Would you grant clemency?

[Caiylania]

A founder of the Crips gang to die tomorrow.

People want death sentence changed to life sentence.

He was found guilty of four murders. Says he is innocent.

He wrote books telling kids not to join gangs.

The story (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/11/williams.execution.ap/index.html)

What would you do?

[TheEschaton]

If he's serious about it, as indicated by the book writing, commute to the life sentence, have him speak to inner city kids at risk of joining gangs.


-TheE-

[Apotheosis]

This is a tough call. I mean, on one hand, if he really did "change his ways" and has gone to extraordinary lengths to help prevent future gang violence, then perhaps he should be granted life sentence to continue the work.

The problem here is that the message sent to people would be that you could commit a horrendous crime like this and repent for it in such a way as to have your sentence mitigated (ie, be commuted).

He was found guilty, and even though the quality of the witnesses are questionable, nothing else seems to scream "not guilty".

[Wezas]

I voted the same way TheE did, but I've got to think about it more.

If it was my kid that he killed, I don't know if I would feel better about him being killed or just having life in prison helping other kids.

[Asha]

Give him a backpack full of explosives and a minigun with body wrapped ammo, then send him screaming into France.

He's earned that much.

[Miss X]

I would, without doubt, grant him Clemency. I read that they think he is the only man who can help prevent the gang rivalry between the bloods (I think thats the name...) and Crips. Not that I know much about all this gang stuff.. It's been all over the news here though.

I'm against the death sentence anyway... But really, in this case he is worth more alive where he may continue to do good.

[TheEschaton]

The problem here is that the message sent to people would be that you could commit a horrendous crime like this and repent for it in such a way as to have your sentence mitigated (ie, be commuted).


Errr, isn't that the whole point of REHABILITATION?


Unless, of course, you believe the prison system should be solely for punishment.


-TheE-

[xtc]

I heard he has never apologised to the families for his murders. I also hear that he never turned over to the authorities friends who he knew had commited murders.....let the man fry.

[Brattt8525]

>>I'm against the death sentence anyway... But really, in this case he is worth more alive where he may continue to do good.<<


Excellent point.

[Warriorbird]

He should still die. It isn't like this is an issue of DNA evidence or anything. He pretty clearly did it.

[DeV]

Hell no, he should not be granted clemency, in my opinion. That man is probably indirectly responsible for more murders than he will ever be convicted of committing.

[Daniel]

because you know, violence would never have happened in the inner city without the few people who instigated it.

The thing is about gangs is that you need respect to actually get through to the people who you need to get through to. This guy has the credentials and the background to make a sizable difference in the way things are. I think if he's serious about making that difference then I think we have the responsibility to ensure that he does.

Truthfully, what good comes from him being killed besides the burden of paying for his minimal subsistence in the US penal system? I'd say the cost benefit is in his favor if he can truly step in and maybe stop a few kids from falling into the trap that's inner city life.

That's just me though.

[Trinitis]

Originally posted by Daniel
because you know, violence would never have happened in the inner city without the few people who instigated it.

The thing is about gangs is that you need respect to actually get through to the people who you need to get through to. This guy has the credentials and the background to make a sizable difference in the way things are. I think if he's serious about making that difference then I think we have the responsibility to ensure that he does.

Truthfully, what good comes from him being killed besides the burden of paying for his minimal subsistence in the US penal system? I'd say the cost benefit is in his favor if he can truly step in and maybe stop a few kids from falling into the trap that's inner city life.

That's just me though.

But he also loses all that respect for speaking out aginst that which he use to "lead", thus he no longer holds as much usefullness alive, either.

[Skirmisher]

The families of the victims should get to decide.

Let him make his case to them.

[xtc]

He hasn't taken responsibility for his crimes. He still contends that he is innocent. If he won't take responsibility than no clemency.

[fallenSaint]

I vote for death plz.

[Necromancer]

A society that kills its own people is a perverse one. We're the only advanced industrialized democracy that engages in this practice, and it speaks volumes about how civilized we really are (Or are not, as the case may be)

So yeah, don't kill him.

