency
for everyone.
|12.12.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Wasn't there a story a few years ago where it turned out that
Texas had inadvertently executed a bunch of innocent people due to
shoddy investigations?
Why is it that people who disagree with the death penalty aren't
screaming about those injustices, which
are infinitely more damaging to the concept of the death penalty,
instead of picking out some thug (reformed or not) who should have
been killed at the time he committed the crime, ideally by the
intended victims?
Seriously.
WTF?
|12.12.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Closure means a lot of things. It means closure to criminal proceedings, retrials, appeals and so forth. Closure means no more suffering by these murderers' existence. It means putting the tragedy behind them. It means no possibility of escape, no possibility of murdering others. It means retribution, not disrespecting the memory of the dead victims. It means respecting life, because we value life so much that we're willing to kill people who murder others.
|12.12.05 @ 5:42PM|#
|12.12.05 @ 5:43PM|#
Why is it that people who disagree with the death penalty
aren't screaming about those injustices, which are infinitely more
damaging to the concept of the death penalty, instead of picking
out some thug (reformed or not) who should have been killed at the
time he committed the crime, ideally by the intended
victims?
It's the difference between attacking methods of applying the death
penalty (which is not really an attack on the death penalty itself)
and attacking the entire idea of it on oral grounds. The different
cases represent different problems people have with the death
penalty.
[C]losure also means not being a fucken pussy.
That's one they'll be quoting for years to come.
Timothy|12.12.05 @ 5:51PM|#
Zach: The point is that if your goal is the elimination of the death penalty, it would make more bloody sense to protest things other people are likely to find egregious, shocking, or otherwise agree with you on. Most of America isn't going to be jumping on the Tookie bandwagon, but they just might get on the Maye bandwagon if it got enough attention, same thing with those executed innocent Texans. With goals and limited resources, it makes the most sense to do things that have the highest probability of acheiving your goals.
Andrew Ian Dodge|12.12.05 @ 5:52PM|#
One death is careless; four is mass murder. The death penalty is
apt...to bad it took them so long to do it.
BTW check out who is in favour of clemency...you want to be
associated with them?
|12.12.05 @ 5:58PM|#
I'm all for debate, but this thread is disgusting. Would the howlers and trolls please just go back where they came from? The grown-ups would like to talk.
|12.12.05 @ 6:02PM|#
Showbiz is right. Worst of all by Arnold, who gave way too much credence to the Williams case by actually considering it at all.
|12.12.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Murders are commonplace. I say execute Tookie for making it
unsafe for any of us to wear the wrong color bandana.
But break his legs first, so he can be a real Crip.
|12.12.05 @ 6:08PM|#
Sorry Number 6.
You are right, of course.
The whole thing rubs me the wrong way.
The original acts of violence.
Government posturing.
Media preening.
Bruce M|12.12.05 @ 6:09PM|#
What sucks is the appeals process will suffer from this. "why
did it take 25 years?" will be the question. "Because of long drawn
out attempts to prolong his execution through repeated appeals,"
will be the answer. Response: "lets do away with those
appeals."
Get ready for the Speedy Death Penalty Act of 2006 or 2007 (my bet
is 2007, make it an election issue). All death warrants must be
issued within 30 days of sentence at the trial court, and execution
must follow within 30 days of the signing of the death
warrant.
Sensenbrenner and Hatch will propose it. Since state executions
involve interstate commerce (see Raich) it will apply to federal
and state death penalties.
|12.12.05 @ 6:15PM|#
>In a word -- showbiz
>With goals and limited resources, it makes the most sense to do
things that have the highest probability of acheiving your
goals.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense, but in Tookie's case in particular I
think it is about "showbiz." That is, the Tookie case is glamorous
and involves heavy drama, because Tookie is notorious, having
founded an LA gang known the world over due to the dissemination of
"gangsta" culture. Then he turned himself around, got educated, got
nominated for the Pulitzer. You can want clemency for Tookie and
show your literary credentials by reading his books. How much more
dramatic can it get? What better test case for liberal ideals about
the potential for reform of criminals, particularly those from the
African-American underclass? Some nobody from Mississippi is
downright boring compared to Tookie.
Now Mumia, I don't know much about. Except that based on anything
I've ever read, the case for freeing him is based on lies. (I just
happen not to remember what his case is...)
I think a lot of the rabble rousers re: Mumia don't really have
goals beyond establishing and trading on their own credibility as
radicals within their limited social circles. Establishing
strategic goals and pursuing them rationally is a lot of work and
probably not worth it for people who seek only the validation of
their peers.
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 6:19PM|#
Actually, if there's one thing capital punishment should make
crystal clear, at least to libertarians, is the moral illegitimacy
of the "criminal justice system" as presently constituted.
Consider it: here we have a case of four (well, actually, lots and
lots, but let's stick to the capital case) individuals who were
harmed by this "Tookie" creature. Who are the aggrieved parties
here? The four (and by extension, their survivors).
