Stanley Tookie Williams

[eyez0nme]

I PROPOSE that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, rather than unequivocally deciding to save Stanley Tookie Williams or send the convicted murderer to his death next week, instead conditionally postpone his execution.

The governor should then immediately convene a summit, including not only clergy, grass-roots leaders and elected representatives such as Maxine Waters and Diane Watson, but also current and former Bloods and Crips. The deal: He will spare Williams' life, but only as long as these leaders can keep young black men from killing each other.

In other words, for every 30 days of peace, Tookie receives a stay of execution. Should there be any gang-related killings in L.A., Tookie's fate will be sealed — not by the governor but by the young men who have been clamoring that Williams be spared and the leaders who say they are determined to save black lives. (And those leaders should be the ones to set the murder-acceptability level — at zero tolerance or massacre levels; let it be up to them.)

This is an opportunity to (1) empower young blacks to play a role in saving one of their own; (2) educate them on the role of nonviolent solutions to societal problems; (3) let African American leaders step up and do what they're always talking about — saving children and healing the brokenness in our community.

[Monkey]

Non-violent solutions?

You are basically suggesting that Gov. Schwarzenegger blackmail a section of society. If not, then he will kill one of their friends...

[Quartermaster]

The obvious result would be the rapid killing of people by blood members or even m-13's or whatever else there is, since Tookie is a crip. Even making this deal would backfire quickly, as the gangs would DEFINATLY kill some people, rather than MAYBE killing some people.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

That is one of the most retarded ideas I've heard concerning Stanley Williams. Only in certain cases am I in favor of the death penalty, and this case is one of them.

Goodbye, Tookie-chan.

[dzee]

not knowing too much other than the basic details of this case, i'll just say that eyez0nme: your idea is theoretically sound, but it sounds too much like blackmail. in addition, this is a life that's hanging in the balance.

it certainly does seem to bring across the point that this will involve the young blacks and educate them about the system, but from his background, i'd say it isn't impossible that this man may have made quite a few enemies, and these people may not have forgiven him yet.

in that case, if such a proposition were to become reality, i believe that once the news is broadcasted, the population would be endangered almost immediately. and williams will still die.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Yeah. That's theoretically sound. Alternatively we could stick him in an arena, with a ton of other combatants, and if he makes it to the exit within 60 minutes, he will be given clemency and his freedom. Like "The Running Man." I'm sure the governor of California remembers the plot. That's about as theoretically sound as having the life of a convict dependant on the actions of thugs.

Dumbest fucking idea I've heard in a long time.

[Radiance]

Yeah. That's theoretically sound. Alternatively we could stick him in an arena, with a ton of other combatants, and if he makes it to the exit within 60 minutes, he will be given clemency and his freedom. Like "The Running Man." I'm sure the governor of California remembers the plot. That's about as theoretically sound as having the life of a convict dependant on the actions of thugs.

Dumbest fucking idea I've heard in a long time.

On another note... I actually liked that movie. >.> However, I agree the suggested idea is silly and not worth the few seconds it took me to read it. As such, I request that you turn back time in order for me to regain those precious moments or atleast help me build a time machine so I can send back a robot to prevent myself from ever reading the post to begin with followed by two subsequent attempts to both hinder and assist in the success of the previous robot.

[dzee]

Yeah. That's theoretically sound. Alternatively we could stick him in an arena, with a ton of other combatants, and if he makes it to the exit within 60 minutes, he will be given clemency and his freedom. Like "The Running Man." I'm sure the governor of California remembers the plot. That's about as theoretically sound as having the life of a convict dependant on the actions of thugs.

Dumbest fucking idea I've heard in a long time.

you're getting better at incorporating humor into stuff :D makes it more interesting to read. i didn't support it though, sheesh. my bad for not changing the opening, pfft.

[MoosecatcherPrime]

I honestly think he should be put to death like any other murderer. The following article really nails it on the head for me (taken from WorldNutDaily's Joe Farah :

"Fry Tookie

It almost defies words.

What is it that drives celebrities to the brink of hysteria over the execution death of a quadruple murderer and the founder of a mass-murdering street gang?

What can you say about people hell-bent on sparing the life of a man convicted of the 1979 murders of a convenience-store clerk and two motel owners and their daughter during separate robberies – and then bragging about the killings?

Why does one even need to point out the hypocrisy and immorality of holding up this kind of human scum as a role model and hero, while not lifting a finger to memorialize, let alone bring restitution, to the victims of those crimes?

These are some of the questions racing through my mind as I observe a movement to save the life of Stanley "Tookie" Williams approaching critical full-tilt boogie in the late, great state of California.


Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

Here's all you really need to know about "Tookie" Williams:

In 1971, he founded the notorious Crips street gang, responsible directly for the deaths of hundreds worldwide, indirectly thousands. Today, there are tens of thousands of members of this organized criminal enterprise known for dealing deadly drugs to children and drive-by shootings.

Ten years later, he was convicted by a Los Angeles, Calif., jury of the 1979 murders of Yen-I Yang, a 65-year-old motel owner, his wife, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 62, and their daughter, Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 42. They were Taiwanese who owned the Brookhaven Motel on Vermont Avenue.

A sheriff's homicide investigator remembered noting how two of the three victims were elderly and could have posed no threat and that all three were tiny in stature.

"I couldn't understand it," said Sgt. David Longshore.

He was also convicted of a murder that took place 11 days earlier, when he walked into a 7-Eleven store in Pico Rivera at 4 a.m., forced Albert Lewis Owens to kneel in a storeroom and fired a 12-gauge shotgun at close range into his back.

Afterward, an accomplice turned informer said Williams boasted that he "blew some white guy away, shot him in the back, for $63."

Owens was 26.

When you read the stories about celebrities such as Bianca Jagger, Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Snoop Doggy Dogg and Jamie Foxx decrying the injustice of Williams scheduled execution by lethal injection Dec. 13, note that you not will see any mention of the victims of his crimes.

What you will hear about, however, is the fact that Williams has supposedly rehabilitated himself in prison by becoming a Muslim, being embraced by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, writing children's books and being nominated for a Nobel Peace prize.

By the way, his "rehabilitation" includes an absolute refusal to accept any guilt for his crimes – no remorse, no confession, no penitence, no acknowledgement.

The testimonials have been touching, indeed.

Snoop Doggy Dogg managed, remarkably, to utter 13 words in his defense without using a profanity, vulgarity or obscenity: "He is an inspirator. He is inspiring to me. And I inspire millions."


