POOR TOOKIE (HE SEEMS LIKE SUCH A NICE GUY)
- Thread starter beantownjim
- Start date
vyrus858, you are a virus. Pay the guy his $30.
Can you tell me how many lives he changed? He probably had some of those Berkley libs writing books for him.
We did pretty good. First we locked his ass up for twenty five years, letting him think he would somehow con his way out of the death penalty, then we give him the needle. They say they had a hard time finding a vein. That makes it even better.
Too bad Angela Davis didn't get the same thing.
Can you tell me how many lives he changed? He probably had some of those Berkley libs writing books for him.
We did pretty good. First we locked his ass up for twenty five years, letting him think he would somehow con his way out of the death penalty, then we give him the needle. They say they had a hard time finding a vein. That makes it even better.
Too bad Angela Davis didn't get the same thing.
vyrus858 said:
Vyrus, what goes on in the general forum is just some ball busting in my opinion, what goes on in the capping forums is the real business around here.
Just pay Twofingers the 30 bucks, based on everything you say you can more than afford it.
African man....good one :mj07: For such a high class guy you love to stoop to the gutter when challenged.
Last edited:
I know we have beat this to death, but should add one more thing about Tookie. While he professed sorrow for all the damage he caused by starting the Crips, he steadfastly refused to give police any information on the gang or any information about other crimes he commited, witnessed or heard about. So on one hand he wants to portray himself as a changed man, but as he said, he doesn't want to be a snitch and that is why he didn't help the police with any information. Some redemption.
And in case you missed it in another thread, Jessie Jackson was so shook up over Tookie's imminent death that he hopped a plane to make sure he got to TO's birthday bash!
And in case you missed it in another thread, Jessie Jackson was so shook up over Tookie's imminent death that he hopped a plane to make sure he got to TO's birthday bash!
All very interesting...
All very interesting...
I'll start by saying up front that I am against the death penalty. Simply, there is something inherently odd about attempting to send the message that murder is wrong, with...murder. You also have to wonder about a practice that was once abolished in this country via the Furman v. Georgia decision in 1972, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found the death penalty to be arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court mandated that states rewrite their death penalty laws with the goal that they become more consistent and uniform with set standards (ie; mitigating and aggravating circumstances). Then in or around 1977, states began reintroducing the death penalty based on their "new" DP laws. What was once determined to be cruel and unusual in it's inconsitent and discriminatory nature was suddenly back in a new wrapping.
I am against the death penalty not primarily because of any sort of mushy compassionate standard, or the fact that human beings have been executed for crimes that they later were proven to have not committed (115 condemned people were released due to wrongful convictions between 1977 and 2003, care to guess at a number of innocents actually executed?), or even the very popular (and in many cases true) argument that the financial costs of rendering such a punishment are too great (and lets' face it...if you are going to execute someone, you better make damn sure you are right, and spend the money to do so, and as mentioned we aren't always right).
I am against the death penalty primarily because of the nature of this very discussion. The very fact that we can even debate this using such qualifiers as "he was nominated for a nobel peace prize", and "the victim was a father of 2 girls" (as if, I might add, the loss of life via murder is somehow more tragic because the victim was a father versus a young single man without relatives), speaks to the subjectivty, rather than objectivity, of the entire DP practice. The very fact that we can all sit here and try to argue that Tookie was or wasn't worthy of the death penalty is the biggest indicator that the system is imperfect. What qualifies to one, does not qualify to another. How can it be implemented with any sort of integrity?
I recall someone's comment on here about "only a handful of libs who just don't get it". Get what? What is "it"? Because our loosely interpreted laws regarding the death penalty, and it's implementation (albeit inconsistent), can't really tell anyone in the same manner each and every time, what "it" means. To illustrate my point even more... Someone else said "what makes this sack of shit so special?" Which clearly implies some believe he was special, and some didn't. OPINION that fluctuates from person to person is what we base executions on? Bottom line, no matter how tightly states try to write their laws on DP eligible cases, the system is flawed for many reasons, but primarily, because humans are running it. As long as there is room for error and "qualified" responses to the crimes, the offenders, and the victims, and as long as there is room for a debate to occur, then the "'laws" and "standards" by which we execute people (the mentally handicapped and juveniles included) will remain unclear, discrimintaory, and subject to abuse. AND thus, the longer it remains clear that the DP should be obsolete.
