Full Version: Tookie Williams Wants to Live
SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- As murderer and Crips co-founder
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I certainly cannot see into anyone's heart, so I have no opinion on how sincere a change he has made in his life. As to whether or not he has "redeemed" himself, well, speaking strictly from a secular point of view, the sad fact is that one can never "redeem" oneself from an act of murder (and many other serious crimes of violence.) One cannot make up for the loss of a human life.
With murder (and some other very serious acts of violence), it seems to me that the convict's behavior is minimally relevant to the punishment that is required for the crime. For minor crimes, a reduced sentence for "good behavior" may be appropriate, as we attempt to distinguish between people who can be accepted back into society, and those who are career criminals. However, for very serious crimes of violence, this should not be a factor.
Trying to determine which convicts on Death Row "deserve" to have their sentences reduced is a mistake, I think. It makes the death penalty even more unjustly used than it already is. Instead, the death sentence should never be used at all. Because it is an infinite punishment, it requires infinite justice to be used properly; which is, of course, beyond human ability.
This is why I cannot vote on your poll. He should not be put to death, but for reasons other than he "deserves" to live.
With murder (and some other very serious acts of violence), it seems to me that the convict's behavior is minimally relevant to the punishment that is required for the crime. For minor crimes, a reduced sentence for "good behavior" may be appropriate, as we attempt to distinguish between people who can be accepted back into society, and those who are career criminals. However, for very serious crimes of violence, this should not be a factor.
Trying to determine which convicts on Death Row "deserve" to have their sentences reduced is a mistake, I think. It makes the death penalty even more unjustly used than it already is. Instead, the death sentence should never be used at all. Because it is an infinite punishment, it requires infinite justice to be used properly; which is, of course, beyond human ability.
This is why I cannot vote on your poll. He should not be put to death, but for reasons other than he "deserves" to live.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
Trying to determine which convicts on Death Row "deserve" to have their sentences reduced is a mistake, I think. It makes the death penalty even more unjustly used than it already is. Instead, the death sentence should never be used at all. Because it is an infinite punishment, it requires infinite justice to be used properly; which is, of course, beyond human ability.
This is why I cannot vote on your poll. He should not be put to death, but for reasons other than he "deserves" to live.
Victoria Silverwolf expressed very eloquently how I feel about this. No one should be executed. Likewise, partiality makes the death penalty all the more unjust. Thanks, Victoria.This is why I cannot vote on your poll. He should not be put to death, but for reasons other than he "deserves" to live.
So I nullified my vote as well. But count me among those who oppose the death penalty.
It is all well and good that celebrities are adding their names to the cause. But it would be better if they contacted their legislators to have the death penalty abolished in California for all convicts, not just those who write books and are nominated for honors after conviction and incarceration.
Once a life is taken it cannot be returned, at least on this plane of existence. That is what makes killing another human being a serious crime, and yet we delegate the right to kill to the state. Yeah, that'll teach 'em that killing's wrong!
Let's see, this guy murdered a person. That person happens to be have been a police officer is totally unimportant to me. I do not care in the least about any sudden conversion, or so-called redeeming value to this person. Can he restore what he took from society? No, he can't.
This person is one of the founders an organization built on murder, intimidation, and drugs. They are responsible for more murders of Americans than any terrorist organization in the world.
California needs to execute this low life to death. His status in the Crips is predicated on his sentence. So to maintain his standing in a thugocracy like them he can not and should not be granted any form of clemency whatsoever. Heck he might very well sue the State of California for the humiliation of it.
We need to up the ante and sentence ALL first degree murderers to death and then we wouldn't have to worry about unfair sentencing policies.
This person is one of the founders an organization built on murder, intimidation, and drugs. They are responsible for more murders of Americans than any terrorist organization in the world.
California needs to execute this low life to death. His status in the Crips is predicated on his sentence. So to maintain his standing in a thugocracy like them he can not and should not be granted any form of clemency whatsoever. Heck he might very well sue the State of California for the humiliation of it.
We need to up the ante and sentence ALL first degree murderers to death and then we wouldn't have to worry about unfair sentencing policies.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Nov 18 2005, 02:07 PM)
We need to up the ante and sentence ALL first degree murderers to death and then we wouldn't have to worry about unfair sentencing policies.
I don't see the logic to that argument. Do you agree that people sometimes are innocent, even if they are convicted of murder? If so, how can you support the death penalty for anyone, considering the finality of it. If not, then what do you have to say about all those people that have been let go from death row? Are all those releases miscarriages of justice?
Sentencing everyone convicted of first-degree murder to death would logically result in more innocent as well as guilty people being executed. My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with wether people guilty of first-degree murder deserves to live or die, because many of them surely deserve a swift death, I just don't like to see anybody thats innocent get executed, even if that means only putting the guilty ones in prison for life.
Does he deserve clemency?
No he doesn't deserve any more clemency that anybody else that has committed a similar crime, and he probably deserves death too, but since I cannot support the death penalty on moral grounds I would rather see him not get executed, but not because he supposedly redeemed himself.
Why?
See above.
Why not?
Again. See above.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
As Victoria Silverwolf pointed out, it's impossible to fully redeem one self from the act of premeditated murder. Has he redeemed himself? no. Does he deserve to die? probably. Should society kill him? no.
QUOTE(Carlsen @ Nov 18 2005, 09:55 AM)
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Nov 18 2005, 02:07 PM)
We need to up the ante and sentence ALL first degree murderers to death and then we wouldn't have to worry about unfair sentencing policies.
I don't see the logic to that argument. Do you agree that people sometimes are innocent, even if they are convicted of murder? If so, how can you support the death penalty for anyone, considering the finality of it. If not, then what do you have to say about all those people that have been let go from death row? Are all those releases miscarriages of justice?
Sentencing everyone convicted of first-degree murder to death would logically result in more innocent as well as guilty people being executed. My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with wether people guilty of first-degree murder deserves to live or die, because many of them surely deserve a swift death, I just don't like to see anybody thats innocent get executed, even if that means only putting the guilty ones in prison for life.
The way it works right now is that only certainly murders qualify for the death penalty such as mass murder, killing a police officer, etc.
Then once they are convicted, which is very hard to get that far and most innocent people do not get convicted, but yes some do. Then we have a special sentencing trial, again going over the reasons that convicted them. Then the judge has to agree with both juries. So they have in affect had three different trials at this point.
Then the appeals process happens, first at the state level, then again at the federal level. This goes on for a decade or so. If no evidence is found the change the sentence they are finally executed. In other words they get not a second change, but literally dozens of chances, and in any single one of those steps can change the sentence, never to be re-imposed. So to get to this point this man has had at least 20 trials, none of which found anything to overturn the sentence. Innocent, that is about as likely as me becoming the next Pope.
Then again either the Governor of the state or the President change either commute the sentence or pardon them.
No I think that I would want to make darn sure that they never again murder another person. I sure hate it when a convicted murderer that some bleeding heart type has gotten released kills another innocent person.
I hear a lot of comments about the convicts rights, but what about the rights of people that have never committed a crime? Don't we too have any rights?
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I have very mixed feelings on the issue of Tookie Williams. On the one hand, he has done some very positive things during his incarceration, and seems to be a different man than the murderer he was in 1979. (However, this does not absolve him of his crimes.)
On the other hand, in addition to the four people he was convicted of killing, he nearly single-handedly is responsible for the modern gang culture that kills hundreds (thousands?) of people every year. The Crips gang is a cancer on the city of LA that has metastasized and spread throughout the entire country.
I’m not a proponent of the death penalty. Does he deserve clemency? No. But, in this case, I think putting him to death will be counter-productive and give him far more fame and notoriety. Tookie Williams will become a “martyr” to the Crips, and gangs in general.
I don't believe one can ever be "redeemed" for murdering another human being.
Just to clarify; Williams was not convicted of killing a police officer. He murdered a convenience store clerk, two motel owners and their daughter in two separate robberies. And the death penalty applies in cases other than the murder of a police officer - ask Scott Peterson.
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I have very mixed feelings on the issue of Tookie Williams. On the one hand, he has done some very positive things during his incarceration, and seems to be a different man than the murderer he was in 1979. (However, this does not absolve him of his crimes.)
On the other hand, in addition to the four people he was convicted of killing, he nearly single-handedly is responsible for the modern gang culture that kills hundreds (thousands?) of people every year. The Crips gang is a cancer on the city of LA that has metastasized and spread throughout the entire country.
I’m not a proponent of the death penalty. Does he deserve clemency? No. But, in this case, I think putting him to death will be counter-productive and give him far more fame and notoriety. Tookie Williams will become a “martyr” to the Crips, and gangs in general.
I don't believe one can ever be "redeemed" for murdering another human being.
QUOTE(lorenq59)
Let's see, this guy murdered a person. That person happens to be have been a police officer is totally unimportant to me.
Just to clarify; Williams was not convicted of killing a police officer. He murdered a convenience store clerk, two motel owners and their daughter in two separate robberies. And the death penalty applies in cases other than the murder of a police officer - ask Scott Peterson.
I am opposed to the death penalty and feel that Victoria Silverwolf expressed my sentiments more than adequately in her response.
The life without parole sentence should, in my opinion, be the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes.
The life without parole sentence should, in my opinion, be the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Nov 18 2005, 03:24 PM)
I do not believe that you have a clear concept on the American legal system or it's application of capital punishment.
Well, it seems to me that I do, since I knew all what you have written below. Don't make assumptions about what I know or do not know.
QUOTE
The way it works right now is that only certainly murders qualify for the death penalty such as mass murder, killing a police officer, etc.
I in fact knew that for example.
QUOTE
Then once they are convicted, which is very hard to get that far and most innocent people do not get convicted, but yes some do. Then we have a special sentencing trial, again going over the reasons that convicted them. Then the judge has to agree with both juries. So they have in affect had three different trials at this point.
Nothing new to me here.
QUOTE
Then the appeals process happens, first at the state level, then again at the federal level. This goes on for a decade or so. If no evidence is found the change the sentence they are finally executed. In other words they get not a second change, but literally dozens of chances, and in any single one of those steps can change the sentence, never to be re-imposed. So to get to this point this man has had at least 20 trials, none of which found anything to overturn the sentence. Innocent, that is about as likely as me becoming the next Pope.
They aren't actually trials, because normally new evidence can't be introduced. And I am sure because of the is elaborate process very few innocent people are convicted, but I do believe some are, and even one is one too many. Feel free to disagree, but the evidence that innocent people in the past have been executed is out there.
QUOTE
Then again either the Governor of the state or the President change either commute the sentence or pardon them.
The only one I know of that have done this was George Ryan, and he did it because several people on death row had been vindicated. There are probably other examples, but it seems extremely rare.
QUOTE
No I think that I would want to make darn sure that they never again murder another person. I sure hate it when a convicted murderer that some bleeding heart type has gotten released kills another innocent person.
Heard about life without parole? Seems not. Nobody is talking about releasing anyone, and its an invalid strawman argument to say otherwise.