Snoop Doggy Dogg

The multimillionaire rapper is himself a former member of the Crips and glorifies killing cops, abusing women and the street gang life in his filthy, virtually unintelligible "lyrics" – in between Chrysler commercials with Lee Iacocca.

The rhetoric in support of Tookie Williams is getting more animated daily. Some say he's innocent. Some say he was tried not for the murders, but for his gang activities. Some say he couldn't afford good lawyers. Others say the death penalty is just wrong in all cases.

I fear all of this hyperventilating is leading to an all-too-familiar denouement. Riots in Los Angeles have been touched off for less than the execution of this kind of monster. Is that the real goal of these celebrities? Or do they really believe the fairytale they have concocted about Tookie Williams?

Either way, a larger question looms: How is it that we have come to live in a world where right is wrong, up is down, black is white and north is south?

It's time for these celebrities to shut up. And it's time for justice to be served – at long last – for Tookie Williams."

[Komachi Angel]

I find it hard to see why a more sympathetic view is taken of people like this. Such as in cases where the CEO of some company will run it down the drain and ruin hundreds of lives, get off with millions and yet the news makes it out as though Mr. CEO is such a poor figure and is so, so sorry.

Sorry?

That's like a mass-murderer saying 'Sorry - it was an error in judgement' and having the court say 'yeah, he's right - we can't hold him on that'. It's just so far beyond my understanding I don't know where to begin.

[Psychochink]

I'm actually leaning towards clemency in this case. Not because I think his trial was unfair, or because I think he's innocent. Simply because I don't give a damn. My moral compass is free of any bias of acts being intrinsically 'right' or 'wrong' in their own right, but is completely utilitarian (the philosophy is often simplified as "The greatest good for the greatest number.")

So I don't give a crap whether he killed those people or not, my only criteria is "Which course of action would result in the most benefit to society?" Of course, there's arguments that can be made under this paradigm for both sides.

[N.B. Under this model, arguments based on ‘principle’ have to be completely ignored, unless they are appealing to the effect that maintaining such principle would have on society as a whole.]

On the one hand, we have the argument that there is a preventative measure in effect if a completely solid rule is laid down that, should you break the law in X specified way, then Y will happen to you. The problem with this argument is that the preventative effect of capital punishment is very dicey (if not flat out unsustainable).

So we then continue the argument that it sends a ‘no tolerance’ message to society, and therefore helps to maintain public law and order. The problem here is that if you have a completely rigid no tolerance policy, you remove any incentive for non-escalation of criminal acts, the “In for a penny, in for a pound” mindset (e.g. I mug somebody, well there’s X years right there so as long as I’m going to jail anyway I might as well step things up. The only difference will be length of time in prison – which is not a deterrent – and capital punishment, which in the way it is applied in the American model is also not a deterrent.)

On the other hand, that same principle of sending a message applies to the counter-argument as well, specifically that of rehabilitation (which is purportedly the effect that the State is looking for). If somebody whose efforts to redeem his life have resulted in Nobel Peace Prize nominations cannot be forgiven, what incentive does that give the rest of the criminal population to change their ways or make any effort to make up for their actions? Clearly, it doesn’t.

Even if you decide that everything the guy has done has been purely for the purposes of seeking clemency, with no actual good motivations behind it, it doesn’t matter. The results of his actions have undeniably been a positive force for social change. Additionally, should he not be executed, what further good to society will stem from his actions?

On the other hand, what might the negative consequences of his execution be? Yes, he founded the Crips. As a result of that and due to his high profile, they see him as their ‘spiritual leader’ of sorts. Street criminals are notoriously emotional beings. What effect, then, will his (in their eyes) callous execution by the State have on his works so far?



So, in the greater scheme of things, what is more valuable? ‘Sending a message’ that sends just as much of a negative one as a positive one, or sending a different message and also allowing the man’s efforts to reduce gang violence to continue? My conclusion has to be that allowing him to live serves the greater good more than killing him.

^Yeah, there's always benefit in saying, "We know you murdered four people in cold blood. We know a jury of your peers found you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence deemed appropriate and legal. We know that you started a criminal organization that continues to this day to murder, rob, sell drugs and terrorize neighborhoods across the country. We know you say you found religion. We know a bunch of celebrities with more money than brains think you're just a a swell guy. So, because we know all this, we don't think you should be held accountable for your crimes. Here's the door, $20 and a new set of clothes. Snoop Doggy Dog has a new Chrysler 300C waiting for you outside. Bye! Have a nice life, even though the people you killed don't have that opportunity."

Sure that's a good idea. I don't care if his recent works make Mother Teresa look like a slacker. It doesn't undo what he did and it doesn't free him from the consequences of his actions.

All that said, even though I think the death penalty is and should remain legal, people should NEVER cheer the death of another. It is a horrible thing that people commit crimes so heinous that in the best interests of the safety of society, we have to execute someone. It should be a horrific thought, not a reason to celebrate.

Yeah, but you’re coming from a deontological point of view (i.e. actions have some kind of intrinsic ‘right’ or ‘wrong’-ness in their own right, a very common example being the attitude that murder is always wrong). Most people do, in some form or another (e.g.. if you’re religious in any way, it’s a necessity as part of your faith).

Now personally, I can’t understand why anybody would take a deontological attitude in the first place. It just seems…well…[I]wrong. But I also acknowledge that a lot of people think like you do, which factors into the cost-benefit analysis. At the end of the day, however, I have to conclude that the long-term (and very real) continuing influence of the man for the public good override what will almost certainly be an extremely short-term negative response by the block of society that thinks as you do. Quite frankly, whatever decision is made, 99.9% of people who don’t have a stake in this issue will have forgotten it within a few months. The Crips will not, and that’s where the effects of this decision will be seen, one way or the other.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the option of not executing him but likewise not setting him free exists, so your emotive argument about setting him free hardly applies. For that matter, and speaking personally now, if I had the choice between spending the term of my natural life in jail and death, I’d choose the bullet. Don’t kid yourself that he’d be getting off lightly.

As a caveat, I am probably more pro-death than the majority of people (i.e. if I were a Dictator, I would probably institute a model that had the sentence carried out within a week). I am in no sense of the word a ‘bleeding heart’, and I also have absolutely no emotion when it comes to the death of another human being. However, in this case, I fail to see the point.

By your own words - in the best interests of the safety of society. The difference being that I'm not using those words to justify a purely emotional point of view based on some ephemeral 'principle' instead of on logic.