[Daniel]

But he also loses all that respect for speaking out aginst that which he use to "lead", thus he no longer holds as much usefullness alive, either.

^

not at all.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by xtc
He hasn't taken responsibility for his crimes. He still contends that he is innocent. If he won't take responsibility than no clemency.

I agree for the most part. I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I do believe that he should get at least life for what he did. Not because he feels he's innocent, nor because of what he feels he's achieving now, but because he royally did wrong and should pay for it.

[crazymage]

Kill him, hes killed a kid, and since he started the crips 1000s of people have died. those are also on his shoulders.

[Leetahkin]

FoxNews Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178403,00.html)

Here's the FoxNews.com article which tells mostly what the other link does, except it says the family of the victims want the death penalty to stay.

With just the little information I have by reading these two articles, I'm more apt to say let him live and help other kids out with books etc. I'm curious to know where the money went to for him writing these books. It should be going for a good cause with him benefiting nothing from it. Should he live and continue writing, he should receive no royalties from the books.

[Kainen]

Writing kids books does NOT erase the things he has already done. The man was tried and convicted.. he should have to see his sentence through.

[StrayRogue]

I personally think the man will do more good if he is kept alive, whereas killing him will achieve very little.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Necromancer
We're the only advanced industrialized democracy that engages in this practiceYeah I forget that no other country in the world had a military for a second there, good call.

Clemency as in no death penalty: you bet.
Clemency as in get out of jail: no sir.

[Jorddyn]

I know incredibly little about this case, quite honestly. I just don't believe that the death penalty as it currently stands is effective at preventing crime. Additionally, it is too permanent for my taste, as I feel that punishment isn't the only goal of our judicial system.

Are there people who should die for what they've done? Yes. Would I be willing to pull the trigger/flip the switch? No, not unless it was absolutely necessary to stop the harm of a loved one (such as shooting an intruder).

Jorddyn

[Leetahkin]

I know very little about it too, which is why I'm kinda on the edge of either killing him for justice to be served or for him to pay his debt and crimes to society by keeping him alive and further helping children.

[Asha]

If clemency from death penalty is agreed, and he's to spend the rest of his life in prison, he better keep writing and demonstrating since you'll be paying for all his needs for the rest of his life.

If I'm wrong. It's becouse I haven't taken any notice in this case. Plus the death penalty frustrates me when gang members are involved.
Dead gang leader usually equals a martyr to his followers. Yet one going on to do good and try to right his wrongs can try to use his influence in a good way.
Killing this man will do no good.

[Asha]

Plus my first post in this thread, I think . . makes more sense.

[Eviltwinpsu]

kill him....what good are writing books going to do...chances are the people joing gangs arent going to be making trips to the library to check out books...

also if he knows he's innocent then he knows who did the killings and that means hes covering up someone elses crime and thats just as bad in my opinion.

3rd the familys want justice so let them.

[Nieninque]

I cant believe that people still believe that the death penalty is a good thing.

R
e
t
a
r
d
e
d

[Latrinsorm]

As I've seen this crop up a couple times now:

Killing a person is not justice. Killing a person is at best vengeance.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by TheEschaton


Errr, isn't that the whole point of REHABILITATION?


Unless, of course, you believe the prison system should be solely for punishment.


-TheE-

The point of the death sentence is obviously to punish, rather than rehab.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but I really don't understand what makes this case so special. He, like anyone else on death row, was tried and convicted. Writing a few children's books to try and keep them from joining the gang he started doesn't change anything.

[Necromancer]

>Yeah I forget that no other country in the world had a military for a second there, good call.

Please reread my statement, you have clearly missed a key point. Either that or you're just a fool. I'm leaning towards the former, but we'll see.

I find it reprehensible that people are arguing about the utility of someone's life. Life always has utility, it's not about how useful you are or are not to someone. If he sits around for the rest of his days in prison just staring up at the wall, he still has inherent worth. A society founded on any other principle is an immoral one.