QUOTE
I hear a lot of comments about the convicts rights, but what about the rights of people that have never committed a crime? Don't we too have any rights?
What's your point exactly? What rights is it you feel you are lacking?
Should the feeling, that the majority of the general public hold, that murderers should be put to death, override the right of innocent people not to be put to death by the state, rare as it may be? I think not.
QUOTE(Carlsen @ Nov 18 2005, 11:39 AM)
QUOTE
They aren't actually trials, because normally new evidence can't be introduced. And I am sure because of the is elaborate process very few innocent people are convicted, but I do believe some are, and even one is one too many. Feel free to disagree, but the evidence that innocent people in the past have been executed is out there.
Yes any evidence can be introduced as a requirement to send it back to be retried and has several times.QUOTE
The only one I know of that have done this was George Ryan, and he did it because several people on death row had been vindicated. There are probably other examples, but it seems extremely rare.
Actually has happened hundreds of times, not once.QUOTE
Heard about life without parole? Seems not. Nobody is talking about releasing anyone, and its an invalid strawman argument to say otherwise.
Ever heard of murders in prison? Happens a lot. Just because it is without parole what does that mean? It means absolutely nothing for the future. What is to stop their release the very next day when a change in the law decides that there must be parole. This person would still be alive to be released.
QUOTE
What's your point exactly? What rights is it you feel you are lacking?
Should the feeling, that the majority of the general public hold, that murderers should be put to death, override the right of innocent people not to be put to death by the state, rare as it may be? I think not.
Should the feeling, that the majority of the general public hold, that murderers should be put to death, override the right of innocent people not to be put to death by the state, rare as it may be? I think not.
What is lacking, my right to live period. With convicted murderers being released into society my basic right to live is jeapordized. Yes the rights of the majority to be free from criminals overrides the rights of criminals to repeat or even expand the crimes. Can you point to a single case where a innocent person has been executed here? Nobody has to date, so please feel free to show us one.
Tookie Williams personally killed some four people. He helped found one of the most violent gangs in America. That little criminal enterprise has murdered several thousand people both in prison and on the outside. Do not the other prisoners deserve to be protected from this murderer too?
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
As I oppose the death penalty I believe that Tookie and all other death penalty convicts "deserve" clemency.
I have many reasons that I don't believe anyone deserves the death penalty but for this thread I will name two.
1. I believe that murder, on all levels, is unacceptable. Just because the State sanctions it does not make it any less a murderous act, and
2. The possibility of one innocent person being put to death is too many. Plain and simple our justice system makes mistakes. Humans make mistakes. While we would like to think that our judicial system has all the necessary safe guards, it is just as flawed as the people who constructed it. Life, without parole, for all who “deserve it”, is the safest way to make sure that an innocent person is not put to death. Tookie’s life, and all other’s that we know (or think we know) are guilty, should be spared because it is the only way to protect the innocent.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I don’t know. As stated by others, it is impossible to know for sure.
The only one I know of that have done this was George Ryan, and he did it because several people on death row had been vindicated. There are probably other examples, but it seems extremely rare.
Actually has happened hundreds of times, not once.
Please tell me when this happens through the judicial system? As far as I know all efforts to release the innocent are done privately, through private organizations. If it weren't for advocacy groups trying to shed light (as well as saving innocent deaths) on the error's of our process I think more innocents would be executed. Organizations like the Innocence Project are dedicated to freeing the innocent but what happens if their funds dry up? Do you think the government is going to fund them? Are you that sure that these organizations are freeing EVERY innocent person?
Why?
As I oppose the death penalty I believe that Tookie and all other death penalty convicts "deserve" clemency.
I have many reasons that I don't believe anyone deserves the death penalty but for this thread I will name two.
1. I believe that murder, on all levels, is unacceptable. Just because the State sanctions it does not make it any less a murderous act, and
2. The possibility of one innocent person being put to death is too many. Plain and simple our justice system makes mistakes. Humans make mistakes. While we would like to think that our judicial system has all the necessary safe guards, it is just as flawed as the people who constructed it. Life, without parole, for all who “deserve it”, is the safest way to make sure that an innocent person is not put to death. Tookie’s life, and all other’s that we know (or think we know) are guilty, should be spared because it is the only way to protect the innocent.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I don’t know. As stated by others, it is impossible to know for sure.
QUOTE(loreng59)
QUOTE(carlsen)
The only one I know of that have done this was George Ryan, and he did it because several people on death row had been vindicated. There are probably other examples, but it seems extremely rare.
Actually has happened hundreds of times, not once.
Please tell me when this happens through the judicial system? As far as I know all efforts to release the innocent are done privately, through private organizations. If it weren't for advocacy groups trying to shed light (as well as saving innocent deaths) on the error's of our process I think more innocents would be executed. Organizations like the Innocence Project are dedicated to freeing the innocent but what happens if their funds dry up? Do you think the government is going to fund them? Are you that sure that these organizations are freeing EVERY innocent person?
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I voted that Tookie Williams should be executed. The brutal nature of his murders would legally put him in the same league as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, two extremely dangerous killers. 30 years ago, Ted Bundy escaped from a Colorado jail and killed several girls in Florida before getting caught again and subsequently executed. Public safety demands that people who commit brutal murders be executed as punishment.
If Tookie is given clemency based on his good works, serial killers like Ted Bundy will merely try to appear reformed without changing their hearts. Usually when someone commits brutal murders, with a capital B, it takes a scheduled appointment with God to get a change of heart from those people.
Tookie's execution won't bring full justice or deter terrorists or serial killers. Now deep down inside, Tookie Williams is probably a good man who went down a very wrong path. If he is sincere, he should be confident that he's going to get forgiveness and go to some better place like Heaven. After all, if he gets clemency, he would most likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
I voted that Tookie Williams should be executed. The brutal nature of his murders would legally put him in the same league as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, two extremely dangerous killers. 30 years ago, Ted Bundy escaped from a Colorado jail and killed several girls in Florida before getting caught again and subsequently executed. Public safety demands that people who commit brutal murders be executed as punishment.
If Tookie is given clemency based on his good works, serial killers like Ted Bundy will merely try to appear reformed without changing their hearts. Usually when someone commits brutal murders, with a capital B, it takes a scheduled appointment with God to get a change of heart from those people.
Tookie's execution won't bring full justice or deter terrorists or serial killers. Now deep down inside, Tookie Williams is probably a good man who went down a very wrong path. If he is sincere, he should be confident that he's going to get forgiveness and go to some better place like Heaven. After all, if he gets clemency, he would most likely spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.
They should not kill him.
I'm a proponent of the death penalty in theory, but against it's actual implementation because of the behavior of lawyers (my apologies to any lawyers here - unfortunately, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name).
I would not put a roomful of lawyers in charge of the life of my daughter's goldfish, let alone a human life. With the amount of gamesmanship, deceit, and downright lies involved in almost any case (criminal or civil), there is no conceivable way to know for a certainty what the facts are.
Obviously, the lawyers (both defense and prosecutor) show evidence in their favor, hide evidence not in their favor (have it thrown out), and attack credibility given half a chance. So, the truth is in there somewhere.
In this case, I can't be convinced of his guilt. They have records of Williams purchasing the shotgun used in the murder(s), but the only evidence they really have is an accomplice's testimony and a legal system that hates gang leaders (as they should). Did he do it? Probably...the evidence appears to show that. But did he actually kill people? Only if you believe a lawyer. So, I can't be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
The answer is simple. Grant him clemency, keep him in prison for life (in case exculpatory evidence becomes available - he still claims innocence after all these years), and give the lawyers involved a lethal injection*. The world would be better off all the way around.
*Obviously, that is dark humor. Lawyers should not be harmed in any way, shape, form, or fashion. In fact, they should be given Nobel Peace prizes. No lawyers were harmed in the development of this post and should be afforded all the protections given by the US to enemy combatants, PETA, and the EPA.
I'm a proponent of the death penalty in theory, but against it's actual implementation because of the behavior of lawyers (my apologies to any lawyers here - unfortunately, 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name).
I would not put a roomful of lawyers in charge of the life of my daughter's goldfish, let alone a human life. With the amount of gamesmanship, deceit, and downright lies involved in almost any case (criminal or civil), there is no conceivable way to know for a certainty what the facts are.
Obviously, the lawyers (both defense and prosecutor) show evidence in their favor, hide evidence not in their favor (have it thrown out), and attack credibility given half a chance. So, the truth is in there somewhere.
In this case, I can't be convinced of his guilt. They have records of Williams purchasing the shotgun used in the murder(s), but the only evidence they really have is an accomplice's testimony and a legal system that hates gang leaders (as they should). Did he do it? Probably...the evidence appears to show that. But did he actually kill people? Only if you believe a lawyer. So, I can't be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
The answer is simple. Grant him clemency, keep him in prison for life (in case exculpatory evidence becomes available - he still claims innocence after all these years), and give the lawyers involved a lethal injection*. The world would be better off all the way around.
*Obviously, that is dark humor. Lawyers should not be harmed in any way, shape, form, or fashion. In fact, they should be given Nobel Peace prizes. No lawyers were harmed in the development of this post and should be afforded all the protections given by the US to enemy combatants, PETA, and the EPA.
I will say that I did not sit through his trial and nor did anybody else here. So we did not hear the evidence given nor did we see it. So given that fact I will not second guess the jury in this matter.
As for giving him clemency, well I would be in favor of that under one and only one circumstance, that is if you could guarantee that he would NEVER and I do mean never murder again. Unless you are willing to bet your life that he would not do it again, not now not ever would I be willing to extend his life another second/
A jury has convicted him of multiple murders, that is good enough for me. If another judge thinks that is erroneous that too is enough for me. Otherwise let's get it over with right now and stop wasting money on a piece of trash.
As for giving him clemency, well I would be in favor of that under one and only one circumstance, that is if you could guarantee that he would NEVER and I do mean never murder again. Unless you are willing to bet your life that he would not do it again, not now not ever would I be willing to extend his life another second/
A jury has convicted him of multiple murders, that is good enough for me. If another judge thinks that is erroneous that too is enough for me. Otherwise let's get it over with right now and stop wasting money on a piece of trash.
I am in the same boat here as DR I think- the fact that our criminal justice system seems just as likely to convict the wrong person as not is my one and only argument against the death penalty- if we could be sure that each person is guilty, I mean really sure, like Jeffery Dahmer- then I would say execute him yesterday, with predjudice.
I am not one that pines over the fate of a murderer- I am just worried about the innocent in a justice system that is so very badly skewed against minorities and the poor- while allowing rich criminals to walk free.
Putting all that aside- and let us, for the sake of the debate- say that there is absolutely 100% reliability in Tookie's conviction- he did it, we all know he did it, he admits he did it, we have it on videotape, with his grandmother narrarating it.
I would say kill him now, do not give him another day to breath. He is an animal and deserves to be put down like a rabid dog.
At some point, American need to realize that not things that look human ARE human- Tookie is not a human- he is a monster thinly disguised as a human.
