Schwarzenegger Mulls Clemency for Williams

[loseyourname]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he would consider granting clemency to convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams, the Crips gang founder who became an anti-gang activist while in prison and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WILLIAMS_EXECUTION?SITE=VALYD&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

I'm sure enough of you have heard of this guy. What I want to ask is this: Granting the legitimacy of the death penalty in general (for the sake of argument, whether or not you actually believe it), do you think it right to commute a sentence for achievements in prison, or only for the casting of doubt on the original conviction?

Supporters, including rapper Snoop Dogg and Ras Baraka, the deputy mayor of Newark, N.J., have urged Schwarzenegger to spare Williams' life so he can continue his work with young people as an anti-gang activist.

In short, does the above argument carry any weight?

 

[Skyhunter]

If one can, and is willing to contribute positively, Justice is better served by sparing their life.

Taking a life does not balance the life lost.

So I would say yes, grant clemency.

 

[ONJ's Noble Steed]

I'm against the death penalty in general.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm against the death penalty in general.

LYN made it clear that this was not the issue here.

I feel that this should be the only case where one could have his sentenced reduced based on achievements (death penalty to life, nothing else). It's not fair to the victims to radically redefine justice based on someones achievements (say reducing a 30 year sentence to 10 because someone wrote an inspirational book). This however, is not radical so I wouldn't be against it... although then one must wonder how far people would try to stretch that idea...

 

[ONJ's Noble Steed]

LYN made it clear that this was not the issue here.

I missed that part. In that case, I agree with Skyhunter.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's going to be really hard to have a pointed debate on the specific issue without going right back to the justification for the death penalty.

For now, accepting the legitimacy of (or morality behind) the death penalty the choice is simple - it's a straightforward business decision. Tookie's life is now the "property" of the state of California. And the decision lies with the state govt, so the outcome should be what results from a cost-benefit analysis for the state. While this analysis (basically the process that Arnie is hopefully going through) is certainly extremely probabilistic and complex, once it is determined that the sparing of the life provides a greater benefit to the state, that is the decision to take. If not, there should be no pardon.

What are some possible costs and benefits of pardoning Tookie ?

Costs :

1. Angering a large segment of the public that "wants justice". If people get angry, grumble, and then forget about it after a while, there's no real cost. If not, a careful analysis of what might result from widespread discontent is in order.

2. Giving the wrong signal to other offenders out in the streets, thus losing some of the ability to deter crime. The cost would be an increase in crime, as a result.

Some benefits :

1. Appeasing some large segment of the people - specifically the anti-death-penaltyers. What does this help other than re-election ? I don't see any obvious benefit, so this is not (IMO) anything big.

2. Enabling the possibility that Tookie can do good to reduce crime by whatever it is he does - write books, etc. This seems to be the only real benefit, but it's a big one if there is any evidence that above possibility is in fact a reality. If there's data that shows that someone quit his gang after reading something writ by Tookie Williams, that would be evidence.

 

[sid_galt]

Roughly paraphrasing from the Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain,

Even if it was Satan himself, there would be plently of sappy people asking the Governor to trample his duty and spare him, pouring tears from their permanently leaky waterworks.

(It was written in relation to a clemency plea for Injun Joe, a criminal in the book).

The basic point is 'justice is justice'. If you want to live in a civilized society, murderers should not be granted pardon. No matter what they do afterwards does not change the fact that they killed.

 

[Skyhunter]

Roughly paraphrasing from the Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain,
(It was written in relation to a clemency plea for Injun Joe, a criminal in the book).

The basic point is 'justice is justice'. If you want to live in a civilized society, murderers should not be granted pardon. No matter what they do afterwards does not change the fact that they killed.

I missed where someone suggested that he be pardoned.

The question was clemency. Should his life be spared? Not whether he should be pardoned for his crimes.

