Tookie Williams Denied Clemency by Governor

[AccruedExpenditure]

Link

 

[Specop 007]

Just heard it!

EXCELLENT!!

Couldnt happen to a nicer guy.

 

[Tab]

Owned. ;P

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Soooo... 13hrs 19min til the rioting starts. :disgust:

 

[Starbuck1975]

Peers out window for signs of black smoke rising from South Central LA.

 

[Genx87]

I am opposed to the death penalty due to failures within the system. Also the thought of the state carrying out death sentences scares me on a level.

However with this guy I have had a hard time convincing myself he should get clemancy. A guy who started a gang that has probably enslaved thousands within its ranks, caused hudreds or maybe even thousands of deaths, and helped detroy the fabric of the black family in LA should probably be left to be executed by the state.

His books were not read by many people at all. His own son or sons took after daddy and are rotting in jail. The guy has for the most part been nothing but a leech on society.

So I guess in 13 hours we wont have to worry about him anymore. Kind of fitting that in death riots may happen that will cause death, destruction, and crime. Things he helped create during his life.

 

[morrisbj]

I can't say I share the glee of at least one of the poster's above me, but I agree that if a person does warrant the death penalty, the co-founder of the Crips probably qualifies.

However, as a taxpayer I disagree with the death penalty because it costs more. If we lock a person up for life, they don't get as many appeals, and frequently they don't use them at all because they accept the punishment. Death is extreme, and therefore people receiving the death sentence get many appeals and they use every one of them. By the time they are finally executed we have housed them in prison for 20+ years, and it has cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra legal bills.

Unfortunately in this case, although his crimes warrant the penalty on top of the fact that he helped create a violent street gang, he would probably be more useful alive. He has influence with street kids and could probably help further reduce gang crime if given the chance.

Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that this best sums it up for me:

(Sister Helen) Prejean called the possible execution of Williams "ironic," saying that ignoring his reformed life would be resorting to the same eye-for-an-eye justice used by gangs.

" 'Don't tell us you changed your life. Don't tell us you are helping the children. We have to kill you,' " she said, characterizing the state's response to Williams' appeals. "They're working out of the same moral framework as the gangs."

.......

"The death penalty is not about redemption," Prejean said. "It's about freeze-framing a person in the worst act of their life."

 

[zendari]

Terminated!

 

[herkulease]

I can see him changing his ways and would allow clemency if he atleast owned up to the murders.

But he never accepted that he killed those people. And from all the news reports he was never the model prisoner he is now when he 1st came in.

It strange how if you watch the news, hardly any of them ever talk about the murders they keep repeat how he wrote books for children, advocate against gang life, oh and he is the cofoundered of Crips.

also If I remember correctly he never cried innocence until recently.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Peers out window for signs of black smoke rising from South Central LA.

Yeah...that would be the thing to do for a man who murdered four people.

 

[RightIsWrong]

What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

He still is responsible for the deaths and misery of thousands.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

Because he has already had his day in court. One more trial wont do anything except grant him another 25 years of appeals.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

If Delay is found guilty, but is telling the truth, and that he didn't commit any of those crimes, should he get "one more trial"?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

With all the appeals that his lawyers have pushed through the system you would think that if there was any doubt, ANY, then he would be cleared of his crimes.

It is the evidence (circumstantial or not) that has put him behind bars and on death row. That evidence, and the jury's decision, still stand up to years of scrutiny.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

Because he has already had his day in court. One more trial wont do anything except grant him another 25 years of appeals.

Well, his argument is that he was denied the right to present evidence that would implicate someone else in at least one of the murders, thereby showing him to be innocent of one and casting doubt on the other 3. As for the 25 more years of appeals, that isn't quite accurate. To begin with, the timeframe is completely unrelated, and the new trial would be one of his allowed appeals. If he were still found to be guilty, he does not get any extra appeals.

 

[Bumrush99]

I'm generally against the death penalty, but in the case the motherfo should fry.

 

[morrisbj]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

If Delay is found guilty, but is telling the truth, and that he didn't commit any of those crimes, should he get "one more trial"?

If he can provide new evidence that could cast doubt on his conviction, then yes, if he files an appeal, he should get a new trial. Just like our legal system is SUPPOSED to work. These appeals that everyone is talking about, they are an appeal for a new trial based on what the defense believes to be new evidence that could cast doubt on the original conviction.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that this best sums it up for me:

(Sister Helen) Prejean called the possible execution of Williams "ironic," saying that ignoring his reformed life would be resorting to the same eye-for-an-eye justice used by gangs.

" 'Don't tell us you changed your life. Don't tell us you are helping the children. We have to kill you,' " she said, characterizing the state's response to Williams' appeals. "They're working out of the same moral framework as the gangs."

.......

"The death penalty is not about redemption," Prejean said. "It's about freeze-framing a person in the worst act of their life."

Actually I think eye for an eye would be closer to killing Tookie and a couple of his family members since he is convicted of slaugthering one family and one young male

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that this best sums it up for me:

(Sister Helen) Prejean called the possible execution of Williams "ironic," saying that ignoring his reformed life would be resorting to the same eye-for-an-eye justice used by gangs.

" 'Don't tell us you changed your life. Don't tell us you are helping the children. We have to kill you,' " she said, characterizing the state's response to Williams' appeals. "They're working out of the same moral framework as the gangs."

.......

"The death penalty is not about redemption," Prejean said. "It's about freeze-framing a person in the worst act of their life."

Very well said. Where did you find that?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

Are you willing to donate some of your own money to pay for it? How about donating for 5 more trials for him?

I'm mixed on the death penalty but to change that one goes to the legislature... people siding with Tookie mainly out of an effort to highlight why the death penalty should be repealed are siding with the wrong character.

 

[Stifko]

why are so many ppl rallying around this guy? What is Jamie Foxx thinkin? I never saw that film BTW.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

If Delay is found guilty, but is telling the truth, and that he didn't commit any of those crimes, should he get "one more trial"?

Absolutely. And he will. It is known as the appeal process. You should really read up on it sometime.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What if....just for the sake of argument..... he is actually telling the truth? That he won't "own up to the murders" or "apologize for the murders" because he actually didn't commit them like he has claimed?

What would one more trial where they can submit new evidence cost in the long run vs. no chance at restitution for someone that the state legally murdered?

If Delay is found guilty, but is telling the truth, and that he didn't commit any of those crimes, should he get "one more trial"?

Absolutely. And he will. It is known as the appeal process. You should really read up on it sometime.

Then you obviously realize Tookie has used all of his "appeals" then.