And the argument that the family of the victims deserve this kind of retaliation is sickening. What about the family of the murderer? Are they then allowed to take a life from the other family? Why do they have no rights? They just lost someone, and they're as innocent as the families of the initial victims.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about the work he's done since his incarceration or the work he will likely do, not because it's not all admirable, but because it's beside the point. You don't kill people to make people feel better. That's not okay in any context. And it won't undo the harm already caused, it just compounds it.

And, for the record, there is no evidence that the death penalty provides more of a deterrence from homicide than life in prison. In 1967 Sellin's famous study found no evidence, in a study of US homocides from 1967-1996 found homocide rates stayed constant despite changes in death penalty policy (a study done by Essential Information), and in 1998 the United Nations did a comprehensive global study of the issue and, again, found no evidence that the death penalty was more effective than life in prison in deterring homocide.

All the death penalty does is prove how barbaric a society can be.

[CrystalTears]

I don't see the death sentense as a punishment. Seems more like an easy way out of having to live in misery forever in jail.

[Xandalf]

Lowering his sentence to life ignores the crime itself.

If we are congizant of what this man did and still do not punish him as a jury of his peers ordered, then we set a dangerous presecdent where anyone convicted of a crime can just do some good deeds in prison and get their sentence reduced.

I don't feel bad for him, but rather for the people whom he could have helped. However, the sentence must be carried out.

[Necromancer]

Not that easy, it takes decades to actually happen. And then you watch your family go through hell. Then everyone televises the entire ordeal (sans the actual execution) in a modern day version of the execution day picnic.

[Lady Shadow]

The law is the law. He was found guilty, sentenced, and had AMPLE time to prove himself innocent if he really was. Whatever good he may have done does not erase what put him on death row. Maybe it'll improve his standing with God come Judgment Day, but it really doesn't affect his sentence being carried out IMO.

[Necromancer]

The law is not above corruption, and using an argument as simple as "Well you had time to prove your innocence" to justify someone's death is frightening. Not only do you sidestep completely the issue of whether or not the death penalty is just, but you've allowed one of God's creations to be extinguished over something as trivial as a timeline. We're not talking a 30 day late on your credit report, we're talking about someone's life (and the lives of all who love him)

Where do you get off invoking God in this anyway? Mortal Sin: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. God dishes out the punishment according to the New Testament, it is not for man to do so. He holds that none shall kill, and yet you stand there and justify someone being killed (which, incidently, makes you a murderer as, according to the New Testament, to sin in thought is to sin in deed). Utterly amazing. Christians will funnel hundreds of millions of dollars a year into anti-gay causes (a venial sin at best) and then stand by and cheer people along while they commit a mortal sin. It makes me ill to think about it.

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by Necromancer]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Necromancer
The law is not above corruption, and using an argument as simple as "Well you had time to prove your innocence" to justify someone's death is frightening. Not only do you sidestep completely the issue of whether or not the death penalty is just, but you've allowed one of God's creations to be extinguished over something as trivial as a timeline. We're not talking a 30 day late on your credit report, we're talking about someone's life (and the lives of all who love him)

Where do you get off invoking God in this anyway? Mortal Sin: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. God dishes out the punishment according to the New Testament, it is not for man to do so. He holds that none shall kill, and yet you stand there and justify someone being killed (which, incidently, makes you a murderer). Utterly amazing. Christians will funnel hundreds of millions of dollars a year into anti-gay causes (a venial sin at best) and then stand by and cheer people along while they commit a mortal sin. It makes me ill to think about it.

It isn't as if it is an innocent life, we are talking about a guy who murdered four people and started a gang that has lead to the deaths of many people.

In the Old Testament stoning people to death was a regular event and an acceptable punishment. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers outline mosaic law which I believe allows death as a punishment for numerous crimes.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I really don't understand what makes this case so special.Speaking for myself, the only things that makes this case special is Caiylania posted a topic about it specifically asking. The death penalty in a civil setting is always wrong.
Originally posted by Necromancer
Please reread my statement, you have clearly missed a key point.Any military action of any reasonable size takes for granted that lives will be lost. Any country that engages in any such military action is therefore forfeiting the lives of its citizens.
Originally posted by Xandalf
anyone convicted of a crime can just do some good deeds in prison and get their sentence reduced.Isn't this the definition of time off for good behavior?
Originally posted by Lady Shadow
The law is the law.And being the law, the law is dynamic, malleable, and imperfect. I take it you want us to go back to black people counting as 3/5 of a person, right? The law is the law, after all.
Originally posted by xtc
The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers outline mosaic law which I believe allows death as a punishment for numerous crimes.The NT is pretty clear about this issue, which is what he was talking about.

