^That's kinda what I'm thinking, but I didn't wanna come out and say it.

12/11/2005 1:17:05 PM

The Bloods are willing to give up their guns in order to get Tookie commuted


that might not sound like a lot to some, but if you know the history of the Bloods and Crips, hell if you know the current status of the Bloods and Crips, you'd realize how big that is

It's just a damn shame it takes the threat of death for a man to change, but thats how it is for 95% of society

12/11/2005 1:29:43 PM

i think the point here is that he hasn't changed.

furthermore, lady justice has a blindfold for a reason. not everyone who is on death row has a pack of rival gang members lobbying for their sentences to be commuted.

if he deserves a commutation, then he should get one.... but the promise of peace from a bunch of thug-life losers should never factor into what is supposed to be an impartial process.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 1:38 PM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 1:37:17 PM

THAT'S STUPID, J_HOVA. "WE'LL GIVE UP OUR GUNS IF YOU DO WHAT WE ASK, BY COMMUTING HIS SENTENCE...BUT IF YOU DON'T, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TERRORIZING COMMUNITIES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE."

We can't bargain with these guys.

12/11/2005 1:37:48 PM

That wasn't the point of the statement, so unless you saw the same thing I was saw then you're just talking out your ass about what they said.

Im just saying is that the man has changed, and is getting the society in which he lives, the gangs he helped create, to realize that the shits stupid

Maybe it just means more to me than most, and before anyone says it, yes because I'm black. The black community feels this to be an important movement. now im NO WHERE NEAR saying he's the modern day MLK Jr or Malcom X or whatever, but it's making alot of black people take notice to where they really haven't before, and getting black men and women to wake up and pay attention is always a good thing in my eyes.

12/11/2005 1:43:18 PM

Sure he's changed - but has he changed enough to merit his sentence being commuted?

He's not cooperating with gang investigations - and his excuse is undeniably insulting to the victims of those gangs.

He hasn't renounced his membership in one of the most bloody street gangs THAT HE CO-FOUNDED

Do you really want celebrity attention to determine who is given justice?

12/11/2005 1:46:58 PM

I don't believe the black community sees this as serious.

Are you forgetting that Tookie and the like typically terrorize other blacks?

As far as pulling the earlier statement out of my ass, I did, but think about what they're saying: "Commute his sentence and we'll lay down our guns....OR..." That dotdotdot could be a lot of things.

elipses? Is that what the dotdotdot is called?

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 1:50 PM. Reason : sss]

12/11/2005 1:49:03 PM

my family got in a heated debate today about this. i support the death penalty in some cases. this wasnt one of em, b/c of all the good i had heard he was doing. but now after learning he has neither apologized for the murders or renounced his gang membership, i donno.

the whole notion of pardons for good behavior, is iffy. imo it depends on determining how good this behavior is. if tookies writing books, giving speeches, and really making an impact in the black community against violence. well by all means, let him live. he's saving lives for goodness sake!!! i do believe in redemption.

but at the same time im wondering how much good a guy can do who still is a pronounced member of the cripts.

annnnd, i beleive that the death penalty does save lives like grumpy said. its a deterrent mainly. a deterrent provides a fear. people dont do things b/c they fear the consequences. (in quick fits of violent rage, this isnt always the case of course). but what do people fear the most....studies say death. logically, thats the greatest deterrent.

thats how i see it at least. i defintieyl dont have all the answers. especially a/b tookies case. so what exactly is he doing thats so good? i know giving speeches and writing books, but is this having an impact. or are they of no real substance? and is this just a fake ploy to save his life or is he really serious about it? i would think if hes serious hed apologize and renounce crip membership.

12/11/2005 4:34:48 PM

oh my are you dumb if you actually believe the death penalty is a deterrent!

the death penalty doesn't deter anyone from doing anything.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 4:37 PM. Reason : f]

12/11/2005 4:36:41 PM

yes, according to empirical data, punishment is most effective if it occurs very quickly after the undesired behavior. The longer the delay between action and consequence, the less learning occurs - both within the subject and among those who view the subject (in this case, society).

