If you’re against the death penalty as a general principle, that’s a legitimate opinion. But I don’t see how anybody who’s aware of the facts of his crimes can argue that Tookie Williams specifically shouldn’t be executed. He’s guilty of the crimes he was convicted of.
Tookie Williams is a celebrity defendant, primarily. While I disagree with the DP (once-in-a-blue-moon conjunction: I agree with Evil Captor), he’s no angel and I won’t be sorry he’s dead except in a general and distant fashion. Tookie has a bunch of high-profile supporters, which is why he’s getting attention.
He has been convicted. I also am not naive enough to think that this is his only violent crime. I wouldn’t go to bat for the guy.
All evidence shows that he has been rehabilitated. I believe he would have a better shot at clemency if he acknowledged his crimes, and showed the regret and remorse that I believe he feels - that he must feel if he is now the man he seems to be.
Ay there’s the rub. I’m impressed by his books, his lectures, and his work to try and keep kids out of the gang life he helped found. But, and this is a big but, he killed 3 helpless people in one attack, and another in a separate murder. Any defintion of rehablilitation, from AA to sexual offenders, requires an acknowledgment of his actions and remorse for the crimes. Tookie has made his own bed, first by killing 4 innocent, unarmed people, and second, by not owning up to his conduct. But he has not only refused to acknowledge his actions, but has lied to try and cover it up.
If he had admitted his guilt, apologized to the families of the victim, shown remorse for his actions, and not lied to try and beat the case, I would support his petition for clemency. But he hasn’t. And I won’t.
I think the President should go on national TV and make fun of him “No, please, don’t kill me!” It was so endearing last time he did it.
Maybe, but playing innocent seems to be working fairly well for him. Convinced the writer of the OP’s article anyways, and apparently has won him a fair amount of support in other quarters. Regardless of wheather he’s right or not, I can see where he might think that he’s taken the course that will most likely lead to his being allowed to live.
Not saying that know for a fact that he’s rebilitated, for all I know he may still be a cold blooded killer. Just pointing out the fact that his not confessing doesn’t necessarily mean that he feels no remorse, as it may be motivated by self-preservation.
So if you continue to claim your innocent, we execute you, but if you admit your guilt, we give you clemency?
I must have been asleep, When did the POTUS mock a convicted murderer’s appeals for clemency?
Crow you have to understand the State’s position isn’t one of “maybe” or “possibly” as far as the State sees it his definitely guilty. That’s why he has been in prison for over 20 years and why he is on death row.
Clemency is typically only given if the executive feels the defendant has redeemed himself. There are casese where the executive will pardon someone of a crime because they’ve been convinced by lawyers that the accused is actually innocent, and the pardon is just a quick way to get the person out of jail.
However, in general clemency is only given when the prisoner has demonstrated some form of rehabilitation. Proving guilt/innocence or getting a new trial, that’s on the defendant’s attorneys. A governor typically will (and he almost has to) maintain that the convicted criminal is indeed guilty unless the courts say otherwise.
So since the State’s position is one of clear-cut guilt, Tookie maintaining innocence amounst to him not being remorseful for his crime, because he hasn’t even taken responsibility for it.
When he was governor of Texas. From a magazine article quoted and cited in this widipedia article:
I can understand that, and I agree with your point. I just think he’s made the wrong decision there. He is not trying to get out of jail, he is trying for clemency. I agree with Hamlet that that “requires an acknowledgment of his actions and remorse for the crimes.”
My bias should be made clear here. I am unequivocally opposed to the death penalty.
Given the system that exists, and given my belief in Williams’ guilt, and given that I do believe he is a changed man, I am bewildered by his choice of argument for clemency.
Look, if there is any time where Bush goes on national TV and makes fun of a guy right before we’re gonna kill him, it’s gotta be Saddam. Or maybe Osama if we ever catch him.
