| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Webber on 11/29/2005; 4:51 AM AS some of you know, I'm a regular on MySpace.com. Recently, a friend of mine, whom I know as Marielle Songy, but goes by the moniker NolaChick, wrote the following; Monday, November 28, 2005 Should they let Tookie live? Current mood: confused Category: News and Politics Lately I have been following the story of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. For those who don't know, here is the situation in a nutshell: Tookie is a known former gang leader who helped found the Crips street gang out in California sometime in the 70's. He was convicted in the deaths of four people (he still claims that he is innocent) and he has been sitting on death row since 1981. He is scheduled to die on December 13th (3 weeks). While he has been in prison, he has come out against the gang life, written a few children's books with anti-crime themes and has even been nominated for both a Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for literature. Many people such as Jesses Jackson, the NAACP, Snoop Dogg, and Jaime Foxx are trying to get California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant him clemency and change his sentence to life in prison. Now, when it comes to all of this, I am really on the fence. Let's look at it like this: sure, while he has been in prsion he has done some good things, but does that mean he doesn't deserve to die for the crimes he committed? Has he really changed? Can anyone really change that much? I know that if it was one of my family members that he killed I would want to see him fry. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Should he really get to live just because he has done a few good deeds? I know that a lot of people are trying to turn this into a race thing. Some are saying that if this was a white man, he would have been pardoned by now. Well, let me just say one thing about that. If this was a different situation and it was Scott Peterson who was doing the good deeds then how would we feel? Let's say Scott writes a few books about the horrors of violence against women and children and how it must end. Would we be comtemplating changing his sentence? I hope the hell not. I think no matter what you do, at the end of the day, you have to pay for your crimes. This man was sentenced to death. Why should anything he has done in prison change that? Wow, reading that back, it sounds really cold and I know that many people will disagree with me. Look, all I know is I'm not God. I don't know how things work in the universe. I don't know the way God sees things. Maybe Tookie is on some great mission and putting him to death now would be robbing the world of a great person who might prevent some young kid from joining a gang and killing people. But then, the question must also be asked, "How many people have died or joined gangs because of his earlier influence?" Leave me some opinions. I am interested in hearing what people think about this. - My responses (yes, I wrote two of them) were as follows, with some sentences lifted from other sources, but the sentiment was entirely, 100% mine. I'm against the death penalty period. If he turns out to be innocent (as has happened before; remmebr those 9 death row inamtes freed by Iowa college students?) he should be let go. If he did it, LWOP+R (life without parole, plus restititution, which already exists in the form of the Son of Sam Law). As for the argument Jami made about tax dollars, I suggest she look up an NPR special called The Economics Of Execution. It actually costs taxpayers MORE per year to kill people on death row. Plus, a statisitc I read, I think it was from the Jusitce Department, but this was a few years ago, says that (an average of) 1 in every 12 death row inmates is either completely innocent (didn't do it at all) or "fatcually" innocent (not directly invovled, or too mentally ill to know the difference between right & wrong) of the crimes for which they were convicted. Also, a black man is twice as likely to receive a death sentence as a white man who commits an equivalent crime. Absolutely true. With about 3400 on death row nationwide, and 999 people executed in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated, think about that previously mentioned number; 1 in 12. I suck at math, but I figure that, again on average, the U.S. has possibly sent 83 innocent people to their deaths, and all because we "value the sancticty of human life?" I have one word for that. Bullshit. I say we junk capital punishment all together. There's no evidence that it works as a deterrent (a study done in Baltimore suggests that crime went UP when the death penalty was reinstated), it costs us a ton of money, divides people (I've lost friends because of this debate), and that's not even counting the racism inherit in the system, and frankly, just one innocent man executed on death row is too fucking many. And please, spare me the loaded hypotheticals about "would I support it for" Bin Laden or Hitler. Hitler killed himself, and Bin Laden is terminally ill anyway, so it's a dumb question and shame on anyone who asks it. Like the completely unfair death penalty question asked of Mike Dukakis in the 1998 Presidential debates. In short, clemency for Tookie Williams, and Mumia Abu Jamal. I think they did it, and should spend the rest of their lives in their cells, but I'm against killing them. Period. Posted by I'm Brian, the