[Necromancer]

The New Testament supercedes anything written in the Old Testament, incidently. Also, the Book of Numbers has an entire passage stating that God told man to kill a group of people, rape the younger women, and to keep the younger men as slaves (Numbers 31). You'll find that people don't quote Numbers very often for moral codes.

Leviticus was priestly codes, it doesn't apply to anyone else. People do love to quote Leviticus, but that's because they don't understand its context.

Exodus is similar to Numbers in that it is not often drawn upon for moral guidance, as most of it is rendered null and void by New Testament scripture.

If you're a Christian, it's New Testament you are to follow first, and God is VERY clear in the New Testament about killing.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Necromancer
The New Testament supercedes anything written in the Old Testament, incidently.


That's a very convenient defense.

[Necromancer]

>Any military action of any reasonable size takes for granted that lives will be lost. Any country that engages in any such military action is therefore forfeiting the lives of its citizens.

Voluntary military service and death as punishment are two different things. The issue of agency is key. In one, someone is willingly sacrificing their life (which is their right) and in another it is being taken against their will (which is the definition of immorality)

And even in a draft, agency in citizenship, while complex and nowhere near perfect (though what kind of perfect agency does exist?) is still different than a mandatory death penalty.

Though, for the record, I find any kind of mandatory service requirement to be immoral, just on different grounds.

[Necromancer]

>That's a very convenient defense.

It's also 100% true. I didn't make the rules, I'm just quoting them. I'm not even Christian. So if it's has convenience in it, it's certainly not mine.

[TheEschaton]

In the Old Testament stoning people to death was a regular event and an acceptable punishment. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers outline mosaic law which I believe allows death as a punishment for numerous crimes.

And Jesus stopped the stoning of the prostitute, claiming that only he who was without sin was worthy enough to judge her. And even then, he wasn't gonna condemn her.

But then, I'm sure you knew that. ;-)

Jesus was the original bleeding heart liberal, y'know. Where'd y'think the phrase came from?

-TheE-

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

In the Old Testament stoning people to death was a regular event and an acceptable punishment. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers outline mosaic law which I believe allows death as a punishment for numerous crimes.

And Jesus stopped the stoning of the prostitute, claiming that only he who was without sin was worthy enough to judge her. And even then, he wasn't gonna condemn her.

But then, I'm sure you knew that. ;-)

Jesus was the original bleeding heart liberal, y'know. Where'd y'think the phrase came from?

-TheE-

In John 8, the pharisees are trying to trap Jesus between Roman law and Judaic law. If Christ says stone her, he is breaking Roman law, if he says don't stone her, he is breaking Judaic law. So he avoids the conflict by saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He doesn't say no don't stone her.

[xtc]

Romans 13: 1-7 teaches that human government is ordained by God and that Christians should obey it and that it does not bear the sword in vain.

"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"

More evidence Capital punishment is endorsed in the New Testament.

[xtc]

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

[Necromancer]

Romans 13: 1-7 teaches that human government is ordained by God and that Christians should obey it and that it does not bear the sword in vain.


You won't find many people who rely on this passage in a secular society. That was written at a time by a group that wasn't living under a secular government. In a secular government, your laws directly contradict scripture, and they cannot be held as ordained by god without nullifying the very scripture it's supposed to be upholding. So yeah, pointless quote to use.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

That doesn't mean that killing indiscriminately, or even by a set of priorities that aren't expressly deliniated by scripture, is acceptable. And since, again, the New Testament is very clear about who is allowed to judge and carry out sentencing and who is not, this quote means little in this debate.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Necromancer
Romans 13: 1-7 teaches that human government is ordained by God and that Christians should obey it and that it does not bear the sword in vain.


