Wow. Tookie.
 

Unbelievable. The polar opposite opinions on what Tookie Williams achieved (or what he inflicted) in his lifetime raging on in the media is astounding. Lots of hatred still being spewed for and opposed. I don't support the death penalty, but I certainly don't think he was Nobel Peace Prize material, either.

I AM surprised that Antioch College in Yellow Springs didn't have him as a Commencement speaker, though.

If a person does something really bad, like start a gang that murders/rapes/robs, etc., and then, while in prison for the murder of four people ('course, he didn't DO it!), finds Jesus and writes some children's books about "don't do what I did"--does this redeem him? Does this make it all better?

For all the aspiring hardcore memorial rap-crafters out there,
A list of the seven words that rhyme with "Tookie":
Bookie, Cookie, Hooky, Lookie, Nookie, Rookie and of course: Wookie.

credit

I don't think anyone (or at least, hardly anyone) was asking for a pardon. Life in prison would have kept him out of society.

Even from a "deterrant" standpoint, the execution doesn't make sense - people on death row might start to think that reforming their lives and contributing to society might commute their death sentences to life in prison? That sounds like a good thing to me.

Now, if your view of the justice system is that it should deal in vengeance, then it makes sense. If blood must pay for blood, then reformation is irrelevant.

It cuts to the very core of arguments for/ against the death penalty doesn't it? Do you allow people to change & thereby redeem themselves in the eyes of society? Or do you make them pay with their life for taking the life of another person?

I would suggest that within the current laws of California, the State is quite right to execute him. He was sentenced as a killer - becoming a peacemaker after killing does not change that. Unless you want to start asking the question of how much good he could have done if he hadn't been on Death Row in the first place.

Of course I'm a furriner with ways very different than your own, and I don't believe in the death penalty to start with.

I've heard some judges before say that when they hand down a sentence, they are not judging the person, or the worth of the person. Instead, they are judging the actions of that person. Or more specifically, the actions in question.

His actions were judged to be deserving of the death penalty. What he has done with his life since then is irrelevant. He can't erase his past actions, he can only add additional actions. They can be good ones or bad ones.

If he were up for parole, his actions since then would come in to play. We as a society, would care if he was a decent guy before we release him.

I'm personally against the death penalty, and think he should have gotten life in prison in the first place. But he didn't. I'm also pleased that he has, by many accounts, become a changed man. But under the current system of laws in California, and my limited knowledge of his case, I think his case is being handled correctly.

If he did it, and if he was found guilty in a manner that reflects the truth of the case, I believe he should have been executed.

Also, if he's been found guilty, the time from the finding to the execution should be his to do with as he sees fit. Finding redemption or fighting the system, his choice, but not 25 years worth.

I'm against the death penalty. But I think I'm even more against selective justice on the basis of fame post-verdict.

How is it you manage to say in two sentances exactly what I muddled in my three paragraphs? It's that damn college you went to, isn't it? ;)

I saw an interview with the very eloquent brother of one of Tookie's victims. Said brother was most decidedly not in favor of a commutation of sentence. Neither did he seem particularly vengeful. He simply wanted the sentence carried out on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole.

BTW, "Pookie" also rhymes with Tookie.

I saw an interview with the very eloquent brother of one of Tookie's victims. Said brother was most decidedly not in favor of a commutation of sentence. Neither did he seem particularly vengeful. He simply wanted the sentence carried out on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole. In my mind, the worst thing about all of this apart from the human suffering was that it took more than 25 years from the commission of the crimes to the execution. That length of time and wondering can only be seen as unnecessary suffering from my point of view. I am in favor of capital punishment, but I think it needs to be less drawn out.

BTW, "Pookie" also rhymes with Tookie.

That's vengeance, and that's why the views of the victims or their families shouldn't be included in the process - whether they are out for blood or whether they have personally forgiven. The criminal justice system isn't about wrongs against individuals, it's about wrongs against society. Victims are witnesses, and rarely get any restitution from the process, because the process is not for them.

Now, Williams did commit crimes against society, and was properly convicted and sentenced, AFAIK. I have no problem with any of the legal aspects to the case (since I really don't know much about them). My only thought is thatit does matter how they gained that post-verdict fame. Society could be well served if people thought that doing good works had a chance to commute a death sentence to life without parole.

So, if you are the judge, and you are asked by a family member, how do you answer the question "why is my loved one dead and his murderer still alive, even though he was given the death penalty"?