 

[pattylou]

Roughly paraphrasing from the Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain,
(It was written in relation to a clemency plea for Injun Joe, a criminal in the book).
The basic point is 'justice is justice'. If you want to live in a civilized society, murderers should not be granted pardon. No matter what they do afterwards does not change the fact that they killed.

I suppose this indicates that you believe people do not change. I would guess people that believe people do not change, are more likely to see the death penalty as stabilising civilisation, and people that believe that people DO change, think that the death penalty may as likely DEstabilise civilisation. Personally, I definitely do not think this statement (emphasis added):

If you want to live in a civilized society, (then) murderers should not be granted pardon.

...can be taken for granted. It relies on the premise that people do not change.

 

[sid_galt]

I suppose this indicates that you believe people do not change. I would guess people that believe people do not change, are more likely to see the death penalty as stabilising civilisation

No, I believe people do change and even murderers can change. But the point of the judiciary is not reform but retribution. If it loses that purpose, then injustice will reign and the consequences would be ugly.
To apply it to this case, if he is granted pardon now, then it will be a signal to murderers that if they kill and then reform or pretend to reform, they can escape death and be nominated for the Nobel Prize.

 

[sid_galt]

The question was clemency. Should his life be spared? Not whether he should be pardoned for his crimes.

Maybe pardon was a misuse of words on my part. I apologize.
Regardless, it would be a travesty of justice to even consider clemency unless there is some doubt about his guilt. He killed, he should die. An eye for an eye.

 

[Skyhunter]

An eye for an eye.

Makes the whole world blind.

 

[Anttech]

They should give him clemency.. The idea behind punishment is to correct behaviour. He has shown remorce and is actively helping the community through his work against gang wars. His behaviour has changed, job done. Killing him will not help the community.

Regardless, it would be a travesty of justice to even consider clemency unless there is some doubt about his guilt. He killed, he should die. An eye for an eye.

And I thought the death penetly was supposed to be a deterent, rather than for revenge purposes... I guess I should stop thinking so compassionatly! Silly me

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm getting nervous. There are rumors of Los Angeles exploding into riots if Tookie is executed.

“Took die, the city fry,” said Raymond “The Hatchet Man” Locket, a member of the West Side Harlem Crips, who says he knew Tookie back in the day. “That’s the word on the streets.”

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/02/news-krikorian.php

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

CNN is reporting his clemency was denied. Anyone know why it took 26 years?

 

[russ_watters]

CNN is reporting his clemency was denied. Anyone know why it took 26 years?

The way "the system" works, it just does. Appeals, stays, etc. make it impossible to carry out the death penalty in a timely fashion.

Frankly, if it were carried out in a timely fashion, that would make this discussion moot: no one would have time to reform before execution.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They should give him clemency.. The idea behind punishment is to correct behaviour. He has shown remorce and is actively helping the community through his work against gang wars. His behaviour has changed, job done. Killing him will not help the community.

Actually he hasn't shown remorse. He still maintains that he is innocent of the crimes that he was sentenced for even though every single one of his apeals has been shot down. Even the ninth circuit, generally considered the most liberal court in the country, has turned him down. Just today they turned him down again when his lawyers asked for an emergency stay of execution. When the Governator decided against granting clemency he actually made a point of saying that in review of the case it does not seem Mr. Williams has any remorse for the crimes he has been convicted of so he can not accept the claims that he is a reformed man. He also brought up the issue of the books and the fact that Mr. Williams dedicated one of them to several convicted murderers, including George Jackson who founded the Black Guerilla Family prison gang. All in all I have a hard time believing that Mr. Williams is a reformed man myself.

I'm getting nervous. There are rumors of Los Angeles exploding into riots if Tookie is executed.

I've been worried about that too. I was wondering if the Governator may even grant clemency just to avoid such a situation.
I'm pretty sure something will happen. I hope that it doesn't turn out terribly violent.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, that's going to be wonderful if they start rioting right as I come home for Christmas.

 

[SOS2008]

It's going to be really hard to have a pointed debate on the specific issue without going right back to the justification for the death penalty.