But who gets the "first bite at the apple" in terms of remedy? Not
them: the Sovereign (be it State, "The Crown," "The People" or
whomever). In every instance, this translates, in realpolitik, to
the politicians, whose widdle feewins are hurt that
someone out there DARED violate their holy pronouncements
("laws").
In fact, in many cases (most especially capital ones), the
Sovereign, having placed itself in the front of the line as
principal aggrieved, like a first leinholder effectively blocks any
"subordinate" from collecting. If the man's dead... what can they
get out of him? (If he had any sort of estate, they'd probably have
gotten what they could via civil proceedings.)
Were there any justice in the world, the families of the four in
question would, quite literally, OWN "Tookie's" fat black
ass.
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 6:32PM|#
closure also means not being a fucken pussy.
Hmmm...that's it. We should execute people so that we don't appear
weak. After all, only a pussy would have a moral problem with
execution. And conversely, of course, if you have a moral problem
with execution, that makes you a pussy.
Nice to know you feel our moral development should stop at the 4th
grade, AJTALL.
|12.12.05 @ 6:55PM|#
One thing - purely observational, mind you - that's always
fascinated me about the Capital punishment Bebate is that folks
that are for capital punishment are often against abortion. While
folks that are against capital punishment are often
pro-choice/pro-abortion.
The only group that seems to be consistently against both is the
Vatican.
|12.12.05 @ 6:57PM|#
Of course, we also have to think of the children: last night
they/we killed a guy who spent the last ten years writing nice
childrens' books and working against gang violence. Explain that to
your seven-year-old.
It'll certainly teach convicted murderers not to bother attempting
to better themselves, no matter how they try, or how successful
they are.
Something I've always wondered. People talk about how X and Y
condemned murderers have "bettered themselves" and talk about
forgiveness (I remember that being harped on during the Karla
Tucker idiocy a few years back)...but they never say "s/he
shouldn't be executed - s/he should be freed!" No, they're happy to
leave these "reformed" people rotting in jail...
|12.12.05 @ 7:03PM|#
what exactly is "closure"? how does it help?
I will explain this to you.
Later.
I promise.
Not now, but at another time.
|12.12.05 @ 7:03PM|#
The point of the criminal justice system is not to prove to the
rest of the country or the world that those making the decisions
are not pussies. That is just silly.
I remain opposed to the death penalty mainly because I do not like
the idea of the state having the power to take the lives of its
citzenry. Call me a libertarian.
Furthermore it is a too-final resolution to so many really
borderline cases. It is easy to say, "Well in the case of Tookie,
there was no question about his guilt . . ." But (un)fortunately
that is not the way the law is constructed. We do not write
legislation for individuals. We write legislation for general
application.
|12.12.05 @ 7:07PM|#
One thing - purely observational, mind you - that's always
fascinated me about the Capital punishment Bebate is that folks
that are for capital punishment are often against abortion. While
folks that are against capital punishment are often
pro-choice/pro-abortion.
This comes up very often. I have boiled the explanation down to
four words (I could do three, but I like the emphasis here
better):
Innocent. Criminal. Not same.
|12.12.05 @ 7:15PM|#
"Wasn't there a story a few years ago where it turned out that
Texas had inadvertently executed a bunch of innocent people due to
shoddy investigations?"
Actually, you may be thinking of Illinois. I believe their govenor
called for a suspension of that state's death penalty a few years
ago on those grounds.
Texas gets a lot of flack from death penalty foes because it has
probably done more executions since capitol punishment was
re-instated than any other state. Also, because George Bush was
govenor and he is just anathema to certain types of lefty
liberals.
There have been allegations of procedural screw-ups in Texas cases
and of people being unfairly convicted. But I don't personally
remember any where the perpetrators were alleged not to have
committed the crime. Usually it is an allegation that the
individual was "innocent" by reason of insanity or mental
retardation.
I don't know about other states, but in Texas one has to commit two
felonies for it to be considered a capital offense and even
elligable for the death penalty. For example: rape AND murder or
robbery AND murder. Simple murder will not bring the death penalty
except for the case of killing a prison guard or a cop, I believe.
But that would not be considered simple murder.
I certainly am no expert on Texas law, but I do know that in Texas
the supreme penalty can be meted out ONLY by the jury and in a
separate hearing.
|12.12.05 @ 7:29PM|#
Justice is about giving people what they are owed. Tookie took
the lives of 4 innocent people. He can never pay back that debt to
those individuals or society. He owes everything he has, including
his life, in compensation. There might be good reasons in other
cases for society not to demand full compensation, but there is no
such reason here. That's retribution.
Fry the bastard; that's what he deserves.
|12.12.05 @ 7:40PM|#
Oops! I guess that should have been "eligible" and "governor". (I wouldn't want a certain Utopian to have a hissy fit about my spelling again.)
|12.12.05 @ 7:47PM|#
Writing effectively from prison is the surest sign of rehabilitation and redemption. Let the man go.
|12.12.05 @ 7:53PM|#
I've been converted, in large part because of this board and the
stories we've seen, that the death penalty should be
abolished.