That's not an enviable position to be in.

Bull. "Good works" does not a life revive. I don't care how many pansy-assed 'good works' your average murderer decides to take up AFTER they've killed my loved one. No good work could equal my loss.

There are several enviable positions for judges to be in, but talking to victims seldom is one.

The point of prison, for murderers at least, isn't to reform them. It's to keep them away from their prey. You can call it vengeance if you want, but the price of criminally taking life is forfeiture of your own. If Tookie found God, death should hold no fear for him.

Rehabilitation is for people who drink too much, not those who stand over a helpless woman and blow half her face off with a shotgun. Want me to post the pics of Tookie's victims? He got a far easier end to his time on earth than his victims did. He should've been ecstatic that he didn't die like they did.

That's not relevant. Killing the murderer doesn't equal your loss either. No punishment can affect the past. The issue is the future. Does the convict serve society better dead or alive? Dead, there's a possible deterrent value. Alive, there are the good works themselves as well as the example they provide to other inmates.

A situation in which more inmates reformed their lives would only be bad for people who want to kill them without moral ambiguity.

Happy Monkey--you are wrong. My loss is relevant. That's the whole point of the punishment. I don't believe we should put people to death for crimes. I believe in letting them live and suffer. I believe heartily in that. There are so many things worse than death.

That's why it's an exceptional event when it happens anyway.And, as I said, I wasn't talking about letting him out. No, what I was calling vengeance was a brother of a victim calling for his death "on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole". And I'm not saying that the case was handled poorly, or incorrectly. I'm just saying that there was a good case for a governor's commutation of the sentence. That's vengeance.

No it isn't. Would you support releasing a serial killer if the remaining family member forgave him utterly? If not, then you can't support basing the harshness of the sentence on how much satisfaction victims would get out of it.

You think you've got all the answers. It's easy to sit there playing devil's advocate and putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say anything about how much satisfaction the victims would get out of a punishment. Seems moot, anyway. The victims are dead, aren't they?

OK, family members of the victims. I'd consider them victims as well.

The victims aren't talking.........anymore. :(

yeah. A few children's books on the Golden Rule seem to make up for all this. And, besides, he was an inspiration to others. And, too, if you're a Good Christian, you can see the Jesus in anybody; right, HM?

If the death sentence exists, and the sentence was given, the sentence should be applied in a punctual manner. If Tookie hadn't been give 25 years to get bored enough to write books, if he hadn't had all those years to decide that his lot pretty much sucked and perhaps he should do something to try and save his sorry murdering punk ass while he ticked away the days, there probably wouldn't have been any question or controversy.

Nice pics, Bruce. Tookie won't be doing anyone else that way.

Killing him didn't make up for it either. I'm not a Christian, in that I don't think Jesus was supernatural, but I do think he had some very good ideas on the subject of social justice.Exactly. If you kill 'em fast, you don't run the risk of them muddying up the righteousness of the execution. We can't have that.

He got what he deserved. What really sickens me is how a lot of people are trying to make this a race issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. He'd have died the same way regardless of his race. The only real race issue in this case is that with the people praying for his clemency. You can bet your ass if he was a white guy, Jesse Jackson, and the other people praying outside never would have showed up and never would have shed a tear.

He got the death penalty because he brutally and viciously murdered 4 people and he had no remorse for his actions. How can you feel remorse for something you won't even admit to?

Stanley "Tookie" Williams legacy is not one of preventing gang violence. It's one of practicing it. It's one of starting a gang that still murders people today. It's one of destroying the lives of his victims. People seem to forget about his victims so here's a little reminder...

Albert Owens

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-pr...ctim1adweb.jpg


Tsai-Shai Yang

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-pr...ctim2adweb.jpg

Ye-Chen Lin

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-pr...ctim3adweb.jpg

Whether or not he has "found Jesus" is irrelevant. Whether or not he poses a danger to others is irrelevant. Whether or not he can convince others to avoid gangs is irrelevant. What matters is he killed people and now he's going to pay the price. When he killed those people he forfeited his own right to live.

I would personally have given him the lethal injection and sleep like a baby afterwards.

His death was retribution for his actions. You can call it vengeance, or revenge, or whatever else you want. But in the end it's justice. Actually it really isn't. He should have been killed 20 years ago. Justice would be if they killed him, then revived him 4 times and then let him die. Or if they were to kill 4 people he loves right in front of him, and then kill him painfully and slowly.