12/11/2005 4:48:26 PM

^^ interesting u say that. fearing the consequences is a pretty big reason not to wanna do something. do they sit and think a/b the legal process and the possible sentence of receiving the lethal injection when contemplating the pros and cons of committing a crime? no. but the death penalty contributes to the general notion that if you kill, youre gonna pay. a lot moreso than sitting in a prison. and that sure as heck influences peoples decision.

plus i dont want my money paying to keep murderers alive.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 4:51 PM. Reason : daggumit my grammar!]

12/11/2005 4:49:30 PM

Quote :

"no. but the death penalty contributes to the general notion that if you kill, youre gonna pay. a lot moreso than sitting in a prison. and that sure as heck influences peoples decision."

science disagrees with you.

it would be different if the death penalty was carried out swiftly, but because decades pass before the consequence happens, the punishment has negligible impact on an observer's behavior.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 4:55 PM. Reason : s]

12/11/2005 4:54:16 PM

Quote :

"plus i dont want my money paying to keep murderers alive."

do you have an argument that hasn't already been defeated in the countless other threads?

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2005 5:03:28 PM

Quote :

"fearing the consequences is a pretty big reason not to wanna do something. "

Provided

a) people can understand that certain things have certain consequences. There has been research (that's not the extent of the research, just giving you the tip of the iceberg) that if people are told that the probability of rain is 70%, a huge portion of the population say: "Geee... so like... it's not CERTAIN that it'll be raining. I guess I can leave my umbrella at home."

b) given that they understand consequences, they can exercise self-control and act (or not act) on their knowledge. Again, there's huge research that suggests a lot of people can't.

12/11/2005 5:15:20 PM

Quote :

"my family got in a heated debate today about this. i support the death penalty in some cases. this wasnt one of em, b/c of all the good i had heard he was doing. but now after learning he has neither apologized for the murders or renounced his gang membership, i donno. "

so you want him dead because he didn't apologize?

fucking brilliant

Quote :

"plus i dont want my money paying to keep murderers alive."

12/11/2005 5:55:03 PM

i want him dead because he murdered 4 people with a shotgun.

he was sentenced to death, now carry out the sentence.

12/11/2005 5:59:02 PM

i think they shoud extend the death penalty

to things like embezzlement and inside trading

they screw over more lives than a murder or four

12/11/2005 6:08:31 PM

^ haha



and i personally have never seen anything that indicates that the death penalty works to appreciably deter anything

i'm cool with wasting sucky people, but not because of the deterrant factor.

12/11/2005 6:37:52 PM

Quote :

"so you want him dead because he didn't apologize?"

ohmy! of course not. i didn't think i had to spell it out, but here we go...

if he hasn't apologized or renounced his relation with the crips, then i don't see how sincere he can be when he's writing these books and giving speeches and whatnot. and so i don't see how he can have a real impact if he's not even bein real. also, if he hasn't apologized, imo, he's not remorseful, has not confessed, and thus cannot be forgiven. part of the forgiveness is seeing how much he's contributing to the black community and letting him to continue to do that, albeit from prison. yea, it's vague and subjective, but that's the way things are.

Quote :

"Quote : "plus i dont want my money paying to keep murderers alive." do you have an argument that hasn't already been defeated in the countless other threads? "

i don't know. i haven't read the other threads. but i'll check em out. it was my understanding that the taxpayers' money goes to provide for the services of keeping criminals in prison. which amount to a lot more than executing some one.

but i don't claim to be right or to even know a lot about this. that's why i posted. u can enlighten me here or i'll check out the other threads.

Quote :

"it would be different if the death penalty was carried out swiftly, but because decades pass before the consequence happens, the punishment has negligible impact on an observer's behavior. "

now do the studies that show this deal with dogs and toddlers making simple choices like pressing a button or eating something and then being rewarded or punished accordingly? b/c that differs dramatically from making a profound decision like murder and the life-changing implications that ensue. you don't forget what you did and why. your entire life revolves around this.

again, i donno. just asking.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 7:18 PM. Reason : i dont think i know how to do quotes within quotes]

12/11/2005 7:15:51 PM

Quote :

"and i personally have never seen anything that indicates that the death penalty works to appreciably deter anything"

Unfortunately, you probably won't. There were 820 executions and an estimated 544,885 homicides between 1976 and 2002. So, about 0.15% of homicides resulted in a fulfilled death sentence. Not that high of a rate.