It does, however, exist.
Because it does, I tend to form an opinion on the justice of the
execution, based on individual circumstances.
My opinion is that Tookey is as or more deserving of execution as
anyone else who has been sentenced to death.
Had he been sentenced to life in prison (because there was no death
penalty), I'd be satisfied.
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 8:05PM|#
But "jt" - the "satisfaction" isn't morally yours (or any
politican's) to be had.
The aggrieved parties here (and, once again, I'm sticking to the
capital case, as presented) are the four dead people and,
by extension, their survivors. They, and they alone, are morally
entitled to remedy.
How, prey tell, were you harmed? How was Daddy Republican
or Mommy Democrat?
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 8:15PM|#
Remind me: how does taking this guy's life "compensate" anyone?
How are the victims and their families being made whole?
I doubt there's an answer beyond "It satisfies the family's desire
for revenge."
|12.12.05 @ 8:16PM|#
Were there any justice in the world, the families of the four in
question would, quite literally, OWN "Tookie's" fat black
ass.
JMJ
Comment by: John M. Joy at December 12, 2005 06:19 PM
John M.,
While I will not go along with gratuitious, politically incorrect
remarks about obesity, you are getting close to describing justice
in an anarchic world.
Under anarchy, justice would be swift. It might also get a little
messy from time to time, but that is not a bad attribute in the
overall scheme. In fact, I have railed many times here about
pristine institutional justice. Pristine justice is a fools
errand.
|12.12.05 @ 8:28PM|#
JMJ:
I'm going out on a limb and guess that since there was no "jt" on
this thread, and since I mentioned being "satisfied" in my post,
you were answering me.
Tookie's crime was not only against the 4 people he murdered, and
their families, but against society as a whole. I don't think it's
a discontinuity to be a libertarian and still believe that some
acts can be not only injurious to an individual, but to the
community. Take as an example the "D.C. Sniper" case from a few
years ago. Yeah, he only killed 10 people, so would you argue that
only the families of those victims (along with the wounded and
families thereof) should be satisfaction at the punishment meted
out to him (more properly, them)?
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 8:29PM|#
I doubt there's an answer beyond "It satisfies the family's desire for revenge."
But just what sort of "revenge," even, do they get? He's being
euthanized, for Dog's sake - that's something we do for
our beloved family pets so they don't suffer!
Were the families to make "Tookie" wear, a la Jacob Marley, chains,
and walk among the dregs of the inner city proclaiming himself as
an example (or counterexample), perhaps they'd gain the
satisfaction of at least knowing he was serving as an effective
counterexample. But, once again, that's not my call to make - it's
theirs because they - and not me, or the State or
its various and sundry Party Animals, ... - are the aggrieved
parties here.
The only ones winning here are the politicians, who get to declare:
"Do as we say, or else THIS is what happens to you!"
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 8:29PM|#
"The aggrieved parties here (and, once again, I'm sticking to
the capital case, as presented) are the four dead people and, by
extension, their survivors. They, and they alone, are morally
entitled to remedy.
How, prey tell, were you harmed? How was Daddy Republican or Mommy
Democrat?"
Your argument is a slippery slope, jmj. You're basically saying
that the deads' "survivors" are entitled to dispense any and all
retribution to the guilty party. While I can see where you're
coming from, it's just too ugly to have a tit-for-tat system of
justice, in terms of civil order. I'm hardly a statist, but I
definitely think that this type of thing is better handled by the
state, at least if we have a state at all. Otherwise the killing
would never end.
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 8:42PM|#
Tookie's crime was not only against the 4 people he murdered, and their families, but against society as a whole. [...]
Society, as a whole, is not an aggrieved party, nor can it be
(unless you're discussing, say, a country attacked - and I mean
actually attacked - by a weapon such as a nuclear device).
To suggest otherwise is to countenance collectivism.
The best "society" could claim is some (probably intangible)
reduction in "comfort level" - i.e. something approaching an
analogue to physical malaise.
And, yes, I hate to break it to you, sunshine, but... bottom line
is, YOU are responsible for your own protection (and, yes, even
under the present system, there is ample case law to back this
up).
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 8:50PM|#
Society, as a whole, is not an aggrieved party, nor can it
be (unless you're discussing, say, a country attacked - and I mean
actually attacked - by a weapon such as a nuclear device). To
suggest otherwise is to countenance collectivism.
Would you then argue against laws prohibiting bribing a public
offical? Considering, as you've argued, that society cannot be an
aggrieved party.
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 8:52PM|#
Your argument is a slippery slope, jmj. You're basically saying that the deads' "survivors" are entitled to dispense any and all retribution to the guilty party.
Not necessarily. I'm not closing off the idea of a state-based
system for mitigating such matters - and under such a system there
could easily be regulations requiring some measure of
humanity.
On the other hand, even the Thirteenth Amendment, as written here
and now, is clear: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, [...]
