A post about the death penalty on Driver had me start thinking about this some more. What does everyone else think? Should he be executed or through his actions has he proven he's changed and the world is a better place with him?
Google his name if you don't know much about him. It's a very interesting story.
Being in California, i've heard plenty about this guy. He definitely seems to have reformed himself somewhat which, in my mind, does NOT absolve him of his crime. I don't know enough about his case, though, to know if the issue is whether or not he's truly guilty or if his post conviction actions have earned him clemency.
While I do believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes, as a practical matter, I do not support the death penalty simply because our judicial system is not good enough to absolutely 100% of the time guarantee that someone convicted of a crime that leads to such a sentence is in fact guilty. A guilty conviction does not guarantee that someone is guilty just as an acquittal doesnt guarantee you're innocence (OJ).
When DNA evidence first came into being a few years ago, quite a few convicted criminals (people convicted of murder, rape and other heinous crimes) were set free as the new evidence absolved them of crimes they had been convicted of. If you can't guarantee someone's guilt, how can you sentence them to death?
Not saying this is the case with Tookie, just stating my point.
When DNA evidence first came into being a few years ago, quite a few convicted criminals (people convicted of murder, rape and other heinous crimes) were set free as the new evidence absolved them of crimes they had been convicted of. If you can't guarantee someone's guilt, how can you sentence them to death?
If you are interested and want more info on the above scenario check out "Countdown". It's a documentary of how the Illinois death penalty was repealed.
If you are interested and want more info on the above scenario check out "Countdown". It's a documentary of how the Illinois death penalty was repealed.
Great.. Now I have that song "The Final Countdown" stuck in my head, from the Rocky movies.
__________________ -2004.5 6MT G35 Coupe, Diamond Graphite/Graphite, Aero, Premium, Nav, Splash Guards, Aluminum Pedals, Z-Tube and K&N Air Filter, 3/8\" Motordyne Plenum Spacer -2001 Toyota Tacoma SR5 Stepside 5-Speed 4X4 with siderails, Tonneau Cover, Bed Liner, and Rain Guards -1990 Nissan 240SX SE 5-speed with some minor mods
When DNA evidence first came into being a few years ago, quite a few convicted criminals (people convicted of murder, rape and other heinous crimes) were set free as the new evidence absolved them of crimes they had been convicted of. If you can't guarantee someone's guilt, how can you sentence them to death?
If you are interested and want more info on the above scenario check out "Countdown". It's a documentary of how the Illinois death penalty was repealed.
That's very ironic, JL, because Illinois is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that (I lived in Chicago from 94-99)
Their death row population was miniscule compared to Texas and California. Almost half of the inmates on death row were cleared of their crimes with the inception of DNA testing. Imagine if the % of innocent people was the same in other states death row population
So what does everyone else think about Mr. Williams situation? I'll go first. I don't think they should execute him because of the things he does now. A regular ex gang member speaking against gangs does not carry nearly the amount of weight that the founder of the Crips does. I think his contributions to society now have a profoundly positive effect on society. So much so that it would be an injustice to kill him.
Pardons are for unusual situations and this would definitely classify as one of them. It's up to Arnold now.....
Sorry jl but I think it is all too convenient. How many times have we heard of people on death row miraculously turning to god or finding Jesus or seeing the light of day and changing their ways. This guy may be doing good now but he didn't give a damn back in the day. There are others who can carry on the work that he is doing. Bye bye Tookie!
Sorry jl but I think it is all too convenient. How many times have we heard of people on death row miraculously turning to god or finding Jesus or seeing the light of day and changing their ways. This guy may be doing good now but he didn't give a damn back in the day. There are others who can carry on the work that he is doing. Bye bye Tookie!
Yeah, but he's been doing it for quite a while. From what I understand he's even won a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think he should be released from prison if he is granted clemency. I don't even think that is in debate. The issue really is whether is doing enough positives for the community behind bars to justify not executing him.
Sorry, once again, I am not worried about his feelings but I do wonder how the families of his victims feel hearing all this talk about giving him clemency. People always seem to forget them. If all of them agree to forgive him and let him have clemency then I would agree. If not, see ya!
From what I understand he's even won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Lol, get your facts straight man! That would be nominated, not won. And, should you think it such a high honor to be nominated, be aware any social science, history, philosophy, law, and theology professor, judge, or legislator in any country (plus a few others) can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize (past nominees included Hitler, Stalin, and Molotov). Not to mention that Jimmy Carter, Mohammed el Baradai and that murderer Yasser Arafat actually won one. Woohoo!
In Williams' case, any literature or linguistics professor can nominate anyone for a Nobel Prize in Literature. Naturally, many nominees have real merit; but that someone has been nominated as one of likely hundreds of thousands of potential nominees is little evidence of such merit. And this is especially so when that someone is a source of controversy, when it may seem that nominating him may prevent his being executed... something that may understandably sway the judgment of nominators who are deeply opposed to the death penalty, and who might see the need to save a life and to make an anti death-penalty statement as more important than the need to make an impartial evaluation of the person's net contribution to peace or the quality of his literary works.