12/11/2005 8:08:33 PM

if you are actually interested in this, you should take criminology. soc 306, i think.
everything you are wondering about is pretty much answered.

in the mean time:

Quote :

"it was my understanding that the taxpayers' money goes to provide for the services of keeping criminals in prison. which amount to a lot more than executing some one."

the costs of death-penalty-seeking cases are multiple times the cost of life without parole for the same type of crime. it's just a fact. you can check out several sites. here's one:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

12/11/2005 8:41:02 PM

^So the food, utilities, guard services, clothing, and all the other necessities (not to mention prisons are overcrowded to begin with, we sure could use the room) for years and years and years dont add up to the case costs? If you dont execute the punishment and carry out the law, it sends a message of tolerance. We need a policy of zero-tolerance. I say execute them early, and take the money saved and give it to the family of the victims to pay for funeral services and for their kids. Thats something I don't have a problem supporting with my tax money.



[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2005 9:47:29 PM

a true american!

and idiot, if you'd care to read up on it, you would see MUCH TO YOUR DISBELIEF that is much more expensive to grant the death penalty than life without parole.

I love how you still believe in deterrence. I guess i could say that no amount of facts will ever deter you from making your own false conclusions.

Quote :

"The Bloods are willing to give up their guns in order to get Tookie commuted"

how many lives would be saved by taking these guns off of the streets?

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 10:55 PM. Reason : f]

12/11/2005 10:39:50 PM

Death penalty is a waste of time. I personally support the hard labor system, where a person is sentenced to hard labor for the rest of their lives. Why kill someone when you can make them work for the rest of their lives? That sounds like a better way to ensure they pay there debts to society than does killing them.

12/11/2005 10:54:45 PM

JUST KILL LAWBREAKERS

it's what you people want

12/11/2005 10:56:49 PM

Quote :

"how many lives would be saved by taking these guns off of the streets?"

Probably not alot because guns are useless without people. To quote the famous joke, "saying guns kill people is like saying my pencil misspelled the words I have written." Alot more would be saved if we would keep our prisoners in jail for their entire sentence (or if we would just execute them all if you want to go to the extreme). Most criminals (rapists, theifs, murderers, ect) are multiple offenders. If you were really concerned 100% about saving and protecting citizens, you would be in favor of killing all prisoners for this reason. However, if you are more concerned with criminal rights and sympathy towards the convicted, then you would be in favor of rehabilitation. I say if you are convicted of a crime, you do the FULL sentence deemed necessary by the jury and judge.

12/11/2005 11:12:31 PM

instead of making these unsubstantiated claims, why don't you back them up with facts?
oh wait, because if you did, you'd realize that you are completely wrong.

Quote :

"because guns are useless without people. "

and people without guns aren't going to be shooting people, right?

12/11/2005 11:20:34 PM

Quote :

"and people without guns aren't going to be shooting people, right?"

Yes

Guns are actually the only method gangs have ever used to kill people, and if you take their guns away, they probably will:

a) Not acquire more guns
b) Kill fewer people, because stabbing and beating are just so damn inconvenient

12/11/2005 11:25:16 PM

interesting info, cookiepuss. thanks for the link. i had heard that the death penalty costs more than prison in life, but i just couldn't see how so i didnt think it was credible. the link you provided seemed pretty convincing tho. although, since the majority of the costs come from appeals, red tape, and the legal efforts to combat those who are trying to save the criminal's life, as far as i can tell, the only thing that these studies prove is that everyone should just all agree with the death penalty. (a smiley in a death penalty discussion, sorry)

12/11/2005 11:25:20 PM

Quote :

"and idiot, if you'd care to read up on it, you would see MUCH TO YOUR DISBELIEF that is much more expensive to grant the death penalty than life without parole."

Thanks, especially since I was asking a question, not making a comment (or did you just miss that part)? Heres another, dont you think its pitiful that the US legal costs would consume more money than years and years of services? I thought that public and QUICK trials were gaurenteed in the constitution.

Quote :

"and people without guns aren't going to be shooting people, right?"

Yes thats right. Not a single human being was killed by another human being prior to the invention of the gun. The gun is the only tool that humans can use to kill people. Forget the blow gun, forget the ninja devices, and forget the good ole wooden stick.