All very interesting...
I'll start by saying up front that I am against the death penalty. Simply, there is something inherently odd about attempting to send the message that murder is wrong, with...murder. You also have to wonder about a practice that was once abolished in this country via the Furman v. Georgia decision in 1972, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found the death penalty to be arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court mandated that states rewrite their death penalty laws with the goal that they become more consistent and uniform with set standards (ie; mitigating and aggravating circumstances). Then in or around 1977, states began reintroducing the death penalty based on their "new" DP laws. What was once determined to be cruel and unusual in it's inconsitent and discriminatory nature was suddenly back in a new wrapping.
I am against the death penalty not primarily because of any sort of mushy compassionate standard, or the fact that human beings have been executed for crimes that they later were proven to have not committed (115 condemned people were released due to wrongful convictions between 1977 and 2003, care to guess at a number of innocents actually executed?), or even the very popular (and in many cases true) argument that the financial costs of rendering such a punishment are too great (and lets' face it...if you are going to execute someone, you better make damn sure you are right, and spend the money to do so, and as mentioned we aren't always right).
I am against the death penalty primarily because of the nature of this very discussion. The very fact that we can even debate this using such qualifiers as "he was nominated for a nobel peace prize", and "the victim was a father of 2 girls" (as if, I might add, the loss of life via murder is somehow more tragic because the victim was a father versus a young single man without relatives), speaks to the subjectivty, rather than objectivity, of the entire DP practice. The very fact that we can all sit here and try to argue that Tookie was or wasn't worthy of the death penalty is the biggest indicator that the system is imperfect. What qualifies to one, does not qualify to another. How can it be implemented with any sort of integrity?
I recall someone's comment on here about "only a handful of libs who just don't get it". Get what? What is "it"? Because our loosely interpreted laws regarding the death penalty, and it's implementation (albeit inconsistent), can't really tell anyone in the same manner each and every time, what "it" means. To illustrate my point even more... Someone else said "what makes this sack of shit so special?" Which clearly implies some believe he was special, and some didn't. OPINION that fluctuates from person to person is what we base executions on? Bottom line, no matter how tightly states try to write their laws on DP eligible cases, the system is flawed for many reasons, but primarily, because humans are running it. As long as there is room for error and "qualified" responses to the crimes, the offenders, and the victims, and as long as there is room for a debate to occur, then the "'laws" and "standards" by which we execute people (the mentally handicapped and juveniles included) will remain unclear, discrimintaory, and subject to abuse. AND thus, the longer it remains clear that the DP should be obsolete.
Agents Biatch said:
kneifl
Writing a complete sentence is not a problem. Rampant violence,mayhem and murder is the problem. It appears that you feel that the death penalty should be abolished because it is not foolproof. That is a good point. Some famous person once said something like "If one innocent man is put to death it is too many." Well, hard to argue with that.
But.........there are not a lot of guarantees in life. How many decisions would you have made if a requirement was absolute certainty? Probably not many. Of course, these decisions don't usually involve a person's life.
So, sidestepping those issues, what would you propose our society do with the Tookie Williams of the world? I am anxious to hear your solution. If this is the wrong way to go, what do you think we should do instead?
But.........there are not a lot of guarantees in life. How many decisions would you have made if a requirement was absolute certainty? Probably not many. Of course, these decisions don't usually involve a person's life.
So, sidestepping those issues, what would you propose our society do with the Tookie Williams of the world? I am anxious to hear your solution. If this is the wrong way to go, what do you think we should do instead?
Agents Biatch said:
the only thing not consistent enough with the Death Penalty in this country is that it consistently takes too long to get rid of these pieces of chit. When a guy like tookie can sit on death row for 25 years....exhausting every option and loophole the "law" allows is a joke!! When there is no doubt (about who did it and their guilt) in regards to a crime worthy of the DP, there needs to be swift and immediate punishment....carry out the punishment....then and only then will the death penalty truly become a deterant........how can something that sometimes takes upwards of 25 years to carry out be considered a deterant? As far as innocent people being on Death Row.....a lot of that occured before the advent of DNA testing and the advances in forensics.....I'm not saying the days of convicting innocent people are totally gone, but if you look at the fairly recent discovery of innocent people on Death Row and behind bars in general, the majority of the cases were solved or overturned because of DNA. I will agree to being very cautious when there is doubt about a crime worthy of the DP.....but in cases when there is no doubt about who/how.....these pieces of chit should be led from the courtroom to the execution chambers!!
