Death Sentence and rehabilitation...
 

I was just watching Fox News (or some news station) and they were talking about a man who was sentenced to the death penalty I forget what his name was (Tookie?? Wilson or something like that)...he has spent something like 26 years in jail, has written 9 childrens book, and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize (dont quite understand how a man convicted of murder can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize though)...his lawyers are now arguing to set aside the Death Penalty sentence and just have him serve life in prison (I believe, I kinda came into the room in the middle of the conversation), because they say he has been rehabilitated and it would serve no purpose to kill him...what do yall think about this?

When does it EVER serve a purpose to impose the death penalty?

I think it should be up to the family.

http://www.ktvu.com/video/5372931/detail.html

Re: Death Sentence and rehabilitation...
 

First, I think that if you are going to pose a question, then you should present all the information.

The man in question is Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and he is a co-founder of the Crips street gang. The Crips originally organized to protect the community from the many street gangs that ran South Central LA. However, over the course of a few years, they developed into a violent street gang. He was sentenced to death for the murder of four people. Since his incarceration, he has written several books encouraging young people to stay away from gangs. Last year, Jamie Foxx portrayed Williams in a movie, "Redemption", which earned Jamie Foxx a Golden Globe nomination. Currently, he is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on December 13.

Now that I'm done giving background, here's my take: first, I don't believe in capital punishment. It doesn't work as a deterrent, and its actually more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for life. Second, I think its great that Mr. Williams has been able to see the error of his past actions and is trying help the community. But that doesn't excuse him from taking someone's life. I don't believe he should be executed (I don't think anyone should be executed) but he should be in prison for the rest of his life.

I suppose you've heard it before, but recipients of the death penalty have a zero recidivism rate, and that's good enough for me.

I don't think we really have an effective death penalty, though, since there is no relationship between the crime, the trial, and the execution. One of the worst crimes ever in GA was the Alday family killing, where some bums killed like six members of one family in rural GA.

This happened about 28 years ago, all of the victims' then-living relatives are now dead, and the killers are still eating three a day and sleeping soundly - in spite of death penalty convictions.

In the late eighties, Atlanta had a bad adult bookstore situation. They set up a special court and judges, and all it did was work on anti-bookstore cases. Instead of appeals taking months and years to resolve, the court ruled in weeks. Everytime an appeal was filed, it was quickly resolved. Finally the bookstore operator just gave up and locked the doors.

I'd like to see something similar for death penalty cases - appeals are allowed, but they'll be resolved quickly.

Here's how I see it:

If we can let Terry Nichols (OKC Bomber) live, how can we say we are righteous in using the power of the state to condemn anyone to death? I was pro-death penalty until that decision came down.

When we are dealing with justice that is so final, we must dispense it equally or it is simply not justice, it's something else -- revenge.

Our court system doesn't exist for the purpose of revenge.

I dont really see it as revenge...unless one of the jury members actually has something to gain from sentencing the defendant to death...in all other cases I see it as a miscarriage of justice. I am pro-death penalty just because I believe in the eye-for-an-eye concept. But I also believe that the victims family should have some say in whether or not the death penalty is sought. I think we need to speed up the appeals process after the sentence too...why house and feed a person for 15+ unecessary years if they are going to be put to death anyway. As far as this situation goes whether or not Mr. Williams is rehabilitated I do not believe that his sentenced should be set aside, one reason is, he still has not admitted to the murder...after 26 years in jail I believe he still will not say that he did it and another reason is because if he is resentenced then what is going to stop everyone of death row from claiming to be rehabilitated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-27-indiana-execution_x.htm?csp=34
 

(no rush to execute in Indiana)

Indiana man executed for 1981 slayings
MICHIGAN CITY, Ind. (AP) — After his last chance for a reprieve was exhausted, a convicted killer who challenged the legality of lethal injection said only: "Let's get it over with."
Marvin Bieghler, like Florida inmate Clarence Hill, challenged the lethal injection process as unconstitutional.

Marvin Bieghler, 58, was put to death early Friday for the 1981 slayings of a man and his pregnant wife inside their home. He was pronounced dead at 2:17 a.m.

They guy in question should have been put down like the rabid dog he is years ago.

This is a dumbass comment. By that logic, if anyone killed someone in my family I should be allowed to decide whether or not he gets the death penalty. Very close to vigilante justice.

Would you favor, after a trial and conviction, of executing the perp via the means he killed?

i.e. - if he shot a person, he faces a firing squad. If he stabbed and the victim slowly bled to death, he's stabbed and slowly dies.. If he burried alive, etc.

I'm not condoning torture, but I don't see why we are that concerned with whether or not a person getting the death penalty feels pain or not.

I think it would be fair to kill someone in the manner that they killed...but would that be justice? I don't know.

A pretty good thought, except it probably wouldn't work since with very few exceptions, death penalty cases are under state law instead of federal. Statutes vary greatly from state to state, so each state (that has a death penalty) would probably have to have such a court. The cost might be prohibitive -- and I wonder if any time would really be saved.

I doubt that any "special" court could be given such power that its verdicts couldn't be appealed to state or US Supreme Courts.

Atlanta used this trick years ago to get rid of the Adult Bookstores - they have a judge who holds court every Friday to hear only these cases, and he gives a ruling a week or two later.

If they come up with another appeal a week later, it's resolved within two weeks.

It might work with death penalty cases too.

Waiting 20 - 25 years, with each appeal lasting a year or more, for an execution is crazy.