Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Milton

Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Recommended Posts

So my girl told me about this story a couple of days ago, now its all over CNN. A breif recap for those who don't know:

Willaims was cofounder of the Crips a Los Angeles street game in 1971. Eventually in 1981 he was convicted of four homicides on "questionable" evidence. Following his conviction he reformed and began to write children's stories about non-violence. As a result the stories he has been nominated for 5 Nobel Peace Prizes. He recently exhausted his last appeal and the date of his execution has been set for Dec. 13. (More info is availabile at: tookie.com )

 

Anyhow I'm curious about opinions whether he should be put to death. Mine goes a little something like this:

1) I'm a liberal, I admit it, but I was until recently a firm believer in justice/retribution for crimes etc.

2) I think if there is any reason to leave someone in jail versus executing him, this would be an exemplary case. He is contributing to the betterment of society, he is remorseful, he is reformed. No one is going to be deterred if they kill him.

3) The only "good" thing that will come of it is that the mother of guy who was killed will get some sick sense of justice. She just got finished ranting on CNN about how he is doing nothing good and that his books are a way of profiteering off of the "gang life."

3a) This woman (I refrain from calling her a bitch because her anger is understandable) is ranting and raving about how he has done nothing to deserve mercy. It is also interested to note that when asked if he should be killed she did not answer, she said "justice must be served."

4) I don't think this is an adequate justification for killing someone, and I think she as well as everyone else will realize that about 10 minutes too late. Taking his life isn't going to bring her son back, as a matter of fact we're not even sure if it was Williams that killed the son. I think that cold revelation will set in on her on her way out of the jail from watching the execution.

 

On a side note does anybody else think it's fucked up that they let families of victims watch someone die? Why would you want to see that shit first of all, and second is there really any need for it. I'm sure they believe that the person is being killed. Why sit and watch that. People who have seen death say that it is the most fucked up thing you can observe, why allow people to subject themselves to that for some sick sense of revenge?

I have this idea, I think if the family calls for the death penalty, they should push the button themselves. If they really want revenge so badly let them take it. Letting them hide behind state sanctioned punishment and yell about justice from the sidelines is such bullshit. If you're really that pissed get your hands dirty.

That's all I'm sayin'

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your side note, yeah. Let them watch. Let them do whatever it is they need to do to go back to their normal lives before the trauma of a loved one murdered happened. If it brings them that little sense of justice, regardless how misdirected their anger may seem to you, then why would I want to stop it? Fuck making the victim push the button tho, I can easily draw the line there.

 

 

As for Tookie, I say stage the whole death, and wait for the response from the Crips outside San Quintin. If a riot's staged, gun's fired, anything violent in the least, kill em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I wouldn't be surprised if there were a riot in LA somewhere. In fact, I would be more surprised if nothing happened.

 

2) I think it's pretty ridiculous for a woman to come on CNN and disrespect a man who is dying. I realize that she has every reason to be angry and want revenge. But I don't think it is acceptable for her or anyone else to discuss another human being as though he is an animal. I mean, if you insist on killing people I think you should recognize that it is a person you are killing.

 

3) Why draw the line at them pushing the button? None of it is going to help her "get on with her life." If she was going to get over it she would have by now. But she is holding resentment against him, and when he dies she is still going to resent him. It doesn't matter if he stays in prison for life, gets killed by something else, she kills him, whatever it isn't going to make her feel any better. She could have had closure in 1981 if they sentenced him to life with no parole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the woman's portaying Tookie as an inhumane animal then she's a bitch and get the mic away from her but you're not gonna shut her up and you'd be daft to try.

 

I will say it's a little funny that people think since he wrote a few nobel prize children's stories that he's redeemed himself. If that's all it takes for folks to get off the death penalty I'd say Tookie's got two options:

 

1. Dec 19, lethal injection

2. Talk to Schwarzenegger and make a deal that if he lives he promises to turn the entire Crips organization into a group of award winning children's book writers.

