PDA

View Full Version : Stanley "Tookie" Williams in death house....



Dr Mordrid
12th December 2005, 19:24
Todays latest news on Stanley "Tookie" Williams; founder of the CRIPS street/drug/murder gang, multiple murderer and darling of the libs and media icons.

The California State Supreme Court turned down his latest appeal.

California Gov. Schwarzenegger turned down his appeal for clemency.

The US Supreme Court turned down the appeal of the California Supreme Court decision.

In this case it was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who actually turned it down as the 9th Federal District is her jurisdiction; each SCOTUS justice filters the requests from a single Federal Court district.

Williams is in the San Quentin Prison death house and due to be executed in about 5 hours (12:01 AM Pacific Time). In California he has the choice of lethal injection or the gas chamber (cyanide).

If he makes no choice (so far he hasn't) then the default is lethal injection.

How Stuff Works article on lethal injection procedures..... (http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection.htm)

US States and execution techniques;

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/lethal-injection-map.gif

Yes; hanging, firing squad and electrocution are also on the menu.

Don't be fooled by those gray states: several are in the process of re-instating the death penalty either by legislative action or by the voters changing their state constitution.

Dr. Mordrid

Elie
12th December 2005, 19:38
we should have the same in Canada!!!

Criminals will be given beer until they die LOL :D

Mehen
13th December 2005, 00:52
I think a lot of us do that on our own, nevermind the criminal part :/

The death penalty is one thing I have a hard time deciding about...

Death by beer though, I guess thats just part of being Canadian eh? :p

KvHagedorn
13th December 2005, 01:21
Life is harsh. Beautiful, innocent little girls get sick and die, so why should we suffer murderers to live? Has his supposed "opposition" to gang violence done any good? No. The hell with him.

DukeP
13th December 2005, 01:37
And there he is now.

~~DUkeP~~

Tjalfe
13th December 2005, 06:18
as heard on CBC radio yesterday, about Arnold " Once the Terminator, always a Terminator " :beard:

Dr Mordrid
13th December 2005, 08:44
Arnold really didn't have a choice. Under the law clemency is for those who repent & reform or who have some possibility of being innocent. Tookie was neither penitent nor innocent.

That out of the way his appeal was turned down by every court it ever hit because the evidence was there. You hear all kinds of talk about comprimised witnesses framing him, but the truth of the matter is straight out of CSI; firing pin marks on the shotgun shells at the crime scenes matched that of the sawed off shotgun in his posession when he was arrested.

Game, set & match. No court was going to overturn that conviction.

End of issue and of Tookie, and it couldn't have happened to a "nicer" guy :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Dr. Mordrid

Jammrock
13th December 2005, 11:21
That and he killed an underage girl in that motel room. Little mercy for kid killers in the US.

Mehen
13th December 2005, 13:25
depending on the person, some say the mericiful part would be saving him from an eternity locked in a prison cell

Helevitia
13th December 2005, 13:35
No, because we still have to pay the bill for him being alive.

I definitely have sympathy for anyone that has to face the grim reaper like this, but the fact is, he killed people and bragged to his friends about. He even described to them how they sounded as they were dying. He has offered no apology and will not admit his guilt.

If there was an inkling of doubt abut his murders, I might feel differently, but he has shown no remorse for his crimes.

I applaud him for trying to turn his life around write the books he did, but he still needs to be punished for his crimes and the law stated that the Jury could decide to put him to death and that is what they did.

Mehen
13th December 2005, 13:52
My solution - get rid of "intentional" death penalty, but make sure the US gov has the power to torture people - if they die along the way... oh well. Simply killing them in the most humane possible way is too good for these people. Wouldn't it be kind of disappointing if they just gave Saddam lethal injection after all he's done? They could make a lot of money charging people to be able to smack him with a hockey stick or something (or shoot pucks at him, that'd be so fun :) )

Jammrock
13th December 2005, 14:25
No, because we still have to pay the bill for him being alive.
Actually, it costs more, on average, to execute than imprison for life. Mainly because the cost of appeals is outrageously high (death row inmates have 7 appeals to prove their innocence before they can execute. most take all 7, only a few refuse the appeals and simply chose to die).

Jammrock

Jessterw
13th December 2005, 16:01
I applaud him for trying to turn his life around write the books he did, but he still needs to be punished for his crimes and the law stated that the Jury could decide to put him to death and that is what they did.I view this like I do many other things in life: one shouldn't be applauded for doing what should have been done to begin with, what is the "right" thing to do. Not attacking your position, but so what if he, after being incarcerated, decided to turn his life around and write some books speaking against the very acts he was unrepentant for. I'm sure he thought that if he appeared to be a changed man he would garner parole or even a stay on his execution.

It's like applauding a father for being a good father just because there are some that aren't.

Helevitia
13th December 2005, 16:38
I view this like I do many other things in life: one shouldn't be applauded for doing what should have been done to begin with, what is the "right" thing to do.

This is where we differ. I have fortunately realized, after a very long time, that nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Also, I don't believe so much anymore that things are right and wrong, but that there are different levels of acceptance. What you and I might think is wrong, may be OK for someone else. Who is to decide who is right in this kind of situation? The best we can do is vote for our choice and the popular vote wins. You or I may not agree with the outcome but that is how our system works. We can continue to grumble about why it should be other way or we can accept it, move on and the next time we have a chance to change things, we can take advantage of that opportunity.