cat is Piper on Monday, November 28, 2005 at 3:07 PM Let me add something else to my earlier comments, and I will try not to sound too harsh here, but this is a serious moral issue for me, like abortion is for Catholic voters. I have voted for pro-death penalty candidates before, but I've always done so with a sick feeling similar to the kind I get when I eat bad shrimp. You said, I know that if it was one of my family members that he killed I would want to see him fry. And others have said, put yourself in the shoes of the victim's families. This is not an unfair point, but the thing that never gets said, put yourself in the shoes of the family of the accused. How do you think they feel, espeically those in Texas, who see and hear people jumping and down and cheering their son or daughter beigns trapped to a table and filled with posion until their heart stops. Or imagine you're a guy like Larry Griffin. A Missouri man, put to death by the state in 1995. The state used taxpayer dollars to execute Griffin for the death of a 19-year-old drug dealer. In his court case, the prosecution relied on the testimony of a career criminal. A police officer whose own testimony corroborated the informant's tale has recently stated the man was lying. Imagine being poor Larry. An inncoent man on death row. How would you feel, to see people like Bryan or jesus here on this Blog rather cavalierly writing off your death as some form of "justice," rather than what it really is; legalized revenge. And what is revenge really, but just one of many motives for murder? Let's take this to it's extreme. Could then the family of Tookie Williams take the life of the executioners? Could then the exceutioner's family kill Tookie's kin? And so on and so forth it goes, until Ghandi is proven right. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. A dead man can't be brought back to life, we all know this. So how can any of us here, on this Blog, in this country, on this planet, support the death penalty, and be able to sleep at night? I used to be a supporter of captial punishment. Then I turned 6. If a child whose day is occupied by hating his 1st grade teacher and deciding which Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle he'd like to be for Halloween can figure out how ridiculous it is to "kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong," to quote the old cliche, what is the adult supporter's excuse? I'm glad that you are grown-up enough to admit that you are confused by this. That takes guts that people twice your age with three times your power don't have. But for me, it's simple. A system that allows for the execution of even one innocent person is a faulty system. We should put a halt to this system to prevent such "mistakes". Posted by I'm Brian, the cat is Piper on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 12:58 AM Now, spelling, grammar, and numerical errors aside (I left those intact for the sake of honesty), I think I made a convincing case against the death sentence. But I'd like to read what you have to say about it.
Re: Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Carnell on 11/29/2005; 12:12 PM Brian Webber wrote: > Marielle Songy, but goes by the moniker NolaChick, wrote the following; > > While he has been in prison, he has come out against the gang life, written a few children's books with anti-crime themes and has even been nominated for both a Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for literature. Many people such as Jesses Jackson, the NAACP, Snoop Dogg, and Jaime Foxx are trying to get California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant him clemency and change his sentence to life in prison. > Being *nominated* for a Nobel Prize is no big deal. The number of people who can nominate for the prize is just enormous. It's like getting a Who's Who of High School Seniors nomination. > Also, a black man is twice as likely to receive a death sentence as a white man who commits an equivalent crime. Absolutely true. > This is a largely bogus claim that relies on statistical sleights of hand. The reality is that white murderers are executed at a higher rate than black murderers. > With about 3400 on death row nationwide, and 999 people executed in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated, think about that previously mentioned number; 1 in 12. I suck at math, but I figure that, again on average, the U.S. has possibly sent 83 innocent people to their deaths, and all because we "value the sancticty of human life?" I have one word for that. Bullshit. Bullshit is a very good description for this silly bit of argumentation. If you're opposed to capital punishment, as I am, then it means sparing the life even of human refuse like Tookie Williams. If you support capital punishment, however, it is hard to think of someone who deserves it more. If California doesn't execute Williams, it shouldn't execute anybody else ever.
Re: Should they let Tookie live? By: Mark Morgan on 11/29/2005; 1:13 PM On Nov 29, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: > >> Also, a black man is twice as likely to receive a death sentence >> as a white man who commits an equivalent crime. Absolutely true. >> > This is a largely bogus claim that relies on statistical sleights of > hand. The reality is that white murderers are executed at a higher > rate > than black murderers. > Do either of you have a source? I find this the interesting part of the argument.
