It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Former "Crips" Founder and Nobel Prize Nominee Cleared For Death Penalty

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Djarums


Do any of you who are singing the praises of Williams and his gang even care about those people?




No, I hate them. That's why I think the way I do.

Why would you even ask such a thing? That's trollish IMO...

For the record, I don't care enough about anyone to set aside my basic guiding principles.

Bob


Since we have established that you do indeed oppose the death penalty in all cases, and that you do understand the need for consistent application of the law, then do you not see that pointing at one man and saying, in effect, "This man, because of his repentance and because of his contributions to society, does not deserve to be executed," does not serve, and actually conflicts with, your (and my) values?


Not at all. That logic is lacking, because I haven't excluded anyone. Tookie is, to me at least, a prime example of everything that's wrong with the death penalty. I know more about his case because it's now being talked about everywhere I look, and I took it upon myself to learn a little more about the man himself, and the things he's done since getting locked up. Before the date approached, all I knew were his crimes.

In any case, I'm trying to show using Tookie's example, that the death penalty does much more harm than good. The same concepts apply to most other death row inmates.



The law, for good or ill, exists as it does. So long as it exists as it does, it MUST be applied fairly and equally, or at least as much so as is possible considering the vagaries and failures of human nature. If there was some sort of exception being made in order to execute him, then opposing that execution would probably be valid, but to attempt to make an exception to avoid that execution is to attempt to subvert the law.


Subverting the law is completely necessary when the law is broken and twisted into an unrecognizable bramble patch of contradictions and loopholes.

If the law stated that you must beat yourself in the head with a hammer on every second tuesday, to comply would be insane. The only intelligent thing to do would be to disobey.

When the laws of the state are insane, the sane man is often called a criminal. However, his label notwithstanding, the man is the same, and in a sane society would be a role model. Perspective...



The law itself must be changed, but until it is changed, it must be followed.


Nonsense, see above example. I understand the philosophy of law, in the sense that some venerate it as a god. I do not. It's a tool like any other, and if improperly assembled or applied, it will maim the user.

Justice is a fine ideal to venerate, but the legal system of men doesn't begin to approach that standard of fairness. I see no sense in venerating a broken idol, while ignoring the perfect ideal.

It's unjust to follow unjust laws. So it follows that in the pursuit of true justice, one must occasionally bypass, bend, or break the laws of men.



If it is not to be followed-- if the rule of law is to have no weight-- then changing it will accomplish nothing.


One of the ways law evolves is when large numbers of people stop obeying and start protesting. This is the power citizens have over their government, because we retain the power of decision at all times.

I understand your argument, regarding the virtue of infallible law, but the reality is that laws are made by men, who are by nature imperfect. The law will always be imperfect and lacking in one area or another. It's up to the individuals to obey those laws that are just, and to disobey those laws that are unjust.

The laws are given their power by the people, and when the laws are dangerous or foolish, the people should follow their inner compass to insure they remain on the right path.




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I'll be helpful and lay it out a bit more clearly.

My question was in response to people who are up in arms and crying about Mr. Williams' plight. My question was to try and help me understand how there can be such pity and vocal protest when discussing the death sentence of a man who murdered innocent people who were guilty of "being there that day" and not much else. My question was where the loudmouth "celebrities" are to protest and flap their lips about the victims of violent crimes. Where is Mr. Doggy Dogg to protest on behalf of the people that Mr. Williams murdered? How about the brave hero cop that was shut by a thug recently in Brooklyn? Where is Mr. Dogg then?

My question is why the bleeding hearts when it comes to a murderer but not when it comes to the murdered?

You call that trollish? Oh well. I call it a question that the same vocal protestors choose to ignore. When one ignores a question they usually don't have an answer. Call it what you will.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Djarums


My question was in response to people who are up in arms and crying about Mr. Williams' plight. My question was to try and help me understand how there can be such pity and vocal protest when discussing the death sentence of a man who murdered innocent people who were guilty of "being there that day" and not much else.


One of the facts being disputed is his guilt. There are a lot of people who don't believe he was guilty of those crimes, and in their eyes, this is a miscarriage of justice.