 

I'd let him live to see him try that. If worst comes to worst and the writing's all slop they can always kill him later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although I'm personally against the death penalty, this guy is a perfect example of why we should have one. Fry the fuckin peice of shit, he deserves it. he's local warlord crime figure who's trying to do the whole I-reformed-my-life bullshit to save himself. He persoanlly murdered a few people and most likely ordered the murders of dozens more. I just wish some scumbag from the aryan brotherhood rapes him first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are against the death penalty except in this instance huh?

 

I think you're a perfect example of why there should be a competency test for breeding.

 

If you're going to make stupid comments about raping him etc, do it somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think rape is a worse crime than murder, but supreme court has ruled death penalty for rape is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Milton@Nov 21 2005, 12:26 AM

You are against the death penalty except in this instance huh?

 

I think you're a perfect example of why there should be a competency test for breeding.

 

If you're going to make stupid comments about raping him etc, do it somewhere else.

 

 

you know what? go fuck yourself you liberal do-gooder nambla faggot.

 

Tookie is a scumbag and deserves what he gets. people who support him are no worse than supporter of George Bush.

 

And I could waste my time explaining why I'm against the death penalty but support death for scumbags, but that would be over your sheltered narowed minded pseudo-liberal head. If you ever got to jail, I'd pop your cherry the first night...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, did you just confess your secret fantasy of having jailhouse anal sex with milton? :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

 

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't even an undertone.

 

John Birch -

I was, up until recently. a full fleged supporter for the death penalty. But I disagree with it in certain cases, this being one. This is a logical stance. But, you're stance is completely illogical. Let me explain. You're saying "I'm completely against X" and then saying "In this case I believe X should be applied." Do you see how the two are inconsisent? You're basically a death penalty supporter but restrict it to certain classes of people, which is what we do in this country anyway. You could "explain" it all day but it still wouldn't make sense. Not because it's "over my head" but because its stupid.

 

Sheltered? Not really, but think what you will. Anybody who thinks a man who is sentenced to die deserves to be raped on the way out is ignorant. Period.

Speaking of ignorant:

You know what? Go fuck yourself you liberal, do-gooder, nambla faggot.

 

Tookie is a scumbag and deserves what he gets. People who support him are no worse (better?) than supporters of George Bush.

 

And (omit) I could waste my time explaining why I'm against the death penalty but support death for scumbags, but that would be over your sheltered, narrowed minded, pseudo-liberal head. If you ever got to jail, I'd pop your cherry the first night...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you up until you pulled the fucking grammar shit, i cant stand it when people attempt to put other people onshow by pointing out they didnt use a fucking capital letter, youre not writing a legal document your writing something on the net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by yum@Nov 20 2005, 09:41 PM

i agree with you up until you pulled the fucking grammar shit, i cant stand it when people attempt to put other people onshow by pointing out they didnt use a fucking capital letter, youre not writing a legal document your writing something on the net

If you pull support on the death penalty based on someone's ability to use English..... I'd say you are a bitch.

 

Really though. If you are going to call someone an idiot it is better to not look like an idiot in the process.

 

*Edited for thread relevance*

 

I think Tookie should be allowed to live. He is making an effort to contribute something positive to society... it's not like the Nobel Prizes come in the mail in envelopes marked 'Pre-Approved!'.

 

The mother isn't going to get closure, regardless of whether he lives or dies. Her son is gone either way. Two wrongs don't make a right? Turn the other cheek and all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Krakatau+Nov 21 2005, 02:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Krakatau - Nov 21 2005, 02:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-yum@Nov 20 2005, 09:41 PM

i agree with you up until you pulled the fucking grammar shit, i cant stand it when people attempt to put other people onshow by pointing out they didnt use a fucking capital letter, youre not writing a legal document your writing something on the net

If you pull support on the death penalty based on someone's ability to use English..... I'd say you are a bitch.

 

Really though. If you are going to call someone an idiot it is better to not look like an idiot in the process.

[/b]

i never did support the death penalty, i was saying i agreed with miltons argument until he resorted to claiming not botherign to use a capital letter on the net made osmeone an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eye for an eye, baby. You kill , you get killed. Simple recipe.