Re: Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Carnell on 11/29/2005; 6:17 PM Mark Morgan wrote: > [Talkback about Essays: Should they let Tookie live? by Brian Webber] > ---------------------------------- > > > On Nov 29, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Brian Carnell wrote: > >>> Also, a black man is twice as likely to receive a death sentence >>> as a white man who commits an equivalent crime. Absolutely true. >>> >>> >> This is a largely bogus claim that relies on statistical sleights of >> hand. The reality is that white murderers are executed at a higher >> rate >> than black murderers. >> >> > > Do either of you have a source? I find this the interesting part of > the argument. > The most frequently cited work on this is Gary Kleck, "Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty", American Sociological Review, 12/81. This is not online as far as I can tell. Kleck studied executions in the U.S. for a period of 4 decades ending in 1966 which found whites were disproportionately executed as compared to blacks. This anti-death penalty web site has a nice graph of the break down by race of people executed for murder since 1976: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184 You'll note there that even according to the anti-death penalty folks, white murderers made up 58% of people executed since 1976. But look at the Justice Department stats on murders committed by race: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Since 1976, where the race of a murderer is known, whites were responsible for 39.2% of felony murders. This is why death penalty opponents who focus on race typically go for data mining now and focus on the race of the offender or on creating situations where they look at small subsets of types of murders and try to draw comparisons between them. But both tend to show bias largely because they end up with relatively small sample sets. If you compare, for example, the risk of being executed for multiple homicides where drugs were the motives, you might find a bias, but you're also now dealing with a small subset of data (plus its hard to understand why, if racism is so prevalent in these decisions, it would impact there but have the reverse effect on a broader level). Note that I used a slightly different formulation -- whites executed rather than sentenced to death -- but I believe that holds up as well (and I can't imagine death penalty opponents will want to argue that whites are executed more often because they have less legal recourse than blacks, since it would undermine the whole "the legal system is biased" argument).
Re: Should they let Tookie live? By: Mark Morgan on 11/29/2005; 10:03 PM On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: > The most frequently cited work on this is Gary Kleck, "Racial > Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the > Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty", American > Sociological Review, 12/81. Very interesting. Do you know of any studies that controlled for poverty--that is, researched the premise 'For the same crime, poor people are more likely to be executed than rich people.' It seems like one of those obvious truths that bears closer scrutiny.
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Webber on 11/29/2005; 11:39 PM According to the 2004 Capital Punishment bulletin issued by the Department of Justice, 1,851 whites were on death row nationally compared to 1,390 African Americans. Which would seem to prove your point. However, in defense of MY argument, in some states there are drastically more minority inmates on death row than Caucasians. In Louisiana, for example, the number of white to African American is 30 to 59, in Pennsylvania it is 77 to 134 and for Federal inmates it is 12 to 20. This would suggest some state and federal systems still hand down capital sentences based partially on the color of a defendant's skin. (information obtained from http://www.collegian.com/) Furthermore, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, while about half of murder victims are white, 80 percent of capital convictions involve white victims. Race would appear to be an issue when it comes to the victim as well. If I had known those last litle bits of info when I wrote the original piece, I would've included them, as I believe they bolster my argument against capital punishment. And I imagine you'd find them useful too Other Brian, since you said If you're opposed to capital punishment, as I am,.
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Christa Sims on 11/30/2005; 8:06 AM Hi, y'all!Now shoot me as I am about to say something very un-p.c.Let him fry, I say.Claiming to be reformed after some time in prison is a well-known cop-out for the criminal fraternity.Even a toddler knows that when caught with hands inside a cookie jar,the best thing to do is give a winning smile and say "sorry,it won't happen again".Becoming a reformed character does not,however negate his previous crimes,and he should be punished.I know he has written books and won awards,but at the end of the day,he killed 4 people.This makes him a murderer and in his country,the penalty for this is death.Where is the justice for the families of his victims if he is allowed to walk?Any acts of leniency on the part of the Governor would send the message out loud and clear that the lives of the victims do not matter.Killing this man would at the very least ensure that justice is done and provide closure for the families of his victims. Now,before you shoot me,consider this- we all make choices in our lives,some good,some not so good.Tookie had a choice in whether he got involved in a gang or not-he was not press-ganged,he became a member of the crips for the power and kudos it gives.Pleading poverty as a reason for crime does not wash with me either as some of the greatest minds for good have very humble beginnings.He chose to misuse his talents,let him pay for his mistake.Oh,and by the way,I am black.I think I might need stronger medication-I'm actually talking politics!Apologies,apologies everyone-please feel free to flay me alive at the annual Self flagelation and Masochism For Religion conference next week.