I don't think a label should be sufficient cause to completely negate a person's worth in our society, but unfortunately that's the way things work.

If you are accused of some heinous crime, a label gets applied and guilt is assumed before the facts are clear. If the news says so and so is a child molester, and so and so is a rapist, and this man is a murderer, and that man is a terrorist, that shapes popular perception.

False labels are a wonderful way of marginalizing, silencing, and eventually justifying the destruction of unpopular people. The earliest example I personally know of was when the Knights Templar were accused of bestiality, child molestation, and devil worship, so that the king of France could seize their assets.

You're sure that he's guilty? Why? Because the justice system says he is, because the media has labeled him "convicted murderer."

Anyway, sorry to babble, but I think I'm making a point. It's in here somewhere...




My question was where the loudmouth "celebrities" are to protest and flap their lips about the victims of violent crimes. Where is Mr. Doggy Dogg to protest on behalf of the people that Mr. Williams murdered? How about the brave hero cop that was shut by a thug recently in Brooklyn? Where is Mr. Dogg then?


Well, for the record I hate celebrity causes, and for the most part I hate celebrities. But that's besides the point.

This is the reality born of an adversarial government, an adverserial legal system, an adverserial upbringing. People feel they have to choose sides.



My question is why the bleeding hearts when it comes to a murderer but not when it comes to the murdered?


You're assuming too much.

First you assume that because some people care about accused murderers, those same people cannot possibly care about victims of murder. That's not at all the case.

Second you assume that people trying to stop the execution are opposed to the best interests of the victims, again, this is not necessarily the case.

I'd like to think my position takes into account both what is good for the victim, and what is good for the offender. Overall, I'm interested in what is good for society.



You call that trollish? Oh well. I call it a question that the same vocal protestors choose to ignore. When one ignores a question they usually don't have an answer. Call it what you will.


I'm just tired is all. I'm tired of sitting on the fence and having crap thrown at me by both sides.

As an example, I believe abortion is wrong and unnecessary in 90% of cases, but I'm pro-choice. I'm alternately labeled baby-hater or right-wing-nutjob, depending on who's trying to advance their agenda by labelling my position.

Sometimes tunnel vision gets the best of good-hearted people, and they forget to take time out to step into different shoes. Surely the pain felt by the victims' families is no more or less real than the pain felt by those who believe Tookie is innocent, and those who see the good he now does in the world.

In going ahead with this murder, we aren't removed any victims from the equation, we're ADDING MORE.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
your right WyrdeOne it is tough being open minded and having an objective point of view. i've been called a flip flopper for the same thing. in certain instances (that is why it is called an objective point of view) it is okay to execute a person. this is actually one of the few that i believe it would be unjust. normally if a person kills another i feel as though the same should happen to them. but in this case 24 years later after he has devoted his time and effort to an extremely important cause is not the time to execute him.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cantfoolme...in certain instances (that is why it is called an objective point of view) it is okay to execute a person. this is actually one of the few that i believe it would be unjust. normally if a person kills another i feel as though the same should happen to them. but in this case 24 years later after he has devoted his time and effort to an extremely important cause is not the time to execute him.


So, you are in effect saying that his life has more value than another person's. That other people might deserve to die for having been convicted of essentially the same crimes of which he was convicted, but that he, being a somehow superior or better person, should be spared their fate.

THAT is exactly what's wrong with the arguments to prevent his execution, and, as an aside, it's also one of the main things that's wrong with the death penalty.

NOBODY should ever decide that this person's life is valuable, and therefore he should live, but that person's life is not, and therefore he should die. That's the logic of the murderer AND of the executioner.

If we are to uphold the law that states that those who, having been convicted of a particular crime, and having had entered against them a penalty of death, and having failed to successfully appeal that sentence, should indeed be executed, then he, just as all in the same situation, should be executed. To decide that he is somehow a "better" person than all the others who are in the same situation, and that he should therefore live, establishes a frightening precedent.

If, however, we are to decide that he should NOT be executed, despite the fact that he was convicted, sentenced, and has failed to successfully challenge that sentence, then we MUST extend the same amnesty to all who are in the same situation.

