[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yea which reminds me…how bout them Cowboys RJ? Go Big Blue…[/quote]
Fuck off Irish. Laugh now. Go ahead. Yuck it up.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Texas does stand out, but for all the wrong reasons – just see this page:
[/quote]
But we do stand out postively. As the graphs in your links clearly show - you positively do not want to be convicted of capital murder in the State of Texas… because we will kill you back.
FYI - you only really gave one ‘wrong’ reason. Are you saying that killing capital murderers is the only thing you despise about our state? Because you made it sound like there were a bunch of reasons.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Oh - I backed it up just fine. You just don’t like it that I am right. Texas is the Greatest. If Cali is so damned affluent why is your state broke? Or is that effluent? Never mind - they both define Cali pretty well as far as I am concerned. [/quote]
I was talking about ethics and moral standards. But you wanna talk money? Sure. You never answered my question about why we annexed you, so I will:
One of the primary motivations for annexation was that the Texas government had incurred huge debts which the United States agreed to assume upon annexation. In 1850, in return for this assumption of debt, a large portion of Texas-claimed territory, now parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming, was ceded to the Federal government.
The annexation resolution has been the topic of some incorrect historical beliefs – chiefly, that the resolution was a treaty between sovereign states, and granted Texas the explicit right to secede from the Union. This was a right argued by some to be implicitly held by all states at the time, and until the conclusion of the Civil War. However, no such right was explicitly enumerated in the resolution.
Don’t believe me? Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I find it odd that you find it worth your while to post only to get on my ass about my high opinion of Texas in a thread that is supposed to be about the impending execution of your fellow Californian.[/quote]
I’m just a bit tired of the “we’re the greatest” attitude, so it set me off. You know, I’m also entitled to have my subjective opinions…
In regards to the execution of my fellow Californian, the reason I decline to comment is that I simply don’t have enough information to comment on it. I’m not going to pass judgment on a person that I have never seen in person in my life, and of which I know very little. If I had the opportunity of talking to the guy, review his work, and have some insight to how he really has behaved since the murders, then I’d be able to comment on it.
Why? This is what the law says are the requirements for the sentence to be commuted (California Penal Code section 4852.05):
“During the period of rehabilitation the person shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.”
Fortunately, Arnold is doing just that: reviewing the issue to make sure he meets the requirements. Hopefully, he’ll be smart enough not to make the same mistake again and either a) sell his soul to the blood-thirsty base of his party or b) be star-struck by Jamie Foxx, Snoop Dogg and Danny Glover (who, although I respect immensely, cannot just blindly follow), and will, rather, be unbiased and fair in his analysis.
Now, why am I saying this, being as I’m fundamentally against the death penalty? Well, before that I’m fundamentally for following the law, and the guy – for better or worse – was convicted, me liking it or not. Whatever happens next needs to happen by following the letter of the law, period.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
FYI - you only really gave one ‘wrong’ reason. Are you saying that killing capital murderers is the only thing you despise about our state? Because you made it sound like there were a bunch of reasons.[/quote]
If I somehow lead you to believe I felt there were a bunch of reasons, and that I “despised” Texas, I apologize. For me, Texas’ attitude in regards to the death penalty, combined with the fact that most Texans I know somehow feel like you – i.e., that it is the greatest state on Earth – get me a tad pissed off. I tend to frown upon those kinds of attitudes. But saying I “despise” Texas is an overstatement.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I was talking about ethics and moral standards.[/quote]
I’m really not so sure California, or the U.S. for that matter, can really stand up and preach to any one state about ethics, or moral standards. I think you just hit the subjective subject matter jackpot.
[quote] But you wanna talk money? Sure. You never answered my question about why we annexed you, so I will:
One of the primary motivations for annexation was that the Texas government had incurred huge debts which the United States agreed to assume upon annexation. In 1850, in return for this assumption of debt, a large portion of Texas-claimed territory, now parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming, was ceded to the Federal government.[/quote]
Wait - we swapped our ‘debt’ for CO, KS, OK, NM, and WY, and you think it was financially motivated? What you won’t find written in any book is that we would have paid our debts in cash if the US had just offered to take those territories off our hands. But we acted like we wanted them, and not only horse traded the U.S. taking them , but forgiving our debt at the same time. That, my friend was the classic one-sided win-win. Right up until the part where we had to join the U.S.
It’s quite alright for you to subjectively hate Texas - I pretty much subjectively hate Cali.
That was a great explanation. Really. Probably the most honest reply there has been on this thread. For not tipping your hand, you explained why very clearly.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Fahd,
What are you, a conspiracy theorist? Innocent people NEVER get convicted, the process is very stringent you know…[/quote]
It’s not a conspiracy theory - it’s plausible, especially if someone is withholding information. And what can you say about an eyewitness who says he wasn’t sure when he made an ID but testified to it anyway?