[Kass]

^Yeah, there's always benefit in saying, "We know you murdered four people in cold blood. We know a jury of your peers found you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence deemed appropriate and legal. We know that you started a criminal organization that continues to this day to murder, rob, sell drugs and terrorize neighborhoods across the country. We know you say you found religion. We know a bunch of celebrities with more money than brains think you're just a a swell guy. So, because we know all this, we don't think you should be held accountable for your crimes. Here's the door, $20 and a new set of clothes. Snoop Doggy Dog has a new Chrysler 300C waiting for you outside. Bye! Have a nice life, even though the people you killed don't have that opportunity."

Sure that's a good idea. I don't care if his recent works make Mother Teresa look like a slacker. It doesn't undo what he did and it doesn't free him from the consequences of his actions.

All that said, even though I think the death penalty is and should remain legal, people should NEVER cheer the death of another. It is a horrible thing that people commit crimes so heinous that in the best interests of the safety of society, we have to execute someone. It should be a horrific thought, not a reason to celebrate.

[kyaa the catlord]

I say we grab all the people Eyez suggested, put them on a tropical island, hide weapons around and whoever comes out alive gets eaten by dinosaurs. :P

[CNagy]

I PROPOSE *snip*

I just saw this and got a nice laugh out of it. Blood Gangmember kills a Crip, and then is also indirectly responsible for killing the founder of the Crips. That has to be good for the reputation. My prediction is that the meeting would be over right after Arnold proclaims the rules of the stay of execution, when a Blood member stabs a Crip to death with a ballpoint pen.

[Psychochink]

Alternatively we could stick him in an arena, with a ton of other combatants, and if he makes it to the exit within 60 minutes, he will be given clemency and his freedom. Like "The Running Man."

This movie rocked. As a note, never go back and watch it again - the sheer cheesiness will make you cringe. Just hold on to those fond childhood memories...

My point of view now updated above, for anybody that's interested.

[Quartermaster]

On the plus side, this would piss off crips, and pissing of gangbangers is always a good thing.

[Matt W]

I believe Stanley "Tookie" Williams should be granted clemency. Let's be clear, if he is granted clemency, he is still in jail for life, he is just not executed. I think the death penalty is morally wrong in general, and is stupid because it doesn't deter crime and is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life. This particular case especially is wrong, because Williams has changed while in prison, and is now helping to keep kids out of gangs through his writings, as well as helping to convince gang members to clean up their act and become positive members of society working in to change their communities for the better. Many former gang members will testify to this. Killing him sends the wrong message, that their can be no redemption. Also, just because someone deserves to die doesn't mean we have a right to kill them.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I believe Stanley "Tookie" Williams should be granted clemency. Let's be clear, if he is granted clemency, he is still in jail for life, he is just not executed. I think the death penalty is morally wrong in general, and is stupid because it doesn't deter crime and is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life. This particular case especially is wrong, because Williams has changed while in prison, and is now helping to keep kids out of gangs through his writings, as well as helping to convince gang members to clean up their act and become positive members of society working in to change their communities for the better. Many former gang members will testify to this. Killing him sends the wrong message, that their can be no redemption. Also, just because someone deserves to die doesn't mean we have a right to kill them.
Writing childrens' books does not compensate for being a murderer. It especially does not compensate for being the founder of one of the most violent and infamous gangs in the country. He says that he is sorry; then why won't he divulge information about the Crips gang? Certainly if he wants to help out in abolishing gang violence then he'd reveal to the authorities valuable information that could help them better fight street gangs. He says he doesn't want to be a "snitch." He's sitting on death row-- why the hell would he care? He still has loyalties to the gang he regrets founding, and I doubt he's changed all that much. I commend Stanley Williams for what he has done, but he could very easily do more.

This isn't some totalitarian government deciding to put an innocent man to death. Stanley Williams is a murderer, and I'm willing to bet he probably had something to do with others that we don't know about. He was tried before his peers, and found guilt, penalty being death. I see no reason to grant him clemency, and I doubt that even if Arnold did, he'd ever open his mouth and tell us more information.

Besides, it might just mean a little more to children reading his books if they know that the author for being part of what his books speak out against.

[Psychochink]

He says that he is sorry; then why won't he divulge information about the Crips gang? Certainly if he wants to help out in abolishing gang violence then he'd reveal to the authorities valuable information that could help them better fight street gangs. He says he doesn't want to be a "snitch." He's sitting on death row-- why the hell would he care? He still has loyalties to the gang he regrets founding, and I doubt he's changed all that much. I commend Stanley Williams for what he has done, but he could very easily do more.

Such as? What might be this specific information that he could reasonably be expected to have (given that he's not exactly in a position to have current and useful knowledge about the street situation that would be useful to the authorities)? Besides, saying he could do more does not invalidate what he has done, or (more importantly) what continuing impact he might have.

Also, consider this, part of what he is doing is encouraging the Crips to step down the activities that cause some of the worst problems that Joe Citizen is worried about. I don't know how much you know about tight-knit criminal groups, but giving the authorities information that could be used against specific individuals (if that's what you're implying) would immediately lose him any influence that he has, thereby destroying (or at least greatly reducing) his ability to have a positive impact on the gang situation.

So far, nobody has even attempted to give any kind of argument for the man's death other than those based on simplistic 'eye for an eye' or 'because the law says so' reasoning. While the law has its place, there must also be some kind of recognition in any intelligent society that there will be occassions when the letter of the law should be put aside. The courts themselves do not have the power to do this, but there appear to be some feeling even there that this is a special case. From the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals postscript:

"We are aware of Williams'...Nobel Peace Prize nomination for his laudable efforts opposing gang violence from his prison cell...Although Williams' good works and accomplishments since incarceration may make him a worthy candidate for the exercise of gubernatorial discretion, they are not matters that we in the federal judiciary are at liberty to take into consideration."

This is, by necessity, a roundabout kind of statement as any kind of direct endorsement would be improper. However there is no reason to even mention it unless there is a good reason to do so.

If you would care to rebut any of the points I made in my earlier post, I'm happy to hear your arguments.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Such as? What might be this specific information that he could reasonably be expected to have (given that he's not exactly in a position to have current and useful knowledge about the street situation that would be useful to the authorities)? Besides, saying he could do more does not invalidate what he has done, or (more importantly) what continuing impact he might have.
From Wikipedia's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams):

The Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, and other law enforcement doubt that Williams has reformed, saying that he has refused to divulge information on other gang members, or debrief officials on the tactics and communication methods that gangs use. Williams has said he didn't want to be a "snitch."
I don't know what information aside from that vague description he can offer, but if officials such as the LAPD think that what he knows could be useful, then he should tell them. I couldn't care less if he doesn't want to be a snitch.

