Death Penalty? What's your opinion?

And it's always understandable when subject is something like this and I hope you continue this good discussion :)
 
You know folks, it would be really nice if you'd "quote" posts what you are referring to so it would be easier to follow.
 
there was an article online today, you can read it here this morning one of the cofounders of the crips gang, stanley williams, was executed for the 1979 murders of four people, hes been in death row in san quintin prison for 24 years. in this time, he has been nominated for the nobel peace prize for writing childrens books warning them about the dangers of gangs and violence.
i know not all convicts on death row contribute to society in such a way, and many of them do not regret what they have done, and are so sick and twisted they enjoy taking the lives of others.
because of stanleys long time spent on death row, he did make a turn around and i think made a positive impact on the community through his books. its unfortunate, however, that the gang he started all those years ago has led to so much pain and violence over the years. he takes credit for numerous acts of violence committed by the gang, but maintains his innocence in the shootings he was executed for.
just a whole new level of complication in the capitol punishment argument. if only we lived in a world without murder and crime. hey, a girl can dream cant she?

I live in "the hood" in L.A., and the hotel where three of the victims in the Williams case were shot is directly across Vermont Avenue from where my husband works in South Central.

Even here, opinions are conflicted. IMO, if Tookie was guilty of the murders, he should have been imprisoned for life with no possibility of parole. The trial was in...what, 1981? He was convicted largely on hearsay. And to the very last, he swore he did not commit those murders. Is it possible he did? Of course. Is it possible he didn't? Very much so. And a government to whom I pledge my alleagiance had better be very, very damned circumspect about the taking of another life. DNA evidence submitted for retrials of old cases has freed some innocent men and exonerated others after they were executed. Try explaining that one to their survivors. To me, the slaughter of a single innocent by a governing body is unacceptable. Reason #1 why I'm anti-death penalty. I'll spare you the numerous others.

In the two and a half decades Tookie Williams was incarcerated, his life shanged dramatically, and he wrote books and made communications to help kids stay away from gang life. He had created a monster and he knew it. Again, IF he committed those murders, no way should he everhave been set free. Regardless, he was accomplishing good in recent years by mitigating much of the damage he'd helped to cause. That mitigating force, guilty or innocent of those four murders, is gone.

So...once a kid's in the gang mess, now why do we tell him to get out and redeem himself?

It's much like the fellow down in Orange County whose citizenship status was rather "iffy", and for an offense committed decades ago he was deported, despite the fact that in recent years he worked hard to feed the poor and help the destitute in his area. Many of those he helped were frantic that their lifeline would be lost if he were deported. Guess what - he's gone.

Redemption - good enough for Jesus, but apparently not for Arnold.

--Robin
I was referring to Korbjarger's article about Tookie's execution by our "plastic" gov. Arnold the musclemaker! And my question was about hearsay evidence being admitted in court.
 
Just read form the paper...About the Death Penalty...Is it truth that only people, who would approval Death Penalty, could be a juror in court?
 
I'm all for the death penalty. For 2 reasons.

1) It's a quick solution to the problem

2) I don't want to pay to keep the bastards alive. It's the tax payer's money that goes to feeding them, water when they flush the toilet, electricity in their cell, clothes, and medical help (if needed). I don't want to pay for their necessities do you?
 
I'm agaisnt the death penalty.
I mean, if you get the wrong guy, an innocent guy, give him the death penalty, and find out god knows how later that he's innocent, you can't like, go back in time and stop the innocent guy from dying, where else if you put the guy in prison, and you find he's innocent after a few years or so, you can get him outta prison, and he can go on with life.

Forgive me if that reason has been posted here before, but I'm in a rush, don't have much time to read all the posts here.
 
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. Like robospanker_fan said, there's a chance that an innocent person could die (anyone ever see The Life of David Gale?).

But, on the other hand, I don't see why we should continue to put tax dollars towards keeping these people well-fed and alive in jail.

On the other hand, I feel that some crimes are so horrific that they deserve the death penalty.

On the other hand, is it our right to decide who lives and who dies?

...you can see the dilemma I'm in when it comes to the issue of assigning the death penalty... :(
 
I don't want to pay to keep the bastards alive. It's the tax payer's money that goes to feeding them, water when they flush the toilet, electricity in their cell, clothes, and medical help (if needed). I don't want to pay for their necessities do you?

Actually an execution costs about 1.5 million in tax payer money :eek:, whereas a life sentence is about half a million dollars in tax payer money.
 
I don't want to pay to keep the bastards alive. It's the tax payer's money that goes to feeding them, water when they flush the toilet, electricity in their cell, clothes, and medical help (if needed). I don't want to pay for their necessities do you?


Actually an execution costs about 1.5 million in tax payer money :eek:, whereas a life sentence is about half a million dollars in tax payer money.

Where'd you hear that? :lol:
 
Back
Top