Errors such as these are always problematic, and we should work to improve the system to eliminate them. However, I think it’s nieve to say it couldn’t happen, or never has happened in the history of the country. One of the reasons executions take so long to be carried out is the hope that the multiple appellate reviews will minimize any such mistakes. In this case, you had a witness who for some reason didn’t choose to come forward until after the execution, even though he had immunity? Why? I would question his motivation and look into his claims further before I accepted them, even though they may be true.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
In this case, you had a witness who for some reason didn’t choose to come forward until after the execution, even though he had immunity? Why? I would question his motivation and look into his claims further before I accepted them, even though they may be true.[/quote]
Why? Are you saying you don’t believe coercion on the part of the police officer or investigator plays any part at all in confessions or even suspect ID? What’s funny is that is the first possibility that popped into my mind and possibly the last that popped into yours.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
In this case, you had a witness who for some reason didn’t choose to come forward until after the execution, even though he had immunity? Why? I would question his motivation and look into his claims further before I accepted them, even though they may be true.
Professor X wrote:
Why? Are you saying you don’t believe coercion on the part of the police officer or investigator plays any part at all in confessions or even suspect ID? What’s funny is that is the first possibility that popped into my mind and possibly the last that popped into yours.[/quote]
No, coercion of the victim is definitely not one of the first things that popos into my mind. The victim is the one who made the ID.
However, this comment was directed at the other witness, the one who did not testify in the trial but now claims to have knowledge that the person convicted and executed was not in fact guilty. The one who had immunity from further prosecution but still didn’t say anything during the appellate process. That one.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Personally, I think they should outlaw Cowboy boots, and the big-assed dinner plate sized belt buckles. Unless they are being worn by a stripper. I think I would enjoy watching a stripper in boots and sporting a big-assed belt buckle. [/quote]
I think that’s a solid proposal we can all get behind.
Here’s a document put together by the LA DA that does a pretty thorough, point-by-point analysis of Tookie Williams’ guilt.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
I don’t necessarily think the death penalty is useful, there are some evil people out there for sure but they aren’t deterred by the death penalty. Death seems almost too good for them.
The fact that Tookie has been able to publish children’s books, get nominated for a Nobel Prize, and have enough contact with the outside world to work towards ending gang violence is what really pisses me off.
The guy (and other murdering criminals) should be in a hole in the ground so deep they can never see daylight. Prison should be a punishment, not an opportunity for them to become quasi celebrities.
If you are serving a life sentence, you should never be heard from again. Criminals deserve the full due process of the law, but once the life sentence is handed down, they should disapear.
One man’s opinion, what say you?[/quote]
i agree…the guy needs to get whats coming to him
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Personally, I think they should outlaw Cowboy boots, and the big-assed dinner plate sized belt buckles. Unless they are being worn by a stripper. I think I would enjoy watching a stripper in boots and sporting a big-assed belt buckle.[/quote]
What the? You just stripped naked 75% of my family reunion!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s a document put together by the LA DA that does a pretty thorough, point-by-point analysis of Tookie Williams’ guilt.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams.pdf
[/quote]
I downloaded this doc and read it. Pretty solid work.
The most important part I think was the statement where the DA said his rights were protected for the last 25 years and have now been exhausted. Time for the rights of the multiple victims to be excercised and listened too.
Time to carry out the sentence.
Here is part of an exert from the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the use of the death penalty:
"But now economists have entered the debate. And they have brought to the task a dazzling range of highly sophisticated techniques originally developed to answer more prosaic questions, such as whether tax breaks encourage saving.
More often than not the economists find that executions do save lives.
The most dramatic finding comes from Joanna Shepherd and a team at Emory University in Atlanta. They have taken advantage of the fact that some parts of the US don’t execute murderers, and only a handful of states execute them consistently.
(One of those states, Texas, accounts for more than one-third of the executions in the US since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on capital punishment in 1976.)
After taking account of other regional variations thought likely to influence murder rates - among them the mix of races and the resources devoted to policing - they found that executions explained most of what was left.
As they starkly report their central finding: each execution results in an average of 18 fewer murders. Or, to present the finding in an even more unsettling way: any state that refuses to impose the death penalty for murder is condemning 18 or so innocent people to death.
It is a dilemma that those of us who abhor the death penalty would prefer not to think about. Now two professors from the University of Chicago have decided to make it acute.
Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule set out their arguments in a paper to be published in this month’s Stanford Law Review. It is provocatively titled: Is Capital Punishment Morally Required?
They say that if the findings of the economists are correct, or anything like correct, a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life might well require, rather than rule out, the use of the death penalty.
I should point out that their argument applies only to the use of death penalty as a punishment for murder. They acknowledge that the issues are less clear when it is imposed as a punishment for carrying drugs, as it was in Singapore last week for Australia’s Nguyen Tuong Van."
EDIT - Adding link:
The article puts an interesting slant on the whole debate, doesn’t it? If you don’t support consistantly applying the death penalty to murders, you are supporting the death of 18 innocent people per murder not executed.
Of course, the same article includes a statement by another economist who says the statistics have been interpretted incorrectly, and that for each person put to death an extra 18 people will die.
Bit of a pickle, isn’t it?
Dead people have rights?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Dead people have rights?[/quote]
Actually, Vroom, they do - go learn up.