You won't find many people who rely on this passage in a secular society. That was written at a time by a group that wasn't living under a secular government. In a secular government, your laws directly contradict scripture, and they cannot be held as ordained by god without nullifying the very scripture it's supposed to be upholding. So yeah, pointless quote to use.

You were saying that the NT doesn't condone killing as punishment, not what secular society thought. Here is a book in the New Testament condoning it. The chapter is Romans, they were living under Roman law, a secular law. This is very relevant and the direct opposite of pointless, it directly contradicts your view so you are trying to invalidate it.


"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

That doesn't mean that killing indiscriminately, or even by a set of priorities that aren't expressly deliniated by scripture, is acceptable. And since, again, the New Testament is very clear about who is allowed to judge and carry out sentencing and who is not, this quote means little in this debate.

This man isn't being killed indiscriminately. He has been judged by a court of law, he has been through an extensive appeals process. His has become a national case. The law on which he is being judged came from English common law which was derived from Judeo/Christian law.

Again you are trying to invalidate the quote because it contradicts your claim the NT doesn't support the death penalty, this quote clearly shows it does.

[4a6c1]

I think he's a valuable asset alive. His crimes, his personal views and personal history aside, any books he would write on underground criminal organization should be studied by the appropriate local and federal institutions.

[xtc]

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, we don't need no water let the mother fucker burn, burn mother fucker, burn

[Asha]

Roofs.
Yeah let's switch this thread to one of roofs.
:heart: roofs.

[ElanthianSiren]

Other:

He should be given time to appeal a case appropriately if there is new mitigating evidence. He is guilty of founding the Crips, but that's not what he's on trial for.

Being that he's already been found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers, however, the defense needs to come up with something other than circumstantial conspiracy theories about other witnesses. I'd love to see some real evidence in these kinds of cases: dna, hair, skin and so forth that proves the man that they have is the wrong one; I recognize that that technology, in a refined state, has not been in practice very long, but I know that it has been used in recent cases like NBTK (in that case used to implicate him, though I could see a defense using it to suggest that their client was not present).

-M

[AnticorRifling]

When you focus on the detail you lose sight of the big picture. A scripture quoting debate will get you nowhere.

Personally I feel he should die, slowly, publicly. Let him stand as an example or a legend/matyr depending on your stance.

Unfortunatly, or fortunatly depending on your take of things, personal feelings must be removed from judgements such as these and as such it would be my opinion that he should live. Why? Great question let me expound...

While the crimes he's been committed of are horrible he does have the ability, if used properly, to stop more killings. But he must be used, not allowed to think on his own, act on his own, etc, used. You also have to understand that he will be made a legend in street lore if he is put to death which has potential to create more crimes. I can already see a giant "In memory of" crime/violence spree. This one's for you!

Life behind bars, while still life, is not one I can imagine many people enjoy. And a life without enjoyment is akin to death. Make his time behind bars hard, make it cold, unfeeling and above all distant from the eyes and minds of the public. Until you're ready to use him that is.

Again, seperate personal feelings and logical feelings. You have too. Well, you don't have to but it's really for the best in most any situation. A personal or emotionally driven decision, while brave, dramatic, awe inspiring, etc. It is oft the decision of the uninformed and very often is not the best course of action.

Take it for what you will, or don't.

S/F
Wayne

[AnticorRifling]

Ohh, something I didn't touch upon in my rant. I don't feel that his "good deeds" should overshadow or in some way erase his past actions. I'm sorry but our lives are not written on dry erase boards where we can cleanse the bad and then write the good. Life is a book, a complete record. He has those bad chapters and they need to be in that glossary.

Should I decide to go kill 4 people I would hope someone wouldn't say "There goes Wayne, taught Sunday school, sang in the choir, was a good guy....and he snuffed those 4 dudes."

[Skeeter]

Latin Kings say ese gots to die mang

[xtc]

CLEMENCY HAS BEEN DENIED, TOOKIE WILL FRY

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.execution/index.html

[AnticorRifling]

And by fry you mean go to sleep via injection....

[ElanthianSiren]

That's a shame. I would have liked to have seen the new evidence alluded to in the first article.

