Oh yes, that puts him right up there with Yasser Arafat. That is TRULY a distinguished award.

He died of AIDS. Go easy on him.

-Rudey

Wow, I feel sorry for the 70 virgins he gets. Well, will that be their hell? Instead of going to hell, 70 virgins have to sleep with an AIDS infected terrorist for eternity?

Other than a Cliff Notes version of Mr. Williams founding the Crips (which was a new facet of American society at the time), and that he killed four people, I will admit that I do not know enough about this particular case to comment. As this has been a discussion on the death penalty, though, I'd like to say something.

Several years ago, I saw a documentary on the death penalty on HBO. They followed several men on death row, how they got there, and what they feel now that they are there. One of these men made such an impression on me, I went from being against the death penalty (except in cases where the condemned requested it, like Gary Gilmore) to being very much in favor of it. This man said what several others said, only in a more eloquent way.

He had robbed a convenience store in the Midwest, kidnapped the pregnant clerk, and crossed the state line in a several hour police chase. He said, "If she hadn't screamed about her baby, I wouldn't have had to kidnap her.... Why the police chased me for so long, I don't know, but they forced me to go into Oklahoma.... If (the woman's name) hadn't started screaming again when the police got close, I wouldn't have had to get rid of her.... Now the State wants to murder me."

No remorse. No admitting that, had he not robbed the store in the first place, he wouldn't be on Death Row. He didn't kill anyone, the State wanted to murder him.

This was one man of many interviewed, all of whom (but one) used the State wanting to murder them line. The racial make up was even among the prisoners, but it was all basically the same.

There was also an indepth description of lethal injection, and how it works. They interviewed the prison employees, and how they felt about the death penalty, and the show did its best to give a balanced point of view. I wish they would show it again, for others to see.

I don't believe in the death penalty ever. I don't see how taking another life fixes or changes anything. We have the capability of keeping society safe from dangerous people without killing the dangerous people. There are times that the dangerous people truly become reformed in thought and heart and can actually do good. It has been proven that it is not a deterrant to crime. There is no reason for it. It is barbaric. I don't think we should be playing God. It doesn't bring the victims back.

The cost becomes more for the death penalty because of all the court costs of appeals, etc.

In this particular case, I believe that this man truly reformed in his heart and was trying to do everything he could to help prevent people from acting as he did. I don't see the point in murdering him.

Only he and God know what is truly in his heart now...

By whom?

If Tookie goes tonight, he will never harm another living soul or commit another crime (even against another inmate or a guard).

Tookie gets the ultimate deterrent.

If there actually was a death penalty carried out in a reasonable time, it would be a deterrent. As it is today, with appeals dragging it out for 25 years, it's not a deterrent.

If Tookie's Crips had seen him fry about six months after his trial, they would be deterred.

Personally I couldn't give a flying f**k if he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - I just object to the messed up logic behind the death penalty... as evidenced by hoosier's comment.

"He commited the ultimate crime four times" - By this I assume that the murder or taking of a human life is the ultimate crime (seems to be according to the Torah and Bible too)... so how is taking his life not the same damned "ultimate crime"? The freak'in hypocracy is disgusting...

I don't think that the thought that murder is the ultimate crime really flows from the Bible. It seems more to flow from natural law. I don't know of any society that tolerates the murder of [what it perceives are] innocents. In fact, many societys where the Bible or Torah are nowhere even close to their contemplation have exactly the punishment for murder. It's heinous, and if you intrude on someone's right to exist, the state will take the same privilege with you. It's not really hippocrisy of you admit that the state plays on a different field and by a different set of rules.

-- now as to whether in an imperfect world we have the right to arbitrarily deal out that sentence as a society while we choose not to give it to some others is beyond my understanding.

For example, here in Oklahoma, where we tend to be VERY happy to give people the needle, one of the most astonishingly horrible murderers in our nation's history, Terry Nichols was sentenced to life. He had the full weight and force of the most expensive state investigation against him, it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered over 100 people, about 1/5 of those children, while maiming hundreds more.. yet he gets life while we give the needle to some Doctor's wife that killed her hubbie for money.

The hippocrisy is not in the act itself, it's how it is dealt out. Justice should at least make the attempt at being equal to all. In this case, where we leave life and death in the hands of a jury (12 people who are usually chosen based on their LACK of experience and education) and saying that they represent what the 'reasonable man' would do is simply laughable.

I agree with you, but for different reasons...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=108&scid=7

There, plenty of scientific based articles on costs of the death penalty.

I personally think that the death penalty is barbarous. It says exactly the opposite thing that society is preaching.

Except in this case, if the family gave the go-ahead, they'd be in for a great deal of public scrutiny, and probably threats. Would you feel safe in your home if you gave your okay to have Tookie executed? I sure as hell wouldn't.

You're arguing semantics. I asked for proof that the carrying out of the death penalty was more expensive than life inprisionment. All that website discusses and acknowledges is the cost of death penalty trials. This douchebag's already been committed and exhausted his appeals. Give it to him.

From your site:
The solution is not to get rid of the death penalty, it is to speed up the trial process and reduce the amount of appeals.

Well..it looks like he's been executed.

So they don't deserve their due process?

Also, many appelate courts have overturned rulings, found new (exonerating) evidence, and/or found bias or procedural misconduct in the earlier trial.

There are still cases being found where people that have already been put to death are innocent. I know of one case where a state had to pay millions of dollars to a victim's (yes, they are a victim in this case, as they were innocent) family, when the family brought a wrongful death suit against the state.

Also, the goal of the penal system is rehabilitation. The death penalty was originally intended for those that could not be rehabilitated. Now, unfortunately it is all about vengence.

Did you know that we're the last major industrialized nation that performs the death penalty and we have the highest crime rate?