Sorry about re-posting the photos. I only read the first page of the thread before I responded.

Don't kill citizens, don't get killed by the society whose citizens you kill. This is a pretty simple concept, even for the underprivileged, abused, neglected, aggressive, uneducated or otherwise societally victimized.

Tookie was smart enough to understand this very simple concept. He took his chances, he lost.

And so we get back to my first post. If your view of justice is "blood calls for blood" then it makes sense.

Mine isn't.

Justice dictates that those who murder people in cold blood die for their actions. To claim anything other than this only shows that you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "justice".

It doesn't matter if it stops other people. It only matters that it stopped this one. It doesn't matter if he is a danger to others in the future. It only matters that he murdered someone. It doesn't matter if he has reformed, found god, changed his ways, etc. All that matters is he took the life of others and as a result must give up his own life in return.

This is justice and there's no avoiding it. Nothing will change this fact and no amount of attempts to paint it dirty by calling it vigilantism, thuggery, or vengeance will make it any less justice.

In fact if you look up the word justice in the dictionary, it should have a photo of "Tookie" Williams with needles in his arms while getting his lethal injection.

May you never, never have to test that comfortable theory. As I mentioned earlier, I say we should have let him live and suffer. You don't seem bothered by that concept, HM.

A better way of looking at the word justice would include the other shades of it as well.

A idea that is synonymous with justice is equitability.

Taking someone's money would require repayment, breaking someone's things would require their replacement, causing someone to lose their life would require you to lose your own.

Emphasis mine...
Dictionary dot com

Main Entry: justice
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: lawfulness
Synonyms: amends, appeal, authority, authorization, charter, code, compensation, consideration, constitutionality, correction, credo, creed, decree, due process, equity, evenness, fair play, fair treatment, fairness, hearing, honesty, impartiality, integrity, judicatory, judicature, justness, law, legal process, legality, legalization, legitimacy, litigation, penalty, reasonableness, recompense, rectitude, redress, reparation, review, right, rule, sanction, sentence, square deal, truth
Antonyms: injustice
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

One of the aspects of justice that I diverge from Lady Sidhe, OnyxCougar, and others on is this whole suffering thing. Suffering, or torture for that matter, induced by the state is not justice. If someone has been appropriately sentenced to death then that sentence should be carried out as swiftly as is practically possible. Don't leave the guy to suffer waiting, don't leave the citizens carrying his tab, just do it. The decision has been made but justice is not served until it is carried out.

But if you take the killer's life, you can't give it back to the victim. Your analogy fails.

Not at all because the role of the judicial system, ideally, is adjudicate such cases, based on facts, and apply the sentence based on the situation. That's why there are so many flavors of prosecution for taking someone's life.

Also, I'm not taking the killers life. The justice system is taking his life as part of a well known and documented process of redress. That's why we put them there in the first place.

When L. Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, et al, screw millions of people out of their retirement savings, do the millions get them back? No, any retribution for their crimes goes to the state.
Tookie's retribution goes to the state also. :eyebrow:

I was responding to this:and other posts of the same ilk. In a theft case, if the stolen goods are recovered, they may be returned to the owner. This can't be done in a violent crime. In an assault case, beating the convict wouldn't erase the victim's wounds or trauma. In a rape case, raping the convict wouldn't unrape the victim. Likewise, in a murder case, killing the convict doesn't revive the victim. The victim gets no repayment.It was a generic "you". As in, "you can't jump over the moon" isn't singling you out as an individual; nobody can.

Exactly. Not the victims and their families. As I said earlier, in a criminal case, the victim is merely a witness in the state's prosecution.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Besides Jail, the court ordered me to pay "resitution to the victim". I had to pay the City of Mountain View $2,200 to replace the light pole. I know of cases of restitution to people injured in DUI accidents.

When you settle w/o trial, you can agree in plea bargain to things that would be illegal for a judge to sentence. For example, sentences including AA Meetings have been thrown out in many states on Freedom of Religion, but are in many plea bargains. You can't sentence someone to take Anabuse, but they can agree to it to avoid trial.

Restitution is not so clear.

[quote=Troubleshooter]One of the aspects of justice that I diverge from Lady Sidhe, OnyxCougar, and others on is this whole suffering thing. Suffering, or torture for that matter, induced by the state is not justice. [quote]


Dude. Suffering and torture ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I was going to say something mean here, but, I won't.