-M

[Ilvane]

I don't understand how killing someone for killing is something useful.

Sadly, it seems to be the way things are. Putting Tookie Williams to death isn't going to bring back who he killed, but he may had been able to stop many from doing the same thing he did sometime in the future.

It's a disappointment. I personally think his option for clemency, which was life without the possibility for parole would have been very effective in punishing him, yet would keep him alive to do the good things he had done later in his life.

-A

[AnticorRifling]

I don't understand how killing someone for killing is something useful.

....

Because allowing someone to kill and then just letting them live sends a message that it's ok to kill. Some people don't grasp the whole "killing is bad, and wrong, or badong" concept. So every now and then an example has to be made.

[TheEschaton]

Because allowing someone to kill and then just letting them live sends a message that it's ok to kill.

That's a total machismo bullshit theory.

I hear it a lot with the whole HIV/AIDS thing. "Teaching condom use will say it's okay to have sex", which is (one of) the Church's (many) objections to condoms. Your logic is flawed in that you think "not killing the killer" = "not doing anything at all"


-TheE-

[xtc]

Tookie refused to be debriefed by the authorities to provide them with potentially valuable information about the Crips.

He never owned up to his crimes.

He was sentenced in 1981, so he has had many appeals. He wasn't denied due process.

The man shot a store clerk in the back twice with a 12 gauge shotgun while the victims was lying on his stomach.

He was convicted of killing a total of four people and there maybe others the authorities couldn't tie to him.

He was the founder of the crips, a deadly gang.

The family of the victims have had to live through years of mental anguish. At last they can have some peace of mind.

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by xtc]

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Because allowing someone to kill and then just letting them live sends a message that it's ok to kill.

That's a total machismo bullshit theory.

I hear it a lot with the whole HIV/AIDS thing. "Teaching condom use will say it's okay to have sex", which is (one of) the Church's (many) objections to condoms. Your logic is flawed in that you think "not killing the killer" = "not doing anything at all"


-TheE-

While I will agree that most of my logic does tend to be Machismo driven. I don't think that this is total bullshit.

I can see where it would have flaws but I still feel that there are alot of people that require an extreme example if there is any hope to drive a point home. Especially when you're dealing with ilk that can and do create violent crimes with little to no feeling of remorse.

I don't see the example of the condom/sex fitting in as I agrree with you on this.

[Necromancer]

>Because allowing someone to kill and then just letting them live sends a message that it's ok to kill. Some people don't grasp the whole "killing is bad, and wrong, or badong" concept. So every now and then an example has to be made.

Refer to my previous post citing three studies spanning over 50 years that have not found a shred of evidence that capital punishment deters homocide more than life in prison. So that example is accomplishing nothing but more death.

>You were saying that the NT doesn't condone killing as punishment, not what secular society thought. Here is a book in the New Testament condoning it. The chapter is Romans, they were living under Roman law, a secular law.

Romans wasn't written by actual Romans, it was writte by Paul before he did his missionary work in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and Spain and to address the growing churches (Of Jews and Gentiles) in the Roman Empire. Paul had never visited Rome prior to this book being written, and it was written from Corinth. And if you actually read Romans 13:1-9, you'll see that Paul is saying that there is no law but God's law, and God's law is to love one another and then the ten laws (ten commandments, one of which is Thou Shalt Not Kill) are listed in 13:9. The essence of the passages is that no mortal law can supercede God's law, and that anyone who doesn't uphold God's law is going to be judged as such.

There IS a passage somewhere that makes it clear that the law of government is God's law, and that it is to be respected (that's the passage I thougth you were quoting), but it is a reference to the Israel, and it presumes the legal system at the time, which was based on the testaments already. It wasn't arguing that all government law is divine, it was stating that this PARTICULAR set of laws was based on scripture and, consequently, was to be followed as God's law (since presumably that's all it was). Even if this is the passage you really meant to quote, it doesn't hold up for US law.