Also, I never meant to say that what he could do invalidates what he has done; I just mean that despite what he has done, he could probably do more. For continuing impact, see below.

Also, consider this, part of what he is doing is encouraging the Crips to step down the activities that cause some of the worst problems that Joe Citizen is worried about. I don't know how much you know about tight-knit criminal groups, but giving the authorities information that could be used against specific individuals (if that's what you're implying) would immediately lose him any influence that he has, thereby destroying (or at least greatly reducing) his ability to have a positive impact on the gang situation.
So far the biggest things he has done are writing anti-gang childrens' books (which I haven't read) and the "Tookie Protocol for Peace" which as far as I know, didn't do much to tone down the violence. It helped, though.

I can understand where you're coming from. However, at least in the Crips, I really doubt that Stanley Williams has much influence on the gang at all anymore. There are a lot of Crips sets (subgroups) in the United States, and the possibility of Stanley having much influence on all of them is, as far as I can hypothesize, rather little. Sets don't just fight against Bloods; different sets can also go against each other. The most influence he'd probably have would be in his own set that he used to be part of. I'm not getting that from any source, really. That's my guess.

Ergo, I doubt that many Crips members outside his original set have much care for what Stanley Williams is encouraging them to do. He could try and use what influence he has all he wants, but ultimately I think the results wouldn't be very valuable. It is my opinion that him divulging information that officials think may be useful would be more beneficial.


So far, nobody has even attempted to give any kind of argument for the man's death other than those based on simplistic 'eye for an eye' or 'because the law says so' reasoning. While the law has its place, there must also be some kind of recognition in any intelligent society that there will be occassions when the letter of the law should be put aside. The courts themselves do not have the power to do this, but there appear to be some feeling even there that this is a special case. From the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals postscript:

"We are aware of Williams'...Nobel Peace Prize nomination for his laudable efforts opposing gang violence from his prison cell...Although Williams' good works and accomplishments since incarceration may make him a worthy candidate for the exercise of gubernatorial discretion, they are not matters that we in the federal judiciary are at liberty to take into consideration."

This is, by necessity, a roundabout kind of statement as any kind of direct endorsement would be improper. However there is no reason to even mention it unless there is a good reason to do so.

The law is not perfect, we all know this. Also, as most should know, an "eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." However, the reason I am against Stanley Williams being given clemency is not because I believe the "law said so." He was judged by his peers in a courtroom, which may or may not have been fair. However, in 2002 a three-judge panel (as it says in the Wiki entry) decided to uphold his conviction.

I really don't think it would be worth it to grant him clemency and change his sentence to life in prison, aside from it allegedly costing less (which I haven't researched). If he were to decide to give up information to officials, even though it may or may not be valuable (Though I think they would probably be able to get at least something out of it), I may consider that granting clemency would be a decent choice, though probably not. If that were to happen, it might send a bad message to others on death row (to whom it could apply), "If you tell us stuff, we'll spare your life."

Also, the reason the Courts bring up the Nobel Prize nomination is probably because all his supporters think it's a good way to show that Stanley is worth keeping alive. If I'm reading that correctly, the Courts were basically saying, "We don't care."

But back to the "eye for an eye" thing. Eye for an eye is bad, to put it bluntly and without eloquence. I think that if we were to do "eye for an eye", it would do much more harm than good. In the case of Stanley Williams though, for what he has done in the past, I think the death penalty fits. Putting someone to death for drug trafficking is barbaric; putting someone to death for the murder of four people, and to a lesser (and unofficial) extent, founding one of the most violent gangs in the US, isn't. I don't think of it as "eye for an eye", I think of it as a consequence of doing a terrible thing.

There are probably a few apparent contradictions I made in there, but it's getting late and I'm tired. Feel free to point them out if you get confused and I'll try to do a better job of explaining tomorrow.

[erbiumfiber]

Link to the letter denying clemency for Tookie Williams:

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf

[Firefly]

I believe Stanley "Tookie" Williams should be granted clemency. Let's be clear, if he is granted clemency, he is still in jail for life, he is just not executed. I think the death penalty is morally wrong in general, and is stupid because it doesn't deter crime and is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life. This particular case especially is wrong, because Williams has changed while in prison, and is now helping to keep kids out of gangs through his writings, as well as helping to convince gang members to clean up their act and become positive members of society working in to change their communities for the better. Many former gang members will testify to this. Killing him sends the wrong message, that their can be no redemption. Also, just because someone deserves to die doesn't mean we have a right to kill them.


You're kidding me, right?

``...Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?'' Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. ``Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption.''...`

...Schwarzenegger also pointed out the brutality of the crimes, noting that Williams allegedly said about one of the killings, ``You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.'' According to the governor's account, Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes...

In addition, the governor noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 book ``Life in Prison'' to a list of figures that included the black militant George Jackson - ``a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems.''

...Schwarzenegger also noted that there is ``little mention or atonement in his writings and his plea for clemency of the countless murders committed by the Crips following the lifestyle Williams once espoused. The senseless killing that has ruined many families, particularly in African-American communities, in the name of the Crips and gang warfare is a tragedy of our modern culture.


Apology or not. He is a murderer.

[Phyphor]

I PROPOSE that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, rather than unequivocally deciding to save Stanley Tookie Williams or send the convicted murderer to his death next week, instead conditionally postpone his execution.

Setting aside the completely illegality of this idea,not to mention the moral issues, this idea wouldn't work in the least.



The governor should then immediately convene a summit, including not only clergy, grass-roots leaders and elected representatives such as Maxine Waters and Diane Watson, but also current and former Bloods and Crips. The deal: He will spare Williams' life, but only as long as these leaders can keep young black men from killing each other.


...Nevermind mexicans, asians, or white people, right?


In other words, for every 30 days of peace, Tookie receives a stay of execution. Should there be any gang-related killings in L.A., Tookie's fate will be sealed — not by the governor but by the young men who have been clamoring that Williams be spared and the leaders who say they are determined to save black lives. (And those leaders should be the ones to set the murder-acceptability level — at zero tolerance or massacre levels; let it be up to them.)


The vast majority of the crips really don't give a shit about Tookie williams, all they care about is their own territory and the cash they make selling dope.




This is an opportunity to (1) empower young blacks to play a role in saving one of their own;

Nevermind that they don't seem to have a problem killing young blacks close to their own age, not to mention the other races/ethnicities mentioned.



(2) educate them on the role of nonviolent solutions to societal problems; (3) let African American leaders step up and do what they're always talking about — saving children and healing the brokenness in our community.