To do ANYTHING other than those two options is to make it the law of the land that convictions are irrelevant and sentences are irrelevant, and all that matters is whether one is a "better" person or a "worse" one.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT However since his incarceration, he has...been nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize and Nobel Literature award.


So has Hitler and GW Bush. I don't think being nominated means much. I'd be inclined to say that many of the people who do not want to see him executed are against the death penalty in general. But, personally, I have a conflicted opinion about the death penalty.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Subverting the law is completely necessary when the law is broken and twisted into an unrecognizable bramble patch of contradictions and loopholes.


If it's broken, break it some more?


If the law stated that you must beat yourself in the head with a hammer on every second tuesday, to comply would be insane. The only intelligent thing to do would be to disobey.


"Intelligent" might not be the best possible word there, but I'll accept your point. However, if one does indeed break a law, regardless of the "sanity" or "insanity" of that law, one MUST expect to face the consequences. That's part and parcel of the entire concept of the law.


The law itself must be changed, but until it is changed, it must be followed.

Nonsense, see above example. I understand the philosophy of law, in the sense that some venerate it as a god. I do not. It's a tool like any other, and if improperly assembled or applied, it will maim the user.

Justice is a fine ideal to venerate, but the legal system of men doesn't begin to approach that standard of fairness. I see no sense in venerating a broken idol, while ignoring the perfect ideal.

It's unjust to follow unjust laws. So it follows that in the pursuit of true justice, one must occasionally bypass, bend, or break the laws of men.

...

One of the ways law evolves is when large numbers of people stop obeying and start protesting. This is the power citizens have over their government, because we retain the power of decision at all times.

I understand your argument, regarding the virtue of infallible law, but the reality is that laws are made by men, who are by nature imperfect. The law will always be imperfect and lacking in one area or another. It's up to the individuals to obey those laws that are just, and to disobey those laws that are unjust.

The laws are given their power by the people, and when the laws are dangerous or foolish, the people should follow their inner compass to insure they remain on the right path.


Yes, that's all very noble and very Thoreauian, but you're still missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the law be venerated "as a god," and am honestly, as a rigidly logical agnostic, offended by that assertion. Of course the law is fallible, but it is still, and must remain, the law. I misspoke when I stated simply that the law must be changed or obeyed-- of course it may, and sometimes arguably should be disobeyed, but one must never forget that disobeying it carries specific, defined penalties.

Thoreau, when he was jailed, didn't complain about it. He didn't claim that his punishment was unjust. He recognized that the punishment was simply the immediate consequence of the law and he gladly served his sentence, in part specifically to emphasize the unjust nature of the law.

And this is all quite beside the point, unless you're proposing that laws against murder are unjust. If the laws against murder are indeed just, then Williams being charged under those laws is legitimate. He was not only charged under those laws, but convicted and sentenced, and, despite appeal, his sentence has been upheld. That is and has been sufficient to send many men to their graves. While I feel that capital punishment, as a whole, is an unacceptable and grossly irrational activity, I maintain that fighting for the life of ONE man, and only ONE man, who has been so sentenced is not only an insult to all the others so sentenced, but, if successful, is a miscarriage of justice.

You speak of the legal system being "broken and twisted." The single thing that most easily destroys a legal system is selective enforcement of the law. Laws, right or wrong, must apply to all equally. If the law is wrong (or, in this case, the punishment), then it is wrong for all. If it is judged to be only wrong for ONE, then that is to set that one above all others, and that does NOT improve the system, but only breaks and twists it further.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, why were the crips founded?

Where did these gangs come from?

Connect all the dots and before you run your mouth, I lived in a 'hood' as you like to call them. In a very poor area, where nearly everyone I grew up with is in prison or has been so I know what these areas are like.

So please, why were the crips founded?


Here, why dont you tell me?


www.streetgangs.com...