Oh, and here's a snipet from Romans chapter 12:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


I.E. it is not for you mortal jerkoffs to go around killing people out of some messed up sense of morality that is really immorality and social immaturity not so cleverly masked

Your take on these passages is completely off-base

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by Necromancer]

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by Necromancer

Refer to my previous post citing three studies spanning over 50 years that have not found a shred of evidence that capital punishment deters homocide more than life in prison. So that example is accomplishing nothing but more death.

I'm glad 50 years worth of research proves without a shadow of a doupt all human behavior in regards to this subject. Hell PB is 50 years old and he hasn't proven anything. In all seriousness A, an, 1, one 50 year study doesn't convince me of shit. As with all unbiased studies they are looking for what they want to find. I'll believe what I want to, you believe what you want. It's ok and I'll allow it.





Your take on these passages is completely off-base

While this isn't directed at me I do feel an answer comming on.....

Where is the line for high horses because I want to get one too?!! Seriously telling someone their opinion is wrong... good luck with that.

[Latrinsorm]

As for the Matthew quote, Jesus isn't talking about waving around a scimitar, he's talking about revolution. Hence the setting father against son etc. bit.

Curiously enough, Matthew 10:28 reads "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul".

[Necromancer]

In all seriousness A, an, 1, one 50 year study doesn't convince me of shit. As with all unbiased studies they are looking for what they want to find. I'll believe what I want to, you believe what you want. It's ok and I'll allow it.

Three studies. The most recent of which was done by the United Nations. It was done in 1998. Not a single country studied demonstrated that the homocide rate went down after instilling capital punishment nor that it went up after doing away with the practice.

[Latrinsorm]

Anticor, that's like saying I can conclude that "S/F" stands for "Super Friendly" because hey, it's my opinion!! Facts are facts.

[AnticorRifling]

And I won't tell you you're wrong. S/F stands for several things.

SWEET!!! Time to go home! I hope to have good stuff to read when I get there, not this UN said it's so so it's fact stuff :cool:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Necromancer

>You were saying that the NT doesn't condone killing as punishment, not what secular society thought. Here is a book in the New Testament condoning it. The chapter is Romans, they were living under Roman law, a secular law.

Romans wasn't written by actual Romans, it was writte by Paul before he did his missionary work in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and Spain and to address the growing churches (Of Jews and Gentiles) in the Roman Empire. Paul had never visited Rome prior to this book being written, and it was written from Corinth. And if you actually read Romans 13:1-9, you'll see that Paul is saying that there is no law but God's law, and God's law is to love one another and then the ten laws (ten commandments, one of which is Thou Shalt Not Kill) are listed in 13:9.

Your take on these passages is completely off-base [/quote]

Yes I know Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. The point was that the Romans were living under Roman law. Paul addressed this issue he tells the Romans that there is no authority except what God has established and the governing authorities in charge because God has allowed them to be. The passage refers to the commandments which says thou shall not murder, murder being separate from killing.

The Old Testament prescribes killing for numerous offences, how could it do this if killing was against God's commandments? It couldn't. Murder is against God's commandments. Killing is prescribed as a punishment for certain offences under mosaic law as it is under California law.

[Sean of the Thread]

And here I always thought S/F stood for Single Female..

The bible is also hardly fact.

[4a6c1]

BAH.

What a waste of a good psycho.

[hectomaner]

Originally posted by Nevermind
Give him a backpack full of explosives and a minigun with body wrapped ammo, then send him screaming into France.

He's earned that much.


:lol2: :lol2:

[Sylvan Dreams]

Fry his ass. He should die in a like fashion of his victims.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Lady Shadow
The law is the law. He was found guilty, sentenced, and had AMPLE time to prove himself innocent if he really was.

Your law is fucking stupid.
Your law teaches people that if you do things that the people in power dont like, then those people with the power can kill you for what you have done.

Um...isnt that what this man did?

[CrystalTears]

He didn't have any power at all. So there. :P

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
The Old Testament prescribes killing for numerous offences, how could it do this if killing was against God's commandments?The OT also says divorce is ok, even though God made man to leave his parents and cling to his wife. The answer isn't that God didn't REALLY make man to cling to his wife, the answer is that starting with Moses God started caving in to the hard-hearted Israelites. Again, this is all made quite clear in the NT.