Yea, well, pity 'ol Tookie wouldn't have turned pacifist 25 years ago. Guess it's too late for those four people he murdered in cold blood.


I say fry the fuckwad and be done with it. If you're going to cold-bloodedly murder four people for a few hundred or thousand dollars, then you most certainly shouldn't be whining when you get what's coming. ESPECIALLY since the state is doing it in a manner far kinder than the one Tookie dispatched his victims in.

[Anders]

ESPECIALLY since the state is doing it in a manner far kinder than the one Tookie dispatched his victims in.

I should start this out by saying that I have never been a supporter of the death penalty. To me there is no positive way to make sure every single person executed really did it. You don't hear about it often, but people are found to be innocent years after they have been sentenced to life terms or worse- death. I don't have the numbers and I'm too tired right now to find them, but regardless I feel it is far too easy to let someone die for a crime they did not commit.

Now that I'm done with my rant about the death penalty in general, I want to comment on Phyphor's last post.
The hippocratic oath is a set of ethics that physicians are bound to in thier profession. Because of this oath, physicians are not allowed to take part in executions. The process is done in three stages, first an anesthetic is administered, then a paralyzing agent, then a toxic agent. After the condemned is declared dead by medical staff, the body is taken to the medical examiner who may do an autopsy on the body. The problem is that some executed prisoners were found to have had insufficient levels of the anesthetic in their systems and could feel the lethal doses of the toxic agent. Because of the paralyzing agent, nobody could ever tell. I believe that is a cruel and unusual punishment that would far exceed any crime.

Now returning to my rant... Just imagine being unable to move, unable to breathe, while you feel your organs painfully shutting down. Then an new painful chemical is injected into you that stops your heart from beating. Now imagine that you (were) innocent.

[Invictus]

So just double-tap the guy in the head with a .45. Messier, but he won't feel a thing...

I believe that is a cruel and unusual punishment that would far exceed any crime.

Also, said punishment is certainly not unusual (being a typical one for the crime of which one is convicted). As far as being crueler than any crime... you need to do some research on the crimes of which death-row criminals are convicted before making a statement like that.

[Komachi Angel]

I really dislike the use of lethal injection and the electric chair. A straight shot seems the least distressing of the lot.

Truth be told, I have always been afraid of being wrongly accused of a crime, and especially one leading to the death penalty. I don't know why, but it's always been one of those things that scares the hell out of me.

[erbiumfiber]

I never understood why the lethal injection couldn't just be the same stuff they use to put your dog or cat to sleep. Just some overdose of barbituates or something. I held my dog (of 15 years) on my lap as he was put to sleep and I guarantee he did not suffer (or there would have been hell to pay).

[Anders]

Oh dude, really? I chose the words "cruel and unusual punishment" because they refer to the 8th amendment which uses that exact language. When the death penalty was banned in the US it was because the death penalty was found to violate the 8th amendment. Don't you think just killing someone for committing a serious crime is enough? If not, maybe you should read the 8th amendment and research the reasons behind it's creation. Another thing one might consider is what if the person convicted was innocent?
A side note from that, if we find out that an innocent person was executed, should we try a Governor or President as an accessory to murder?

[Phyphor]

I should start this out by saying that I have never been a supporter of the death penalty. To me there is no positive way to make sure every single person executed really did it. You don't hear about it often, but people are found to be innocent years after they have been sentenced to life terms or worse- death. I don't have the numbers and I'm too tired right now to find them, but regardless I feel it is far too easy to let someone die for a crime they did not commit.

It happens, but less so than it used to. In any case, he's had 2 jury trials and the 9th appeals court shot his appeal down (and they're notorius for overturning death sentences.)

There's no chance of an innocent man being executed in the next hour in San Quentin.


Now that I'm done with my rant about the death penalty in general, I want to comment on Phyphor's last post.
The hippocratic oath is a set of ethics that physicians are bound to in thier profession. Because of this oath, physicians are not allowed to take part in executions. The process is done in three stages, first an anesthetic is administered, then a paralyzing agent, then a toxic agent. After the condemned is declared dead by medical staff, the body is taken to the medical examiner who may do an autopsy on the body. The problem is that some executed prisoners were found to have had insufficient levels of the anesthetic in their systems and could feel the lethal doses of the toxic agent. Because of the paralyzing agent, nobody could ever tell. I believe that is a cruel and unusual punishment that would far exceed any crime.


Yea, so cruel. My heart bleeds. Tell me, what's more cruel, the so-called 'feeling everything shut down,' or perhaps, minding your own business at work, when some PCP smoking asshole with a 12-guage runs in your store, orders you to give him the money. Imagine this, said asshole THEN orders you into the back. You comply, in the hopes that he'll make his escape, and leave you alone. Instead, PCP smoker decides that:

1 - You're white, and he hates whites / Asians
2 - He doesn't want to leave witnesses
3 - He gets a power trip / laugh from murder. (See link below)

So, now PCP smoker puts his shotgun real close to you, and shoots you. You not only get to feel the hot hammerblow of shot ripping through you, you also get the joy of the muzzle blast crisping some of your skin around the wound.

Now, you're laying there for a moment, bleeding out. PCP smoker decides you're not dying fast enough to suit him, so he shoots you again.

An excerpt from the link below:
"Later that same day, Williams bragged to his brother Wayne about killing Owens.
Williams said, “you should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.” Williams then
made gurgling or growling noises and laughed hysterically about Owens’ death. (TT 2195-
2197)."

Full text of the DA's request NOT to grant clemency (NOT WORK SAFE - includes graphic pics) (http://www.lacountyda.org/pdf/swilliams.pdf)


Now returning to my rant... Just imagine being unable to move, unable to breathe, while you feel your organs painfully shutting down. Then an new painful chemical is injected into you that stops your heart from beating. Now imagine that you (were) innocent.

I somehow have my doubts that he's innocent.

So did 2 juries and a panel of judges.


(Edit: qualified that there are graphic images in there, not just text!)

[Phyphor]

Oh, did I forget to mention that Williams is getting a last meal, a visit from the chaplain (so he can say his prayers, ) a chance to watch TV, even talk to people? His victims (all 4 of them, 2 seperate shootings) didn't get anything like that.

[kyaa the catlord]

Personally I think Tookie is a good excuse to bring back crucification.

33 minutes!

[theunraveler]

i believe tookie should be executed. he started a gang and criminal activities which ruined so many lives, he probably hurt more ppl in his lifetime than any of us here. he is a menance to society and needs to be put down.