ferdville, abolishing the death penalty because the system is not follproof is exactly the reason I suggest it. And you made my next point for me: I agree not every decision is foolproof, but as you again point out what I would...such decisions don't usually involve human life. I would propose that Tookie get the same sentence that any other guy who committed a similar crime got or gets...life in prison. There are numerous multiple victim murderers out there who were convicted and sentenced to life w/o parole. What made Tookie a candidate for DP and not any of them? His high profile crime? His high profile role in the development of LA gangs? A chance for a political DA to send a message that he or she didn't send with any other similar convicted offenders? Perhaps.
Mcity, interesting points. The length of time factor can be explained by the totally legitmate processes a "civilized" society should go through before they "justifiably" kill someone. As far as the deterrence factor, there is absolutely no evidence that the DP is a deterrant to the crime of murder (regardless of how swift it is) because offenders who committ these crimes do not believe they will get caught. Studies have shown that there was no correspondent increase in murder rates when the Supreme Court stopped the DP, and no correspondent decrease when it was resinstated. So even if the DP is swift, what are we deterring?
Mcity, interesting points. The length of time factor can be explained by the totally legitmate processes a "civilized" society should go through before they "justifiably" kill someone. As far as the deterrence factor, there is absolutely no evidence that the DP is a deterrant to the crime of murder (regardless of how swift it is) because offenders who committ these crimes do not believe they will get caught. Studies have shown that there was no correspondent increase in murder rates when the Supreme Court stopped the DP, and no correspondent decrease when it was resinstated. So even if the DP is swift, what are we deterring?
I would also add relevant to DNA that it isn't foolproof evidence of a crime committed by a particular offender either. Our legal system has become convinced that DNA is the be all end all of evidence, and that it will be the savior of crime control everywhere. Consider the significance if DNA to your case if you had sex with a woman and she claimed you raped her. Your DNA is there, but is that definitive proof of a crime? You are a delivery man and your fingerprints are on a murder victims door after leaning on it when you placed the package on the stoop (the victim was already dead inside) and a neighbor says they saw you "fleeing" the scene. So we're confident you're the killer?
I do, but if you are referring to my responses, I would argue they are formed more from my education in criminology and working within a large metro area prosecutors office.
Agents Biatch said:
yes, we are for the most part and most times a civilized society.....however, should it take a decade or two for these punishments to be carried out? when there is no doubt about who committed a crime worthy of the DP, should the person who committed the crime be allowed to pull the victims family/the courts/the taxpayers/etc. through every time wasting loophole...and appeal some scumbag lawyer can think up? As far as it not being a deterant....of course it isn't deterring anyone right now. I believe the main reason for that is because of the length of time these criminals can get on death row before the punishment is carried out.....if it was used as an immediate punishment for the crimes worthy of its use, I would think it would have an impact. When I was younger, my father would whip me with a belt when I deserved it......eventually I caught on to right and wrong because of it and thought about getting that whipping when Dad got home before I did something I thought might not go over too well....now had my father said, "you're going to get a whipping in 15 years for this" I don't think I would've given much thought to phucking up again and again and again.
I agree MCity....these losers spend way to much time on death row....getting 3 meals a day etc.....they need to be put to death alot sooner
mcity, you are missing my point. If you personally were convicted of a crime, innocent or not (allow just for a moment for the sake of argument), wouldn't you want all possibilities to exhasut before you were executed? And I would say again, IT DOESN"T MATTER HOW SWIFT IT IS, they never believe they will actually get caught!!!! And again, you said "for crimes worthy of it's use". Worthy to whom?? And the mentalities associated with murdering someone are hardly on the same level of anything that was going thru your mind during whatever it was that made your dad wup your ass.
next week in ca a white man will be executed. i wonder if jesse jackson will be there. i wonder if all the hollywood celebs crying over tookie will argue as much for his right to live.
Agents Biatch said:
:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
You Biatch I wondered where you were :s4: Do Kneifl a favor and type s l o w e r , he has troule understanding anything that makes sense, thats how he has managed to like Dallas all these years. Now get your ass upstairs and make me some dinner :scared :mj08:
And also bye the way, you fawkers dont know the can o worms you opened :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :argue:
Last edited:
