Wow. Tookie.

[Trilby]

Unbelievable. The polar opposite opinions on what Tookie Williams achieved (or what he inflicted) in his lifetime raging on in the media is astounding. Lots of hatred still being spewed for and opposed. I don't support the death penalty, but I certainly don't think he was Nobel Peace Prize material, either.

I AM surprised that Antioch College in Yellow Springs didn't have him as a Commencement speaker, though.

If a person does something really bad, like start a gang that murders/rapes/robs, etc., and then, while in prison for the murder of four people ('course, he didn't DO it!), finds Jesus and writes some children's books about "don't do what I did"--does this redeem him? Does this make it all better?

[glatt]

For all the aspiring hardcore memorial rap-crafters out there,
A list of the seven words that rhyme with "Tookie":
Bookie, Cookie, Hooky, Lookie, Nookie, Rookie and of course: Wookie.

credit

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brianna

If a person does something really bad, like start a gang that murders/rapes/robs, etc., and then, while in prison for the murder of four people ('course, he didn't DO it!), finds Jesus and writes some children's books about "don't do what I did"--does this redeem him? Does this make it all better?

I don't think anyone (or at least, hardly anyone) was asking for a pardon. Life in prison would have kept him out of society.

Even from a "deterrant" standpoint, the execution doesn't make sense - people on death row might start to think that reforming their lives and contributing to society might commute their death sentences to life in prison? That sounds like a good thing to me.

Now, if your view of the justice system is that it should deal in vengeance, then it makes sense. If blood must pay for blood, then reformation is irrelevant.

[Sundae]

It cuts to the very core of arguments for/ against the death penalty doesn't it? Do you allow people to change & thereby redeem themselves in the eyes of society? Or do you make them pay with their life for taking the life of another person?

I would suggest that within the current laws of California, the State is quite right to execute him. He was sentenced as a killer - becoming a peacemaker after killing does not change that. Unless you want to start asking the question of how much good he could have done if he hadn't been on Death Row in the first place.

Of course I'm a furriner with ways very different than your own, and I don't believe in the death penalty to start with.

[glatt]

I've heard some judges before say that when they hand down a sentence, they are not judging the person, or the worth of the person. Instead, they are judging the actions of that person. Or more specifically, the actions in question.

His actions were judged to be deserving of the death penalty. What he has done with his life since then is irrelevant. He can't erase his past actions, he can only add additional actions. They can be good ones or bad ones.

If he were up for parole, his actions since then would come in to play. We as a society, would care if he was a decent guy before we release him.

I'm personally against the death penalty, and think he should have gotten life in prison in the first place. But he didn't. I'm also pleased that he has, by many accounts, become a changed man. But under the current system of laws in California, and my limited knowledge of his case, I think his case is being handled correctly.

[Troubleshooter]

If he did it, and if he was found guilty in a manner that reflects the truth of the case, I believe he should have been executed.

Also, if he's been found guilty, the time from the finding to the execution should be his to do with as he sees fit. Finding redemption or fighting the system, his choice, but not 25 years worth.

[Undertoad]

I'm against the death penalty. But I think I'm even more against selective justice on the basis of fame post-verdict.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm against the death penalty. But I think I'm even more against selective justice on the basis of fame post-verdict.

How is it you manage to say in two sentances exactly what I muddled in my three paragraphs? It's that damn college you went to, isn't it?

[Elspode]

I saw an interview with the very eloquent brother of one of Tookie's victims. Said brother was most decidedly not in favor of a commutation of sentence. Neither did he seem particularly vengeful. He simply wanted the sentence carried out on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole.

BTW, "Pookie" also rhymes with Tookie.

[Elspode]

I saw an interview with the very eloquent brother of one of Tookie's victims. Said brother was most decidedly not in favor of a commutation of sentence. Neither did he seem particularly vengeful. He simply wanted the sentence carried out on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole. In my mind, the worst thing about all of this apart from the human suffering was that it took more than 25 years from the commission of the crimes to the execution. That length of time and wondering can only be seen as unnecessary suffering from my point of view. I am in favor of capital punishment, but I think it needs to be less drawn out.

BTW, "Pookie" also rhymes with Tookie.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Neither did he seem particularly vengeful. He simply wanted the sentence carried out on the basis that his brother had been sentenced to die by Tookie with no possibility of parole.

That's vengeance, and that's why the views of the victims or their families shouldn't be included in the process - whether they are out for blood or whether they have personally forgiven. The criminal justice system isn't about wrongs against individuals, it's about wrongs against society. Victims are witnesses, and rarely get any restitution from the process, because the process is not for them.

Now, Williams did commit crimes against society, and was properly convicted and sentenced, AFAIK. I have no problem with any of the legal aspects to the case (since I really don't know much about them). My only thought is that

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm against the death penalty. But I think I'm even more against selective justice on the basis of fame post-verdict.

it does matter how they gained that post-verdict fame. Society could be well served if people thought that doing good works had a chance to commute a death sentence to life without parole.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's vengeance <snip>

So, if you are the judge, and you are asked by a family member, how do you answer the question "why is my loved one dead and his murderer still alive, even though he was given the death penalty"?

That's not an enviable position to be in.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Society could be well served if people thought that doing good works had a chance to commute a death sentence to life without parole.

Bull. "Good works" does not a life revive. I don't care how many pansy-assed 'good works' your average murderer decides to take up AFTER they've killed my loved one. No good work could equal my loss.

[Happy Monkey]

There are several enviable positions for judges to be in, but talking to victims seldom is one.

[mrnoodle]

The point of prison, for murderers at least, isn't to reform them. It's to keep them away from their prey. You can call it vengeance if you want, but the price of criminally taking life is forfeiture of your own. If Tookie found God, death should hold no fear for him.

Rehabilitation is for people who drink too much, not those who stand over a helpless woman and blow half her face off with a shotgun. Want me to post the pics of Tookie's victims? He got a far easier end to his time on earth than his victims did. He should've been ecstatic that he didn't die like they did.