The case of some rotten murdering bastard is CLEARLY, by its very
language, an exception to human "ownership" - and, frankly, if
we're to accept the proposition that conviction deprives one of the
ordinary civil rights, then surely that of self-ownership, the most
fundamental right of all, is on the table in the most serious
cases. So why not give the grieving families their two hundred
some-odd pounds of flesh here?
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 8:59PM|#
Society, as a whole, is not an aggrieved party, nor can it
be
The how come it's called a "debt to society?"
The flaw in your argument is that in choosing to live in a society
by society's rules (law), you forfeit any claim to individual
dispensation of justice in favor of justice meted out according to
those same laws.
Call it "collectivism" if you want but I think you're trying to
turn social contract theory into communism and it's, at best, a
strange contortion.
Yes, you are entitled to your own protection. But at the point
you're not defending yourself or others in imminent danger, you're
courting a muder conviction...and there's ample case law to back up
that one too.
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 9:02PM|#
Gawd, this is so legalistic, but...
Would you then argue against laws prohibiting bribing a public offical? Considering, as you've argued, that society cannot be an aggrieved party.
Technically, "society" isn't the aggrieved party; the "crown
corporation" (governmental agency) in question whose "mission" is
being stymied by the bribery, is. (Yeah, this is, admittedly, a
stinky - but true - answer.) Of course, should the bribery
instigate a libel... well, that's a whole 'nother matter.
JMJ
P.S. Since I have a real job/life/... and have to get up early
tomorrow to tend to them, I'm going to bed, so don't be offended if
I don't answer. As to the "society" as offended party issue goes:
come on, Good Boys and Girls of the various anarco-capitalist
schools, feel free to jump in here...
John M. Joy|12.12.05 @ 9:06PM|#
(Um, okay, one last quickie for tonight...)
[...] social contract theory [...]
"Social contract theory" is a vile crock of shit.
Produce my signature on any such "social contract."
JMJ
|12.12.05 @ 9:10PM|#
To further the social contract/collectivist angle a little,
while some social contract types are collectivist in nature, most
libertarians and their ilke are more attuned to Locke's brand of it
which was far more individualistic in nature.
In any case, I see nothing collectivist in allowing a legal system
to mete out justice on my behalf according to due process.
|12.12.05 @ 9:20PM|#
We already have a process for individuals to pursue restoration for themselves - the civil justice system.
|12.12.05 @ 9:31PM|#
JMJ
Jesus Mary & Joseph?
In any case, the whole criminal justice system was founded to get
away from the family fueds that resulted from the family getting
justice. It leads to a lot of murders and whatnot as each side
"gets justice" for the last bit of justice dispensed at night with
an AK-47 (or beating stick and/or knife, depending on the
historical era). Not a fun system. No thanks.
|12.12.05 @ 9:49PM|#
It'll certainly teach convicted murderers not to bother
attempting to better themselves, no matter how they try, or how
successful they are.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the convicted murders?
*pulls out hair*
|12.12.05 @ 10:04PM|#
It belatedly occurs to me that my comment of December 12, 2005
07:07 PM, answers only the first half of the question that madpad
raises -- the half that I've become used to seeing raised over and
over again. Apologies, madpad.
I have no answer for the second half.
|12.12.05 @ 10:31PM|#
It belatedly occurs to me that my comment of December 12, 2005
07:07 PM, answers only the first half of the question that madpad
raises -- the half that I've become used to seeing raised over and
over again. Apologies, madpad.
I have no answer for the second half.
Comment by: Stevo Darkly at December 12, 2005 10:04 PM
I think it boils down to just not wanting individuals to have any
say over their own lives, souls or destiny. The Roman Catholic
Church to my thinking has always reveled in keeping the "human
condition" as miserable as possible. I guess that people who have
already been beaten to their knees by Life are more amenable to
having "faith". What the hell do they have left to lose?
|12.12.05 @ 10:35PM|#
FOR TOOKIE
THEY SNUFFED OUT YOUR FLAME, DISGRACED YOU IN SHAME. DID YOU
DESERVE WHAT YOU HAD?, HELL YES!
YOU CREATED DISEASE IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT EXTINGUISHED SO MANY
BRIGHT FLAMES.
DID YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GOT? HELL WHAT A SHAME! THE ONLY ONE WHO
COULD HAVE MADE A CHANGE IN THAT KID FULL OF PAIN. DON'T PICK UP
THAT GUN! JUST WALK AWAY.
YOU DON'T NEED COLORS, EXPRESS YOUR OWN RAGE, USE THE MEDIA AS THEY
HAVE USED YOU. GET IT?
GOOD!
DON'T WALK IN HIS SHOES HE TRIED TO TELL YOU!
LISTEN!
BUT WAIT! HE'S BLACK, HE'LL HAVE TO PAY!