To those that do not deal with evil- this seems harsh. But it is true- among us we have truly evil monsters, hiding in the guise of respectability and religious piety.
Do not allow yourselves to be fooled- this guy is evil incarnate, just like many poeple like him, and all debate around him needs to be formulated under that assumption- he is evil, he is dangerous, he deserves and should have absolutely no rights whatsoever beyond that of what you would give a cow. Our only consideration should be his guilt- and once that layer is stripped away, the layer of innocence- then we should never again concern oursselves with his "humanity" and only consider what is safe for others, and how we go about ridding the human race of such scum, period.
I am not one that pines over the fate of a murderer- I am just worried about the innocent in a justice system that is so very badly skewed against minorities and the poor- while allowing rich criminals to walk free.
Putting all that aside- and let us, for the sake of the debate- say that there is absolutely 100% reliability in Tookie's conviction- he did it, we all know he did it, he admits he did it, we have it on videotape, with his grandmother narrarating it.
I would say kill him now, do not give him another day to breath. He is an animal and deserves to be put down like a rabid dog.
At some point, American need to realize that not things that look human ARE human- Tookie is not a human- he is a monster thinly disguised as a human.
To those that do not deal with evil- this seems harsh. But it is true- among us we have truly evil monsters, hiding in the guise of respectability and religious piety.
Do not allow yourselves to be fooled- this guy is evil incarnate, just like many poeple like him, and all debate around him needs to be formulated under that assumption- he is evil, he is dangerous, he deserves and should have absolutely no rights whatsoever beyond that of what you would give a cow. Our only consideration should be his guilt- and once that layer is stripped away, the layer of innocence- then we should never again concern oursselves with his "humanity" and only consider what is safe for others, and how we go about ridding the human race of such scum, period.
[quote=doomed_planet,Nov 17 2005, 10:05 PM]
Does he deserve clemency?
Nope, Tooky should have thought about it a long time ago...
Why not?
I'm going to put a slightly different spin on this. He he was convicted and the punishment was dealt by the laws we have created. If we start randomly enforcing laws, it's essentially chaos.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
That's really not my call. I guess maybe the victims families could say yea or nay. As I see it, it's going to be up to his Creator to determine that. He committed a crime that was irreversible, why the not the punishment? The system is rightfully tilted in favor of the accused. It is better than some guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. That doesn't mean all guilty should go free so that you don't snag an innocent. Undoubtedly there will be errors, but that is the price of living in a lawful society.
Does he deserve clemency?
Nope, Tooky should have thought about it a long time ago...
Why not?
I'm going to put a slightly different spin on this. He he was convicted and the punishment was dealt by the laws we have created. If we start randomly enforcing laws, it's essentially chaos.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
That's really not my call. I guess maybe the victims families could say yea or nay. As I see it, it's going to be up to his Creator to determine that. He committed a crime that was irreversible, why the not the punishment? The system is rightfully tilted in favor of the accused. It is better than some guilty go free than one innocent be convicted. That doesn't mean all guilty should go free so that you don't snag an innocent. Undoubtedly there will be errors, but that is the price of living in a lawful society.
Tossing in my 2¢ before what promises to be a long evening of work...
This captures perfectly my sentiments on the matter.
I'm really having some problems with the death penalty as it exists in our current criminal justice system. Here in Illinois, where George Ryan pardoned all of those murderers, he probably 'saved' one or two "innocent" men. But even those men were bad people and in some cases they killed others, just not for a 'capital' crime. I'm against the death penalty, but if we are going to have it, we should enforce it regardless of 'death row conversion.' Just give everyone due process and that's it.
I sort of agree with this, but then aren't we just setting murderers loose on prison inmates vs. the society at large? In the case of "life without parole" as the maximum punishment "he'll never kill again" really means "he may kill an innocent prison guard or fellow inmate." Think about it.
This captures perfectly my sentiments on the matter.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 17 2005, 10:59 PM)
He should not be put to death, but for reasons other than he "deserves" to live.
I'm really having some problems with the death penalty as it exists in our current criminal justice system. Here in Illinois, where George Ryan pardoned all of those murderers, he probably 'saved' one or two "innocent" men. But even those men were bad people and in some cases they killed others, just not for a 'capital' crime. I'm against the death penalty, but if we are going to have it, we should enforce it regardless of 'death row conversion.' Just give everyone due process and that's it.
QUOTE(Vibiana @ Nov 18 2005, 09:35 AM)
The life without parole sentence should, in my opinion, be the ultimate punishment for heinous crimes.
I sort of agree with this, but then aren't we just setting murderers loose on prison inmates vs. the society at large? In the case of "life without parole" as the maximum punishment "he'll never kill again" really means "he may kill an innocent prison guard or fellow inmate." Think about it.
As far as the sincerity of Tookie William's repentence,
we should only judge him for his actions, not whether he is a monster or not.
The purpose of the Police and the Courts is to protect public safety, not decide whether someone goes to Heaven or Hell. Mark Twain once pointed out that someone who kills 10 people will get the same amount of justice that someone who kills 5 people gets. So in that sense, the Justice system cannot really be too fair can it?
we should only judge him for his actions, not whether he is a monster or not.
The purpose of the Police and the Courts is to protect public safety, not decide whether someone goes to Heaven or Hell. Mark Twain once pointed out that someone who kills 10 people will get the same amount of justice that someone who kills 5 people gets. So in that sense, the Justice system cannot really be too fair can it?
[quote=doomed_planet,Nov 17 2005, 09:05 PM]
SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- As murderer and Crips co-founder
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
[QUOTE]Does he deserve clemency?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE]Why?[/QUOTE]
For one, there are procedural problems with his trial and subsequent conviction. For one, he did not have a true jury of his peers as the lone African-American candidate was removed from the jury. During summation, he was compared to a Bengal tiger and other racially coded words were used inappropriately. The ACLU documents these and other conerns on a briefing paper online. Not only that, fingerprints at two different crime sites were not his, as a matter of fact, they have yet to be identified. To top it off, the prosecution used a paid jail informant who claimed to have heard a confession.
[QUOTE]
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?[/QUOTE]
I do, if he's faking it, he's doing a heck of a job. His writings and book clearly document that he is a changed man. In allowing him to live, perhaps he will continue to help criminally mischievious youths. His book in a lot of ways is similar to the autobiography of Malcolm X. We won't know for years how many lives it will have saved, but it will.
SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- As murderer and Crips co-founder
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
[QUOTE]Does he deserve clemency?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE]Why?[/QUOTE]
For one, there are procedural problems with his trial and subsequent conviction. For one, he did not have a true jury of his peers as the lone African-American candidate was removed from the jury. During summation, he was compared to a Bengal tiger and other racially coded words were used inappropriately. The ACLU documents these and other conerns on a briefing paper online. Not only that, fingerprints at two different crime sites were not his, as a matter of fact, they have yet to be identified. To top it off, the prosecution used a paid jail informant who claimed to have heard a confession.
[QUOTE]
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?[/QUOTE]
I do, if he's faking it, he's doing a heck of a job. His writings and book clearly document that he is a changed man. In allowing him to live, perhaps he will continue to help criminally mischievious youths. His book in a lot of ways is similar to the autobiography of Malcolm X. We won't know for years how many lives it will have saved, but it will.
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Nov 17 2005, 09:05 PM)
SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- As murderer and Crips co-founder
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Does he deserve clemency?
As Clint Eastwood said, "Deserves got nothin' to do with it." Tookie Williams killed four people in cold blood. If anyone's crimes deserve the death penalty, his qualifies. But, if there is such a thing as punishment there must be also be redemption and Williams seems to have had a conversion in prison. Governor Schwarzenegger should commute his death sentence to life in prison.
Why?
Williams has brought about untold misery and death indirectly to others by being a founder of the Crips street gang. Heaven knows how many lives have been destroyed and blood spilled by the evil Williams helped create. He seems to have realized how wrong he was in doing so and has spent years trying to turn his life around and that of others who look up to him. I don't doubt that the world wouldn't suffer much if Williams was put to death. On the other hand, I also don't doubt that it takes someone like a Tookie Williams to reach the type of young man who would join a street gang and steer them away.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Reedeemed? No. Nothing he does will ever breathe life back into those people who he killed or whose deaths he contributed to indirectly. Yet that does not mean he can't do some good with what has been a largely rotten life. I don't have the ability to look into Tookie Williams's heart and tell if he is sincere or not. What those who support clemency for Williams can hope is that he isn't pulling a royal scam and does a bit of good with what's left of his life.
Does he deserve clemency?
I'm against the death penalty and in favor of life imprisonment for murder 1 and some murder 2 cases, shorter time or fine/community work for murder 3.
Why?
The short answer is that two wrongs do not equal a right. Can't morally justify being for the death penalty, even though I've tried. Emotionally, I could be -- and that would be wrong too. Emotions are amoral. So if someone kills a loved one, yep, I'd want very much to be the executioner. Anyone would, but that doesn't make it right.
My anger might be forgiven though, since emotions can take control over rational thought. That's why we have murder 2, but it chills me to think that a rational government could institutionalize murder 1. Part of this conclusion comes from how governments have tried to take the moral onus of murder off the shoulders of professional executioners, the single blank cartridge idea for the firing squad, for example.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Up to a point. If he gets clemency, will he continue his good works? These guys are pretty smart. He might be manipulating, and if there isn't the motivation to save his own hide, the good works might dissolve. But what else could he do with his time? It's an interesting question. I'd be inclined to grant clemency just to find out, if I were the governor. Hey, looking for workable plots here!
So no, I'm doubtful that redemption has taken place. It's pretty easy to turn the leaf if remaining on one side means a short trip to the Reaper. But then, I'm not his or anyone else's judge in this matter. Redemption isn't my area. Observation is.
I'm against the death penalty and in favor of life imprisonment for murder 1 and some murder 2 cases, shorter time or fine/community work for murder 3.
Why?
The short answer is that two wrongs do not equal a right. Can't morally justify being for the death penalty, even though I've tried. Emotionally, I could be -- and that would be wrong too. Emotions are amoral. So if someone kills a loved one, yep, I'd want very much to be the executioner. Anyone would, but that doesn't make it right.
My anger might be forgiven though, since emotions can take control over rational thought. That's why we have murder 2, but it chills me to think that a rational government could institutionalize murder 1. Part of this conclusion comes from how governments have tried to take the moral onus of murder off the shoulders of professional executioners, the single blank cartridge idea for the firing squad, for example.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Up to a point. If he gets clemency, will he continue his good works? These guys are pretty smart. He might be manipulating, and if there isn't the motivation to save his own hide, the good works might dissolve. But what else could he do with his time? It's an interesting question. I'd be inclined to grant clemency just to find out, if I were the governor. Hey, looking for workable plots here!
So no, I'm doubtful that redemption has taken place. It's pretty easy to turn the leaf if remaining on one side means a short trip to the Reaper. But then, I'm not his or anyone else's judge in this matter. Redemption isn't my area. Observation is.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 28 2005, 09:40 AM)
Does he deserve clemency?