[eyez0nme]

10!... 9!... 8!... 7!... 6!... 5!... 4!... 3!... 2!... 1~! Happy Aniversary!!! See you on Judgement Day!!

[erbiumfiber]

Maybe a strange question to ask but, how the hell do you spend 24 YEARS on death row? I mean, I know the justice system is slow but wtf? So he was give 24 YEARS after a death sentence to "reform" his life in the hopes of clemency. In Virginia (the last state I lived in), they get through all the appeals (they have a special team to streamline this) in about 4 years. Only in CA would the system be so screwed up that there are, what, 650 people or so on death row but they have only executed a handful since the death penalty became constitutional again! Probably people die of natural causes before they ever get close to the death chamber-speaking of which, I saw a picture of it and it looks like the old gas chamber with a gurney inside for the lethal injection. Government hard at work saving taxpayer dollars by recycling execution chambers...

[kyaa the catlord]

He wasn't given 24 years, he abused the system to try to get his ass off death row for 24 years.

Appeals in the US suck. They need to overhaul the courts BADLY. 2 years is much too long, imho.

[karob]

Doesn't matter because he is dead. I don't think anyone can justify that man living another second on this earth.

[Phyphor]

Yup, CNN just confirmed that they just executed him.

[karob]

I think that makes me a...

*Prophet
A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

[kyaa the catlord]

So, any cities on fire yet?

Is it just me or is the fact that this guys name bears a remarkable similarity to that of Garfield's little stuffed animal pal hilarious?

And um, now that he's dead. Can we put his head on a pike at the entrance to LA? That would rock!

[karob]

Wow I just went to his website http://www.tookie.com/
and read some of his letters and it kind of puts things in a different light. If he was honestly commited to overturning the stereotypical young black male role in society then I think maybe we made a mistake by writing him off. Lol I know this is hypocritical considering that I just said...
"I don't think anyone can justify that man living another second on this earth."

I take it back Tookie I'm sorry! lol

[kyaa the catlord]

Oh, come on. Don't buy the propaganda! This guy never showed any remorse for his crimes, even denying he committed them until the end. If he had truly changed, he'd have wanted justice done not fought against it.

I love how the "save Tookie!" loonies all cried and gnashed teeth claiming that the execution will cause another round of "Rodney King" type rioting. Where I come from, that's a threat... If you do "A", we'll do "B". Yep. That's a threat.

[karob]

Well those people are definately wrong for threatening violence because he was executed. That goes against everything that man has preached in his last few years. Haha how lame! Oh well screw him I was just trying to see the other side for a second.

Oh and btw Kyaa we are dominating this thread :D My excuse is that I am at work... and I have infinite time to surf the net.

[kyaa the catlord]

I'm at work too. Damn midnight shift. (Love it!)

I like the people who were defending Tookie though.

Snoop Dogg (His whole job is not to be taken seriously! Come on!) Ex-Crip
Elliott Gould (Once Mr. Barbara Streisand. Just ew.) Hollywood has-been.
Ted Danson (My last good role was a bit-part.) Hollywood has-been.
William Baldwin (Backdraft 2. Call me!) Hollywood never-has-been.
Bob Saget (Never should have left America's Funniest Home videos.) Seriously, kancho would be a step up for his career.
Jessica Simpson (Save, uh, Pookie!) Like, I'm a blonde!
Rusell Crowe (Make more Aubrey/Maturin! NOW!) Get to work man. I need more "Master and Commander". Stat.
the Reverand Jesse Jackson (Al Sharpton was busy.) Ooooh, a black man is being put down by the man.

Seriously. I don't see how anyone can take California seriously. :D

[Kass]

I believe Stanley "Tookie" Williams should be granted clemency.

Who gave his victims clemency?

Let's be clear, if he is granted clemency, he is still in jail for life, he is just not executed. I think the death penalty is morally wrong in general, and is stupid because it doesn't deter crime and is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life. This particular case especially is wrong, because Williams has changed while in prison, and is now helping to keep kids out of gangs through his writings, as well as helping to convince gang members to clean up their act and become positive members of society working in to change their communities for the better.

That makes it all better. Those four people are up and about again, huh? Because he wrote a book or two, a few murders are irrelevant.

Many former gang members will testify to this.

He's been terribly successful at it too. Gang membership is way down.

Killing him sends the wrong message, that their can be no redemption. Also, just because someone deserves to die doesn't mean we have a right to kill them.

Redemption is to be found in one's faith, not in the justice system. The criminal justice system is about justice and punishment. You don't get a pass if you do something good after you've gone to jail. That is what you should have been doing all along. I said it earlier in a different context, but it still applies. You don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. Rewards are for extraordinarily good acts. Writing a few children's books isn't extraordinarily good. It is what you are supposed to do.

Someone elses point about him not knowing much about the crips because he's in jail: a vast number of criminal enterprises are run from prison. He probably knew more about the workings of the Crips than gang members on the street.

Oh dude, really? I chose the words "cruel and unusual punishment" because they refer to the 8th amendment which uses that exact language. When the death penalty was banned in the US it was because the death penalty was found to violate the 8th amendment. Don't you think just killing someone for committing a serious crime is enough? If not, maybe you should read the 8th amendment and research the reasons behind it's creation. Another thing one might consider is what if the person convicted was innocent?
A side note from that, if we find out that an innocent person was executed, should we try a Governor or President as an accessory to murder?

The authors of the Eighth Amendment had no problem owning slaves, buying and selling slaves, beating them and executing them. They also had no problem hanging men for murder, treason and horse thievery. Many of them were opium addicts and adulterers and wife beaters. As much good as they did, don't ever hold them up as pillars of decency. They were far from it and they had no problems executing criminals.

As for those of you cheering, grow up. As much as I don't think he deserved clemency, an execution is NO REASON to cheer. Someone was killed for crimes so heinous, a jury decided he forfeited his right to life. This is a somber and tragic commentary on the state of our society. Cheering an execution is sick and you should be ashamed of yourselves. It ends now, too.

[CNagy]

-For a punishment to be struck down as cruel and unusual, it has to be both cruel and unusual. If it occurs often enough, or is a standard penalty that can apply to a broad number of persons who fall into the same category as far as their criminal acts are concerned, it is not unusual and thus not barred by the 8th amendment. Furthermore, such punishments only gain momentum; the longer it has been around, the harder it will be to abolish it.

Decency has nothing to do with this. Law is not meant to be decent, it is meant to be fair and impartial. Is it not cruel to allow a man's children to grow up fatherless because he is serving 15 years in a federal prison? Yet it happens all the time. The only time "decency" seems to play any role in the courts is when the accused is rich and/or famous; at which point prosecutors tend to walk on eggshells, the 5th amendment gets thrown around alot, and the accused walks free at the end of the day.