MAYBE HE DID IT, MAYBE HE DIDN'T. BUT THAT DON'T MATTER ANYWAY.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE MONEY AND THE POWER STEAMROLLER JUST SNUFFED
OUT THE VOICE THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE A CHANGE, KEPT YOUR SON OR
DAUGHTER FROM WEARING THE COLORS, FROM PICKING UP THAT GUN, " LOOK
AT ME, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?"
WE HEAR YOU AND WE WILL NOT FORGET
JOHNNY
|12.12.05 @ 11:10PM|#
Innocent. Criminal. Not same.
Unless of course it's pre-baptism, in which case everyone is
guilty. Maybe that was Tookie's problem, his sin wasn't original.
It's a damn shame creativity came too late.
Let's see, I know it's here somewhere...ah, here it is, right
between shit and syphilis.
|12.13.05 @ 12:26AM|#
Looking at the latest Yahoo! story...
Williams' case became one of the nation's biggest death-row
cause celebres in decades. It set off a nationwide debate over the
possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and
capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by
writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
Well yes, cause celebre. But why?
As far as redemption goes, the man murdered 4 people in cold blood.
A jury of his peers sentenced him to death. The appeals process
found no reason to overturn his sentence.
So, obviously, Arnold is the bad guy here.
I'm just happy that nobody on this board has made THAT
argument.
|12.13.05 @ 12:28AM|#
"The governor's 96-hour wait to give an answer was a
cowardly act and was tortuous," said former "M A S H" star Mike
Farrell, a death penalty opponent. "I would suggest that had he the
courage of his convictions he could have gone over to San Quentin
and met with Stanley Williams himself and made a determination
rather than letting his staff legal adviser write this
garbage."
I knew there was a reason I preferred "Trapper John" McIntyre to
B.J. The best Mike Farrell moment ever was when Stuttering John
interviewed him, and Farrell was reduced to calling John an "idiot"
and a "moron".
|12.13.05 @ 12:41AM|#
Well Tookie will be the best kind of murderer soon....A DEAD ONE!!! GET THE NEEDLE FLOWING!!!
The Wine Commonsewer|12.13.05 @ 1:20AM|#
Killing Tookie won't make the world a better place I dunno, let's try it and see.
|12.13.05 @ 1:30AM|#
It'll certainly teach convicted murderers not to bother
attempting to better themselves, no matter how they try, or how
successful they are.
Yeah, because every convicted murderer is a scumbag on par with
Tookie. Now, if it convinces one wannabe gang-former/shopkeeper
murderer to chose another path...
The fact is, Tookie was sentenced to death long ago. I doubt that
part of the sentencing was "now, if you decide to reform yourself
and teach the chillun's right from wrong, we'll reconsider this
sentence".
And to whoever mentioned the utter hypocrisy of the celebs wailing
for Tookie but ignoring Cory Maye, it's a point scored, but it
won't get Maye off Death Row soon enough. If I were a prayin' man,
I'd be hitting my knees every night that Maye gets off of Death
Row, in the first step to regaining his freedom and eventually
getting what's coming to him from that pigfucking state that had
the balls to send a paramilitary force into his home for no
reason.
|12.13.05 @ 2:34AM|#
I just googled up some info on Maye's story. That is some of the
most infuriating shit I've heard.
I need a drink...
|12.13.05 @ 4:03AM|#
On the other hand. Tookie has undeniably matured during the
time of his incarceration. While one can legitimately question his
motives, his actions in recent years have unquestionably
demonstrated education and nuance as well as advancing the cause of
peace. The man who is to be executed is not the same man who
committed the crimes which supposedly justify the execution. -
Warren
I don't know if that's actually true. He's made outward attempts at
reformation, true, but I wouldn't call them an undeniable sign of a
maturation. A press release from the California Department of
Corrections said that he was running things in the prison through
lieutenants, and was also receiving large sums of money from god
knows where. It's quite possible the books he's written may just be
a smokescreen, and he never really left the life behind at all.
John M. Joy|12.13.05 @ 6:01AM|#
In any case, I see nothing collectivist in allowing a legal system to mete out justice on my behalf according to due process.
I'm sorry you don't. However, permitting a system that considers
the violations of its rules, as such, as opposed to the
actual harm which may come to actual victims, is to permit a system
that can, and does, vigorously prosecute such flagrant violations
of its authority as, say, smoking weed. You've opened the
gates.
JMJ
Jesus Mary & Joseph?
Um, ha.
In any case, the whole criminal justice system was founded to get away from the family fueds that resulted from the family getting justice.
Um, no. The US legal system flows from the British, which derived
from the feudal land system (perhaps the "feud" part is what had
you confused), and had more to do with the King consolidating
power. In Commonwealth countries, as I recall (correction,
anyone?), prosecutions are still brought explicitly as offenses
against the Crown, as in "Crown vs." or "Regina vs."
And, incidentally, saying that the sovereign has no moral right to
the first "bite at the apple" is NOT the same as saying, "hey,
let's chuck the entire legal system out the window." While the
anarco-capitalist argument could be made, so could one in favor of
- what would you call it? - "criminal tort" cases (for lack of a
better term - I'm admittedly not a lawyer).