No, in fact the evidence shows to me that his is only pretending to be rehabiliated. OK, he’s written books about how bad it is to be in a gang- but he hasn’t ratted out his old gang members. The Warden & such claim he has continued to run the Crips, ordering killings and the like.
I’d say give him clemency if: he admited he did it, shows remorse, and rats out all of his gang. In fact, if he puts enough of them behind bars by testifying, I’d say let him go and put him in Witness protection. But he’d have to rat out a LOT of dudes for that. In fact, his failure to show remorse and failure to rat is why he’s stil on Death row, from what I have heard.
He commited those crimes- of that there is no doubt. If anyone deserves to be executed- it’s him. He shows no remorse, he won’t rat out his accomplices, he continues to kill even while behind bars (by organizing and ordering killings), he stirs up racial strife by saying it’s racism that got him convicted :rolleyes: , and his crimes are especially heinous as they strike at the roots of the justice system by making law abiding citizens afraid to get on the witness stand.
I’m drawn on the issue because he seems like he has actually helped keep some people out of gangs. Normally I only support the death penalty in cases like this one, where a remorseless career criminal commits a really bad crime at the end of his multi-year rampage against society. A criminal who shows sincere remorse or only commits one or two serious crimes shouldn’t get death in my view. However today they give out the death penalty for anything nowadays (Scott Peterson for example), and I’m opposed to it 80% of the time. I can’t hold Stanley Williams and Scott Peterson in anything like the same classification of criminal.
He seems reformed, but he hasn’t admitted any guilt or shown any real remorse for his actions and that link provided earlier shows alot of evidence of his guilt. If he did that then yeah, maybe.
I say keep him alive so he can help keep people out of gangs. But that is the only reason. I’m also bothered by people like Snoop Dogg coming to his aid seeing how they are both from the same general gang (nowadays the crips don’t really have a gang identity, just a variety of sets). I am guessing some of his supporters don’t really care what he did, just that he is a gang legend and they want to be on his side because of that. Thats a really bad message to be sending people, that your acts don’t matter if you are a gang legend.
He should be killed by civil authority, no question. The issue is should we change the rules for people in the future, based on this.
Scott Peterson wasn’t sentenced to death for just anything. He killed his pregnant wife and then jerked his entire community around so he could maintain the pretense he didn’t do it.
It it still nowhere near the level of evil committed by Stanley Williams over the course of his life.
Never said it was. What I was saying is that it’s false to say
I think that there are many wild and whirling misconceptions about this case.
- That he is ‘keeping people out of gangs.’ Yeah, right. Like whom?
- That writing books means that he is rehabilitated. What evidence does he show any way? How does one indicate that his personality is changed so that he would not murder helpless people again to stay out of jail? With a book? With a thousand books? Hitler wrote two books. How about Nixon, what about the books that he wrote before watergate? shouldn’t they have counted for something? Isn’t it proof that he was innocent of all of the charges and should have remained in the White House? Writing a book means that he had time to write one and he did. He is a notable character, and perhaps he didn’t have a ghost writer, and he may even say “Stay out of gangs!” but that is totally irrelevant as to whether or not he murdered anybody. That is why he is being executed. Four people if I recall. Would you trust the lives of your loved ones into his care if they were the sole elements which would keep him in jail? That’s the test, and he failed it the first time.
- That his trial wasn’t 100 percent fair (or as fair as anybody’s.) His attorney says something 20 years later about some transcript and some informant. Big deal. If you have any inkling of the real world of lawyers and trials, you will see that any attorney can say anything that he wants when he is not under oath about his case. Then his attorney brought up a witness that didn’t testify but changed the testimony that they would have given had they testified? Where are some people’s heads? We are not even hearing the complete evidence that was presented in court that convinced 12 people that the man should die.
- That his death would not serve justice. His death would serve justice. It just might not serve somebody’s concept of another ‘virtue’ that one wants to co-opt justice with.
5, That Scott Peterson was worse. So far Peterson 1 (or 2)-Williams 4.
hh