-Death Penalty appeals are meant to take decades on average. This insures that we will let 100 guilty men walk free before we condemn an innocent man to death (I wish I remembered the source of that quote.) In these days of DNA evidence, the chances of someone innocent being put to death are slim to none. Such a person, despite his innocence, would need to be found guilty beyond any shadow of doubt, and circumstantial evidence is not really enough to give the death penalty out on.

[Anders]

I just love how everyone seems to think that I'm in support of what Williams did. From the look of it, everyone wants to tell me how serious the crimes were and ask the question "why should we spare him when he didn't give his victims a chance?" All of you, it seems have missed my point. I am not arguing that Williams was innocent in fact nowhere in any of my posts did I mention his name. I just do not believe in the death penalty. When I mentioned the 8th amendment, I asked for people to look into the reasons behind its creation. Not just who created it and what were they like.

The Death penalty was banned in the US as a result of the Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia because the process was found to violate the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court made the recommendation that we research more humane ways of executing prisoners. 4 years later in the case Gregg v. Georgia the death penalty was resumed after the development of the lethal injection method. My post merely suggests that the lethal injection method is not as humane as we all think. Would it still hold up if it went to court today? Probably, they lack survivors to testify.

[Kass]

Except that the reasons behind the Eighth Amendment do NOT include prohibiting the death penalty as the men who wrote the amendment made no effort to stop the death penalty as a consequence of criminal activity. You cannot divine the intent to outlaw the death penalty from something written by men who in some cases, took part in the carrying out of the death penalty.

Would it still hold up? The lack of survivors is the whole point, but that aside, if administered properly, the lethal injection is the most pain-free (though I won't say entirely) form of execution. It would still hold up because as long as it is not cruel and unusual, it is the purview of the states to determine what punishment is appropriate for the crime, not the Supreme Court's. You can't hold up one amendment at the expense of all the others. There is no hierarchy of amendments. The Tenth Amendment is not tertiary to the Eighth.

And yes, what Tookie Williams or any other murderer did to their victims, the motive and the circumstances do matter. That is why manslaughter is a lesser offense than murder. That is why murder is a lesser offense than capitol murder. The crime does matter.

[Anders]

Still, I'm not saying that the framers of the constitution wanted to ban the death penalty. I used the 8th amendment to object to the method of execution.

[kyaa the catlord]

Lethal injection really isn't that bad a way to go. It beats hanging, crucification, drawing and quartering, drowning, keel-hauling, pressing and being burnt at the stake. (All of which HAVE been done in the US in the past. Well, maybe not crucification.)

[Anders]

The US doesn't smear condemned prisoners with peanut butter and toss them in a pit with a couple hungry grizzly bears either. (never did... I hope) The difference is that those methods (except hanging) have been retired for more humane methods. Although I would agree that a lethal injection may be less painful and more humane than being pulled apart by two horses and bleeding to death, I think that the lethal injection method should be retired for a better method of execution.

[Ceirnian]

I agree Anders. A less expensive practical way to kill someone is decapitation. In theory it's painless.

[Phyphor]

I just love how everyone seems to think that I'm in support of what Williams did. From the look of it, everyone wants to tell me how serious the crimes were and ask the question "why should we spare him when he didn't give his victims a chance?" All of you, it seems have missed my point. I am not arguing that Williams was innocent in fact nowhere in any of my posts did I mention his name. I just do not believe in the death penalty. When I mentioned the 8th amendment, I asked for people to look into the reasons behind its creation. Not just who created it and what were they like.

The Death penalty was banned in the US as a result of the Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia because the process was found to violate the 8th amendment. The Supreme Court made the recommendation that we research more humane ways of executing prisoners. 4 years later in the case Gregg v. Georgia the death penalty was resumed after the development of the lethal injection method. My post merely suggests that the lethal injection method is not as humane as we all think. Would it still hold up if it went to court today? Probably, they lack survivors to testify.

Actually, to be fair, you were using the "what if it was you, and you were innocent?" angle, making it sound much like you believed Tookie could be innocent. Obviously ,he wasn't.

[Phyphor]

I agree Anders. A less expensive practical way to kill someone is decapitation. In theory it's painless.

Maybe, maybe not. It is believed that your head still survives for a few seconds after being severed, though.

Hanging - For the most part, it's done here in the USA, IIRC the last hanging they did here was in Oklahoma. The way it's done now, the prisoner's neck is usually broken (if not, the drop knocks them unconcious, usually) ... 'least it ain't done like the Iranians do (those are some sick fuckers...)

Electrocution - Some call it slow torture. Depends on the crew doing the execution. If they don't set it up right, conductivity sucks, resistance goes up, and the condemned gets extra crispy. Not exactly a nice way to go.

Gas chamber - Outlawed here in Cali and many other states for being too cruel. I tend to agree, because the prisoner can here the pellets being dropped into the acid, so they try to hold their breath. Kinda a fucked up way to go.

Shooting - Might probably be the easiest (if not the cleanest) way to go. Just pop someone behind the ear and be done with it.

Short of instant disintegration, I can't think of a good, painless way to execute someone.

[Anders]

I apologize if that was misleading.

[setrict]

http://www.aarrgghh.com/no_way/beheading.htm

This probably isn't the most authoritative link, but I've seen the story lots of other places. A scientist is set to be beheaded, and tells his friends that he will blink until he loses conciousness. He supposedly blinked for 15 seconds after be head was severed.

Half of me hates the idea of executions, regardless of the method used. The other half wants to see the criminals locked in a room full of pointy objects and the victims family. If he lives, he lives. If he doesn't... well what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

[Matt W]

No matter your opinion on the death penalty, I think it is sick that some people on this board are cheering and are joyful and boasting about how this man was just murdered. It makes your opinion lose credibility. It is a legitimate position to believe in the death penalty as something that you believe is sadly necessary and just, but how can you find joy in it? Also, I never argued that his gradual redemption made up for him killing people. I just said that he should have life in jail instead. Most murderers are not executed, so why execute a man who had changed and was working against gangs and violence? It sends a terrible message, and is very sad. Also, FUCK SCHWARZENEGGER!

[Xephon]

What's wrong in finding joy in the eradication of filth? The man helped found one of the worst gangs in the country and never even proffesed guilt for his actions.

[Phyphor]

Hell yea, he even went so far as to glare in an intimidating fashion at the family and the media.