JMJ
|12.13.05 @ 6:07AM|#
what exactly is "closure"?
Well, my semi-cynical take on it is that closure means that other
people will henceforth be less solicitous towards your grief &
at that point expect you to put it behind you and get on with your
life. Whether or not you can do that is something that seems to be
left out of concept, at least as far as the sort of superficial way
the term gets used in the news media. Of course anyone who's ever
experienced emotional pain knows how long it can linger, far past
the point when anyone else wants to hear about it.
|12.13.05 @ 8:31AM|#
"In any case, the whole criminal justice system was founded to
get away from the family fueds that resulted from the family
getting justice. It leads to a lot of murders and whatnot as each
side "gets justice" for the last bit of justice dispensed at night
with an AK-47 (or beating stick and/or knife, depending on the
historical era). Not a fun system. No thanks. "
You're going to have to provide some historical examples of this,
and add them up.
Once you hit the 200 million mark that states have wracked up in
killing their own citizens over the last century, you'll start to
convince me. Until then, I'll call BS.
Much of what you think life was like pre-state was taught to you by
unapologetic fans of the state (iow, liberals). Some time, read
what the "Wild West" was really like, not the Hollywood version.
Read about ancient Ireland and Iceland. The parade of horribles
that the apologists claim will occur are hyperbole.
|12.13.05 @ 8:50AM|#
quasibill,
Perhaps you are right that at certain points of history in sparsely
populated enclaves, people lived this noble live-and-let-live
existence.
But the reality is that as an area become more populated - by
people, opinions, desires, options, etc. - a less intuitive and
more structured set of rules starts to arise so that everyone can
start playing by the same set of them.
In response to your shot at liberals, it's been my obervation that
conservatives are just as likely as liberals to initiate such
changes and just as likely to color history inaccurately to suit
their own ends.
Both sides are notorious for telling only half the story. That that
is not now obvious to you in light of the past few years of
well-documented pervarication on the part of both libs & cons
is somewhat troubling.
|12.13.05 @ 9:00AM|#
There are many historical examples of extra-legal "justice"
being dispensed, often tragically. One might suppose that the royal
families that arose throughout the world often started as
aggressive clans arguing with other agressive clans. No doubt their
claims of injustice were often specious and capricious.
Check out Germany, Ireland & Scotland in the dark ages for some
perspective.
And though they were "family fueds", lynchings and other bits of
mob "justice" were a factor in the old west and the old
south.
No doubt they won't hit your arbitrary 200 million mark in terms of
volume, but they nonethless convince me I'd rather have a legal
system capabable of gathering, analyzing and presenting facts in
determining my guilt or innocence above an angry mob or family with
no such rational underpinnings.
My guess is that you probably would too.
|12.13.05 @ 9:00AM|#
madpad,
you mistook my intent for that barb. I knew I responding to a
conservative. So I tailored my response, but the reality is that
most public school teachers (i know, you can't assume everyone went
to public school, but most did) are liberal leaning, if not
outright militant. I know - my wife is a teacher, and I've hung out
with her co-workers from three different schools. There was one
religious conservative, and no libertarian in the whole lot.
If you've seen any of my posts here at H&R, you would know that
I am far from a Republican (in fact, me about 5 years ago would be
indistinguishable from joe). In fact, my most common comments on
this site are critical of the war on Iraq and anyone who supports
it.
So it is quite obvious to me that both sides are adept at spinning
for the state.
As for your observations of history, none of them require the
creation of a state to provide law and order. And as I noted,
states have killed many times more citizens (even excluding the
horrific wars they have fought!) than the Hatfields and McCoys
could ever have hoped. Furthermore, the Hatfields and McCoys had to
pay the price for their unending idiocy. On the other hand, we get
to pay for the unending idiocy of the modern state, whether we
agree or not (see the 7 billion a month hole known as Iraq).
|12.13.05 @ 9:07AM|#
" Ireland "
actually, Ireland would be a great counter-example, were you to
actually read about it instead of relying on false
impressions.
"No doubt they won't hit your arbitrary 200 million "
Nothing arbitrary about it - that the number of their own citizens
states have killed in the last century. Again, this number excludes
wars, it only includes the genocides and pogroms.
"My guess is that you probably would too"
Yep - I just realize that a state is not in any way necessary to
provide those services. And in fact, the state can only provide
those services when people actually value them in the first place -
see Iraq, again, as an example, of what happens when people value
something else more highly than law and order.
Note that we, as a country, don't just invade Mexico and Canada to
grab their resources. There's no doubt we could do it, militarily.
And there's no sovereign that could hope to punish us for it. So
why don't we? Because we, as a people, (yes, even the hawks who
favor the idiocy in Iraq) cherish peace and the enhanced standard
of living and other benefits it brings. So, in the absence of a
state, we would still cherish them, and pay for them willingly.
