Tookie Williams: Execute or no?

[run.w.xcors]

While this could easily be an over encompassing death penalty thread, I'll leave that for another time. As this man only has hours to live barring some intervention, this thread will likely outlast his human life.

[DaBomb]

I simply don't believe in the death penatly *UNLESS* the victim's family has the strength to flip the switch ... or administer the injection. I know this sounds weird, but if this country is about an eye for an eye, then let those who have suffered from the crime do the dirty work.

[GrumpyOldBastard]

I simply don't believe in the death penatly *UNLESS* the victim's family has the strength to flip the switch ... or administer the injection. I know this sounds weird, but if this country is about an eye for an eye, then let those who have suffered from the crime do the dirty work.


i'll do it! i'll do it! i have absolutley no problem at all flipping the switch, depressing the plunger or whatever it takes. i totally agree with the death penalty. if you murder someone, you deserve to die. my uncle was murdered in a convenience store robbery, and the scumbag is still on death row(17 years now). when the time comes (and it will) my name is on the list to wittness him dying. at that time i am going to ask if i can pull the switch. my uncle was like a father to me (my father left when i was 7) and i loved him dearly. he left behind 6 kids and never met any of his grandkids. he died because some scumbag wanted the $16.00 in his wallet and he didnt give it up fast enough. the scumbag also had a prison cell conversion, and has asked for clemency.... and was denied. to hell with that bullcrap. at the trial he laughed at my aunt when she asked the judge to execute him. the bastard deserves to die.



hmmm you just gave me an idea.... maybe i should apply for the job of california state executioner. heh. i garantee a deader with every try!

[run.w.xcors]

I started this thing and didn't even chime in aside from the vote.

I personally believe life itself is a death sentence.

I don't kill because of many reasons. I'd like to think that I don't kill because I value the lives of others too much to take that away from them. But deep in my heart it's simply because killing is not my nature. Even when I lose my peace and feel hatred towards someone, death is not something I wish on them.

For others, that is different. Some people crave killing others. Some people simply don't see the implications of their actions and kill because it's an execution of the ultimate power. Some people kill in the name of Jesus, Allah or the United States of America (though under the greater visage of the state, that's OK apparently).

IMHO the death penalty should only be reserved for those who can't be rehabilitated. Those who will never lose their taste for dispensing death. Sentencing a man to death at the beginning of that rehabilitation plays against the idea that man can consciously chose his own path...at least when he's shown a proper alternative. Maybe flag a man for the death penalty and review his progress later down the line. If he's deemed unacceptable for society at that time, execute him immediately.

In cases where the convicted has converted to a more socially acceptable way of thinking, especially one where they try to make amends for their wrongs, and most especially when their message works to prevent others from following their paths, they should be given clemency. Afterall, they're still going to spend the rest of their days in jail.

I perfectly understand that family and friends of someone who got killed will want revenge for the death of their loved ones. But think back to a time before that loved one was killed. Did you wish death on anyone before that time? If not, isn't it sad that someone else can disturb your peace so much you become no better than they, a willful harbinger of death? Admittedly, I don't know how it feels having a loved one killed by another (especially for something so trivial as $16), and won't say you're wrong to feel this way, but ponder on the affect that anger might have on society as a whole when emoted with a death penalty.

Sorry for your loss GOB, but thank you for sharing.

[GrumpyOldBastard]

Some people kill in the name of Jesus, Allah or the United States of America (though under the greater visage of the state, that's OK apparently).



I perfectly understand that family and friends of someone who got killed will want revenge for the death of their loved ones. But think back to a time before that loved one was killed. Did you wish death on anyone before that time? If not, isn't it sad that someone else can disturb your peace so much you become no better than they, a willful harbinger of death? Admittedly, I don't know how it feels having a loved one killed by another (especially for something so trivial as $16), and won't say you're wrong to feel this way, but ponder on the affect that anger might have on society as a whole when emoted with a death penalty.

Sorry for your loss GOB, but thank you for sharing.

ok this takes a 2 part answer: 1st, you said: "Some people kill in the name of Jesus, Allah or the United States of America (though under the greater visage of the state, that's OK apparently). "

yes, its ok. when it comes down to it, if you choose to serve your country, and defend it from all persons, it means that you may have to kill someone. i was in the Marine Corps, and yes, i have killed for my country. i killed for you. for your freedom that you have at this very moment, to post your views on the internets, without fear of reprisal, without fear of death. let me repeat that. i killed for you. defending you and your freedom.

you see i have many friends on the internets. both from the US and from foreign soils. i have a number of friends living in Iraq. they are Iraqi's. one of those friends kept a blog. he was pro American. his life was threratened quite a few times, but he felt that he was free of terrorists on the internets. unfortunately, they found out who he was, and killed him. chopped his head off. i saw the video. i saw my friend die believing in freedom, defiant to the last. he never cried. he never begged for his life. his last living act was to spit at the people who killed him.