 

I Don't look at it from a two wrongs don't make a right standpoint. I look at it as a positive preventative. If you know you are for sure going to get killed if you get caught,

you might not be so quick to put on that supa-gangsta mask and cape and do drive by's in the hood. Same with a lot of crimes, The reason theft is so high in America is that the penaltys are next to nothing. If a joker got his hand chopped off for stealing , then he would think twice for sure, (and every case has to be investigated of course) You can't punish poor guy stealing to feed his family like the rich guy who's a stick up cat robbing for a living.

 

ya dig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would basically leave it at where we are now.

 

Each case has it's own circumstances, and depending on them, the case can go either way.

 

Me personlly, I think everyone should be allowed to have EQUAL representation. It's not fair because joe shmoe can't afford a good attorney, but the next guy can, and gets off (or recieves a slap on the wrist) because of it.

 

For example this kid in my area, has been cought DWI 5 times, in 2 diffrent states, but 5 times none the less, and after every time, he's still driving, and still walking around like nothing happened. Not to mention still driving drunk.

 

Regardless to what this man does, it can not change what he has done in the past. Unfortunatly he didn't realize this..what 30 years ago? Who knows what he might have accomplished then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the case by case punishment decisions.

Yeah, I think it was either the Aztec or Mayans who would punish theft with death, unless the theif actually needed what was stolen. Then the responsibility fell on the shoulders of whomever ran the specific area in which the theft occurred. I thought that was an interesting process to deal with theft (since it came up).

 

I personally think that the idea of life in prison is much worse than being put to death by lethal injection. I would be much more likely to commit myself to two or three years of prison with death coming on guaranteed terms than rotting in a cell for decades.

 

Doesn't the Quran have something along the lines of 'thou shalt not kill'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Krakatau@Nov 21 2005, 04:41 PM

Doesn't the Quran have something along the lines of 'thou shalt not kill'?

i think its mroe a 'thou shalt not kill unless we say so'.

 

and all this talk of each case being judged on its own merits is in our laws its called equity, soem cases are jsut judged more fairly than others :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood+Nov 21 2005, 05:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Nov 21 2005, 05:14 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>eye for an eye, baby. You kill , you get killed. Simple recipe.

 

I Don't look at it from a two wrongs don't make a right standpoint. I look at it as a positive preventative. If you know you are for sure going to get killed if you get caught,

you might not be so quick to put on that supa-gangsta mask and cape and do drive by's in the hood. Same with a lot of crimes, The reason theft is so high in America is that the penaltys are next to nothing. If a joker got his hand chopped off for stealing , then he would think twice for sure, (and every case has to be investigated of course) You can't punish poor guy stealing to feed his family like the rich guy who's a stick up cat robbing for a living.   

 

ya dig?

[/b]

 

The statement regarding death penalty as a deterrent is invalid descriptively. The prospect of the death penalty has done absolutely nothing to deter crime. There is generally no difference in the levels of crime in states where the death penalty has been removed entirely. In those states if there was a change it was a reduction of crime. Research suggests that the distinction between death penalty and life without parole never or almost never factors into the decision-making process.

With regard to the theft example, yes, theft would be less likely in those circumstances. But our punishment system would never have it. It just seems inhumane, and in fact the cours generally require some semblance of congruence between crime and punishment

Also, for all intents and purposes the rich guy living off of robbing people is statistically non-existent. The only segment that approaches this description is that of middle-class adolescents. The rest of criminals are generally in the lower income brackets.

Finally, Your point is well taken that mitigation such as poverty is important to consider. A scholar has gone so far as to argue that poverty is a flat-out excuse for any property acquisition crime. But it goes against your deterrence rationale. If you are trying to deter people from stealing, and the people that steal the most often are the poor, you are not going to do much in the way of deterrence if you excuse them.

 

 

<!--QuoteBegin-Krakatau@Nov 21 2005, 05:41 AM

I agree with you on the case by case punishment decisions. 

Yeah, I think it was either the Aztec or Mayans who would punish theft with death, unless the theif actually needed what was stolen.  Then the responsibility fell on the shoulders of whomever ran the specific area in which the theft occurred.  I thought that was an interesting process to deal with theft (since it came up).