How do you differentiate between, and torture?

I would have to say that time in jail is suffering, but not torture.

I don't believe in the death penalty. Instead, we should lock them up and throw away the key, take their freedom. Quietly with no big story, we would forget their names.

So forcing someone to deal with prison life for 25 years is ok even though they've been found to deserve having their life taken, that isn't torturous?

Of course, that sets up a good tangent for wondering about the justice of 25 years in prison for an ounce of weed and a .38 but that's a different debate for another day.

Something I didn't put in a letter I had printed in yesterday's Ventura County Star:

Stanley Williams's (I eschew the emotionally manipulative use of his nickname, except for something I'll include below, as a sort of countermanipulation) execution for his sins completes, emphasizes, and fulfills the antigang message he put out in the books he co-wrote: doing criminal things is bad even if you have friends who approve of your doing them and will partner with you in these misdeeds. Williams died rather young after wasting his life in villainy on a rather large scale, and promulgating villainy on a larger scale yet.

Tookie also rhymes with "dookie." Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Three things I did put in that letter:

"Objections to the death penalty seem to me without wisdom, on three counts.

First, those who object to the death penalty are unable to distinguish a rightful killing from a wrongful one. In this, these people completely miss a moral point that has been clearly understood since the Bronze Age. No one of any depth of wisdom speaks against killing an unlawful, murderously inclined attacker in self-defense, and what is the death penalty but extending that inalienable right to society at large? If killing in self-defense is right, so is execution. Both are hard things, but is not suffering murder harder? [See the pics earlier in the thread if you're really not sure]

Second, the objectors do not appreciate the value of damage control. Dead murderers murder no more, period. Isn't that what we want? I want murders to stop more than I want murderers to keep breathing. Is this somehow not sensible?

Third, opponents of the death penalty are unwilling to fight evil to the last extremity; their commitment to human goodness comes short of mine, and short of what it should be. This lapse is deplorable, and I say it is insupportable. Why demand that evil not be fully atoned for? Where is our valuation of four innocent lives wrongly taken, in [all this] 'Save Tookie'? Nowhere that I can see."

The long time on Death Row for the condemned actually isn't the minus some make it out to be. It is a measure of how carefully we try to ensure we're doing right -- this society tries to check its decision to kill some evildoer in the name of the public good in every way humanly possible. A couple of decades is not an unreasonable span of time for new evidence, exculpatory or condemnatory, to come forward.

Ever had a look at the execution stats for Red China? Circa 14 million since 1949. Their standards are low and careless, and I don't think they've quit billing the relatives for the cost of the cartridges.

P.S.: Radar and I have similar views of the death penalty.

Wrong. As usual, you presume much and understand little. The ability to distinguish a rightful from a wrongful killing is not a prerequisite for opposition to the death penalty. It is in no way a condition for opposition to the death penalty. It is neither sufficient nor necessary. Nor does the contrary argument apply, that opposition to the death penalty precludes the ability to distinguish rightful from wrongful killing. Neither point has any causative influence on the other.
More baloney. Why? Because state execution is not killing in self defense, it is in the most deliberate way imaginable, pre-meditated killing. No one with with any sense considers premediated killing self defense; it's murder. Look it up.
Damage control? Oookaaay, you're off to a possibly good start, but you trip and fall on your face right away in your extrapolation. You and I agree that stopping murders is desirable, sensible. But if the prevention of murder is what we're striving for, and killing is our method (how freakin orwellian is that "logic"?), then why stop there? Sure, some murderers kill again, but a much much larger pool of potential murderers can be found in the general population. Of all the people who commit murder, most of them are first timers. Why not just abort them all? Or if bulk killing is your emphasis, then how about assasination? Think how many deaths would be prevented then! Absurd, you say. Yeah, killing to stop killing is pretty absurd.
I will, for the time being, leave aside your pompous ravings of your superiority, and your evaluation of my "commitment to human goodness".

Atonement is a big word, a big idea. If atonement is your goal, do you consider execution as atonement? I don't. What if, as in this case and others, if the condemned goes down to die continually protesting his innocence? What of the case of the conspicuous absence of remorse or contrition? Where is the atonement then? Can atonement be extracted? Or can it only be accepted? And how can you measure the fullness of atonement? You've selected a good and important aspect of this process, but you try to make it do something it can't do: be measured, be taken.
On this point, we agree. It is true that the long delay between sentencing and execution has some costs and complications, but it's worth it.