None of which matter in the least to me. It is about his crimes, not his redemption. He has singlehandedly unleashed one of the greatest scourges upon modern civilized society --the lawless, violent gang doctrine-- and for all the lives lost to it, he will pay with his own. Screw the kids books. At least he will have the personal satisfaction of perhaps having done something worthwhile for redemption when facing his Maker.
From what I understand he's even won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Lol, get your facts straight man! That would be nominated, not won. And, should you think it such a high honor to be nominated, be aware any social science, history, philosophy, law, and theology professor, judge, or legislator in any country (plus a few others) can nominate anyone for a Nobel Peace Prize (past nominees included Hitler, Stalin, and Molotov). Not to mention that Jimmy Carter, Mohammed el Baradai and that murderer Yasser Arafat actually won one. Woohoo!
In Williams' case, any literature or linguistics professor can nominate anyone for a Nobel Prize in Literature. Naturally, many nominees have real merit; but that someone has been nominated by one of likely hundreds of thousands of potential nominees is little evidence of such merit. And this is especially so when that someone is a source of controversy, when it may seem that nominating him may prevent his being executed... something that may understandably sway the judgment of nominators who are deeply opposed to the death penalty, and who might see the need to save a life and to make an anti death-penalty statement as more important than the need to make an impartial evaluation of the person's net contribution to peace or the quality of his literary works.
None of which matter in the least to me. It is about his crimes, not his redemption. He has singlehandedly unleashed one of the greatest scourges upon modern civilized society --the lawless, violent gang doctrine-- and for all the lives lost to it, he will pay with his own. Screw the kids books. At least he will have the personal satisfaction of perhaps having done something worthwhile for redemption when facing his Maker.
You are correct Dholly. I've been reading up on the subject and he has only been nominated, not won a Nobel Peace Prize.
I obviously can see you do not support clemency. I guess I have a different take on gangs though. I see them more as a product and effect of poverty and racism in society. Most gang members I have spoken with echo the sentiment that it was more about survival and a sense of community and then morphed into something else as they got older.
I guess it depends on the interpretation of what punishment means to each and every individual person. I don't define it through vengence but more of repaying your debt to society and/or protecting society from the offender. As a troubled youth (but not into gangs) it carried more weight when someone who has been there and done that spoke rather than someone who did not have that credibility and hence forth looked at as an outsider.
In Stan Williams situation I don't think many people still view him as a threat to society but instead contributing something positive. The questions seems to be whether this is such an extraordinary situation to warrant clemency... or not.
Not in this case and, I suspect, neither will Aarrrnold. He has already nixed two other clemency requests as Gov and, if memory serves correct, has said the lack of admission of guilt and remourse played a part in his decisions. Plus, the last California governor to grant clemency was Ronald Reagan in 1967 so don't hold your breath.
I guess I have a different take on gangs though. I see them more as a product and effect of poverty and racism in society.
I call B.S.! Everyone has options and alternatives, even the most repressed. Every individual is the primary source of their own content, or malcontent and should stop blaming everybody else for their shortcomings or lack of motivation. To use it as an excuse is abhorent IMO, and does a disservice to all those that overcame such obstacles.
I guess it depends on the interpretation of what punishment means to each and every individual person.
After killing 4 people in cold blood, it sure as hell doesn't mean clemency and a Noble Prize!
BTW - Williams' Nobel nomination was submitted by group of Swiss legislators led by anti-death penalty zealot Mario Fehr who said "He might not even have killed those four people. I don't know what he did 20 years ago," Fehr explained.
Well, for the record, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals --incidentally, the most liberal federal court in the nation-- summarized the evidence presented at the "Nobel nominee's" trial and conviction:
Alfred Coward, an immunized government witness, testified to the events leading to the murder of Albert Lewis Owens, an employee of a 7-Eleven store in Whittier, California... Coward stated that at approximately 10:30 p.m. on February 27, 1979, Williams dropped by Coward's house. The two men then went to James Garrett's house, where Williams was staying. Only Williams went inside, returning with a sawed-off shotgun and accompanied by a man named Darryl. The three men made several stops, including one to obtain "Sherms," cigarettes containing phencyclidene ("PCP"). After sharing a Sherm, the three picked up Tony Simms. Williams then had a second Sherm with Coward and Simms, and asked Simms if he knew where they could "make money."