They founded themselves by beating the hell out of little \japanese women. Model citizens and great boons for the black community.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Bob LaoTse

you did a nice job taking my quote out of context to make it seem i was saying what you wanted me to say for the sake of your argument. i actually stated as the main reason for not executing him was that during the time the judicial system neglected to carry out his punishment in a timely manner he had reformed, made substantial controbutions to society and therefor he should be allowed to continue to do so. this is not simply a matter of what the law states if it were anyone would have to say that anyone who commits a crime of this nature should be executed. i look at each situation individually and then form my opinion. a man states clearly in court that he has not changed, feels no remorse and flat out doesnt care. this man should be executed. a man (regardless of his award nominations, stature in the comminuty or race) does show remorse, has changed and does care about the future and help preventing other such crimes. this man should be incarcerated for the remainder of his life yet be allowed to continue towards his goal of helping a troubled generation.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Exactly. You just emphasized my point.

You aver that he, simply because he's nominally a "better" person, should not die, while others-- nominally "worse" people-- should. There's no regard for the case at hand, for the nature of his crime or of his conviction, for the nature and results of his appeal(s)-- the only basis upon which you wish to spare him his life is his supposed quality as a human being. He deserves to live, while this other man over here does not.

I maintain that that is a dangerous distinction, and one that a responsible and just society should never make. The established system has already ground slowly along its legally mandated path, and has decreed that he should be executed. Either he should be, or he AND ALL WHO HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY CONVICTED OF SIMILAR CRIMES should not. There should never be a distinction made solely on a person's nominal quality as a human being. The only issue that should ever be of any significance is the nature of the crime. If that crime is deemed deserving of a penalty of death, then death it should be. If not, then not. But to make the distinction based not on the crime, but on the relative value (as defined by who? Us? The state?) of the person is an affront to all people, and, I believe, frightening in its potential implications.

Even more than I don't want the state to be able to kill citizens, I don't want the state to be able to kill citizens based NOT on their crimes, but only on some subjective measure of their worth.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Exactly. You just emphasized my point.


I think the point cantfoolme was trying to make is that if they wanted to sentence him to death they shouldn't have waited the 24 years he reformed in jail and that he has bettered himself since the day of the crime.

C'mon now 24 years ? That's quite a gap. I am sure U all are not the same person U were 24 years ago. hell I was 2 years old 24 years ago, I think I've changed alot, and for the better too


On another note, I was reading about the Washington Governor granting clemency to a death row inmate and so he now will not be the 1000th victim of the death penalty. Do U think this is perhaps so that Stanley Williams is ?
It was just a thought I had. But I sincerely hope Arnie grants him clemency.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
The 1,000 death will be in North Carolina on Friday....
www.dailytarheel.com...

I'm not really sure why we get stuck on the number 1,000, I guess it's some sort of milestone, but I mean, if 1,000 people being executed is an issue, how come 999 isn't?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
just for the sake of an analogy

i relize this situation does not compare when we are talking about people lives. but please take it for what it is and you will undeniably see the point. i walk into my bosses office that i have not liked since i started there. i walk over to his desk i verbally attack him and proceed to dump his cup of coffe on his head. i walk out and nothing is said by anyone. the following months bring tremendous gains for the company and this is a direct result of my hard work and dedication. i continue for a few YEARS and again the company has benefited from my hard work. i walk into the office one day and my boss tells me that i need to pack my things because i am fired. i ask for what and he asks if i had forgot about the incident 3 years ago.
to me it is just like if you were going to execute him it should have been before many benefited from what he transformed his life into.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Sorry-- your analogy doesn't fly.

For it to be accurate, you would've had to dump the cup of coffee not on your boss's head, but on the head of some random stranger that had never done anything to you, and there would have to have already been a specific rule at your company that anyone who is found to have dumped a cup of coffee on anyone else's head would be fired. Then you would've had to have been found guilty, by a jury, of having dumped the cup of coffee on the innocent stranger's head and would've had to have been sentenced to be fired, then you would've had to, while the years went by and you made repeated appeals in an attempt to not be fired, have spent your spare time writing books in which you tell children that they shouldn't dump coffee on people's heads.

Oh, and there would also have to be hundreds of other people who had already been fired for having dumped coffee on other people's heads, and hundreds more who were scheduled to be fired for having done so. And you would have to have a group of people who argued that, while all those other people might as well be fired anyway, you were a special sort of person and should NOT be fired, despite the fact that you had been found to have done a specific act to an innocent stranger, which act had specific consequences of which you were already aware.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Well, for the record I hate celebrity causes, and for the most part I hate celebrities. But that's besides the point.