I'm against the death penalty and in favor of life imprisonment for murder 1 and some murder 2 cases, shorter time or fine/community work for murder 3.
Why?
The short answer is that two wrongs do not equal a right. Can't morally justify being for the death penalty, even though I've tried. Emotionally, I could be -- and that would be wrong too. Emotions are amoral. So if someone kills a loved one, yep, I'd want very much to be the executioner. Anyone would, but that doesn't make it right.
My anger might be forgiven though, since emotions can take control over rational thought. That's why we have murder 2, but it chills me to think that a rational government could institutionalize murder 1. Part of this conclusion comes from how governments have tried to take the moral onus of murder off the shoulders of professional executioners, the single blank cartridge idea for the firing squad, for example.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Up to a point. If he gets clemency, will he continue his good works? These guys are pretty smart. He might be manipulating, and if there isn't the motivation to save his own hide, the good works might dissolve. But what else could he do with his time? It's an interesting question. I'd be inclined to grant clemency just to find out, if I were the governor. Hey, looking for workable plots here!
So no, I'm doubtful that redemption has taken place. It's pretty easy to turn the leaf if remaining on one side means a short trip to the Reaper. But then, I'm not his or anyone else's judge in this matter. Redemption isn't my area. Observation is.
I'm against the death penalty and in favor of life imprisonment for murder 1 and some murder 2 cases, shorter time or fine/community work for murder 3.
Why?
The short answer is that two wrongs do not equal a right. Can't morally justify being for the death penalty, even though I've tried. Emotionally, I could be -- and that would be wrong too. Emotions are amoral. So if someone kills a loved one, yep, I'd want very much to be the executioner. Anyone would, but that doesn't make it right.
My anger might be forgiven though, since emotions can take control over rational thought. That's why we have murder 2, but it chills me to think that a rational government could institutionalize murder 1. Part of this conclusion comes from how governments have tried to take the moral onus of murder off the shoulders of professional executioners, the single blank cartridge idea for the firing squad, for example.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Up to a point. If he gets clemency, will he continue his good works? These guys are pretty smart. He might be manipulating, and if there isn't the motivation to save his own hide, the good works might dissolve. But what else could he do with his time? It's an interesting question. I'd be inclined to grant clemency just to find out, if I were the governor. Hey, looking for workable plots here!
So no, I'm doubtful that redemption has taken place. It's pretty easy to turn the leaf if remaining on one side means a short trip to the Reaper. But then, I'm not his or anyone else's judge in this matter. Redemption isn't my area. Observation is.
Why does it chill you? We institutionalize kidnapping (imprisonment). We institutionalize theft (fines). For the worst of the worst, why does it not make sense that we don't institutionalize "murder".
Now, of course this is not murder for the same reason that the state collecting a fine is not robbery. This is for various reasons. For one, it's authorized by statute. That, by its nature precludes state sanctioned executions from being classified as murder. Second, it is orchestrated through a careful and elaborate legal process designed to benefit the convicted. Third, it is state-sanctioned punishment for an illegal act. This is not vigilante justice. It is cautious, methodical and provides the convicted every opportunity in order to ensure an innocent person is not executed. And there has been no proof that at least since the reinstitution of the death penalty, when many of these safeguards were created, that any innocent person has been executed.
Now, does Williams deserve clemancy? No. But, like most other posters have stated, this has little to do with one's stance on capital punishment. For me, it is a practical consideration. As another poster mentioned, if we pardon capital punishment for good behavior, then every convict on death row will put on his best act to get out of his sanction. This shouldn't be the way the justice system works, especially for something as serious as the DP. If Williams is truly sorry for what he did (and this is shown through his work), then he should be content that he will be going to a better place.
Does he deserve clemency?
No.
Why not?
I’m in favor of the death penalty not as the vehicle of some bogus deterrent but a simple belief that you deserve to die for willfully and maliciously killing another human being. I also think the prosecution should save it for multiple murders. Tookie committed multiple murders, 4 people in two armed robberies. He can’t claim he got nervous and unintentionally shot somebody in the first armed robbery having committed a second.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
In the eyes of God perhaps. That’s between Tookie and his maker. So what? Which one of us humans is capable of defining the terms of redeem-ability, let alone declare there is a “better place” reformed death row inmates can look forward to?
No.
Why not?
I’m in favor of the death penalty not as the vehicle of some bogus deterrent but a simple belief that you deserve to die for willfully and maliciously killing another human being. I also think the prosecution should save it for multiple murders. Tookie committed multiple murders, 4 people in two armed robberies. He can’t claim he got nervous and unintentionally shot somebody in the first armed robbery having committed a second.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
In the eyes of God perhaps. That’s between Tookie and his maker. So what? Which one of us humans is capable of defining the terms of redeem-ability, let alone declare there is a “better place” reformed death row inmates can look forward to?
Does he deserve clemency?
Not while he still refuses to accept responsibility for his actions...
Why not?
Hes a murderous thug who worked very hard to earned his reward. If we can't draw the line at his actions, the laws and punishments become useless. The CA SC decided not to reopen the case today, if you can't sway judges in CA you must have a pretty weak case.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
See above quote. He still won't admit guilt, hence no redemption is possible. Perhaps it will come in handy in his next life. He can add the children's books to his resume, right after being co-founder of the Crips...
Not while he still refuses to accept responsibility for his actions...
QUOTE
This cold-blooded killer, Stanley Williams, now seeks mercy, the very mercy he so
callously denied Albert, Tsai-Shai, Yen-I, and Yee-Chen. Stanley Williams does not deserve
this mercy. In fact, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite
the non-existence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams has steadfastly refused to take any
responsibility for the brutal, destructive, and murderous acts he committed. Without such
responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no
mercy.
LA DA Response to Clemency Petitioncallously denied Albert, Tsai-Shai, Yen-I, and Yee-Chen. Stanley Williams does not deserve
this mercy. In fact, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite
the non-existence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams has steadfastly refused to take any
responsibility for the brutal, destructive, and murderous acts he committed. Without such
responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no
mercy.
Why not?
Hes a murderous thug who worked very hard to earned his reward. If we can't draw the line at his actions, the laws and punishments become useless. The CA SC decided not to reopen the case today, if you can't sway judges in CA you must have a pretty weak case.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
See above quote. He still won't admit guilt, hence no redemption is possible. Perhaps it will come in handy in his next life. He can add the children's books to his resume, right after being co-founder of the Crips...
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Nov 17 2005, 10:05 PM)
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Yes, I think that he does deserve clemency, primarily because I don't agree with the death penalty. The process for deciding who gets put to death and who doesn't is too subjective. It is very heavily skewed against poor and minority perpetrators, and I feel that humans (rife with bias and subjectivity) have no place applying such an absolute penalty (death). I think life imprisonment with no human contact and no chance of ever being released adequately protects society from the person while allowing for oopses.
This case is a perfect example. For starters, the prosecutor removed all potential black jurors from the trial. Looking at that with his history of being censured for doing the same thing suggests to me that he purposefully played on the racial biases of the jury to get him the death penalty.
"This same prosecutor was censured judicially twice for the same jury practice."
aclu press release
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
he nearly single-handedly is responsible for the modern gang culture that kills hundreds (thousands?) of people every year.
QUOTE(loreng59)
This person is one of the founders an organization built on murder, intimidation, and drugs.
Crips started as a gang to protect their neighborhood against the other gangs, and eventually it grew into what it was trying to protect against. The crips circa 1969 in the minds of those two teenagers was very different from the crips of the last 20 years. And he has expressed regret for what it became.
Not to minimize the death and destruction that the crips have unleashed upon this country, but I think it is unfair to hold him responsibility for modern gang culture. There were clubs and gangs in LA years before the crips ever came around. The Crips, similar to the gangs and clubs preceding them, didn't start in a vacuum, either. That is to say that conditions in society were ripe for gangs to flourish. I liken blaming him for the proliferation of gang culture to blaming that cow for the Chicago fire.
crips and bloods
QUOTE
Crips started as a gang to protect their neighborhood against the other gangs, and eventually it grew into what it was trying to protect against. The crips circa 1969 in the minds of those two teenagers was very different from the crips of the last 20 years. And he has expressed regret for what it became.
Not to minimize the death and destruction that the crips have unleashed upon this country, but I think it is unfair to hold him responsibility for modern gang culture. There were clubs and gangs in LA years before the crips ever came around. The Crips, similar to the gangs and clubs preceding them, didn't start in a vacuum, either. That is to say that conditions in society were ripe for gangs to flourish. I liken blaming him for the proliferation of gang culture to blaming that cow for the Chicago fire.
Not to minimize the death and destruction that the crips have unleashed upon this country, but I think it is unfair to hold him responsibility for modern gang culture. There were clubs and gangs in LA years before the crips ever came around. The Crips, similar to the gangs and clubs preceding them, didn't start in a vacuum, either. That is to say that conditions in society were ripe for gangs to flourish. I liken blaming him for the proliferation of gang culture to blaming that cow for the Chicago fire.
From What I know of the Crips, They didn't start as a neighborhood watch group, so much as just another gang protecting their neighborhood's drug sales for themselves, and keeping out random gangs from coming in and terrorizing there neighborhoods This much is academic. But Williams isn't just some guy who's dream went awry, he himself (by his own admission http://www.tookie.com/apology.html ) was involved in letting the "benevolent" gang turn malevolent.
And let's not forget that he isn't on Deathrow for creating the Crips, he is on deathrow for murdering 4 innocent people while robbing two seperate liquor stores. For these crimes he has never apologized.
I don't care one way or another about if he is sorry, so that point is moot anyhow. I just think that if you murder four people in cold blood you have a debt to pay. We've seen the legacy of violence and we've seen Wiliiams do his best to reverse the consequences of his actions which is admirable. But the families of the four dead need their peace and closure, and in the method of our human tradition he will grant those family members thier peace and closure by paying with his life for the actions he himself carried out. It is sad to think that when mistakes are made by people, they might not be able to take them back, but I'm sure that four families (to say the least) also wish that Williams didn't have to die, or go to prison, or lose their Children, husbands, brothers fathers etc. I'm sure that they would gladly grant Williams his life back to him, in return for their family members.
The moral of the story is, don't murder people,
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 5 2005, 03:20 PM)
From What I know of the Crips, They didn't start as a neighborhood watch group, so much as just another gang protecting their neighborhood's drug sales for themselves, and keeping out random gangs from coming in and terrorizing there neighborhoods This much is academic. But Williams isn't just some guy who's dream went awry, he himself (by his own admission http://www.tookie.com/apology.html ) was involved in letting the "benevolent" gang turn malevolent.
The link I included at the bottom of my original post was to an academic account of the origins of the cripts and does not suggest that their original intent was to protect a monopoly over local drug sales. It states the following:
QUOTE
Their initial intent was to continue the revolutionary ideology of the 1960s and to act as community leaders and protectors of their local neighborhoods, but the revolutionary rhetoric did not endure. Because of immaturity and a lack of political leadership, Raymond Washington and his group were never able to develop an efficient political agenda for social change within the community
You're right, he admits that he was complicit in the gang's intentions turning toward evil, but I'm saying that the groups intentions at the beginning weren't necessarily evil. I'm just taking a roundabout way of trying to make the point that I don't think there are "evil" people and "good" people, there are just people. Given the right circumstances, there isn't too much that most of us wouldn't do. Now granted, in many respects, this isn't terribly relevant to our present discussion. So, I digress.
QUOTE(johnlocke)
And let's not forget that he isn't on Deathrow for creating the Crips, he is on deathrow for murdering 4 innocent people while robbing two seperate liquor stores. For these crimes he has never apologized.
He may not be on death row solely for helping to create the crips, but i think it is reasonable to expect that his widely publicized contributions in starting such a notorius gang had something to do with his sentencing. It has certainly has something to do with the discussions of whether his sentence should be commuted.
He never apologized because he maintains that he is innocent. There's a difference between just an unrepentant criminal and an unrepentant criminal who maintains his innocence. If he feels he's innocent then of course he shouldn't apologize. Holding it against him that he won't apologize for what he says he is innocent of is a bit of a catch-22.
Does he deserve clemency?
No, Stanely Williams does not deserve clemency.
Why not?
Stanley Williams murdered four innocent people and shattered the lives of their families.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Philosphically? Only God knows. Physically he cannot bring back the four people that he has legally been recognized as killing, which is why he is on Deathrow and will die there. When he can do that, then he will have redeemed himself legally. If he has redeemed himself in the eyes of a supreme moral authority, than that should bring him much more happiness than any redemption the state of California could ever offer.
These are the names of the men he brutally and willlfully killed in a calculated manner:
Albert Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang, and Yee Chen Lin.
They once were alive and are no longer. They didn't form a world wide gang network for profit and corrupt the minds and souls of countless children leaving a wake of crime and death behind them, and they weren't granted clemency.
No, Stanely Williams does not deserve clemency.
Why not?
Stanley Williams murdered four innocent people and shattered the lives of their families.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Philosphically? Only God knows. Physically he cannot bring back the four people that he has legally been recognized as killing, which is why he is on Deathrow and will die there. When he can do that, then he will have redeemed himself legally. If he has redeemed himself in the eyes of a supreme moral authority, than that should bring him much more happiness than any redemption the state of California could ever offer.
These are the names of the men he brutally and willlfully killed in a calculated manner:
Albert Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang, and Yee Chen Lin.
They once were alive and are no longer. They didn't form a world wide gang network for profit and corrupt the minds and souls of countless children leaving a wake of crime and death behind them, and they weren't granted clemency.
QUOTE
Stanley Williams murdered four innocent people and shattered the lives of their families.
I wonder what they have to say about it now? Do THEY want him dead?
That to me would be the ultimate consideration if I were Governor, considering the details.
Personally , I see no benefit to killing him, but the political consequences are many.
Its a tough case:
1. He maintains his innocence, the trial was a bit dodgy, and he has done good works to right his initial idealogical wrongs. Likely one of a few that could and still can influence gang members in this arena. Will his death be more beneficial or less?
Depends on if the most influenced consider it a 'get over' on the system or a hope that the system is sometimes merciful in recognizing repentance and good works, that good works mean something or nothing in the world. Could go either way.
2. Letting him off gives a bad precedent on one hand ( as deterrant, but thats been proved irrelevant generally). Clemency allows for the State to consider redemption and rehabilitation as a way of justification that the prison system works which should ultimately be the purpose. What I mean to say is: A mistaken life can be redeemed and then is it ok to kill a man anyway?
The answer to that question really, is if the families desire execution. If they do, then allowing for our laws, he rightfully should be put to death. If they dont, I think he should be given clemency.
I think its political suicide for Swartzenegger to give clemency, based on what I know of the case, unless he sees special circumstances, like the families asking for clemency.
I am against capitol punishment except in extreme cases of confessed guilt and those proud of what they did, ie: confessed serial killers and pedophiles who by statistics cannot be reformed.
Indeed, apologizing for the murders that he commited would absolutely put him in a bad position, but he was convicted of the murders and legally responsible, he must die now according to law.
I really don't want the debate to turn into a "did he do it???" affair because I don't think that's respectful to doomed planet's thread but as a source for reading pleasure you may read down about his case and see what the DA in this so called "dodgey" case has to say. Once I reviewed these facts I neither believed the case was "dodgey" , nor did I care if it was.
... the case rested on the testimony of claimed accomplices and admitted informants, including a notorious jailhouse informant, all of whom were facing substantial prison time and even death for various offenses, and all of whom received either freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony. (Petition for Executive Clemency, Dated November 8, 2005, 9).
This statement is factually inaccurate. The People's case rested on strong physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and a series of incriminating admissions made by Williams himself.
The following is a summary of some of the evidence in this case, as well as the witnesses that testified against Williams.
The victims, who were defenseless, and offered no resistance, were killed with blasts from defendant's shotgun for the purpose of preventing the victims from ever being witnesses against the defendant These four killings were deliberate, premeditated, and with malice aforethought, as well as being robbery murders…the defendant used force and violence against the four victims for its own sake. (TT 3088-3089).
This was entirely from this page: http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie8.htm
and is almost the entirity of the text, but you can read for yourself if you like.
Doesn't seem like someone I care to keep around.
I really don't want the debate to turn into a "did he do it???" affair because I don't think that's respectful to doomed planet's thread but as a source for reading pleasure you may read down about his case and see what the DA in this so called "dodgey" case has to say. Once I reviewed these facts I neither believed the case was "dodgey" , nor did I care if it was.
QUOTE
... the case rested on the testimony of claimed accomplices and admitted informants, including a notorious jailhouse informant, all of whom were facing substantial prison time and even death for various offenses, and all of whom received either freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony. (Petition for Executive Clemency, Dated November 8, 2005, 9).
This statement is factually inaccurate. The People's case rested on strong physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and a series of incriminating admissions made by Williams himself.
The following is a summary of some of the evidence in this case, as well as the witnesses that testified against Williams.
QUOTE
The victims, who were defenseless, and offered no resistance, were killed with blasts from defendant's shotgun for the purpose of preventing the victims from ever being witnesses against the defendant These four killings were deliberate, premeditated, and with malice aforethought, as well as being robbery murders…the defendant used force and violence against the four victims for its own sake. (TT 3088-3089).
QUOTE
Layduane Douglas
In 1974, Layduane Douglas worked as the gun supervisor at Western Surplus. (TT 1478). As the gun supervisor, Mrs. Douglas was familiar with the record-keeping process utilized at the store. (TT 1478-1487). Mrs. Douglas, through her testimony and through documentation, proved that on February 25, 1974, Stanley Williams purchased the shotgun used in these murders. (TT 1478-1489).
Despite Williams' claims in his clemency petition, Douglas was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for her testimony. She was simply a citizen testifying to facts within the scope of her knowledge.
In 1974, Layduane Douglas worked as the gun supervisor at Western Surplus. (TT 1478). As the gun supervisor, Mrs. Douglas was familiar with the record-keeping process utilized at the store. (TT 1478-1487). Mrs. Douglas, through her testimony and through documentation, proved that on February 25, 1974, Stanley Williams purchased the shotgun used in these murders. (TT 1478-1489).
Despite Williams' claims in his clemency petition, Douglas was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for her testimony. She was simply a citizen testifying to facts within the scope of her knowledge.
QUOTE
James Garrett
In 1979, Stanley Williams lived with James Garrett. In fact, Williams typically stayed there between 5 and 7 days a week. (TT 1673-1674). He also kept, among other things, his shotgun at the residence. (TT 1673, 1691-1693). On March 13, 1979, just two days after the Brookhaven motel murders, Williams asked Mr. Garrett if he had heard about the motel murders. (TT 1675-1677).
Williams went on to explain that some "Chinese people" or "Buddhaheads" had been killed. (TT 1677-1678, 1720). Williams also stated that the murderer must have been a professional because he picked up the shotgun shells and did not leave behind any witnesses. (TT 1678, 1687).
Williams later provided Mr. Garrett with even more details. Williams explained that a big guy knocked down the door and "blew away" a guy on a couch (Mr. Yang), a woman near the register (Mrs. Yang), and a third person who came out from behind (Ms. Lin). (TT 1682).
Eventually, Williams admitted he was the actual murderer. He stated, in referring to committing a future robbery, he will "blow them away just like I blew them Buddhaheads away on Vermont." (TT 1720).
In addition to admitting his involvement in the Brookhaven murders, Williams also admitted killing Albert Owens. Specifically, Williams told Mr. Garrett that he had used his shotgun to blow away a white guy at a store, that Blackie (Alfred Coward) was with him, and that Blackie was a "punk" because Blackie couldn't eat after the murder. (TT 1688-1690).
In 1979, Stanley Williams lived with James Garrett. In fact, Williams typically stayed there between 5 and 7 days a week. (TT 1673-1674). He also kept, among other things, his shotgun at the residence. (TT 1673, 1691-1693). On March 13, 1979, just two days after the Brookhaven motel murders, Williams asked Mr. Garrett if he had heard about the motel murders. (TT 1675-1677).
Williams went on to explain that some "Chinese people" or "Buddhaheads" had been killed. (TT 1677-1678, 1720). Williams also stated that the murderer must have been a professional because he picked up the shotgun shells and did not leave behind any witnesses. (TT 1678, 1687).
Williams later provided Mr. Garrett with even more details. Williams explained that a big guy knocked down the door and "blew away" a guy on a couch (Mr. Yang), a woman near the register (Mrs. Yang), and a third person who came out from behind (Ms. Lin). (TT 1682).
Eventually, Williams admitted he was the actual murderer. He stated, in referring to committing a future robbery, he will "blow them away just like I blew them Buddhaheads away on Vermont." (TT 1720).
In addition to admitting his involvement in the Brookhaven murders, Williams also admitted killing Albert Owens. Specifically, Williams told Mr. Garrett that he had used his shotgun to blow away a white guy at a store, that Blackie (Alfred Coward) was with him, and that Blackie was a "punk" because Blackie couldn't eat after the murder. (TT 1688-1690).
QUOTE
Considered Killing Witness
Williams also told Mr. Garrett that he was considering killing Blackie. (TT 1689). Of course, this was subsequently corroborated by Williams' jailhouse note where he indicated Blackie was a "heartbeat away from death." (Trial Exh. 78).
James Garrett was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. This is not to say Mr. Garrett had an unblemished past.
At the time of trial, Mr. Garrett was facing sentencing for receiving stolen property. This crime carried a sentence of either one year in county jail or a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Mr. Garrett also had a pending extortion case.
Williams also told Mr. Garrett that he was considering killing Blackie. (TT 1689). Of course, this was subsequently corroborated by Williams' jailhouse note where he indicated Blackie was a "heartbeat away from death." (Trial Exh. 78).
James Garrett was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. This is not to say Mr. Garrett had an unblemished past.
At the time of trial, Mr. Garrett was facing sentencing for receiving stolen property. This crime carried a sentence of either one year in county jail or a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Mr. Garrett also had a pending extortion case.
This was entirely from this page: http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie8.htm
and is almost the entirity of the text, but you can read for yourself if you like.
Doesn't seem like someone I care to keep around.
Does he deserve clemency?
Yes.
Why?
In prison, Williams has gained international acclaim for writing children's books about the dangers of gang life. He has been nominated repeatedly for the Nobel Peace Prize. And he has attracted a cadre of celebrity supporters, including Jamie Foxx, who played Williams in a TV movie, "M*A*S*H" actor Mike Farrell and rapper Snoop Dogg, who is scheduled to appear at a rally Saturday outside the prison.
Your article also seems to heavily indicate, that the accusations of him runing a gang from inside jail, are fabricated. He seems like a good man, who is attempting to steer youth away from gang violence.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Yes. In my opinion, all one must do to redeem oneself, is to change, and this man obviously has.
Yes.
Why?
In prison, Williams has gained international acclaim for writing children's books about the dangers of gang life. He has been nominated repeatedly for the Nobel Peace Prize. And he has attracted a cadre of celebrity supporters, including Jamie Foxx, who played Williams in a TV movie, "M*A*S*H" actor Mike Farrell and rapper Snoop Dogg, who is scheduled to appear at a rally Saturday outside the prison.
Your article also seems to heavily indicate, that the accusations of him runing a gang from inside jail, are fabricated. He seems like a good man, who is attempting to steer youth away from gang violence.
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Yes. In my opinion, all one must do to redeem oneself, is to change, and this man obviously has.
QUOTE
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Yes. In my opinion, all one must do to redeem oneself, is to change, and this man obviously has.
Yes. In my opinion, all one must do to redeem oneself, is to change, and this man obviously has.
Now I have heard these accusations that he still has a heavy say in Crip affairs and don't believe it, and I also believe that he is in the middle of redeeming himself for creating a worldwide gang franchise. These are not the reasons he is currently in jail. He is in jail for murdering four innocent people, and for that he has neither confessed, nor apologized so he cannot redeem himself of those crimes.
QUOTE(tonyman @ Dec 5 2005, 12:27 PM)
He never apologized because he maintains that he is innocent. There's a
difference between just an unrepentant criminal and an unrepentant criminal
who maintains his innocence. If he feels he's innocent then of course he
shouldn't apologize. Holding it against him that he won't apologize for what
he says he is innocent of is a bit of a catch-22.
difference between just an unrepentant criminal and an unrepentant criminal
who maintains his innocence. If he feels he's innocent then of course he
shouldn't apologize. Holding it against him that he won't apologize for what
he says he is innocent of is a bit of a catch-22.
Tookie Williams is but one of the majority of prisoners who claim they are
innocent. His guilt has been proven in a court of law. He may be unwilling to
admit the truth because he cares more about his own chance for continued
survival than he does for taking true responsibility for his actions. The man
loses all credibility with me, personally, for his unwillingness to acknowledge
that he murderered four human beings.
He was sentenced to death in 1981. He should have been dead a quarter of
a century ago. And if he had honestly come to terms with what he has done,
he would accept his punishment. He could leave this world with some dignity
knowing he had faced the truth and accepted the consequences.
Does he deserve clemency?
Yes. I do not personally believe in the death penalty, which I view as a "two wrongs don't make a right" case. If even one innocent soul is executed, then the justice system is no better than the criminals it condemns.
Why? Why not?
Tookie Williams' cases were decided almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence as well as testimony from (mostly) unreliable sources. There were no eyewitnesses to three of the four murders. There was no DNA evidence to link Williams to the crime scenes. The only thing the prosecutors could come up with is connecting shotgun shells to the gun he purchased. In my opinion, there is far too much reasonable doubt to simply utilize this as an argument to sentence Williams to death. If someone lends their car to another person, and that person gets in an accident, we don't hold the owner responsible. As a result, there isn't enough proof of guilt in order to pin the murders on Williams. He is the likely suspect, but we don't convict people due to likeliness.
In the fourth murder, the prosecutor's eyewitness was Alfred Coward, one of Williams' cohorts. He was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. It's rather unbelievable to say that we will sentence a man to die based on the testimony of a fellow criminal who was at the scene when the murder took place. Incidentally, Coward is now serving time in a Canadian prison for manslaughter (and we're relying on his testimony?) Samuel Coleman, another witness brought by the prosecutors, testified that Williams bragged about the killings. He received immunity in exchange for his testimony as well. What makes that one more unusual is that Coleman was not at the scene of the crime--defense attorneys thought this was highly suspect. Why would a man not associated with the crime require immunity?
Tookie Williams has always claimed his innocence, which is why he won't apologize for the crimes. Given his recent (10 years or so) record of civility and peaceful propoganda, I find it inhumane to continue with the execution. I'm not Christian, but Jesus Christ himself stated that redemption is possible while on earth. I know for a fact that Christ would never have stood behind the death penalty (especially since he was a victim of it).
(edited to add: the above information was obtained thanks to the San Francisco Chronicle -- A question of evidence / Stanley Tookie Williams
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
Yes. I do not personally believe in the death penalty, which I view as a "two wrongs don't make a right" case. If even one innocent soul is executed, then the justice system is no better than the criminals it condemns.
Why? Why not?
Tookie Williams' cases were decided almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence as well as testimony from (mostly) unreliable sources. There were no eyewitnesses to three of the four murders. There was no DNA evidence to link Williams to the crime scenes. The only thing the prosecutors could come up with is connecting shotgun shells to the gun he purchased. In my opinion, there is far too much reasonable doubt to simply utilize this as an argument to sentence Williams to death. If someone lends their car to another person, and that person gets in an accident, we don't hold the owner responsible. As a result, there isn't enough proof of guilt in order to pin the murders on Williams. He is the likely suspect, but we don't convict people due to likeliness.
In the fourth murder, the prosecutor's eyewitness was Alfred Coward, one of Williams' cohorts. He was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. It's rather unbelievable to say that we will sentence a man to die based on the testimony of a fellow criminal who was at the scene when the murder took place. Incidentally, Coward is now serving time in a Canadian prison for manslaughter (and we're relying on his testimony?) Samuel Coleman, another witness brought by the prosecutors, testified that Williams bragged about the killings. He received immunity in exchange for his testimony as well. What makes that one more unusual is that Coleman was not at the scene of the crime--defense attorneys thought this was highly suspect. Why would a man not associated with the crime require immunity?
Tookie Williams has always claimed his innocence, which is why he won't apologize for the crimes. Given his recent (10 years or so) record of civility and peaceful propoganda, I find it inhumane to continue with the execution. I'm not Christian, but Jesus Christ himself stated that redemption is possible while on earth. I know for a fact that Christ would never have stood behind the death penalty (especially since he was a victim of it).
(edited to add: the above information was obtained thanks to the San Francisco Chronicle -- A question of evidence / Stanley Tookie Williams
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Dec 8 2005, 11:36 PM)
Tookie Williams is but one of the majority of prisoners who claim they are
innocent. His guilt has been proven in a court of law. He may be unwilling to
admit the truth because he cares more about his own chance for continued
survival than he does for taking true responsibility for his actions. The man
loses all credibility with me, personally, for his unwillingness to acknowledge
that he murderered four human beings.
innocent. His guilt has been proven in a court of law. He may be unwilling to
admit the truth because he cares more about his own chance for continued
survival than he does for taking true responsibility for his actions. The man
loses all credibility with me, personally, for his unwillingness to acknowledge
that he murderered four human beings.
Does Tookie deserve clemency?
I feel similar to you DP. I'm glad that I don't have to make this decision though. I don't see how his actions in prison negate his murdering of four people. Despite all of the press, I think that Arnold has little choice but to sit on his hands here. Otherwise, you are just writing the playbook on how to avoid execution, no matter the crime. Did anyone hear Snoop say "(Tookie's) like our(I'm assuming by 'our' he means the Crips) Martin Luther King."? Are you kidding me?!
QUOTE(FargoUT @ Dec 9 2005, 02:36 AM)
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
I want to address only one part of FargoUT's comment. The last, your comparison of gun manufacturers and street gangs to not only wrong, but down right insulting.If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
Gun manufactures do what? Build legal guns I believe. And street gangs? Murder, rape, extort, drug dealing, robbery, etc. Do you really think that the two are same?
And yes there is a standard called Criminal Enterprise. A criminal organization is in itself a crime. So yes blaming the founder of a criminal organization for the crimes that said organization commits is not only logical, but legal as well. The RICO Act was enacted for just that purpose and the only reason that Mr. Williams was not charged is because he is already on death row.
It recently came to me while watching the documentary of Wanda Jean that execution by State is not a single person issue.
John Locke, just to put forth example, says that the 'family' of the victim or victims suffer from the acts of the accused and convicted, by murder of a family member. True and Correct.
Thereby, in State executions, for murder, the family of the convicted also suffers, we can see that they do suffer greatly, by the ultimate execution of their family member, through no fault of their own.
IF, in a Christian State of Thou Shall not Kill, or Murder ( which is pretty clear to me), The State, by executing an individual does irreparable harm, equal to the harm done by the original killer, to the family of the killer, extending to untold numbers of people. Does this equal or ensure an unfathomable harm done by the State, twice-thrice-quadruple-fold? Yes. In other words, do we 'fix' the problem or actually double-triple-quadruple the pain?
If, a secular OR religious state accepts that its wrong to kill, never mind the Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill (or Murder), The state has NO right to execute or Murder an individual.
If we declare that to kill (humans) is wrong, the State has no right to kill ( a human). If killing is wrong, its just wrong, across the board.
Hypocrisy can get one around this, but its the only argument that can.
John Locke, just to put forth example, says that the 'family' of the victim or victims suffer from the acts of the accused and convicted, by murder of a family member. True and Correct.
Thereby, in State executions, for murder, the family of the convicted also suffers, we can see that they do suffer greatly, by the ultimate execution of their family member, through no fault of their own.
IF, in a Christian State of Thou Shall not Kill, or Murder ( which is pretty clear to me), The State, by executing an individual does irreparable harm, equal to the harm done by the original killer, to the family of the killer, extending to untold numbers of people. Does this equal or ensure an unfathomable harm done by the State, twice-thrice-quadruple-fold? Yes. In other words, do we 'fix' the problem or actually double-triple-quadruple the pain?
If, a secular OR religious state accepts that its wrong to kill, never mind the Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill (or Murder), The state has NO right to execute or Murder an individual.
If we declare that to kill (humans) is wrong, the State has no right to kill ( a human). If killing is wrong, its just wrong, across the board.
Hypocrisy can get one around this, but its the only argument that can.