Coward testified that, taking two cars, the four men made two unsuccessful restaurant and liquor-store robbery attempts. Subsequently, they went to a 7-Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Simms and Darryl went into the store, followed by Owens, Williams, and Coward. Williams, the only one with a weapon, approached Owens and ordered him to keep walking. Owens walked toward the back rooms of the store with Williams and Coward following him. Williams instructed Owens to lie down, which he did. Williams shot out the store's television monitor and then shot and killed Owens. According to Coward, the four men returned to Simms's house where they divided among them the $ 120 that they had taken from the 7-Eleven cash register. When Simms asked Williams why he had shot Owens, Williams responded that he did not want to leave any witnesses. He also said that the shotgun shells could not be traced, and that he had retrieved a few of them. Coward saw Williams later that morning at Williams's brother's home. Williams told his brother about Owens, saying: "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams then made a growling noise and laughed hysterically for a number of minutes.
Robert Yang and his family lived in and owned the Brookhaven Motel on South Vermont Street in Los Angeles, California. At about 5 a.m. on March 11, 1979, Yang heard a woman's screams and three or four shots. A few minutes later, he left his bedroom and saw that the door separating the motel office from the family's living quarters was ajar. The door seemed to have been forced open from the outside. Yang discovered his father, mother, and sister, all fatally wounded from shotgun fire. The cash drawer was open and empty.
The police found two shotgun shell casings at the scene. A firearms expert testified that one of the shells could only have been fired from a weapon that Williams had purchased in 1974.
Four witnesses provided testimony identifying Williams as a perpetrator of the Brookhaven Motel murders and robbery. Samuel Coleman, testifying as an immunized government witness, stated that on March 10, 1979 he and Williams went to the Showcase Bar, where Coleman remained until it closed around 6 a.m. Coleman last remembered seeing Williams at about 2:30 a.m. The next day, Williams told Coleman that he had robbed and killed some people on Vermont Street. Williams said that he had obtained approximately $ 50 from the robbery-murder and was going to use it to buy PCP.
James Garrett testified that Williams kept some of his possessions at the Garrett house and stayed there approximately five days a week. Early on the morning of March 13, 1979, Williams told James Garrett and his wife that he had heard of the killing of some "Chinese people" on Vermont Street. Williams said that he did not know how the murders had occurred, but thought that the murderers were professionals because they had left no shells or witnesses at the scene. Williams also stated that he had heard that the killings had taken place at 5 a.m., and that two men had knocked down the door and taken $ 600.
Williams later spoke to James Garrett a second time about the Brookhaven Motel murders and robbery. Williams described the incident, saying: "After the big guy knocked the door down, he went in the motel, and there was a guy laying on the couch, and he blew him away." Williams said that the man on the couch and a woman at the cash register were shot twice, and that another woman was also shot. James Garrett testified that Williams then indicated that he was the "big guy."
Esther Garrett confirmed the statements made by her husband. She testified that Williams informed them that the Brookhaven Motel murderers were using the money taken from the cash register to buy "juice," or PCP, and that they had picked up the shotgun shells so that there would be no evidence for the police. Williams also told Esther Garrett, outside the presence of her husband, that he, Williams, had committed the murders with his brother-in-law.
George Oglesby, an inmate housed in the same cell block as Williams, testified that Williams admitted to shooting a man, a woman, and a child in the course of robbing a motel. Oglesby also testified in detail to Williams's plan to escape from jail. Williams had invited Oglesby to participate in the plan, which was complete with drawings and involved an escape during a bus transfer from jail to court. Two persons outside of jail were to disarm the officer driving the bus, and then Williams was to kill the person on the bus who planned to testify against Williams, as well as the two officers accompanying the bus. Williams later modified the plan to include blowing up the bus in order to prevent the authorities from quickly determining who had escaped. After receiving two notes from Williams relating information about outside participants in the escape plan, Oglesby informed Lieutenant Fitzgerald of the planned escape. Williams subsequently sent Oglesby more notes discussing the escape.
The initial target date for the escape was June 12, 1979. However, Williams aborted the escape attempt planned for this day because he could not ensure that he and Oglesby would be transferred to court at the same time. In addition, after one of his court appearances, Williams informed Oglesby that the escape attempt had to be cancelled because Williams believed that two police vehicles had followed the bus transporting Williams between jail and court. Williams then altered the escape plan so that the escape attempt would occur after they left court.
I guess I have a different take on gangs though. I see them more as a product and effect of poverty and racism in society.
I call B.S.! Everyone has options and alternatives, even the most repressed. Every individual is the primary source of their own content, or malcontent and should stop blaming everybody else for their shortcomings or lack of motivation. To use it as an excuse is abhorent IMO, and does a disservice to all those that overcame such obstacles.
Sorry jl but I agree with dholly 100% on this. I could have very easily made excuses for myself and joined a gang. A lot of my friends did. I instead chose to stay in school and study and go to college. Luckily none of my close friends ever got killed or went to jail but I have seen my fair share of senseless killings and other stupid crap being around gangs. L.A. is known to have the most vicious gangs out there and believe me when I tell you that it is all 100% true. This guy is a vicious killer who killed people for a few dollars to get high. What a scumbag! I don't feel sorry for him at all and he is getting what he deserves. He chose his path in live and now he is paying for his choices.
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