 

I personally think that the idea of life in prison is much worse than being put to death by lethal injection.  I would be much more likely to commit myself to two or three years of prison with death coming on guaranteed terms than rotting in a cell for decades.

 

Doesn't the Quran have something along the lines of 'thou shalt not kill'?

 

We currently use case-by-case in the death penalty context. In general there will be a guilty phase hearing where they determine if the person committed the killing and had adequate premeditation, intent, etc. Also issues such as insanity or self defense, or partial excuses such a provocation. Then they move on to the sentencing phase where extrinsic circumstances either aggravate or mitigate the offense. If it is aggravated more than mitigated they get death.

I agree that life in jail is almost as bad if not as bad or worse than death. Considering the current state of prisons (ie. the rumors that you hear about rape, abuse by guards, officially encouraged beatings is all true) it might just be better to die. In fact given the cost of appeals, it is also more expensive to kill somebody.

On the other hand, given those conditions espcially on death row, it makes it all the more amazing that Stanley Williams turned his life around.

 

Finally, this case-by-case analysis is not called equity. Hate to bring up your English yum, but this is just incorrect. At common law courts of equity put the law to the side and decided cases where fairness required a decision that was not compelled under law. These courts originally had religious meaning and are the basis for our saying "for the love of God" which was the original plea to a court of equity. In any event modern america doesn't have equity courts versus courts of law. Equity refers to non-monetary civil remedies such as an injunction, a restraining order, etc. There are no "equity" determinations in criminal cases, at least not in the legal sense.

 

Milton (Fully capable of having a reasoned debate if the other side makes a good faith discussion instead of a homosexual solicitation...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ILOTSMYBRAIN@Nov 21 2005, 05:38 AM

That would basically leave it at where we are now.

For example this kid in my area, has been cought DWI 5 times, in 2 diffrent states, but 5 times none the less, and after every time, he's still driving, and still walking around like nothing happened. Not to mention still driving drunk.

 

Disgusting isn't it? I'm actually a fan of decisive and strict punishment for these minor types of transgressions. Our system is pretty fucked in that this guy is walking around running the risk that he kills someone, but they contiunally let him off, but if he actually does so he gets 8-10 years or more. It just seems odd that we let people push the system until something really bad happens and then we take retribution.

 

In any event, it is unfortunate that Williams didn't figure it out 30 years ago. It would also be unfortunate the state sanctioned his death despite his remorse and rehabilitation. (The rehabilitated criminal is also a statistical non-factor.)

 

If anyone is interested, Gerry Spence (one of the top 10 trial lawyers of the Century; more multi-million dollar verdicts without an intermittent loss than anyone in history) has an essay on the subject at GerrySpence.com. Hope you all find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milton is on some ACLU shit, getting on his free speech soap box in a discussion about Tookie. Bad move.

 

Oh and I think someone needs to redefine the terms "an eye for an eye" and "two wrongs don't make a right." A death sentence isn't some vendetta, it's not wrong, It's all we have to keep Americans fearing the word 'consequence.' It's how we have the level of mainstream anarchy set at speeding tickets and candybar thefts, and sometimes insider trading...

 

Not to mention this shit isn't even setting an example. How many motherfuckers out there are going to start up another gang like the crips, then be deterred by Tookie's great example? I'll tell you what this death sentence is, the way of the world: you start a violent threatening organization, you will be killed by the government. This isn't even some farmer revolution Chiapa shit, he started an inner city LA gang, I hope it was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my country there is a system of equity in criminal law cases, which im quite sure means simply 'each case is judged on its own merits' australian common law correct me if im wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intresting... I was just going to make this thread.

 

Jail for life, death should not be an option when a man betters society. However

they will kill him. The state officals have been attempting bleed him for Crip

knowledge for years and he's never let out a peep. He always responds saying

while gang life is not for him nor does he agree with it, he wants no part in being

a snitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If (when?) Schwarzeneger refuses to pardon him, he'll be martyred. There will be some civil unrest if nothing more than a renewed sense of racial tension in Los Angeles similar to the period following the OJ Simpson verdict. There are certain populations that believe that they can never get a fair shot, and this will reinforce that to a great extent. This is the type of thing that wears on the detente that we have between potentially adverse groups in this country.