would you do that? somehow, i dont think so. your soul is too gentle. that is not a bad thing either. we need gentle souls in this day and age.

as for the second part. you think i (we) want revenge for my uncles death. we dont think so. after all these years we have talked about that very subject. i believe, deep in my soul, that if you kill an innocent person, you should die for that act. period. oh, and lets separate soldiers serving in a war, for their country, and common street thugs. for it is street thugs that i am speaking of, not honorable soldiers. killing an innocent is wrong. am i going to let that killer pass his life, living in relative ease (dont even begin to talk to me about American prisons and how "hard" it is for them. a bed, 3 meals a day and cable tv. yeah, right.) living out his normal span, making friends, continuing to learn (if they choose) getting visits from loved ones. to hell with that. they took a life, they die. period. the dead person is now either ashes or worm food. their loved ones have nothing but memories. an empty bed, a empty place at the family table. 5 women walking down the isle, alone, carrying a photo of their father, who should have been there. in the mean time, the killer gets visits, photo's and video of friends and family. he can laugh and cry with his loved ones. to hell with that. die. let me pull that switch. i'll smile and wave goodbye.

[run.w.xcors]

you think i (we) want revenge for my uncles death. we dont think so. after all these years we have talked about that very subject. i believe, deep in my soul, that if you kill an innocent person, you should die for that act. period.

I'm not sure what this means. The act of revenge is just that, retaliating in kind. You take a life, you lose a life. Classic I-4-I scenario. In the end however, it doesn't bring that loved one back. Just makes you feel better that their death was not "forgotten" and paid back with death. My point was more about the "why" do we need to kill a killer, and what affect does that have on society as a whole. In the end we're dispensing death in an unnatural manner. This takes a conscious decision on our parts to make killing another human being OK, when in essence, that punishment is because killing is not OK. We're sending a mixed message.

It's also clear the death penalty does not prevent killing. People still get killed. Worse, the type of people on death row are exactly the type of people not dissuaded by the death penalty. They're probably far more worried about dying at the hands of their enemies than from the likes of the state. So if it's not revenge, why bother?

As for the state of our prisons, I can't agree more actually. I had a strange encounter with a man who had just gotten out after 20 years in prison. I ended up taking him into my home, if for nothing else, to give him a proper start on his first day out. We talked in length all night and one thing that stuck out to me was when he said that he knew nothing else. Half his life was spent in prison, and that was his adult life. It was almost easier for him to sit in jail than be a free member of society and he was very scared. In prison he was a king, as a free man, he was nothing, and worse, a convict. But he, like many other people who have been in prison for a long time, would rather be a free pauper than a caged king. No matter how comfortable, living in that environment is not fun. Another buddy of mine spent three years in jail and his stories are much the same.

Personally I'd probably rather die than spend my life entirely in prison. Easy out.

[run.w.xcors]

I started this as a private message between GOB and I, as it's somewhat off topic to Tookie Williams or the death penalty, but realized A> I started the thread and B> It's loosely associated:


"yes, its ok. when it comes down to it, if you choose to serve your country, and defend it from all persons, it means that you may have to kill someone. i was in the Marine Corps, and yes, i have killed for my country. i killed for you. for your freedom that you have at this very moment, to post your views on the internets, without fear of reprisal, without fear of death. let me repeat that. i killed for you. defending you and your freedom."

No, you did not kill for me. You either killed to save your own life (kill or be killed, the essence of warfare) or for the advantages of the state. But it doesn't matter, even if you did kill for me, does that make it right? A state may kill people (and many of those people will be its own) for natural resources and that is "OK" because dwindling resources could lead to economic downturn and now the state becomes poorer and its people will ultimately suffer. In your case, a robber killed an innocent loved one, but essentially for the same thing, resources. The dollars in that man's pockets either fed him, his children or possibly just went to booze or drugs. A good economy goes to feeding many people and putting lots of wonderful products (alot of which we don't need many would argue) smack dab in the middle of our living rooms, you know, the ones with nice carpeting and sofas, not dirt and goat hides.

The problem with separating small scale killing with large scale killing is the hypocrisy. At what point does killing a man become OK? And what is the consequence of that line of thinking? If your ultimate example of proper behavior starts with the tenet of the state, and that state fulfills its means with death, why then can you not fulfill your means with death as well?

I'm more worried with the overall penalty of allowing anyone to kill another for any reason. I'm worried what the overall message to the collective conscious is ultimately that killing is OK. We humans, like all systems we study, are a hell of alot more complicated than eat, sleep, fuck, die. We stepped out of that pond millions of years ago. Peace is not obtained by death...well, unless your opponent dies before killing you.