And/or perhaps there is a need to debate the purpose of prison. Certainly it is to protect society. But is it to reform or only to punish? Reform is very rare.

And I thought the death penetly was supposed to be a deterent, rather than for revenge purposes...

Studies have shown the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, especially in crimes of passion.

The way "the system" works, it just does. Appeals, stays, etc. make it impossible to carry out the death penalty in a timely fashion.

Frankly, if it were carried out in a timely fashion, that would make this discussion moot: no one would have time to reform before execution.

Excellent point. Though this ‘due process’ is designed to protect the occasional innocent citizen, it creates a secondary cost to society.

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988). http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

As compared to life in prison, this same source quotes $16,100 per inmate/year (in 1994), but other sources quote $20,000 to $30,000 for incarceration only (not including medical, dental, and psychological services - e.g., http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/6.htm)

When criminals, particularly those who commit heinous crimes can’t or have no desire to change, personally I’m not in favor of society being victimized repeatedly by spending more than most people in the world earn to provide ‘life’ for these individuals.

Actually he hasn't shown remorse. He still maintains that he is innocent of the crimes that he was sentenced for even though every single one of his apeals has been shot down. Even the ninth circuit, generally considered the most liberal court in the country, has turned him down. Just today they turned him down again when his lawyers asked for an emergency stay of execution. When the Governator decided against granting clemency he actually made a point of saying that in review of the case it does not seem Mr. Williams has any remorse for the crimes he has been convicted of so he can not accept the claims that he is a reformed man. He also brought up the issue of the books and the fact that Mr. Williams dedicated one of them to several convicted murderers, including George Jackson who founded the Black Guerilla Family prison gang. All in all I have a hard time believing that Mr. Williams is a reformed man myself.

If people could be reformed with a significant success rate, I would be concerned about providing incentive. But most male convicts maintain innocence and have little or no remorse, and typically return to a life of crime and to prison.

As for fear of riots, if this were to occur it would prove Williams to be linked to violence rather than a positive force in society.

 

[The_Professional]

I got to hand it to Arnold for not caving into Hollywood pressure. My respect just went up and I wasn't a big fan of him.

 

[Tide]

I think statements like "he's doing good things now" or "he's a changed man" or "he shows remorse" do not make up for or offset the offense but their subjective negation provides fodder for those in favor of executions.

Unfortunately, the Governator caved into political pressure and missed a golden opportunity to declare a moratorium on barbarism exercised by the state. At the very least that would have postponed any question of "clemency" for this particular person and forced debate on the fundamental issues. Oh, well.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Stan "Tookie" Williams has been executed.

 

[Pengwuino]

I hope the families of the 4 people he murdered can rest a little bit easier now.

 

[FredGarvin]

A read of the Governor's clemency ruling is worth while. It shows just how many points Tookie was turned down over the years. His claim of innocence, to me, is proof that he did not feel remorse for what he did. His actions while incarcerated were hardly angelic as well.

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf

 

[Art]

A read of the Governor's clemency ruling is worth while. It shows just how many points Tookie was turned down over the years. His claim of innocence, to me, is proof that he did not feel remorse for what he did. His actions while incarcerated were hardly angelic as well.
http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf

So basically if he had confessed to the murders then his sentence would have been commuted as this would have been acknowledged as remorse.

But what if he was telling the truth and he was innocent?

 

[russ_watters]

So basically if he had confessed to the murders then his sentence would have been commuted as this would have been acknowledged as remorse.

That would have been a start, but it would have taken more than that.

But what if he was telling the truth and he was innocent?

That "what if" isn't relevant here: since the evidence against him is so strong and he doesn't cite innocence in his request, there is no real need to consider it. That's part of the problem: he contradicted himself there by claiming publicly to be innocent, yet claiming in his clemancy request that he is reformed.

However - if there was compelling evidence that he was innocent (or even, if the evidence against him was less than equivocal) then that would be a reason for clemancy. That is obvious.

