Here are excerpts from a recent news story about Stanley “Tookie” Williams. He has been on death row in California for most of his life and his execution date is in December:
Personally I do not think he should be executed. When you combine the doubts of a fair trial with the evidence of his rehabilitation and atonement (yes, he disavows commiting the crims but his actions in prison seem to be atoning for starting the gang) it seems that no real justice will be served by executing him. He will still be behind bars for the rest of his life, hopefully continuig to make a positive difference.
I’m opposed to the death penalty and would be quite happy to see Williams confined to prison for life, but I won’t waste any tears on Williams – he did some terrible things when he was young, and has completely used up any concern I might have about whether he lives or dies. If he’s executed, meh. It’s not like he’s innocent or anything. If California figure out that killing people is wrong, good for California, but I won’t be happy on behalf of Mr. Williams.
Being nominated for a Nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing. Anyone can be nominated for a prize all you have to do is get any single former recipient, member of a national assembly, university professor, international judge, or special advisor to the prize committee to nominate you.
Given that this guy is in the middle of a contentious debate about the death penalty, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was nominated by some politician or professor looking to turn him into a political statement.
I’m generally opposed to the death penalty, but I hate stunts like this.
After Googling, I see he was nominated by a member of the Swiss Parliament. Why should anyone care?
Oh wow, Larry Borgia], I didn’t see it. My apologies… What usually happens in this kind of case? If a thread is to be closed, this one would probably be it since you beat me… :smack:
He’s not being executed for founding the Crips. He’s being executed for committing four murders. Based on the linked article the evidence convicting him is pretty weak. I’m against the death penalty but I don’t weep for your McVeighs or your Bundys. I am concerned with cases like this. Life without parole, that’s a different story, but I don’t want the state executing people on such flimsy evidence.
If this is true, that the police helped a person study the case file so that he would be able to testify, then I think the whole case should be thrown out and Williams should walk. Corupt officials manufacturing evidence is a much bigger problem than a murderous gang leader, imo.
This is a MAJOR topic of discussion on a L.A. radio talk show. Anyone who’s ever listened to John and Ken won’t be surprised as to which side of the debate they’re on. There was even a pro-Tookie/anti-John and Ken rally. It featured some of the most inarticulate activists I’ve ever heard.
Part of the fear, I think, is that he is being executed for starting the Crips, that is that juries and cops were willing to overlook the flimsiness of the murder evidence because they knew he was a bad guy who started a vicious gang.
That said, does anyone have a link to a site giving the other side of the story. I think the editorial that was linked by the OP was rather one sided.
Do the hosts, or anyone else, attempt to present the evidence for the prosecution’s case? Do they attempt to show that a murder conviction and a death penalty was reasonable given the prosecution’s evidence.
I’m really just asking here. I agree with Malodorous that the Post’s article seemed a bit off. The writer seemed infatuated with Williams. Googling doesn’t help much either as all the results I’ve pulled regard Wiliams as either a sub-human monster or a water walking saint. I’d regard him as a monster too, if I could hear a better argument for the prosecution.
Does anyone have a line on the prosecution’s defence of their conviction?
The Prosecution Response that Larry Borgia posted is very interesting. Up until I read it I’d only heard the other side of things and frankly felt that the evidence against Williams wasn’t very substantial. This doc makes it pretty clear the evidence was damning.
Further, this response makes it clear that these weren’t accidental deaths, but truly heinous crimes. Truly the sorts of crimes that if we’re to have a death penalty, these are the sorts of crimes you have it for. He killed four people purely because they were witnesses. In each of the four cases, the victims were passive. Afterwards he laughed about the victims to friends describing how they made gurgling sounds after he shot them at close range. At his trial and sentencing, he threatened the jury.
While he was in jail awaiting trial, he plotted an escape which would’ve involved killing multiple people, including other prisoners so that while the authorities were trying to figure out which inmates had died, he’d have a longer headstart. Also at this time, he plotted to kill one of his accomplices because he was a witness.
Further, it points out that contrary to Williams claims, this wasn’t an all-white jury, that there was a black on it who (like the rest of the jury) voted to convict and for the death penalty.
Where before I thought there was a possibility he didn’t commit these crimes, I now feel confident that he did. And so where before I thought it was reasonable that he swear innocense today, I now feel he isn’t in any way rehabilitated if he can’t even accept responsibility and apologize to the victims families.
Yeah, I’m opposed to the death penalty on general grounds, which means I’m opposed to it for Ted Bundy and Tim McVeigh. But I didn’t mourn for Bundy or McVeigh when they died, and after reading that document, I’m not going to be mourning for Williams either.
You can’t hang (or even charge) someone based on a wishy washy “he founded a gang, surely he must’ve commmited a murder or two”. He needs to be convicted of a specific crime. If he’s found to have been fasely convicted of that specific crime, then we can’t go ahead and hang him because we’re pretty sure he is (or was) a bad person.
That said, I agree that it does look like he was given a fair trial and the evidence against him is solid enough to uphold the conviction.
I disagree. He may simply maintain his innocence because he wants to live, and thinks that creating doubt as to wheather he commited the crime is the best way to do that. In any case, he certainly seems to have done a few good works in prision, and I don’t pretend to know deep down inside weather he regrets his previous wrongs. In anycase, no good is served by killing him, and any chance of his being rehabilitated is lost if he’s put to death.
