|
Countdown to Williams getting "Tookinated" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Now I'm not really into this case, at all, but you know the aweful history of the US legal system? It wouldn't be the firsttime someone innocent was killed... That's the biggest reason I'm against it, simply because if there is only slight chance that he is not quilty, then you have no right to kill him.[/quote
I admittedly am not as on top of this case as I could be, but there's no doubt that this guy was the founder of the Crips in LA, and therefore, is directly/indirectly responsible for a lot more violence than the media seems to want to acknowledge.
[quote]Then I don't really see the point in revange either, if the guy changed then why still kill him?! |
He took life, so he has forfeited his own right to life. If his victims miraculously came back to life, maybe it would be a different story. And yeah, even though killing him doesn't do anything to really ease the suffering of his victims' families, I'd rather not have to shell out tax money to pay to keep a pioneer of gang violence alive. Great--he wrote some childrens' stories, but how many innocent children were killed in drive-by shootings that he probably helped orchestrate? Simply saying you're sorry doesn't right a wrong. If you break laws, there are consequences.
Check out The Code of Hammurabi (Edit: Not as much here as I had hoped for):
Source
| quote: | | The laws do not accept excuses or explanations for mistakes or fault: the Code was openly displayed for all to see, so no man could plead ignorance of the law as an excuse. Few people, however, could read in that era (literacy mainly being the domain of scribes). |
I don't think it's so much about revenge as it is simply about there being consequences to breaking a law.
If this man has truly paid for his sins and atoned, then let God be the ultimate judge of his final destination. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
Renegade;
It's very easy to understand how Libertariansim fits in with the death penalty for me; As I stated before, let the families decide the sentence...and let them even carry out the punishment of death, if that is to be the sentence.
But as has already been very well stated here, the government derives their "moral authority" via the common voter. We elect officials who create laws that we want via that majority. We have determined that we have the moral authority (in this state at least) to administer death. I don't know why you have a problem with this. In fact, I beleive we have a DUTY to administer these sentences for murder in order to keep us safer and to give proper justice to the victims, who are freakin dead after all!
The death penalty is a deterrent, a BIG deterrent to commiting murder. The only reason it's not MORE effective is because of our protracted and outragiously un-fair legal system, which HEAVILY favors these damn criminals to a fault, giving them the very real possibility that they won't EVER have to truly face the death penalty, even if they are initially sentenced to it. What we need is to end these appeals and speed up the executions! I guarantee that will have an affect.
There will always be some people that it won't affect, this is true, but by NOT "stepping down to their level", we open the door on the innocent people out there whom these scumbags only see as targets all the more by being weak on punishment.
You can't fix these people, so what's the point in arguing about the "moral authority" to kill them, when they were never part of that "moral majority" to begin with? (no Jerry Falwell references intended) |
|
|
| Shakka |
On another note/issue altogether, I was listening to Air America yesterday and my favorite slapper was condemning the death penalty while praising abortion. I'm sorry, I just don't understand how this point-of-view can work when you are willing to do any and everything to keep a guilty murderer alive, yet in the same breath, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that an innocent baby cannot ever have a chance to live.
Not to detract from the current dialogue. Continue. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
may i be the first to welcome donnie back, i for one have missed your far-right ramblings buddy. hey, did you ever notice the post-katrina looting & heinous crime-commiting welfare recipients were a figment of the media's imagination? way to go mr \"im not educated by CNN\" ;)
anyways, onto the subject at hand.
all moral issues aside, its ludicrous to have the \"ultimate\" perfect punishment when the justice system is anything but. how you can argue that its worth it to execute innocent people because in that execution 'net' you also get the guilty is beyond me.
whomever made the comment above re paying taxes to keep someone in prison obviously missed the recent discussion on how its far far more expensive to keep someone on death row.
donnie, as per usual, please show me some evidence that the death sentence is a deterrant in the US. cheers.
you can talk about the 'scum' murderers & rapists all you like, in an emotional argument that can be quite compelling. however, how you can then ignore the innocent people the state murders on the flipside of that argument is beyond me.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The government has a monopoly on the use of force. Perhaps the state derives the authority from we, the people, who have entrusted the state with that duty. |
someone mentioned this the other day in the Oz forums and i still dont get the connection. the monopoly of violence is related to the police & the armed forces, and is a necessary part of the modern state to maintain stability & is used only in extreme situations. the monopoly of violence concept does not stretch to include execution of 'non-combatants' that are already at the mercy of the state. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| poor poor tookie...so innocent. never started the crips or participated in any sort of violence :rolleyes: |
|
|
| wizniz |
meh he cant hurt anyone in prison...
he shouldve been allowed to live there :o |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
poor poor tookie...so innocent. never started the crips or participated in any sort of violence :rolleyes: |
another value-less post by you, congratulations. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
whomever made the comment above re paying taxes to keep someone in prison obviously missed the recent discussion on how its far far more expensive to keep someone on death row. |
I was one of those people, and it was a pretty unconvincing discussion. Guess what. Tomorrow, it will cost nothing more to support Tookie Tookaroo His Tookness because he's no longer a burden on society. If he had received the good fortune of sitting in jail for just one more day, it would've cost more money to feed him lunch and let him take a big Tookie in his prison cell. +1 for me.:p
And now all of the media focus is on Tookie Tookie Timbo and what a tragic hero he suddenly is. Christ, this guy was no hero. If he truly changed on the inside, then good for him, at least he was at peace with himself before he died.