Also, I am not applauding what he did, rather I am applauding his efforts to turn his life around. That doesn't make what he did any better.



Not attacking your position, but so what if he, after being incarcerated, decided to turn his life around and write some books speaking against the very acts he was unrepentant for. I'm sure he thought that if he appeared to be a changed man he would garner parole or even a stay on his execution.

This, of course, doesn't change what he did. My position would still be the same.




It's like applauding a father for being a good father just because there are some that aren't.

Should we condem the father because he doesn't live up to your standards? Have you ever thought that maybe he is doing the best job he knows how? Added later: Or that he is just doing what he has learned from his parents and he thinks he is doing the right thing? Personally, I am trying to learn how to give compassion to each individual for who they are. Everybody has the right to make their own decisions and you or I should give them the dignity to do that. I will be the first to admit that I did the opposite of this my whole life. Always thinking that everyone needs to follow a certain set of rules. My rules. And if they weren't, then they are doing something wrong. Slowly I am trying to get out of that kind of thinking.

Helevitia
13th December 2005, 16:38
Actually, it costs more, on average, to execute than imprison for life. Mainly because the cost of appeals is outrageously high (death row inmates have 7 appeals to prove their innocence before they can execute. most take all 7, only a few refuse the appeals and simply chose to die).

Jammrock

I didn't know. If that's true, then I think we need to change the appeal process.

KvHagedorn
13th December 2005, 17:12
My solution - get rid of "intentional" death penalty, but make sure the US gov has the power to torture people - if they die along the way... oh well. Simply killing them in the most humane possible way is too good for these people. Wouldn't it be kind of disappointing if they just gave Saddam lethal injection after all he's done? They could make a lot of money charging people to be able to smack him with a hockey stick or something (or shoot pucks at him, that'd be so fun :) )

Just become a Catholic and read Dante. Then you can just say redemption or damnation is God's purview, execute the bastards quick and be done with it. All we have done is our duty to protect our children and other loved ones from a dangerous psychopath. We have ejected him permanently from society with as little pain as possible. (I kinda differ.. I think the least painful way would not be lethal injection, because surely no one could feel pain if their head was inserted in a pile driver and instantly obliterated. Kinda satisfying for the victim's families as well.. and a graphic deterrent.)

KvHagedorn
13th December 2005, 17:29
This is where we differ. I have fortunately realized, after a very long time, that nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Also, I don't believe so much anymore that things are right and wrong, but that there are different levels of acceptance. What you and I might think is wrong, may be OK for someone else. Who is to decide who is right in this kind of situation? The best we can do is vote for our choice and the popular vote wins. You or I may not agree with the outcome but that is how our system works. We can continue to grumble about why it should be other way or we can accept it, move on and the next time we have a chance to change things, we can take advantage of that opportunity.

This is argument #1 against multiculturalism. If you have to accept every alien culture as being of equal value to your own within your country, then you have to accept such deviant practices as child sacrifice and stoning. "Hey, this works for those people, so who are you and I to say it's wrong?" This level of lunacy is REAL. Some Norwegian professor who had obviously spent too much time away from reality actually stated that it was OK for Arabs to come to their country and rape Norwegian women, because, hey, that's acceptable in Arabia. It's the woman's fault for showing her face. If this is so, it should be equally OK for outraged folk to rape certain Norwegian professors up the ass with a claymore for being such a vile, unmitigated traitor to the innocent daughters of his people.


Should we condem the father because he doesn't live up to your standards? Have you ever thought that maybe he is doing the best job he knows how? Personally, I am trying to learn how to give compassion to each individual for who they are. Everybody has the right to make their own decisions and you or I should give them the dignity to do that. I will be the first to admit that I did the opposite of this my whole life. Always thinking that everyone needs to follow a certain set of rules. My rules. And if they weren't, then they are doing something wrong. Slowly I am trying to get out of that kind of thinking.

Being a good father is its own reward. There is nothing more valuable than the love of one's family. Nothing.

Mehen
13th December 2005, 20:04
wouldn't a greater "deterrent" be years and years of torture? What I'm saying is death is lettin' him off easy

Dr Mordrid
13th December 2005, 23:07
Depends on how you'd do it. I kinda like the idea of turning them over to the family for whatever method they can come up with, especially in the case of child molester/murderers.

Dr. Mordrid

KvHagedorn
13th December 2005, 23:11
Read again.. believe in hell and let him burn for eternity. If he deserves to he will, and no one else has to bear the burden of being a torturer, whether you call it sin or bad karma or just plain secular hardening of the heart with sadism. I kept hearing crap about redemption for this guy, but it is not our place to grant him redemption or not. Redemption is between him and his maker. We can do only what we have the power to do, which is rid this world of his presence. He's a murderer, and worse, a glorifier of murder.. a hero for hate-filled black racists across the country. Without him, would we be burdened with "gangsta rap" and all the hateful aggressive attitude it spreads? He sure helped that attitude get started.

Mehen
14th December 2005, 14:40
Read again.. believe in hell and let him burn for eternity.


Forgot about that :p

Mcollector
15th December 2005, 04:04
Well, he's been executed, so end of discussion for him. I guess.