[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2005 11:26:44 PM

uh oh, someone's layin the sarcasm on pretty thick

GG MAN



[Edited on December 11, 2005 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2005 11:33:15 PM

Quote :

"Yes Guns are actually the only method gangs have ever used to kill people, and if you take their guns away, they probably will: a) Not acquire more guns b) Kill fewer people, because stabbing and beating are just so damn inconvenient"

Quote :

"Yes thats right. Not a single human being was killed by another human being prior to the invention of the gun. The gun is the only tool that humans can use to kill people. Forget the blow gun, forget the ninja devices, and forget the good ole wooden stick."

HOLY FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE HONESTLY GOING TO SAY THAT KILLING TOOKIE WILLIAMS IS BETTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAN GETTING GUNS OFF OF THE STREET AND OUT OF THE HANDS OF GANG MEMBERS ?? REMEMBER THEY'RE PROBABLY RECIDIVIST CRIMINALS, RIGHT?

ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY BEING THAT FUCKING STUBBORN??

Quote :

"Heres another, dont you think its pitiful that the US legal costs would consume more money than years and years of services? "

no, i like to think that it's pitiful a western country still has the death penalty in the first place.

Quote :

"^So the food, utilities, guard services, clothing, and all the other necessities (not to mention prisons are overcrowded to begin with, we sure could use the room) for years and years and years dont add up to the case costs?"

the only thing that makes this a question is the question mark. don't pretend as if you didn't write it with a tone, it's fucking blatant. i'm sorry you can't handle being called an idiot.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2005 9:20:52 AM

Quote :

"HOLY FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE HONESTLY GOING TO SAY THAT KILLING TOOKIE WILLIAMS IS BETTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAN GETTING GUNS OFF OF THE STREET AND OUT OF THE HANDS OF GANG MEMBERS ??"

come on man. you know gun control is a highly controversial topic. don't even front like its accepted fact that "getting guns off the street" will reduce crime. I mean, sure, successfully getting all guns off the street probably would reduce crime, but when you say it, we all know you're talking about impotent gun control policies that won't actually do either a) reduce crime, b) reduce gun quantitites

12/12/2005 10:13:44 AM

I haven't read this thread completely so forgive me if I am repeating. Let me first say, I do not believe in the death penalty in any instance. Now, I would like to know what harm is done by not executing him? I mean yes that is what the jury decided and yes he commited those crimes, but it is not like he will be walking free. If he is not executed, he will stay in jail for the rest of his life. The institution of prison was originally designed to rehabilitate criminals back to a "normally" functional state. If that is the design of the system, and he has at least come to the realization that the gang way of life is wrong (eventhough he did not renounce his membership), why can he not at least be pardoned from execution. If the goal of the system is to keep people who were once criminals away from the general public, then execution may be appropriate. However, I do not thaink that is what it's supposed to be for.

12/12/2005 10:26:01 AM

Quote :

"Now, I would like to know what harm is done by not executing him?"

Why the hell should the American taxpayers have to pay to keep this man alive? This man is responsible for starting "The Crips" and is directly responsible for multiple murders and indirectly responsible for thousands of others? I dont give a good god damn how sorry he is and how many children's books he's written, its a bit late for that bullshit.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:35 AM. Reason : way too late]

12/12/2005 10:32:02 AM

^^I agree with your opinion on the death penalty. I firmly oppose the death penalty in all instances. However, this isn't about the death penalty - its about whether the judicial system will be carried out fairly and impartially.

Quote :

"Now, I would like to know what harm is done by not executing him?"

Unless we are "not executing him" by banning the death penalty for everyone, there will be great harm done to the credibility of the judicial system in that other people who are lesser known but as deserving* will not have their sentences commuted.


*Note: when I say, "as deserving" i mean, "don't deserve clemency" because he's done nothing close enough to merit a commutation. He could try cooperating with investigators for once - isn't that a requirement to even get a plea deal right off the bat? He hasn't even reached first base yet - fuck that asshole

Quote :

"eventhough he did not renounce his membership"

wtf - what is this "even though" .... if he knows gangs are wrong - HE SHOULD RENOUNCE HIS MEMBERSHIP. end of story. he hasn't, therefore, fuck him.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:36 AM. Reason : s]

12/12/2005 10:34:09 AM

I'll say it again

Quote :

"Why the hell should the American taxpayers have to pay to keep this man alive?"