[Kass]

And what exactly is a better method? If you have a totally humane and guaranteed painless method, I'm sure the justice system would be interested.

[Kass]

What's wrong in finding joy in the eradication of filth? The man helped found one of the worst gangs in the country and never even proffesed guilt for his actions.

The taking of a life is always a serious and tragic matter, even if it is justified. It should never be a cause for celebration.

[Anders]

And what exactly is a better method? If you have a totally humane and guaranteed painless method, I'm sure the justice system would be interested.

Maybe Ultimate Sweetness could help...

All joking aside, I don't know of any method that would work better than lethal injections, but then again I'm not in the business of finding ways to kill people.

[erbiumfiber]

Umm, not to bring it up again, but that's why I'm wondering if there's a reason why you can't just be "put to sleep" like a dog or cat. It might take a few minutes longer to die on a high dose of barbituates or the like but it seems a little bit nicer than a shot of potassium chloride to the heart...

Don't doctors in Oregon and other "right to die" places prescribe sleeping pills that you can OD on should you choose to end your life? So it must work...

[Pierrot le Fou]

I'm sure there are reasons. I'm no scientist.

Perhaps the LD50 of barbituates are exceedingly high. Perhaps there are unpleasant side-effects in humans of super-high dosage. Perhaps it is incredibly painful when you get over a certain body mass because it takes effect more slowly. Perhaps it is just too painless.

Hanging is intended to sever your spinal cord between the second and third vertebrae (I believe) cutting off all feeling to your body. You stop breathing, you feel no pain, and then your brain dies. If they muck up the length of rope and whatnot, however, your head pops off, your neck doesn't break, or something equally unpleasant.

The death penalty isn't a pleasant thing. It isn't a painless thing. It isn't a foolproof thing. It isn't supposed to be.

The protection against cruel and unusual punishment is not designed to make sure that prisoners live painless contented existences in limbo. Otherwise you should be complaining about the violence, uncertainty, and rape in prison. Not the death penalty. These people committed crimes. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If the person suffered more than usual, that's regrettable, but it comes with the territory.

Nothing is perfect.

[Firefly]

No matter your opinion on the death penalty, I think it is sick that some people on this board are cheering and are joyful and boasting about how this man was just murdered. It makes your opinion lose credibility. It is a legitimate position to believe in the death penalty as something that you believe is sadly necessary and just, but how can you find joy in it? Also, I never argued that his gradual redemption made up for him killing people. I just said that he should have life in jail instead. Most murderers are not executed, so why execute a man who had changed and was working against gangs and violence? It sends a terrible message, and is very sad. Also, FUCK SCHWARZENEGGER!


You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Death Penalty argument aside, Williams was not a changed man. He mouthed to the jury "I'm going to kill each and every one of you". He never apologized. He never showed any remorse. He never apologized to the victims in his crimes. He never shouted out, recalling the Crips and asking for peace.

Perhaps you should also read about the Governor before you start bad mouthing someone. Do you even *live* in California? Granted, I'm not too fond of him myself, but since he's been elected I haven't found myself in any sort of hell hole. Do you even know *anything* he is for? To be honest, this is the first thing I've agreed on with Arnold, and I think everything he said was correct. No remorse. No apology. No closure for the families. And guess what? We still have a crips problem, and I didn't see Williams trying to work against it.

[Unactuality]

Schwarzenegger's reply to Tookie's clemency request is very good. Required reading for anyone interested in this matter. I agree with it completely.

There's nothing wrong with opposing his execution out of a principled objection to the death penalty in general, but those who insist on Tookie's "redemption" being sufficient to have his sentence reduced need to take a long, hard look at the facts of the case.

[Phyphor]

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Death Penalty argument aside, Williams was not a changed man. He mouthed to the jury "I'm going to kill each and every one of you". He never apologized. He never showed any remorse. He never apologized to the victims in his crimes. He never shouted out, recalling the Crips and asking for peace.

Perhaps you should also read about the Governor before you start bad mouthing someone. Do you even *live* in California? Granted, I'm not too fond of him myself, but since he's been elected I haven't found myself in any sort of hell hole. Do you even know *anything* he is for? To be honest, this is the first thing I've agreed on with Arnold, and I think everything he said was correct. No remorse. No apology. No closure for the families. And guess what? We still have a crips problem, and I didn't see Williams trying to work against it.


+1,000,000

Now, I didn't vote for Schwarzenegger, didn't like him, thought he was a prime asshat. But at least, in this decision, he is 100% correct.

[Anders]

This is something that I don't understand. If he maintained that he was innocent of those charges, then why should he be made to confess for something he didn't do?

[Kass]

Because he DID do it and there were witnesses, ballistics evidence and his own big fat mouth before he was arrested are proof. In 24 years, and several evidentiary hearings and eight appeals, the defense could never provide any reliable evidence to the contrary.

[Matt W]

Firefly,

You point to him threatening the jury at his trial as proof that he was not a changed man, but he himself said that he was not a changed man for about the first 10 years he was in prison, and only started gradually changing starting in the early 1990's, so pointing to a time before that is not relevant to whether or not he changed. Also, as Anders points out, he maintained he was innocent of the charges against him, thats why he didn't apologize. I have heard conflicting information about the quality of the evidence against him, I have never looked into it myself, so I will not speak about it. However, he admitted he was a bad person back then, and he did work against gang violence, which includes the Crips, and spoke out against the dangers of joining gangs.

Yes, I live in California, and have my entire life. I agree, Schwarzenegger has not turned California into a hell hole. He is a moderate, but he has done nothing to improve the state and hasn't fixed the budget problems. All he has done is waste close to 50 million on an unnecessary special election in which every proposition failed, raised tuition, and has in general been ineffective at accomplishing things.

[Phyphor]

Yes, I live in California, and have my entire life. I agree, Schwarzenegger has not turned California into a hell hole. He is a moderate, but he has done nothing to improve the state and hasn't fixed the budget problems. All he has done is waste close to 50 million on an unnecessary special election in which every proposition failed, raised tuition, and has in general been ineffective at accomplishing things.

Totally agreed. So much for his "I'll open the books and fix everything" promises he made.

[Unactuality]

Did you bother to read through Schwarzenegger's statement? It includes several good reasons to doubt Williams' "redemption". One I liked in particular was the dedication of a 1998 book to a number of convicted cop-killers, murderers, and people who advocate the use of violance politically.

[CNagy]

Can someone post a link to the Governator's statement? When I google it, I get a bunch of forums discussing the situation.

[Unactuality]

There's a link on page 1.

Here it is again:

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf