[quote]frisbee wrote:
Don’t have anything to add to the discussion, just wanted to post a picture of him. Definaly looks like a bad mother fucker (not in the sense that he would kill people, but in the samuel jackson sense)[/quote]
Which brand of creatine did he use?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The great State of Texas loves the death penalty so much - we put in an express lane.
I have no problem with the death penalty. But I do think that with the improvement in ID technology, DNA matching should be required before the case can be considered a capital offense unless you have two or more eyewitnesses that can identify the defendant.
Professor X wrote:
The fact that there are several prisoners being released due to DNA findings shows just how faulted our legal system is/was. While it may be better than many, it isn’t as if racism, bigotry or pure ignorance on the part of jurors doesn’t play a huge role in who gets convicted of what.
This is an interesting point. While it does show technology wasn’t perfect in the past, shouldn’t this mean that convictions in the future that utilize DNA evidence are almost fool-proof, and thus be an argument for (or at least cancel an argument against) the death penalty on a going-forward basis?[/quote]
Aren’t jurors just now even understanding what DNA really is? If it weren’t for shows like CSI, you would be standing in court effectively teaching biochemistry to a group of people who more than likely are nowhere near qualified enough to understand it. No, I would say bias still has a large hand in the process. If it were that simple and infallible, what would we need the jury for?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Aren’t jurors just now even understanding what DNA really is? If it weren’t for shows like CSI, you would be standing in court effectively teaching biochemistry to a group of people who more than likely are nowhere near qualified enough to understand it. No, I would say bias still has a large hand in the process. If it were that simple and infallible, what would we need the jury for?[/quote]
We’d need a jury because it’s required by the Constitution, and because not all cases will have DNA evidence, and because not all DNA evidence is going to prove something other than that the blood stain, hair sample, etc. belonged to either the victim or the accused. THis is especially true with non-blood DNA evidence in cases in which the accused and victim were well acquainted (think Scott Petersen).
Still, DNA will only serve to decrease the error rate, and in certain cases will provide a fairly open-and-shut case – think cases in which the accused doesn’t know the victim at all, but ends up with the victim’s blood on his clothes after claiming to have never seen the victim before and also having her watch at his apartment.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think this thread ignores one of the points of punishment in society, and that is the retribution effect. Allowing the government to prosecute and punish crimes is supposed to take the place of private retribution activity. If that is the case, then it doesn’t matter whether someone reforms or writes children’s books – if he’s a murderer, and the punishment he receives is the death penalty, then even if he sits on death row for 25 years he should still receive his sentence.
Here’s a couple of good articles/posts defending the principle of retribution in the justice system:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/crime_control_/2005/11/pinochet_and_retribution.php
BTW, this is a completely separate justification for government-imposed punishments than the protection of the citizenry, and neither is explicitly the one used for justification – in other words, neither is explicitly the “right” theory. Rehabilitiation is another possible theory, though one that seems to have been rejected as a stand-alone goal (it fits much better with the “protect the citizens” theory than with the retribution theory).
[/quote]
I can better accept the idea of a death penalty as a notion of punishment/retribution as opposed to some kind of deterrent. Not to get overly philosophical, but for me, I view it as Immanuel Kant does - that humanity is meant to be an end, not a means to an end. It’s more problematic to think that you are executing someone to serve a purpose and use them as a tool as opposed to doing it as the most severe form of punishment. That being said, I still don’t but into the entire concept regardless.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The great State of Texas loves the death penalty so much - we put in an express lane.
I have no problem with the death penalty. But I do think that with the improvement in ID technology, DNA matching should be required before the case can be considered a capital offense unless you have two or more eyewitnesses that can identify the defendant. [/quote]
In what perfect world would that apply; this society is falling prey to the TV crime show mentality; we want fancy evidence and bells and whistles. Your desire is well placed for I believe a guilty man should be set free if it serves to preserve the system that allows innocent men to be proven innocent.
But as to DNA, witnesses, etc., crime doesn’t occur in a vacuum and the State takes the case as it receives it. There are many more ways to prove a murder, etc. - none perfect - other than DNA, witnesses etc. In fact, DNA and witnesses are not perfect.
I’m rambling - there’s a point there somewhere - let the jury decide the death penalty - they heard the evidence. Can’t send one to the afterlife b/c DNA was available and not the other scum bag b/c it wasn’t yet was convicted of the same crime. You seem to imply that convictions w/o that type of evidence are somehow lesser convictions - they are not necessarily is my point.
Let this piece of shit fry. I would have no problem throwing the switch myself
The death penalty would be more of a deterrant if it was carried out expeditiously; everyone knows that you have years and years until, or if, you’re executed. Not much of a deterrant. Now, make the death penalty expeditious - after the trial, and you have a deterrant. Unfortunately, our justice system won’t allow such swiftness. They used to hang men in this country for stealing horses and that was probably a damn strong deterrant against stealing horses. And they hung you after the trial. No 20 year appeal process.
Now, I ask you; let’s say you’re a 30-40 year old man about to commit a capital murder. You know if caught, you’re facing 20 to life; if you’re in the wrong State, it maybe death. Either way, I’m probably looking at dying in prison; your life expectancy in prison is much shorter beyond the obvious reasons; with appeals I’m damn near looking at doing the same time. Fact is, punishment that may or may not occur 5, 10, 15, even 20 years later, no matter how severe, is no deterrant at all.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
I can better accept the idea of a death penalty as a notion of punishment/retribution as opposed to some kind of deterrent. Not to get overly philosophical, but for me, I view it as Immanuel Kant does - that humanity is meant to be an end, not a means to an end. It’s more problematic to think that you are executing someone to serve a purpose and use them as a tool as opposed to doing it as the most severe form of punishment. That being said, I still don’t but into the entire concept regardless.[/quote]
I think that referring to the death penalty as a deterrent is a false argument. I’m not calling you out, Kuz - your post just brought home to me that many people that are opposed to the death penalty because itr is a poor deterrent to crime. There are also those on the pro-death penalty side that think it is a deterrent as well.
To me the death penalty is just that - a penalty of death. It is exclusive to each criminal sentenced to death, and should not be viewed as way to reduce crime. Maybe there is some residual deterrent effect, but it is not at all the reason I am for the death penalty. I am in favor of it because it is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.
On a slightly related note - instead of giving child molesters a 10 year sentence and then continuing to punish them after they have already served their time, why not make child molestation a capital offense?
I have to agree with Professor X, I don’t believe in killing anyone. There is a need for some kind of extreme detterent for people to not commit a crime.
I do believe that someone can change, I have seen lots of people change into a complete person after an event that happened in their life. Learning about life, god, or anything that may have changed them.
I do believe that Tookie shouldn’t be freed necessarily, that’s not what he’s asking for. He is asking for his sentence to be changed to life so he can keep helping kids.
If it wasn’t for him I wouldn’t have stopped doing the things I was doing. I read one of his books even though I wasn’t a kid, and I thought if the orginator of the Crips had changed his life I could and I wasn’t as deep as he was into crime. I’m not saying I was the meanest S.O.B. on the earth and I’ve changed, but I was heading towards it pretty quick. He wasn’t the only thing that changed me, a lot of people helped me change. I thank everyone that did help me.
[quote]Chris Adams wrote:
I have to agree with Professor X, I don’t believe in killing anyone. There is a need for some kind of extreme detterent for people to not commit a crime.
I do believe that someone can change, I have seen lots of people change into a complete person after an event that happened in their life. Learning about life, god, or anything that may have changed them.
I do believe that Tookie shouldn’t be freed necessarily, that’s not what he’s asking for. He is asking for his sentence to be changed to life so he can keep helping kids.
If it wasn’t for him I wouldn’t have stopped doing the things I was doing. I read one of his books even though I wasn’t a kid, and I thought if the orginator of the Crips had changed his life I could and I wasn’t as deep as he was into crime. I’m not saying I was the meanest S.O.B. on the earth and I’ve changed, but I was heading towards it pretty quick. He wasn’t the only thing that changed me, a lot of people helped me change. I thank everyone that did help me.[/quote]
Chris,
That’s a pretty interesting post given your perspective that his book actually made an impact on you.
However, my feeling is that if Tookie did indeed change, then good for him. Maybe one day he can look his maker in the eye with a cleaner conscience to try and make amends for the things that he has done… but it does not mean he should not pay for those things as determined by the law. I just cannot get in line with the idea that because he has changed (and that point still seems to be up for a fair amount of debate), that it should somehow reduce his punishment.
[quote]Chris Adams wrote:
I have to agree with Professor X, I don’t believe in killing anyone. There is a need for some kind of extreme detterent for people to not commit a crime.
I do believe that someone can change, I have seen lots of people change into a complete person after an event that happened in their life. Learning about life, god, or anything that may have changed them.
I do believe that Tookie shouldn’t be freed necessarily, that’s not what he’s asking for. He is asking for his sentence to be changed to life so he can keep helping kids.
If it wasn’t for him I wouldn’t have stopped doing the things I was doing. I read one of his books even though I wasn’t a kid, and I thought if the orginator of the Crips had changed his life I could and I wasn’t as deep as he was into crime. I’m not saying I was the meanest S.O.B. on the earth and I’ve changed, but I was heading towards it pretty quick. He wasn’t the only thing that changed me, a lot of people helped me change. I thank everyone that did help me.[/quote]
This is a very complex issue. I am not for the death penalty most of the time- I believe it should only be used in extreme cases when one is a sociopath- if they get out, they are garaunteed to kill again. Even then, I don’t feel that it is the “right” thing to do.
I do believe people can change in prison. I have read a few books written by former gang members, where they go from murderous youths to politically minded activists who understand why they do the things they did in the past. Often, these people can help society- even if it is from behind bars.
As far as I am concerned, the guy is a product of a system aimed at oppression. To put him to death does not seem to address the issue of why young blacks in south central LA end updoing this kind of shit- or feeling that they have to. Not only that, but it may have the opposite effect, as in making a martyr out of him.
And honestly, members of the Mafia have done far worse things, and were never put to death. If you are telling me that Tookie Williams is a worse model of a human being that Al Capone or John Gotti, than I think thats not being fair.
Of course, I understand everyone’s point about why you would like to see him die, and I won’t argue with those that think he should be executed- I can understand that too. But I think he has more to offer society than just being the 1,001 execution.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…As far as I am concerned, the guy is a product of a system aimed at oppression. …[/quote]
You have a depressing way of looking at the world. While oppression certainly exists in our society I don’t think it is an aim, rather it is a byproduct.
What you consider oppression is mostly the lack of hope and opportunity.
Interesting fact: In 2004, the US was fourth in terms of number of people executed. Let’s take a look at who else made this list.
CHINA (At least 3,400 Executions)
IRAN (Approx. 159)
VIET NAM (Approx. 64)
UNITED STATES (59)
Saudi Arabia (33)
Pakistan (15)
Kuwait (9)
Bangladesh (7)
Egypt (6)
Singapore (6)
Yemen (6)
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30#interexec
Now…aren’t we supposed to be better, more civilized than fucking Iran? Yemen?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
nopal_juventus wrote:
Too bad you only showed one side of the story: MSN
And in case you didn’t know what he looked like when he was convicted, here’s a picture: http://img.iskon.hr/kl/2005/03/25/0002003v.jpg
Fits the bill nicely, huh? Muscular young black member, gang founder… of course he must be guilty.
Are you fucking kidding me? He killed 4 people for no reason, and made fun of the gurgling sounds coming from one of the victims. I really don’t think color comes into play.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize bullshit - Yassir Arafat won one, and he was nothing more than a murderous thug. I don’t think being nominated for a Nobel prize should excuse a murderous piece of shit from the punishment that a jury has determined that he face.
But it’s all about skin color.
[/quote]
Well of course the cops have never made a mistake before, especially when it comes to people of colour…lol!
If Tookie can raise his victims from the dead, he shoud be let go. Anything short of that just isn’t enough of a change.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
As far as this scumbag tookie goes, I dont think a single tax dollar should go to keep him alive another day
[quote]tharren wrote:
Well of course the cops have never made a mistake before, especially when it comes to people of colour…lol!
[/quote]
After the extensive appeals process, and the process that must be gone through to get to finally carry out the sentence - I would think that if there were any doubt as to police competency, it would have surfaced before now, and be given due consideration.
Playing the race card at this juncture just because the killer is black is just idiotic.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Interesting fact: In 2004, the US was fourth in terms of number of people executed. Let’s take a look at who else made this list.
CHINA (At least 3,400 Executions)
IRAN (Approx. 159)
VIET NAM (Approx. 64)
UNITED STATES (59)
Saudi Arabia (33)
Pakistan (15)
Kuwait (9)
Bangladesh (7)
Egypt (6)
Singapore (6)
Yemen (6)
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30#interexec
Now…aren’t we supposed to be better, more civilized than fucking Iran? Yemen?
[/quote]
Nice try harry - but weight those numbers against the total population, or the prison population - and then get back to us.
I hardly think comparing a country of 300 million to a country of only 1 million is being objective. But coming from you I understand.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
tharren wrote:
Well of course the cops have never made a mistake before, especially when it comes to people of colour…lol!
After the extensive appeals process, and the process that must be gone through to get to finally carry out the sentence - I would think that if there were any doubt as to police competency, it would have surfaced before now, and be given due consideration.
Playing the race card at this juncture just because the killer is black is just idiotic.[/quote]
So, the appeals process ensures that the convict gets true justice? This goes for even those who are innocent?
I’m sorry, but I have a hard time lumping everyone in jail into only one category when there have been many who were found to be innocent later.
I am not speaking of this particular case but in general.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Interesting fact: In 2004, the US was fourth in terms of number of people executed. Let’s take a look at who else made this list.
CHINA (At least 3,400 Executions)
IRAN (Approx. 159)
VIET NAM (Approx. 64)
UNITED STATES (59)
Saudi Arabia (33)
Pakistan (15)
Kuwait (9)
Bangladesh (7)
Egypt (6)
Singapore (6)
Yemen (6)
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=127&scid=30#interexec
Now…aren’t we supposed to be better, more civilized than fucking Iran? Yemen?
[/quote]
I don’t think that this is really a question of being “civilized” - that assumes a whole lot of conclusions.
I would take those stats with a large grain of salt. Firstly, there are quite a few countries not named on that list who apparently aren’t providing their stats (where are the central African countries? Cuba?). Secondly, the list assumes even those providing the stats aren’t underreporting, either on purpose to make themselves “look better”, or inadvertently because it’s too hard for the centarl government to collect data on the sentences imposed by the locals, i.e. tribal leaders, etc.