Insurance companies would be more than capable of providing similar
levels of service to what we have now. And they'd be no more likely
to go to war with each other than we are with Canada and
Mexico.
|12.13.05 @ 9:30AM|#
Quasibill,
Sorry for missing the hint of facetiousness in your post.
We could hash Ireland all day long (I'm of Irish heritage and know
Irish history reasonably well). As for the rest of your last post
I'll give it some martini time.
Way sure I don't agree but nonetheless intrigued enough by the
prospect of a market alternative to a legal justice system.
I have my own problems with our current justice system and how it
appears to opeerate everytime I run across a Maye-type issue. But
I'm not sure a market solution would present any superior
alternatives.
The sole problem (as I see it) with market based solutions is that
fairness and solutions based on fact are replaced with advantages
going to whoever has either more money or better marketing
capacity.
As an entreprenuer (I have my own graphics and marketing business),
while I appreciate forays into market solutions, for certain
enterprises, I just plain don't have confidence in the idea.
For some things - like armies, legal systems and police forces -
esprit de corp and high ideals are often integral and something I
believe protects the enterprise and (by extension) society. It may
not prevent bad apples but I do believe it minimizes them.
I don't believe a market-based solution would value or incorporate
these (as I see it) important elements as effectively. Even if the
market demanded it.
I'm not saying you're wrong - you've covered some wide-ranging
areas. Just giving my armchair reaction and saying "this requires
some consideration on my part."
John M. Joy|12.13.05 @ 9:40AM|#
Looking back, I don't think I was clear about what I found
objectionable. I'll clarify by way of an (admittedly silly)
example.
Locally, we have a TV news program featuring a meteorologist -
let's call him Weather Weenie - who does those "happy ads"
announcements (birthdays, anniversaries, ...). He often
mispronounces names (badly), raising the ire of Traffic Girl. Well,
awhile ago they initiated a bit whereby whenever Weather Weenie
mangled someone's name, he'd have to pay Traffic Girl a
quarter.
Okay, I know, it's just a cutsey-poo bit between talking heads.
Still and all, it always annoyed me: why should Traffic
Girl be getting the damn quarter? It isn't her name
being mangled!
Similarly, why should the Sovereign (whether Crown or "People,"
i.e. politicians) be the principal offended party in a criminal
case - especially given that prosecution of their "case" makes it
much less likely the aggrieved would be able to make any themselves
to receive restitution, and even more especially since it opens the
door to illegitimate "crimes" like pot possession?
JMJ
|12.13.05 @ 10:08AM|#
So the "joy" in your name is a bit of a misnomer, is it? Just
kidding.
I'm not sure how one would even begin to establish anything
approaching a system of fairness and justness (at least the current
system pays lip service to the ideal if not occassionally acheiving
it) with where you're going with this.
I guess all those Code-of-Hamurabi-and-Leviticus-types way back
when that came up with the idea of a legal system to solve their
own 'administration of justice' issues were all liberal
weenies.
John M. Joy|12.13.05 @ 10:28AM|#
I'm not sure how one would even begin to establish anything approaching a system of fairness and justness (at least the current system pays lip service to the ideal if not occassionally acheiving it) with where you're going with this.
Why not? We have a system of civil courts, don't we? That is where
the actual victims of crimes can go at present to attempt recovery
of some sort of restitution.
Trouble is: 1. as I've pointed out, the civil system is subordinate
to the criminal system, i.e. the "offended Sovereign" gets the
"first bite at the apple," and, in many cases, the outcome (large
fines, incarceration, and especially capital punishment)
effectively precludes any sort of civil remedy (tough to pay a
judgment from the pokey or the grave, of if all of your assets have
been seized to pay a hefty fine); 2. civil court has no
jurisdiction over the physical person, i.e. there's this pseudo
legal concept called "judgment proof" which means one has no
attachable assets - this may be a fine circumstance for cases like
ABC Bank collecting an old credit card debt or some such, but
wouldn't fly for a serious transgression like murder.
So why not just dump the criminal court and give civil court teeth
in what would, in the past, have been criminal cases? (This is one
possible solution, and I'm sure there are others; I'm trying to
stick as close to the conventional as possible, and leave it to the
A-C crowd to make the market case.)
One possible flaw: suppose the victim is dead and there's no next
of kin (or said next of kin is the defendant)? Perhaps the office
of Attorney General could be morphed into the office of Victim
Advocate, or some such, who could represent the victim in
absentia. (Again, I'm erring to the side of
conventionality.)
JMJ
nmg|12.13.05 @ 10:53AM|#
The ghoulish glee displayed by some over the execution is a bit
disturbing. I can't help but note that many of the supporters seem
to think he was executed for being a gangleader among other things.
He wasn't. Being a gangleader had nothing to do with it.
Nothing.
If you want to start justifiying executions with elements of the
criminal's life that fall outside the purview of the specific
crimes for which he's being executed, you're going down a very
dangerous slippery slope.
nmg
Viking Moose|12.13.05 @ 11:07AM|#
the euro press coverage is interesting.
in austria they focused on the emotional argument against CapPun.
in denmark, you got a surprising variety of comments, from their NY
Times/WSJ "berlingske" to the WSJ/NY Post "Jylland's Posten" were
more matter-of-fact (the only obvious spin was to overplay the
strength of the debate on CP here).
sweden talked a bit in between, noting how they had problems
finding a blood vessel.
and norway was pissed, because she ordered a cheeseburger.
and all mention how tookie was nominated for the nobel peace prize.
which isn't as surprising as one might think: Yassir got the
fucking prize.
|12.13.05 @ 11:42AM|#
its amusing that the same people wanting to spare murderers
lives also want more funding for medicare and welfare and any other
government give away even ones they want to become entitlements.
How much money have we spent over the past 25 years to keep this
piece of crap alive and on his appeals? How many others are there
just like him on death row?
While I don't think the death penatly such be applied in all cases
when it comes to cold blooded murder we need to kill them and i
don't give a rats ass if they are 13 or 65 years old. I don't need
to understand why they did what they did I just need to know they
no longer breath. In cases where the murderer is without question
guilty (ie that collin guy who shot up the subway then defended
himself in court where he asked the people he shot, the ones still
alive, to point to the person who shot them). In cases like this or
where it may be on camera etc where there is no doubt of guilt why
is there a hold up to get on with things? When the jury declares
guilt the killer should be taken out back and shot or hung in
public. If the jury declares not guilty we let them go that same
day don't we? We don't allow 25 years of appeals by the victims in
fact they can never be tried again. The reason the death penalty is
not as detering is because they allow 25 more years of life for the
killers via appeals. If you knew your ass would be swaying in the
wind from a rope downtown soon afterwards might you not think past
the tip of your nose before doing something that would put you
there? Capital punishment may not deter murder but it damn sure
gaurantees that individual will not do it again and thats good
enough for me.
|12.13.05 @ 11:54AM|#
"The sole problem (as I see it) with market based solutions is
that fairness and solutions based on fact are replaced with
advantages going to whoever has either more money or better
marketing capacity."
Which, of course, isn't so much different from now, where money
makes all the difference in which judges get appointed/elected. And
once there, there's really no way of getting rid of bad ones.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't subscribe to an insurance
company for law and order services if I felt that had a tendency to
favor big money interests, as I'm sure you wouldn't. Ditto for any
hint of corruption (I would've immediately ended payments to any
system that allowed a judge to rule on cases brought or represented
by a relative, unlike our current system which has now repeatedly
said there is nothing wrong with that situation).
"For some things - like armies, legal systems and police forces -
esprit de corp and high ideals are often integral and something I
believe protects the enterprise and (by extension) society"
I don't know, I see much more negative to such perceived authority,
like how local police constantly cover for each other's crimes, or
how they become small para-militaries, despite the fact that there
is no need for such firepower in my area (if there is anywhere in
the U.S.).
I see nothing unique about law and security that makes it any
different from any other service. If your interest is piqued, there
are quite a few who have fully developed the ideas and published
their work, and my arguments are just poor echoes of their
work.
As for Ireland, were the Brehons part of a state? Or were they
independent actors, relying on their reputation for
"customers"?
|12.13.05 @ 12:01PM|#
As someone who barely, just barely, supports the death penalty, and as someone who lives in Texas, I think it would be good idea to automatically schedule a waiting period for any death penalty to be carried out, and that waiting period should be in years, as in at least 5. At that time, a new hearing could be conducted, and it would be decided whether or not the person would actually be executed, or the sentence commuted to life in prison. It would not revisit the innocence or guilt of the prisoner. I think a cooling off period would keep the politicians out of it a bit more, and would lead to a more sober consideration of whether or not this person should actually be terminated by the state. Mitigating factors, such as a a genuine effort at reform by the prisoner, would be considered.
|12.13.05 @ 1:03PM|#
Don- Mitigating factors, such as a a genuine effort at reform by
the prisoner, would be considered.
You would feel this way if it were your family member that was
murdered or yourself? Reform mitigating a murder please! In most
instances you wouldn't need the state to terminate someone just let
the victims family do it.
All I can really hope is that all the people who want clemency are
the only ones who end up getting murdered by these animals. Sort of
like the anti gunners, all I can hope is that the shooter takes aim
at them first to give me time to unholster my gun!
What won't apologists apologize for anyway?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.13.05 @ 1:17PM|#
After he was declared dead, his supporters shouted in
unison: "The state of California just killed an innocent man," as
they walked out of the chamber.
I don't think so. The morality of the death peanlty may be open to
question but death penalty opponents aren't scoring any points with
idiotic pronouncements like this.
|12.13.05 @ 3:50PM|#
After he was declared dead, his supporters shouted in
unison: "The state of California just killed an innocent man," as
they walked out of the chamber.
I've been looking for something on the facts of the case in order
to understand this lunacy. Found this and thought I'd share it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245