Before I comment on why I quoted you here, I do want to go on record as saying that I agree with you, and that I believe Williams should not be put to death..

However, I have found that in quite a few of your posts (if you prefer I quote them back I will, but im sure if you just examine your own writing methods you'll see what i mean) you seem to display quite a bit of racial bias toward black folk which is no way to get a point across in a neutral fashion IMO. The reason I did, though, quote the above line is in particular when touting non-violence, and a peace loving community the last thing i would think you want to do is use words like hate, be biased one way or another, or show too much negativity, it tends to take away from your credibility. Again, im not picking on you but just saying it because i DO so much agree with your points that I would hate to see them lose credibility by poor choices of wording.


AB1

Edited to note obvious irony


[edit on 1-12-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
People need to learn there are consequencesIgood or bad) for their actions... and people need to take responsibilty for their actions...

The arguement isn't about the punishment being right or wrong. Instead, it is weather or not he committed a crime inwhich said crime is punishable by death.

Therefore, Tookie.. or whoever... needs to step up and take responsibility and accept the punishment which is given for his actions.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   


However, I have found that in quite a few of your posts (if you prefer I quote them back I will, but im sure if you just examine your own writing methods you'll see what i mean) you seem to display quite a bit of racial bias toward black folk which is no way to get a point across in a neutral fashion IMO.


I'm not sure I understand, are you saying I'm racist against whites, or against blacks?

I'm white, by the way, so white in fact, I'm practically see-through. I grew up in a racist environment, and I'd never even met a black person (with the exception of an uptown squeegee man in NY when I was six and we got lost trying to find the highway) until my last year of high school.

Once I moved out on my own, went to college, lived in the city for a few years, and broadened my horizons, I came to know and respect quite a few people of different races. I realized that the vast majority of whites who hate blacks simply lack positive examples from which to derive a positive opinion. The reverse is of course also true.

In any case, I have had inumerable positive experiences with white folks and black folks both, so I hold no hatred for any race as a whole. I am, however, perfectly capable of despising individuals. I take everyone at face value, and allow people the power to shape my opinion of them through words and deeds.

I'm basically a cynical hermit, an alternately bemused/irritated watcher of world events. I'm not a politician, I'm not an activist, and I'm almost never found talking about sunshine and flowers and friendship and togetherness. It's just not my cup of tea. Read some of my fiction to get an idea of the direction in which my lance tilts.

Finally, if I defend Tookie, I'm not taking on the auspice of Sharpton, and going to bat for an entire demographic. I'm just defending this one man, on this one issue. I have no interest in justifying his violent past, only in presenting evidence of his recent contributions to society in the hopes that people will come to some greater understanding of just what we lose every time we throw the switch on another member of our community.



The reason I did, though, quote the above line is in particular when touting non-violence, and a peace loving community the last thing i would think you want to do is use words like hate, be biased one way or another, or show too much negativity, it tends to take away from your credibility.


I'm just a guy with a somewhat educated opinion. Take it for what it is.



Again, im not picking on you but just saying it because i DO so much agree with your points that I would hate to see them lose credibility by poor choices of wording.


I understand what you're getting at, but I think you underestimate the sincerity with which I hate vanity. Celebrity is the veneration of vanity, and American infatuation with that shallow nonsense has sullied our collective reputation.

Just my opinion, but I'm quite happy with it, and I think I'll keep it.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Bob LaoTse

do you honestly think it is right to kill this man? forget the law and look at just as one human to another. you think a person trying this hard to right his wrong even if it is for personal gain needs to be executed 24 years later. and your explanation of my analogy i really thought it was pretty witty i actually laughed. but maybe you shouldnt have taken it so literally.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Screw this guy. Theres lots of black people who write children books, who DIDNT MURDER 4 PEOPLE AND START THE WORST GANG EVER!!! Everyone is sooo worried about this a-hole, what about the 4 peoples lives he took and their families who were ruined?

The only problem I have with executing this piece of garbage is that it took so long. After the verdict, he should have been taken out back and shot. End of story.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Simmeer down... breath....
No emotion there



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join