 

[Art]

That would have been a start, but it would have taken more than that. That "what if" isn't relevant here: since the evidence against him is so strong and he doesn't cite innocence in his request, there is no real need to consider it. That's part of the problem: he contradicted himself there by claiming publicly to be innocent, yet claiming in his clemancy request that he is reformed.
However - if there was compelling evidence that he was innocent (or even, if the evidence against him was less than equivocal) then that would be a reason for clemancy. That is obvious.

Apparently he maintained his innocence of involvement in the 4 murders for which he was convicted right to the very end which tends to lend credibility to his claim.

As to the contradiction you mentioned, there is none . He never denied being a cofounder of the Crips gang or that he was a bad person and in fact he did express his remorse for that to the extent that he renounced his past life and wrote books to try to put young people off the gang culture. For this and his other efforts in trying to keep young folk on the straight and narrow he was nominated more than once for the nobel peace prize.

 

[russ_watters]

Apparently he maintained his innocence of involvement in the 4 murders for which he was convicted right to the very end which tends to lend credibility to his claim.

How does claiming innocence while simultaneously claiming he's reformed make him sound credible? It makes him sound like he's contradicting himself to me. If he didn't do anything wrong in the first place, there'd be nothing to reform from.

As to the contradiction you mentioned, there is none. He never denied being a cofounder of the Crips gang or that he was a bad person and in fact he did express his remorse for that to the extent that he renounced his past life...

So where in what you just said does the murder fit in? Since none of what you just said is why he was executed, he can't claim being reformed from those things as a reason not to execute him. His clemancy request essentially said: 'I used to be a murderer, but I'm not a murderer anymore.' That contradicts him saying he didn't commit those murders.

You can't simultaneously claim you are sorry for being a murder, but that you never were a murderer.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Stan "Tookie" Williams has been executed.

I haven't heard of any violence since.
Does anyone know if there have been any demonstrations at all?



By the way a moritorium on the death penalty is currently in the works from what I hear on the news.

 

[The_Professional]

Apparently he maintained his innocence of involvement in the 4 murders for which he was convicted right to the very end which tends to lend credibility to his claim.

So maintaining innocence over the murders that he was convicted from makes his claim credible? thereby making him innocent? you know I have a bridge to sell you..

 

[Art]

So maintaining innocence over the murders that he was convicted from makes his claim credible? thereby making him innocent? you know I have a bridge to sell you..

If he had admitted his guilt he probably would have had his sentence commuted. The fact he wouldn't admit to the murders despite the consequences suggests that perhaps he felt strongly that he was innocent of the murders. Strongly enough it seems to die rather than confess to them.
It seems there are a few folk here who don't seem to have the cop on to realize that sometimes wrong verdicts are returned and sometimes the cops even fix evidence to get a conviction. I'm sure this probably comes as a shock to some of you who live in their nice clockwork, black and white world but the justice system is less than perfect.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I haven't heard of any violence since.
Does anyone know if there have been any demonstrations at all?

Thankfully, as far as I know, all has been quiet. I've heard that there is a giant memorial service being planned for next week somewhere in Los Angeles. They are expecting a turnout of about 16,000 people. This should be a peaceful event.

I heard someone on the radio this week (I think it was Bill Handel) talking about how Barbara Becnel is promising "a funeral on the scale of Rosa Parks’." That really, really made me angry. Hell, I may start rioting. Rosa Parks was a courageous woman. Williams was a cold-blooded killer. How dare she mention those two people in the same breath!

 

[McGyver]

America and US Media Appears to be "Nuts"

Once again, as has been raised with all the publicity over the pending death sentance fate for Tookie Williams, much of America, Hollywood, and the U.S. media has gotten it wrong. Support for sparing Williams from his ultimate punishment - initially arose as a result of his supposed "positive role model activities" while incarcerated. I mean, he was actually nominated for a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Somehow, his supporters were successful in garnishing numerous photo-ops and advocacy from major Hollywood celebrities. Yet, as his time began to draw near, opponents of the "death penalty" joined the rally to spare Tookie Williams. I didn't know Tookie, only what was provided in the news. The facts painted him as a treacherous individual - a vicious leader and criminal. The death penalty was intended for people of his character. Yes, he may have redeemed himself, but he did not do it willingly. The taxpayers of CA spent some $1M over 25 years to bring about a change in him. If only we could use those funds to save some youths before they turn into "monsters."