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Webber on 11/30/2005; 2:53 PM Sims: You are wrong on many levels. One; a life sentence is harldy letting someone walk. Two; I don't like Arnold anymore than most Californians anymore, but he would NOT be sending that kind of message. Three; The victims are dead, and no execution will make them alive. Four; I've heard many relatives say that they could hardly wait to gain closure by the execution of the murderer - but I have never heard any of them say years later that they really found this closure. Five; If the proponents of the death penalty really care so much about these relatives, I do not understand why the funding for psychological support for them is so embarrassing low or missing. Six; How about the relatives of the person being executed? Why don't anybody care about them? Is it civilized to regard them as outcasts too? Seven; Killing is not justice, it is revenge. I asked above how anyone who supports this "punishment" can sleep at night. Maybe you can answer me, because as this country gets clsoer to executing it's 1,000th prisoner since 1976, the angrier I get about it, especially since key evidence in his case was "accidentally" thrown out by a county (or was it city?) clerk. Plus, poverty and crime ARE connected. There are tons of studies showing this. Saying there's no link between poverty and crime (NOTE: Not saying poverty causes crime; I'm marginally above the poverty line myself, and this is only after three years at the same job) is like saying there's no link between child abusers being abused themselves as kids (not always, but often). Update: Just after I wrote this, I learned that Mr. 1000 has indeed been granted clemency. I'm very glad. If he did it, throw away the key, but if he turns out to be innocent, then goddammit, let him go!
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Christa Sims on 12/1/2005; 7:13 AM Brian,I am well aware of the unpopularity of my point of view(my kids have now re-named me Hang 'em Hilary)but someone's got to speak up about justice.Unfortunately,the vast majority of people calling for a reprieve have never been victims of serious crime themselves and I am willing to bet that the most ardent God-botherer would soon change their tune and bray for blood if they lost a loved one to a drug-crazed gunman,or in a drive-by shooting. All major religions have a penalty for murder-the Bible says an eye for an eye,the Koran talks about blood money as I believe does the Torah.The death sentence in the US is just a modern continuation of this.The act of murder,actually deciding to end someone else's life is an abhorent act and I believe the punishment (or deterrent)should be equally harsh and unforgiving.Please note these are my personal opinions and that I am not affiliated to any political party(none of them would have me).I had to write in because the discussion was in danger of being taken over by wooly-headed liberals,and we can't allow that now,can we? Anyway, back to controversy. Poverty and crime are connected in as much as the poorer a person is,the more likely he is to be a victim of crime.A quick look at the gunshot victims in an ER room on a Saturday night will soon show you that the majority are without health Insurance.Poverty is a challenge,not an invitation to crime.Now I'm not talking about the single mother on welfare who steals a can of beans to feed her kids,I'm talking about the 18 year old black kid dressed in ill fitting designer wear standing in a street corner who would sooner hold you and I up than get a job because he needs to buy drugs.Human life is seen as expendable by some people and this is wrong.Deciding on a life of crime by joining a gang,instead of going to school and getting a job is a choice,and anyone willing to do the crime must be willing to face the punishment, as they say.And you are right-the death sentence is revenge ,not justice,but there are instances when people should be allowed revenge.Studies have shown that people who felt they had been done a great injustice actually heal better and are less likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder when they feel they got some form of revenge on the perpetrator-check out the SA truth & reconciliation exercise.I am happy to hear about Mr 1000's reprieve -let's hope he really was innocent and not another killer who got away with it.That would really put the cat amongst the pigeons,now would'nt it?