I know this is a little off track, but just following the flow.
This just begs of one question in response. If killing is wrong "across the board", what say you to the unborn? I'm always a bit befuddled when I see those who so ardently oppose the death penalty on "other than religious" (e.g. Quakers) grounds so anxiously condoning infanticide. I'm still waiting to see an honest bumper sticker "Save the Whales but Kill the Babies". I think there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Dec 9 2005, 11:15 AM)
If we declare that to kill (humans) is wrong, the State has no right to kill ( a human). If killing is wrong, its just wrong, across the board.
Hypocrisy can get one around this, but its the only argument that can.
Hypocrisy can get one around this, but its the only argument that can.
This just begs of one question in response. If killing is wrong "across the board", what say you to the unborn? I'm always a bit befuddled when I see those who so ardently oppose the death penalty on "other than religious" (e.g. Quakers) grounds so anxiously condoning infanticide. I'm still waiting to see an honest bumper sticker "Save the Whales but Kill the Babies". I think there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
QUOTE
If we declare that to kill (humans) is wrong, the State has no right to kill ( a human). If killing is wrong, its just wrong, across the board.
Hypocrisy can get one around this, but its the only argument that can.
You can call it hypocrisy, or two wrongs making a right, or justice, as I do. Killing some one as punishment for a crime of equal or greater value is not commonly known as murder so much as punishment. And when you get to feeling bad for Stanley Williams family for having to watch him die, you should think about this. Stanley Williams is a convicted quadruple murderer. His family has had 25 years to say good bye to him and come to terms with the fact that their son is going to die (for killing 4 innocent people). That's 25 years more notice than the family members of his innocent victims got.
And for anyone still trying to make the case that the evidence against Williams' was weak, please read the whole thread, there is a good post about the evidence against him from the DA of the case.
QUOTE
QUOTE
... the case rested on the testimony of claimed accomplices and admitted informants, including a notorious jailhouse informant, all of whom were facing substantial prison time and even death for various offenses, and all of whom received either freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony. (Petition for Executive Clemency, Dated November 8, 2005, 9).
This statement is factually inaccurate. The People's case rested on strong physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and a series of incriminating admissions made by Williams himself.
The following is a summary of some of the evidence in this case, as well as the witnesses that testified against Williams.
QUOTE
The victims, who were defenseless, and offered no resistance, were killed with blasts from defendant's shotgun for the purpose of preventing the victims from ever being witnesses against the defendant These four killings were deliberate, premeditated, and with malice aforethought, as well as being robbery murders…the defendant used force and violence against the four victims for its own sake. (TT 3088-3089).
QUOTE
Layduane Douglas
In 1974, Layduane Douglas worked as the gun supervisor at Western Surplus. (TT 1478). As the gun supervisor, Mrs. Douglas was familiar with the record-keeping process utilized at the store. (TT 1478-1487). Mrs. Douglas, through her testimony and through documentation, proved that on February 25, 1974, Stanley Williams purchased the shotgun used in these murders. (TT 1478-1489).
Despite Williams' claims in his clemency petition, Douglas was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for her testimony. She was simply a citizen testifying to facts within the scope of her knowledge.
QUOTE
James Garrett
In 1979, Stanley Williams lived with James Garrett. In fact, Williams typically stayed there between 5 and 7 days a week. (TT 1673-1674). He also kept, among other things, his shotgun at the residence. (TT 1673, 1691-1693). On March 13, 1979, just two days after the Brookhaven motel murders, Williams asked Mr. Garrett if he had heard about the motel murders. (TT 1675-1677).
Williams went on to explain that some "Chinese people" or "Buddhaheads" had been killed. (TT 1677-1678, 1720). Williams also stated that the murderer must have been a professional because he picked up the shotgun shells and did not leave behind any witnesses. (TT 1678, 1687).
Williams later provided Mr. Garrett with even more details. Williams explained that a big guy knocked down the door and "blew away" a guy on a couch (Mr. Yang), a woman near the register (Mrs. Yang), and a third person who came out from behind (Ms. Lin). (TT 1682).
Eventually, Williams admitted he was the actual murderer. He stated, in referring to committing a future robbery, he will "blow them away just like I blew them Buddhaheads away on Vermont." (TT 1720).
In addition to admitting his involvement in the Brookhaven murders, Williams also admitted killing Albert Owens. Specifically, Williams told Mr. Garrett that he had used his shotgun to blow away a white guy at a store, that Blackie (Alfred Coward) was with him, and that Blackie was a "punk" because Blackie couldn't eat after the murder. (TT 1688-1690).
QUOTE
Considered Killing Witness
Williams also told Mr. Garrett that he was considering killing Blackie. (TT 1689). Of course, this was subsequently corroborated by Williams' jailhouse note where he indicated Blackie was a "heartbeat away from death." (Trial Exh. 78).
James Garrett was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. This is not to say Mr. Garrett had an unblemished past.
At the time of trial, Mr. Garrett was facing sentencing for receiving stolen property. This crime carried a sentence of either one year in county jail or a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Mr. Garrett also had a pending extortion case.
This was entirely from this page: http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie8.htm
and is almost the entirity of the text, but you can read for yourself if you like.
Doesn't seem like someone I care to keep around.
... the case rested on the testimony of claimed accomplices and admitted informants, including a notorious jailhouse informant, all of whom were facing substantial prison time and even death for various offenses, and all of whom received either freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony. (Petition for Executive Clemency, Dated November 8, 2005, 9).
This statement is factually inaccurate. The People's case rested on strong physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and a series of incriminating admissions made by Williams himself.
The following is a summary of some of the evidence in this case, as well as the witnesses that testified against Williams.
QUOTE
The victims, who were defenseless, and offered no resistance, were killed with blasts from defendant's shotgun for the purpose of preventing the victims from ever being witnesses against the defendant These four killings were deliberate, premeditated, and with malice aforethought, as well as being robbery murders…the defendant used force and violence against the four victims for its own sake. (TT 3088-3089).
QUOTE
Layduane Douglas
In 1974, Layduane Douglas worked as the gun supervisor at Western Surplus. (TT 1478). As the gun supervisor, Mrs. Douglas was familiar with the record-keeping process utilized at the store. (TT 1478-1487). Mrs. Douglas, through her testimony and through documentation, proved that on February 25, 1974, Stanley Williams purchased the shotgun used in these murders. (TT 1478-1489).
Despite Williams' claims in his clemency petition, Douglas was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for her testimony. She was simply a citizen testifying to facts within the scope of her knowledge.
QUOTE
James Garrett
In 1979, Stanley Williams lived with James Garrett. In fact, Williams typically stayed there between 5 and 7 days a week. (TT 1673-1674). He also kept, among other things, his shotgun at the residence. (TT 1673, 1691-1693). On March 13, 1979, just two days after the Brookhaven motel murders, Williams asked Mr. Garrett if he had heard about the motel murders. (TT 1675-1677).
Williams went on to explain that some "Chinese people" or "Buddhaheads" had been killed. (TT 1677-1678, 1720). Williams also stated that the murderer must have been a professional because he picked up the shotgun shells and did not leave behind any witnesses. (TT 1678, 1687).
Williams later provided Mr. Garrett with even more details. Williams explained that a big guy knocked down the door and "blew away" a guy on a couch (Mr. Yang), a woman near the register (Mrs. Yang), and a third person who came out from behind (Ms. Lin). (TT 1682).
Eventually, Williams admitted he was the actual murderer. He stated, in referring to committing a future robbery, he will "blow them away just like I blew them Buddhaheads away on Vermont." (TT 1720).
In addition to admitting his involvement in the Brookhaven murders, Williams also admitted killing Albert Owens. Specifically, Williams told Mr. Garrett that he had used his shotgun to blow away a white guy at a store, that Blackie (Alfred Coward) was with him, and that Blackie was a "punk" because Blackie couldn't eat after the murder. (TT 1688-1690).
QUOTE
Considered Killing Witness
Williams also told Mr. Garrett that he was considering killing Blackie. (TT 1689). Of course, this was subsequently corroborated by Williams' jailhouse note where he indicated Blackie was a "heartbeat away from death." (Trial Exh. 78).
James Garrett was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. This is not to say Mr. Garrett had an unblemished past.
At the time of trial, Mr. Garrett was facing sentencing for receiving stolen property. This crime carried a sentence of either one year in county jail or a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Mr. Garrett also had a pending extortion case.
This was entirely from this page: http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie8.htm
and is almost the entirity of the text, but you can read for yourself if you like.
Doesn't seem like someone I care to keep around.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Dec 9 2005, 07:25 AM)
QUOTE(FargoUT @ Dec 9 2005, 02:36 AM)
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
I want to address only one part of FargoUT's comment. The last, your comparison of gun manufacturers and street gangs to not only wrong, but down right insulting.If he didn't commit the crimes, there is nothing to redeem himself of. He co-founded the Crips gang, which he views as a wrongheaded decision on his part. Several arguments I've read in this forum have pointed this out, that the Crips gang is responsible for murder, drug trade, and various other crime. Blaming Tookie Williams for this is, in fact, the same as blaming the gun manufacturer who made the gun used in the crimes. And since gun manufacturers were recently granted immunity from lawsuits, we should afford the same rights to anyone else.
Gun manufactures do what? Build legal guns I believe. And street gangs? Murder, rape, extort, drug dealing, robbery, etc. Do you really think that the two are same?
And yes there is a standard called Criminal Enterprise. A criminal organization is in itself a crime. So yes blaming the founder of a criminal organization for the crimes that said organization commits is not only logical, but legal as well. The RICO Act was enacted for just that purpose and the only reason that Mr. Williams was not charged is because he is already on death row.
Tookie Williams was not the head of the Crips gang (and, in fact, despite his claims of co-founding it, the Crips gang--which began as the Baby Cribs gang--was around a year or so prior to Tookie Williams' involvement). It would be a difficult case to level against him using the Criminal Enterprise ideal.
I compared Tookie Williams to gun manufacturers not based on legality, but on responsibility. Please don't misinterpret my comparison as declaring gun manufacturers as evil--it was only meant to compare how we level responsibility against perpetrators. We do not sentence someone to die for something another criminal committed. Given the amount of circumstantial evidence, I do not view this as a justifiable case for death.
QUOTE
Given the amount of circumstantial evidence, I do not view this as a justifiable case for death.
Can someone please help me??? Please. I have on two occasions now posted credible evidence that Stanley Williams was convicted on sound evidence but people continue to say things like "Dodgy" and "Shaddy" trial with "circumstancial" evidence.
Any member can feel free to post whatever evidence they have but you may not continue to say things in the face of evidence that refutes what you say with out other sources to back you up. His trial was neither shaddy, or dodgy, nor was it founded on circumstancial evidence despite what Stanley William's websites say without evidence.