What I remain confused over is WHY key celebrities and media come forward with so much support in this matter. What about the innocent victims who have died at the hands of gang members? Where was this same Hollywood and media support for them? Despite anyone's opinion over the use of the death penalty, I would ASK these same celebrities and media to visit with the families affected by gang violence, the children who die everyday from horrendous diseases - and ask themselves, have we served America well - or did we LOOSE our perspective and minds over matters such as with Tookie.

American leaders and the media made a similar mistake earlier this year in the media flurries and political battles to prevent removing the feeding tube from Florida's Terri Schiavo. The poor woman had been in a horrendous condition for some 13-15 years. Yet, American leaders and the media rallied around that cause, whilst every day hundreds of Americans die in hospitals and long term care from neglect and improper care who never get but an obituary. Many such patients could be helped and possibly saved by critical medical "intervention" and the necessary financial and other support from key American leaders and the media. Is it fair for these people to have died, while Terri Schiavo, who actually was brain dead, got all the attention and the best of care? I ask has America gone "nuts?"

Both examples above send a message that America and the U.S. media has gone mad, and many may truly be "nuts." I would ask that the next time key American leaders, celebrities, and the media choose to rally in an effort to sustain the life of an American - that they choose a "person" with cimcumstances that befit the extraordinary attention.

 

[russ_watters]

If he had admitted his guilt he probably would have had his sentence commuted. The fact he wouldn't admit to the murders despite the consequences suggests that perhaps he felt strongly that he was innocent of the murders. Strongly enough it seems to die rather than confess to them.

Or it suggests that he didn't want to amit he was guilty.

It seems there are a few folk here who don't seem to have the cop on to realize that sometimes wrong verdicts are returned and sometimes the cops even fix evidence to get a conviction. I'm sure this probably comes as a shock to some of you who live in their nice clockwork, black and white world but the justice system is less than perfect.

Without a good reason to think that, Art, it's just idle speculation. You're welcome to it, of course, but it carries no weight whatsoever. Besides - not even his lawyer tried that angle.

One thing, though - you are aware of the evidence against him, right?

 

[Skyhunter]

Thankfully, as far as I know, all has been quiet. I've heard that there is a giant memorial service being planned for next week somewhere in Los Angeles. They are expecting a turnout of about 16,000 people. This should be a peaceful event.
I heard someone on the radio this week (I think it was Bill Handel) talking about how Barbara Becnel is promising "a funeral on the scale of Rosa Parks’." That really, really made me angry. Hell, I may start rioting. Rosa Parks was a courageous woman. Williams was a cold-blooded killer. How dare she mention those two people in the same breath!

She published his books.

The crimes he commited were horrendous, he was never debriefed and he never admitted to the murders. I am against the death penalty, yet I don't think Tookie deserved special consideration. But you cannot deny that his books have been a tremendous influence on inner city kids. I have heard lots of testimony from teachers who said that children who had never read any book would read Tookie's books.

How many children did not turn to crime and gangs because of his influence?

His books are still being published so he has done his best to redeem himself and now has met his maker. Any further judgement of Tookie is out of any mortal hands.

There is an underclass in this country to whom Tookie was a hero. You can see them as you drive through the cities of America. They live in the neighborhoods next to the freeways. As long as they honor his memory with a peaceful ceremony I say more power to them.

You must put it in perspective.

1. They are not honoring who he was but who he seemed to have become.

2. Funerals are for the living, the dead don't care. The ceremony is not for Tookie so much as for those whose lives he touched with his books.