 

Soup,

I don't think it has to do with Free Speech at all. It has to do with crime and punishment only.

 

I think what most people mean by "an eye for an eye" is that the subscribe to a retributive account of criminal punishment. That is, a practice which argues that because you do something wrong you deserve to be punished. Also, that the punishment you deserve is on par with the crime you committed. Therefore for murder the state has the right/duty to execute you. Emmanuel Kant was one of the original purveyors of this theory in his society on an island discussion. His theory was this: If society lived on an island, and was changing islands, if it left the last murderer unexecuted when it left, the blood of his victims would be on the entire societies hands. (As an aside, this theory of punishment has been roundly criticized in the criminal law literature.)

 

The "two wrongs don't make a right" view is a more utilitarian or mixed model of punishment. This view says basically even if somebody on some moral level deserves punishment some other good must be served. That is, we can't punish for punishment sake. Usually utilitarians have a handful of justifications for any punishment. They are (from most common to less): 1. Deterrence (both of the individual and those considering crime); 2. Incapacitation; 3. Reinforcement of Moral Norms; 4. Making victims feel better (satsifying vengance, also known as the "safety valve" rationale), and; 5. Rehabilitation (which is basically never employed in the adult criminal system.)

 

The debate we are having now is between retributivism (he killed somebody and he should die because he deserves it) and utiltarianism (he killed somebody, but killing him would do no good.) So when you say that it is not about vengance thats incorrect. If you support his punishment because he deserves it you are talking about a form of revenge. Also, modern research shows that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to most offenders. Tookie is contributing to non-violence, so he has more of a deterrent effect alive than he would dead. This has been my point all along.

 

If the death penalty is what keeps us from anarchy we are in bad shape indeed. Also, why isn't every other first world country (with a few exceptions) in a state of anarchy. Maybe there is just something especially fucked up about America?

 

And insider trading is not a real crime.

 

MI (The type of cat that still says the pledge of allegiance with the word God in it, no matter what the Supreme Court says.)

 

I have no idea about the Australian system. I thought they made you fight Kangaroo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Milton+Nov 21 2005, 03:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milton - Nov 21 2005, 03:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Nov 21 2005, 05:14 AM

eye for an eye, baby. You kill , you get killed. Simple recipe.

 

I Don't look at it from a two wrongs don't make a right standpoint. I look at it as a positive preventative. If you know you are for sure going to get killed if you get caught,

you might not be so quick to put on that supa-gangsta mask and cape and do drive by's in the hood. Same with a lot of crimes, The reason theft is so high in America is that the penaltys are next to nothing. If a joker got his hand chopped off for stealing , then he would think twice for sure, (and every case has to be investigated of course) You can't punish poor guy stealing to feed his family like the rich guy who's a stick up cat robbing for a living.   

 

ya dig?

 

 

Also, for all intents and purposes the rich guy living off of robbing people is statistically non-existent. The only segment that approaches this description is that of middle-class adolescents. The rest of criminals are generally in the lower income brackets.

 

[/b]

 

I think "the rich guy living off of robbing people" was a reference to people like Ken Lay/ Neil Bush...Cheney....and other CEO's who continously rip off the american public by commiting white collar crime resulting in millions upon millions of dollars being stolen. Where as a poor guy robs a convenient store with a gun and steals $1,000 gets 10 years. To me large scale white collar crimes committed by people who are already multi-millionaires is much much more hienous than crimes most poor people commit (with the exception of murder, child molestation, rape)

 

I also think, when you have a drug lord killing another drug lord...or most gang violence for that matter...is different than some psycho killing an old lady. Those dudes knew what they were involved with, and the people tookie may have killed were probably murderers themselves who would have killed him given the chance. So I strongly disagree with the death penalty in this case. I do support it in other cases but I also think a lot of innocent people have been wrongly executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×