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Brian Webber on 12/1/2005; 5:01 PM Brian,I am well aware of the unpopularity of my point of view(my kids have now re-named me Hang 'em Hilary)but someone's got to speak up about justice. I hope you aren't accusing me of being anti-justice here. last guy who did that when I had this debate got reemed by just about everybody, even some death-penalty supporters. Unfortunately,the vast majority of people calling for a reprieve have never been victims of serious crime themselves and I am willing to bet that the most ardent God-botherer would soon change their tune and bray for blood if they lost a loved one to a drug-crazed gunman,or in a drive-by shooting. The vast majority eh? Cite your source. Also, I probably would want blood for blood if it happened to me. And that would also be murder. That's why we have our jurisprudence system. The victim's family is too emoitonally invested in the case to pass a fair judgement. After all, let's say we do it your way, and we kill someone who killed my family member. Only, wait, it turns out he didn't do it! I am then guilty of a crime agaisnt humanity myself. And I could never live with that. All major religions have a penalty for murder-the Bible says an eye for an eye,the Koran talks about blood money as I believe does the Torah.The death sentence in the US is just a modern continuation of this.The act of murder,actually deciding to end someone else's life is an abhorent act and I believe the punishment (or deterrent)should be equally harsh and unforgiving. So then, using your logic, the family of the executed could then kill the executioners to get "blood money" for their dead relative? Sorry to sound so harsh, but this is, as I've said, a moral issue for me. Please note these are my personal opinions and that I am not affiliated to any political party(none of them would have me).I had to write in because the discussion was in danger of being taken over by wooly-headed liberals,and we can't allow that now,can we? Wooly-headed liberals? Wow, that was a cheap insult. And you're not the only one. Back at MySpace I've bene called a "vagina" (not kididng) for opposing the death penalty. I think it says a lot about your side of the issue that you feel the need to act like school children making fun of a mentally challenged classmate whenever you disagree with a proud Liberal with a captial L like yours truly. Anyway, back to controversy. Poverty and crime are connected in as much as the poorer a person is,the more likely he is to be a victim of crime.A quick look at the gunshot victims in an ER room on a Saturday night will soon show you that the majority are without health Insurance.Poverty is a challenge,not an invitation to crime. It is a challenege, and not everyone can handle it. It doesn't help that the public school system is being badly misahndled. The few places in the country that do put enough money into the schools, don't tell the schools what exaclty to do with it, so history books continue to be given to students who look at the backa nd say "Who is LBJ, and why does this say he's the current President?" while the football team gets shiny new uniforms and a giant scoreboard you can see from across town. Now I'm not talking about the single mother on welfare who steals a can of beans to feed her kids,I'm talking about the 18 year old black kid dressed in ill fitting designer wear standing in a street corner who would sooner hold you and I up than get a job because he needs to buy drugs.Human life is seen as expendable by some people and this is wrong. Which is part of the argument for decrimianlzing drugs. It gets us, you and I out of harm's way as addicts will no longer be driven to crime as a means to an end. That'll bring the crime rate a hell of a lot more than the death penalty will. In fact, one can argue that you want to increase crime, since there is NO evidence that dp works as a deterrent. Again, it's revenge, not justice. Of course this is not true, I'm certain. No sane person wants to raise the crime rate. But to support crime reduction policies that don't work with blind faith is, and forgive my bluntness, stupid. Deciding on a life of crime by joining a gang,instead of going to school and getting a job is a choice,and anyone willing to do the crime must be willing to face the punishment, as they say. Not as much as you might think. For some kids, not joining a gang is a good way to get thge crap kicked out of them in school every day. Espeically the high school clique system which is basically Washington D.C. minus the money and the power ties. And you are right-the death sentence is revenge ,not justice,but there are instances when people should be allowed revenge. Like the families of inncoent children killed in Iraq? Again, using your logic, the local "insurgents" are really just getting revenge for the unneccesary civilian deaths in their families, mosques, and cities. Studies have shown that people who felt they had been done a great injustice actually heal better and are less likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder when they feel they got some form of revenge on the perpetrator-check out the SA truth & reconciliation exercise. Not really. The victims are dead, and no execution will make them alive. I've heard many relatives say that they could hardly wait to gain closure by the execution of the murderer, but I have never heard any of them say years later that they really found this closure. Plus, if the dp-proponents really care so much about these relatives, I do not understand why the funding for psychological support for them is so embarrassingly low or missing. How about the relatives of the person being executed? Why doesn't anybody care about them? I am happy to hear about Mr 1000's reprieve -let's hope he really was innocent and not another killer who got away with it.That would really put the cat amongst the pigeons,now would'nt it? Even if he did do it, the city & county screwed up, and we should not send the message that you can fuck up and get away with it, esepcially with something as important as a man's life. 
RE: Should they let Tookie live? By: Christa Sims on 12/2/2005; 2:06 PM Can we please suspend hostilities(sorry, the discussion)for 24 hrs as it's my birthday today & I have to get ready to go PARTEEEY!I am sure whatever it is it can wait till tomorrow.-actually, make that Sunday and you'll find me firing (weakly)on all cylinders.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|