However.

I have an increasingly hard time imagining you as a real person. The high handed language, the raucous exclamations of your superiority, your blanket condemnations of everyone opposed to your postion, these make for incandescent campaign rhetoric, but it is not the language thinking people use to exchange ideas. You, hmm, your posts portray you as a training bot, a sparring mannequin to sharpen my own thoughts, my own ability to articulate my ideas. That's worthwhile and I'm happy for it. But I just can't get my head around someone who contends that opposition to the death penalty is evidence of a deplorable deficit in one's commitment to human goodness. You have got to be kidding me.

But he does make an excellent case for preemptive execution. ;)

Yes.

Somehow I think Arnie was disinclined to grant clemency...

http://www.mkbilyk.com/images/arnold.jpg

Ahnuld's reasoning was that the facts did not make him believe that there was a "genuine repentance" on Tookie's part. But in the interviews I read he made it sound like it was his "gut feeling" or perception of the circumstances rather than something quantifiable (...now WHO in the world would ever think that way.....? :rolleyes:

At first thought, I would have been inclined to say the man had "redeemed himself" too, until something very revealing came out upon reading all the articles: namely that not one single time in all these years did this "reformed" man ask for television time or a podium so that he could appeal directly to the remaining Crips or all other adult gang members to give it all up, get out, turn themselves in, or any other solution which could have used his influence in that community to turn evil into good. And so there are now double the number of gang members in this country as there were when he got caught and convicted. He was not willing to give up his "dignity" by publicly humbling himself and pleading with others to turn back. If he really was such an all-out wonderful role model that Snoop Dog and all the other Black media whores wanted to eulogize him, where is the PROOF that he actually accomplished anything? I can nominate UG for the Nobel Peace Prize, did you know that? So it means nothing that other people with an agenda to push use his name in that context. What I want to know, and hopefully our governator as did as well, is where are the crowds of gang members coming forward to say that Tookie convinced them to dedicate their lives to helping their people through good works rather than robbing and slashing them? Not a peep has been heard along that line, instead we are just getting more of their "righteous anger".

The sympathy for the perpetrator I see in this thread is mind-numbing. Its as though the pile of corpses and ruined lives are a sunk cost and don't factor into the evaluation.

No wonder I have to leave my knife in my car when I park in DC - apparently, its my job to become fodder for these worthless misfits in order to justify their state-mandated rehabilitation.

In Virginia, we just kill the bastards and move on. A simple examination of the relative crime rate between VA and DC is very revealing. And the argument that DC crimes are comitted with weapons obtained in VA is laughably ironic.

What is the saying ,,,,,,, Oh yea " live by the sword , Die by the sword "

No sympathy here. That would be Happy Monkey. He gets all warm and fuzzy thinking of the human potential in people like the Tookmeister. Really! It's unfortunate that Took had to murder four innocents before he understood the true meaning of the word "Christmas", but he DID finally learn, right? That's all that matters. [sarcasm/off]

I really wish people would stop talking about the "four people" he killed. Yeah, and Al Capone committed tax fraud. The man killed dozens at least, and everyone knows it.

I didn't realize it was a competition.

It was the 4 people he was convicted of killing that have to be entered into the argument about his punishment. The rest are speculation and have no place in the debate. :cop:

He hadn't admitted guilt or shown remorse for the four he's been legally held responsible for, I doubt that he would do so with respect to the ones he got away with.

It not just the unrepentant violence that causes me to question his supporters. It is also what he did. He co-authored some books. So what? Why does that prove repentance? I just don't see quantitative reasons that would justify actions by CA's governor.

That capital punishment is wrong because it is too often applied erroneously - now that would be a logical reason. But erroneous prosecution is not being claimed. Somehow because he wrote children's books, that somehow says he is reformed. Woefully too little too late to validate such reasoning. So what am I missing? Where is a signficant fact that would justify a change in sentencing?

I don't believe in the death penalty but if you're going to use it this was the guy. He was the Grandaddy of all the gangbanger nonsense. Nobody should be executed by the state but to exempt this guy when you're executing kids and the mentally retarded, this belongs in the wtf thread.

I have the same shirt. But mine fits better. Apparently Arnie's wife does not iron.

BigV, the short answer is you've got to be kidding me. But then, I always did have some problems with your worldview. Reckon I always will.