[quote]Massif wrote:
Here is part of an exert from the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the use of the death penalty:
"But now economists have entered the debate. And they have brought to the task a dazzling range of highly sophisticated techniques originally developed to answer more prosaic questions, such as whether tax breaks encourage saving.
More often than not the economists find that executions do save lives.
The most dramatic finding comes from Joanna Shepherd and a team at Emory University in Atlanta. They have taken advantage of the fact that some parts of the US don’t execute murderers, and only a handful of states execute them consistently.
(One of those states, Texas, accounts for more than one-third of the executions in the US since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on capital punishment in 1976.)
After taking account of other regional variations thought likely to influence murder rates - among them the mix of races and the resources devoted to policing - they found that executions explained most of what was left.
As they starkly report their central finding: each execution results in an average of 18 fewer murders. Or, to present the finding in an even more unsettling way: any state that refuses to impose the death penalty for murder is condemning 18 or so innocent people to death.
It is a dilemma that those of us who abhor the death penalty would prefer not to think about. Now two professors from the University of Chicago have decided to make it acute.
Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule set out their arguments in a paper to be published in this month’s Stanford Law Review. It is provocatively titled: Is Capital Punishment Morally Required?
They say that if the findings of the economists are correct, or anything like correct, a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life might well require, rather than rule out, the use of the death penalty.
I should point out that their argument applies only to the use of death penalty as a punishment for murder. They acknowledge that the issues are less clear when it is imposed as a punishment for carrying drugs, as it was in Singapore last week for Australia’s Nguyen Tuong Van."
EDIT - Adding link:
The article puts an interesting slant on the whole debate, doesn’t it? If you don’t support consistantly applying the death penalty to murders, you are supporting the death of 18 innocent people per murder not executed.
Of course, the same article includes a statement by another economist who says the statistics have been interpretted incorrectly, and that for each person put to death an extra 18 people will die.
Bit of a pickle, isn’t it?
[/quote]
Wow, Cass Sunstein is making this argument? I’m shocked – Sunstein is extremely liberal. Do a google search on him and you’ll soon se what I mean.
I appreciate the fact they are putting it in this light though – everyone always looks at the minute possibility of an innocent person being convicted, which, of course, is very important. But to the extent there is a deterrent effect, one needs to think about the innocent victims as well. [Note: Again, this is separate from a retribution analysis.]
[quote]vroom wrote:
Time for the rights of the multiple victims to be excercised and listened too.
Dead people have rights?[/quote]
WTF? I realize you’re trying to be your usual cute, witty, deep-thinking(ahem) self, but that is not funny or appropriate.
My internal debate-
First, let’s disregard the Nobel Peace prize nomination(anyone can be nominated, you don’t have to “qualify”).
Second, the system is what it is and he was convicted and sentenced to death for his crimes, fine.
Since the system is what it is, he has served nearly thirty years in prison since then, without his sentence being catrried out, fine.
During those thirty years he has made an effort and arguably influenced others away from following a similar path.
My question is, would putting him to death at this point be the best thing for society?
Nobody is saying he should ever get out of prison here, just debating the applicability of the death penalty. IF he can actually do some GOOD, doesn’t it make sense to keep him alive? By carrying out his sentence, we prevent him from contributing further, and possibly helping others.
I mean, he may actually be able to save more lives, at this point, than he took.
PS - I have to give my “Best state in the Union” vote to California. I’ve spent time in TX, lived in NJ, WA, AZ, and CA, and CA is far and away the best. Although, to be fair, I did enjoy my time in San Antonio and think it’s a great town, just not a great as L.A. San Diego, or O.C., broke or not.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
My internal debate-
First, let’s disregard the Nobel Peace prize nomination(anyone can be nominated, you don’t have to “qualify”).
Second, the system is what it is and he was convicted and sentenced to death for his crimes, fine.
Since the system is what it is, he has served nearly thirty years in prison since then, without his sentence being catrried out, fine.
During those thirty years he has made an effort and arguably influenced others away from following a similar path.
My question is, would putting him to death at this point be the best thing for society?
Nobody is saying he should ever get out of prison here, just debating the applicability of the death penalty. IF he can actually do some GOOD, doesn’t it make sense to keep him alive? By carrying out his sentence, we prevent him from contributing further, and possibly helping others.
I mean, he may actually be able to save more lives, at this point, than he took.
PS - I have to give my “Best state in the Union” vote to California. I’ve spent time in TX, lived in NJ, WA, AZ, and CA, and CA is far and away the best. Although, to be fair, I did enjoy my time in San Antonio and think it’s a great town, just not a great as L.A. San Diego, or O.C., broke or not.[/quote]
This is what I’m saying. I understand both points. But if a man who was there can show the way away from that life, whether his intentions are good or not, isn’t it better to society to keep him? We had one poster on here say he influenced him- Williams may have saved a life. How many more are out there that have seen the light because they do not want to be where he is now? How many to follow?
I believe that if two people have read his books, and therefore stayed away from that life of terrible crime, then he has earned his right to live.
By the way, you can’t beat NJ. Make fun all you want. Just stay the hell out. We like it without everyone else knowing how good it is…and we sure as shit don’t want you bumbkins driving on our highways.