12/12/2005 10:36:24 AM

^^ I agree with you, but isn't our judicial system already screwed up in that the people who are less known get fucked over by the system, and those who aren't go free (See all famous people in the past X number of years)

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2005 10:36:30 AM

Quote :

"isn't our judicial system already screwed up in that the people who are less known get fucked over by the system, and those who aren't go free (See all famous people in the past X number of years)"

so you agree, but because OJ went free, you think tookie should too? Thank god you don't make policy.

12/12/2005 10:38:03 AM

^ I am just saying, it is not as if we have a stellar system in place as is. If I made policy, we wouldn't have the issue because we would not have the death penalty.

12/12/2005 10:39:30 AM

why is there even a god damn debate over this?

12/12/2005 10:42:42 AM

Quote :

"I mean, sure, successfully getting all guns off the street probably would reduce crime, but when you say it, we all know you're talking about impotent gun control policies that won't actually do either a) reduce crime, b) reduce gun quantitites"

i'm NOT talking about any gun-control policies. i'm talking about the bloods turning in their weapons voluntarily. there's a huge difference. no law-abiding citizen is going to give up their guns (or their rights) for this guy. but if the bloods are actually willing to turn in their guns, why would any rational person be against it?

Quote :

""Why the hell should the American taxpayers have to pay to keep this man alive?""

I'd pay to keep this guy alive for years if something completely positive, such as an entire gang turning in their arms, were to happen.

12/12/2005 10:43:22 AM

look you need to separate the two issues:

1) Death Penalty

2) Exoneration for Tookie


If you oppose the death penalty, then campaign for a change in policy that will end the death penalty. Trying to save individual people who are on death row is not only an ineffective way to end the death penalty, it harms the credibility of the system because you find yourself in the awkward position of advocating unfair treatment of prisoners (you can't devote the same amount of effort to everyone who is on death row)

Until the death penalty is abolished, we have to carry out justice as fairly as possible. Does Tookie deserve exoneration? Even a cursory examination of his statements will result in a clear answer: NO

So, lets fight to end the death penalty, but lets not advocate unfair exoneration for someone who doesn't deserve it.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:45 AM. Reason : s]

12/12/2005 10:44:45 AM

Quote :

"I'd pay to keep this guy alive for years if something completely positive, such as an entire gang turning in their arms, were to happen."

holy fuck, and how likely is that?



[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:45 AM. Reason : hn]

12/12/2005 10:44:46 AM

Quote :

"i'm talking about the bloods turning in their weapons voluntarily."

ahahahaha man that's fucking hillarious

12/12/2005 10:46:12 AM

haha

12/12/2005 10:48:00 AM

yes, because in the history of the world, no violent group has ever turned over their weapons.

what arnold should do is delay his execution until all of their guns are turned in. when a sufficient amount is, then stay his execution.

and if not, kill tookie.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:50 AM. Reason : it's so hard to understand, isn't it?]

As it stands, i'm just basing this off of what j-hova said. i can't seem to substantiate his claims. so IF they are actually serious about turning in all of their arms, and not just some rusted berettas, then i stand by my argument. but if it's all just rumors, then forget it.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 10:56 AM. Reason : f]

12/12/2005 10:49:32 AM

yeaaaa, that whole idea amuses me. i havent heard anything a/b it tho, whered you get that (bloods turnin in guns) cookiepuss?

and i see that he still claims he's innocent and didnt kill those four people. whats the deal with that? it's understood that he's guilty right? or this actually still up for debate?

and the interview on page 2 is a good read. what a chump.

[Edited on December 12, 2005 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ]

12/12/2005 10:54:35 AM

first of all, the Bloods (the archrivals of the Crips) are not going to turn over their weapons because the former leader of the Crips is going to be executed.

12/12/2005 11:00:54 AM

Quote :

"what arnold should do is delay his execution until all of their guns are turned in. when a sufficient amount is, then stay his execution."

holy god, that would be an impeachable offense for a governor to use a prisoner's life as a bargaining chip.

either he deserves exoneration, or he does not. if you think that based on his actions alone, he deserves to be exonerated, then by all means advocate for him.

but for the love of god, don't use opposition to the death penalty or the flimsy word of some murderous thugs as the base of your argument.

12/12/2005 11:06:25 AM