But I still think Plato was right: "Only the dead have seen the end of conflict" If even that's true.

But what if a man who caused death also prevented many other unnecessary innocents from dying by teaching that killing others isn't OK? Is it so bad to have a killer become a role model for peace? Who better to swear off killing than one who's actually done it? Who better to speak to those that don't listen to their parents or teachers or other more sanctioned role models in our communites? The end result is the same, less killing. Maybe two or three died in order to save hundreds or thousands who might have died had not this man's message reached would be killers. Of course, we have no real way of measuring if that man's influence truly did stop unnecessary violence. And if we do, obviously it doesn't matter, afterall, he did take another's life.

BTW, I'm a US Air Force Academy grad. I know a thing or two about warfare and know the support I gave to advanced weapon systems helped put bombs on any number of people. While I did not pull the trigger, my contributions helped make our missions a success, and in that business, success almost surely means someone's death. At one point I realized killing was no longer my calling. Now I just have to convince myself that my taxes are going to roads and schools, where those more inclined to support war can pay for the bullets. Heh.

It's funny how our views change as we get older. Who knows, in 10 years I'll probably vote to just nuke the entire middle east (starting with Isreal, not because I'm against Jews, but maybe if nobody had the land, things would be alot better). Time will tell.

[GrumpyOldBastard]

//snip//I'm not sure what this means. The act of revenge is just that, retaliating in kind. You take a life, you lose a life. Classic I-4-I scenario. In the end however, it doesn't bring that loved one back. Just makes you feel better that their death was not "forgotten" and paid back with death. My point was more about the "why" do we need to kill a killer, and what affect does that have on society as a whole. In the end we're dispensing death in an unnatural manner. This takes a conscious decision on our parts to make killing another human being OK, when in essence, that punishment is because killing is not OK. We're sending a mixed message.//snip//

you call it revenge, i call it justice. isnt semantics fun? heh.

as for the gang banger that finally met his just end last night, most likely, as the head of a very violent gang, he had killed many more than what he was convicted for, not to mention other crimes that i'm sure he participated in.
IMO, the death penalty should be in every state in the union, appeals should be limited, and the convicted person should not live more than 5 years beyond his/her convicion. these 15-25 year appeals is absolutely rediculious! its wasting out time and resources. if i had my way, the convicted person would be met at the back door of the courtroom, and shot on the spot. fini. end of story. next!

you say we are sending a mixed message.... if you kill, killing is wrong, therefor you will be killed. i dont think its mixed at all. what do you propose? we spend billions upon billions of dollars letting this scum live out his/her natural lifespan, on our dollar? i dont think so, bub. you say the death penalty isnt a deterent for those on death row? ok. fine. kill em. get rid of the scum. i'll sleep much better at night knowing they are gone.

[dr.placebo]

I'm not in favor of the death penalty for several reasons.

1. If killing is wrong for individuals then I fail to see how it is right for the state. I would make exceptions for self-defense, so I'm not exactly setting out to be a sacrificial lamb here. But if I had a murderer bound and gagged in my back yard then it's not self-defense to kill him.

2. I'm no saint, so I fully understand revenge. I also understand the desire to protect family and community. The trouble is that I know how revenge makes it easy to ignore evidence. The notion that a state should take part in revenge through its very human agents strikes me as flawed.

3. The system is grossly biased with respect to race and income. The same crime does not get the same punishment, at least by the statistics I've seen. This brings the equality of justice into question for me.

4. Mistakes are made, sometimes with the best of intentions, and sometimes for less noble reasons. According to the Innocence project (www.innocenceproject.org), 33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations (in the U.S.) involved false confessions or admissions, and 37 of the first 123 DNA exonerations involved homicides. In two thirds of the exonerations involving homicides false confessions or incriminating statements were used to obtain the conviction. You can give a live man back his freedom, but you can't give a dead man back his life.

I could go on in this manner, but I'm not really trying to convince those who support the death penalty. I'm trying to make the case that the system is broken, and that supporting a death penalty moratorium until reform occurs is required by justice.

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." -- J.R.R Tolkien

[GrumpyOldBastard]

to bring the subject back around to the gang banger who finally met his fate last night...

is there anyone in their right mind who can deny that someone who was the founder and leader of a gang of thugs as violent a the cripts is actually innocent of murder? any murder? how many people died because of him? how many people ARE GOING TO DIE because of him? how many kids are going to be sucked into the sytem of gangs because of what he set up?

so he had a "jailhouse conversion". big deal.if i were in his place i would have done the same thing. got some hollywood celebs to root for me, and maybe i could live. too bad. so sad. it didnt work fool.