| quote: | | someone mentioned this the other day in the Oz forums and i still dont get the connection. the monopoly of violence is related to the police & the armed forces, and is a necessary part of the modern state to maintain stability & is used only in extreme situations. the monopoly of violence concept does not stretch to include execution of 'non-combatants' that are already at the mercy of the state. |
The government can take whatever they please from you (including your taxes), at the point of a gun (metaphorically speaking to some extent). It doesn't just have to mean violence. And it means that government can do this without answering to anyone else. The Mafia is still under the jurisdiction of the government, when they get caught. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
may i be the first to welcome donnie back, i for one have missed your far-right ramblings buddy. hey, did you ever notice the post-katrina looting & heinous crime-commiting welfare recipients were a figment of the media's imagination? way to go mr \"im not educated by CNN\" ;)
anyways, onto the subject at hand.
all moral issues aside, its ludicrous to have the \"ultimate\" perfect punishment when the justice system is anything but. how you can argue that its worth it to execute innocent people because in that execution 'net' you also get the guilty is beyond me.
whomever made the comment above re paying taxes to keep someone in prison obviously missed the recent discussion on how its far far more expensive to keep someone on death row.
donnie, as per usual, please show me some evidence that the death sentence is a deterrant in the US. cheers.
|
Pakistani Raisin!!
Hey dude, I missed you too! I was beginning to think the world was starting to make sense! Then I came back here and saw your posts, and well....:tongue2
(And as a quick aside; The CNN welfare looters weren't real? Hmmm....great special effects we all saw on TV then...and all those personal accounts I read...LIARS! all of them!:crazy: )
So back to the topic at hand;
As for our Justice system being far from perfect, I'd agree, but not because it runs amuck, easily and carelessly convicting the innocent (That phenomenon is SO rare, it's barely a blip on the screen). It is in fact quite the opposite. The system is inherently designed to favor the accused and bends over backwards to give them every benfit of the doubt. Endless appeals, burden of proof put on the Prosecuters (most of whom will not take a case unless it's a slam-dunk win, as many of them are elected and they want a 100% perfect track record so they can get re-elected), and sympathetic juries make it in to this long, drawn out and torturous process that ends up costing the system more than it should be allowed to. And many more people who SHOULD be in jail are getting off because the "evidence" isn't overwhelming, even though it is often quite well known who the guilty party is.
It has become a lot more perverse, this system of ours in the last 100 years. But not executing scumbags because it costs too much isn't the answer...lowering the cost! That's the answer. "Tookie" was one guilty piece of , and there are few who would believe otherwise.
As for the death penalty being a deterrent, it's like I said; It would be far more effective if it were carried out quicker once it's imposed. A red light at the intersection is enough to keep me from running it and risking a traffic ticket...and the death penalty is enough to keep me from wanting to throw Liberals to the Lions.:tongue3 So I'd say the laws are working on all levels. In all seriousness, I don't think you need a study for the obvious. Besides, it's also about justice for the victims, so it's not so simple.;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
If he had received the good fortune of sitting in jail for just one more day, it would've cost more money to feed him lunch and let him take a big Tookie in his prison cell. +1 for me.:p |
LMAO:haha: |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
another value-less post by you, congratulations. |
followed by enough value-full posts, you're welcome ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Pakistani Raisin!! |
awwww, you remember me :)
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
So back to the topic at hand;
As for our Justice system being far from perfect, I'd agree, but not because it runs amuck, easily and carelessly convicting the innocent (That phenomenon is SO rare, it's barely a blip on the screen). |
yes, id certainly agree. but its funny how youre willing to demonise all the bad people (and perhaps rightly so) yet the innocents you discard carelessly as 'blips'. you cant have an imperfect system enforcing punishments that cannot be retracted.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
As for the death penalty being a deterrent, it's like I said; It would be far more effective if it were carried out quicker once it's imposed. A red light at the intersection is enough to keep me from running it and risking a traffic ticket...and the death penalty is enough to keep me from wanting to throw Liberals to the Lions.:tongue3 So I'd say the laws are working on all levels. In all seriousness, I don't think you need a study for the obvious. Besides, it's also about justice for the victims, so it's not so simple.;) |
nowhere in that paragraph is any proof buddy ;) im gonna go looking for some stats on US crime rates. in any case, there are plenty of murders in your lovely country each year, and ill go out on a limb here and suggest youre unlikely to find significantly lower murder rates in states that have capital punishment.
do people not kill other people because theyre afraid of getting caught, or coz its not the right thing to do? do you really believe there are a bunch of wannabe-murderers out there who are callous and evil enough to kill someone yet dont carry out the crime becoz of the possible punishment? i dont find that argument even remotely convincing.
and i doubt your assertion that the time-frame for carrying out state-sponsored murder would act as more of a deterrant. indeed its almost certainly going to increase the number of 'blips' you dont seem to care about. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
^^^Well, here's a good stat for you about INSTANT retribution;
Florida was one of the first states in this country to allow law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm on their person. One year later, violent crime in that state had dropped by about 6%.
Today, 2/3 of the states in this country have adopted "right to carry" laws, and have had almost indentical instant drops in violent crime...why? Because DEATH WAS A DETERRENT! :D |
|
|
|
|