QUOTE(FargoUT @ Dec 9 2005, 04:19 PM)
Tookie Williams was not the head of the Crips gang (and, in fact, despite his
claims of co-founding it, the Crips gang--which began as the Baby Cribs gang--
was around a year or so prior to Tookie Williams' involvement). It would be
a difficult case to level against him using the Criminal Enterprise ideal.
claims of co-founding it, the Crips gang--which began as the Baby Cribs gang--
was around a year or so prior to Tookie Williams' involvement). It would be
a difficult case to level against him using the Criminal Enterprise ideal.
Tookie Williams himself is claiming to have started the Crips and you
are refuting his own admission. Gee whiz.
The guy is responsible for helping to start a fire and his children's books and "model prison behavior"
are the equivalent of taking a squirt-gun to a blazing inferno. But that's beside
the point because that's not what he was sentenced to die for.
QUOTE
We do not sentence someone to die for something another criminal
committed. Given the amount of circumstantial evidence, I do not view this
as a justifiable case for death.
committed. Given the amount of circumstantial evidence, I do not view this
as a justifiable case for death.
WE have sentenced him to die because WE have found him guilty
in a court of law. If the evidence doesn't reach YOUR threshhold that's
your problem. It has reached the threshhold of the state of California.
Does this remind anyone else of the Norman Mailer/Jack Abbot debacle? The only thing missing is Jack Abbot was not nominated for Nobel prizes, which to me only speaks volumes to the dolts doing the nominating. I mean he's sold all of 300 odd books total I've read.
Jack also could not accept responsibility for his crimes, blaming them on society, etc.
Tookie could follow Jack's lead and do the honorable thing and hang himself with a bedsheet, thus saving the anguish, and almost certain violence, that will surround his execution should it come to pass.
Jack also could not accept responsibility for his crimes, blaming them on society, etc.
Tookie could follow Jack's lead and do the honorable thing and hang himself with a bedsheet, thus saving the anguish, and almost certain violence, that will surround his execution should it come to pass.
QUOTE
Does he deserve clemency?
Not while he still refuses to accept responsibility for his actions...
Not while he still refuses to accept responsibility for his actions...
QUOTE
This cold-blooded killer, Stanley Williams, now seeks mercy, the very mercy he so
callously denied Albert, Tsai-Shai, Yen-I, and Yee-Chen. Stanley Williams does not deserve
this mercy. In fact, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite
the non-existence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams has steadfastly refused to take any
responsibility for the brutal, destructive, and murderous acts he committed. Without such
responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no
mercy.
LA DA Response to Clemency Petitioncallously denied Albert, Tsai-Shai, Yen-I, and Yee-Chen. Stanley Williams does not deserve
this mercy. In fact, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite
the non-existence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams has steadfastly refused to take any
responsibility for the brutal, destructive, and murderous acts he committed. Without such
responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no
mercy.
Thank you for posting the LAPD response document. it is interesting that in the document, the testimony of George Oglesby. This inmate was one who claimed that he received a note from Tookie Williams in regards to a possible jail break. It turns out that a former cell-mate of Oglesby's has just issued an affidavit casting doubt on Oglesby's motivation for testifying. I would be interested in learning if the LAPD had a role in helping Oglesby out to get their man.
Remember, this is the infamous group that gave us the Ramparts division which planted evidence, and destroyed it if it benefited their cases.
QUOTE
Hes a murderous thug who worked very hard to earned his reward. If we can't draw the line at his actions, the laws and punishments become useless.
Before the crime was commited, I'm certain that California executed prisoners. If the deterrent didn't work in the Williams case, why it would work in any case since then, let alone now?
QUOTE
See above quote. He still won't admit guilt, hence no redemption is possible. Perhaps it will come in handy in his next life. He can add the children's books to his resume, right after being co-founder of the Crips...
Don't dismiss the impact of his books--more than a few wayward youths may be influenced to not follow the path that he did. To me, it is making restitution, however impossible to fulfill, for his past misdeeds.
Does he deserve clemency?
Yes, he should be given clemency and life in prison without chance of parole.
Why?
No one can read what goes on in Tookie Williams' heart, but the man has contributed positively to society while in prison, and he hasn't had any infractions since 1993. I see no gain in killing him, but I do see negative repercussions.
Of course Tookie Williams can't bring back the four men that he killed, but killing him in turn is not going to bring them back either. Let him continue with his work behind bars.
As an aside, Democracy Now did a live interview with Tookie Williams on November 30th. It's an interesting listen.
Yes, he should be given clemency and life in prison without chance of parole.
Why?
No one can read what goes on in Tookie Williams' heart, but the man has contributed positively to society while in prison, and he hasn't had any infractions since 1993. I see no gain in killing him, but I do see negative repercussions.
Of course Tookie Williams can't bring back the four men that he killed, but killing him in turn is not going to bring them back either. Let him continue with his work behind bars.
As an aside, Democracy Now did a live interview with Tookie Williams on November 30th. It's an interesting listen.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Dec 9 2005, 06:32 PM)
QUOTE
Given the amount of circumstantial evidence, I do not view this as a justifiable case for death.
Can someone please help me??? Please. I have on two occasions now posted credible evidence that Stanley Williams was convicted on sound evidence but people continue to say things like "Dodgy" and "Shaddy" trial with "circumstancial" evidence.
Any member can feel free to post whatever evidence they have but you may not continue to say things in the face of evidence that refutes what you say with out other sources to back you up. His trial was neither shaddy, or dodgy, nor was it founded on circumstancial evidence despite what Stanley William's websites say without evidence.
I will try. What you posted was from the prosecuting attorney's office. A prosecutor's job is to win a conviction. That doesn't necessarily mean they will lie (though at times that has certainly been done), but it does mean that what they are going to put forward is a particular version of the crime. A good prosecutor will place a particular emphasis on how they say things, to hopefully help them win a conviction. The DA's office also has little interest in revisiting any questionable cases, since it won't look good for them if a case gets overturned, particularly for any doctoring on the part of the state.
This isn't to say that what you presented isn't true, but that it is certainly a one-sided view of the case.
If I were you, I wouldn't use the prosecutor's version of the case as the end-all of this crime. Likewise, I wouldn't use Williams' words as evidence that he is innocent.
Nonetheless, and no matter what occurred, I believe that no human beings in this world are beyond redemption. I learned that in Sunday School.
QUOTE
What you posted was from the prosecuting attorney's office. A prosecutor's job is to win a conviction.
Quark, a DA's job is not to win convictions but to enforce the law if and as it applies to the people broght before him. Prosecutors don't always prosecute people, they often times find that there is not enough evidence to even try prosecuting. But that wasn't the case with Stanley Williams.
QUOTE
This isn't to say that what you presented isn't true, but that it is certainly a one-sided view of the case.
Those were the facts of the case Quark. They were taken directly from testimony and evidence presented, the same evidence that convicted Williams. If you look after each fact presented you can read the evidence docket number that follows afterward. Every appellate court in California has upheld the decision essentially convicting him to death for the QUADRUPLE murder over and over again. However if you or Stanley Williams can present real evidence that these facts are wrong I would strongly suggest a hurried approach to bringing these facts to light. It might save his life.
QUOTE
Nonetheless, and no matter what occurred, I believe that no human beings in this world are beyond redemption. I learned that in Sunday School.
I never said he was beyond redemption, I said that he hadn't earned redemption. He has never shown remorse for the same crimes he once bragged of committing and as I learned in Sunday School, one who is not sorry for his deeds will never recieve redemption, because true redemption begins with remorse.
Stanley Williams will die for his deeds and I hope for his sake his last words won't be "I'm sorry I created the Crips", I hope they will be "I'm sorry I was a cold blooded killer", because selling 300 copies of 1 childrens book doesn't make up for what he put those people through.
QUOTE
Quark, a DA's job is not to win convictions but to enforce the law if and as it applies to the people broght before him. Prosecutors don't always prosecute people, they often times find that there is not enough evidence to even try prosecuting. But that wasn't the case with Stanley Williams.
That may be what a DA's job is, but that doesn't always mean that it's his/her motivation. Attorneys don't usually delight in losing cases, and there are certain cases that stand to further their careers if won. I can't comment on the motivation of the attorneys in this particular case, but I do believe that Quark is correct that you can't just look at one side of the case and make a determination about whether or not Tookie Williams was fairly tried.
QUOTE
I never said he was beyond redemption, I said that he hadn't earned redemption. He has never shown remorse for the same crimes he once bragged of committing and as I learned in Sunday School, one who is not sorry for his deeds will never recieve redemption, because true redemption begins with remorse.
From what I understand, Tookie Williams has always maintained his innocence regarding the four murders that he's been convicted of. In my reading, I haven't come across any indication that he's bragged about the murders.
QUOTE
Stanley Williams will die for his deeds and I hope for his sake his last words won't be "I'm sorry I created the Crips", I hope they will be "I'm sorry I was a cold blooded killer", because selling 300 copies of 1 childrens book doesn't make up for what he put those people through.
It does't make up for the crime of murder, but I would argue that neither does killing the man. While alive, he has the ability to contribute positively to society even from behind bars. His death accomplishes nothing.
Even Linda Owens, the wife of Albert Owens, has issued a statement praising Williams' work.
I think you have to ask yourself whether your motivation in proceeding with the death penalty is truly based on justice or whether or not you're actively seeking revenge.
QUOTE(doomed_planet @ Nov 17 2005, 10:05 PM)
SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- As murderer and Crips co-founder
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
Stanley Tookie Williams tries to stave off execution next month, California
prison officials have launched an unusual counterattack against the notion
that he has redeemed himself behind bars.
Story here.
Does he deserve clemency?
Why?
Why not?
Do you believe that he has redeemed himself?
No he does not deserve clemency. The victims family's have suffered his life long enough. He is a murderer and organizer of murderers. While it is wonderful he's written books and renounced his killing ways he should now ask for death. Certainly when he was killing women he was proving his bravery. Let him be brave now and take the relatively painless death as his final pennance.
Drudge is headlining that Tookie's clemency appeal has been denied by Governor Schwarzenegger. Some say his faltering in this as he has taken some heat from Republicans, especially after four failed initiatives. I don't believe that he would truly sacrifice a human life for his political career, as most anything can be overcome with a good explanation. 
With that being said, I find it interesting that a cellmate of a witness in this case has filed an affidavit casting new light as to how and why a witness came out against Tookie as he did. Not only that, but according to Tookie's website(or run by his friends) the prosecutor in his original case had been censured twice before for making racial comments. Could this be why he called Tookie a "bengal tiger" to an all-white jury?? The more that I read a bout this, the more doubts that pop up in my mind. It's too bad that the LAPD doesn't have a memo about these points.
With that being said, I find it interesting that a cellmate of a witness in this case has filed an affidavit casting new light as to how and why a witness came out against Tookie as he did. Not only that, but according to Tookie's website(or run by his friends) the prosecutor in his original case had been censured twice before for making racial comments. Could this be why he called Tookie a "bengal tiger" to an all-white jury?? The more that I read a bout this, the more doubts that pop up in my mind. It's too bad that the LAPD doesn't have a memo about these points.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.