[Caiylania]

I think he would do more good alive than dead, but I won't cry that he is going either.

Can only hope Crips don't turn this into something that innocent people will pay for.

[Warriorbird]

Give him a backpack full of explosives and a minigun with body wrapped ammo, then send him screaming into France.

He's earned that much.

France would've been taken in days.

[Asha]

:D
His life could've amounted to something.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Nevermind]

[Ebondale]

The man founded one of the most violent gangs ever created. On the other hand he is living proof that criminals can be reformed by the system and he has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his series of children's books that talk about the dangers of inner-city gangs.

Our government has a habit of killing people that speak for peace. John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.

They don't need to kill another.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Give him a backpack full of explosives and a minigun with body wrapped ammo, then send him screaming into France.

He's earned that much.

France would've been taken in days.

France would have seen an American with a gun coming and raised the white flag before he made landfall.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Our government has a habit of killing people that speak for peace. John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.

They don't need to kill another.

Heh, you're not seriously putting this guy on equal terms with Martin Luther and Lennon are you?

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Ebondale
Our government has a habit of killing people that speak for peace. John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.

They don't need to kill another.

Heh, you're not seriously putting this guy on equal terms with Martin Luther and Lennon are you?

I'm just noticing a disturbing trend.

[Warriorbird]

It amuses me how bloodthirsty many of the "culture of life" people are.

Latrin gets some credit for not being a hypocrite, even if I hold a different view.

[Back]

I’m torn on the death penalty issue.

In this particular case, if we just look at life as an object, then absolutely yes he should die even if he only knowingly killed one person and was proven to have done so without reasonable doubt. End of story.

If we look at it from a pure economical standpoint... its cheaper to just off him than keep him in prison for life. Simple.

The moral issue is so complex I just want to stop there. So this guy killed a few innocent people with full knowledge he was doing so. He starts one of the biggest gangs in LA and then a bunch of illegal stuff happens from simple theft to outright murder of innocents. So he gets caught and locked up. He is definitely in for life and has a death penalty with a chance to appeal. All of a sudden he is preaching how bad it is to do what he did.

Is he reformed? Truly reformed? Or, is he just saving his own ass at this point. If he had never been caught, would he have changed? Even if he does preach to the youth today about how bad it is to do what he did, what about all the destruction this one man has caused to innocent society? Does that somehow negate all that?

Where do the morals come from to judge this situation? Morals made by men or morals made by religion? In both cases you are going to have blurred lines between different societies and religions. The two perhaps being intertwined in most cases.

If I think about it purely intellectually, in all fairness, solely based on rules made by men and not from some religious abstract, then I say thumbs down.

If I were to accept the gospel of Jesus from the New Testament, I would not be so quick to agree and give the man a chance to repent.

[Ebondale]

http://www.ncgangcops.org/images/tattoos/bk.jpg

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/crip-18570.jpg

:whistle:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He said he's innocent of the 4 he was convicted of killing. He also admited he killed people.

I voted he should die.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Ebondale
Our government has a habit of killing people that speak for peace. John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.

They don't need to kill another.

Heh, you're not seriously putting this guy on equal terms with Martin Luther and Lennon are you?

I'm just noticing a disturbing trend.
Get real, Tookie was a cold blooded murder who was convicted by a jury in 1981, since that time he has lost every appeal he filed, including The Supreme Court. After his conviction he had 24 years of due process. The man never took responsibility for his murders, he never helped the authorities out by providing information on the crips. He never apologised to the families of his victims. The man is a thug and I for one am glad he is dead.

To compare him to the like of John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr is immoral.

p.s. I would keep that tat to yourself.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
The Old Testament prescribes killing for numerous offences, how could it do this if killing was against God's commandments?The OT also says divorce is ok, even though God made man to leave his parents and cling to his wife. The answer isn't that God didn't REALLY make man to cling to his wife, the answer is that starting with Moses God started caving in to the hard-hearted Israelites. Again, this is all made quite clear in the NT.

Stop the presses God caved. My point was that Thou shall not murder is different from killing which is a prescribed punishment for many offences in the OT.

[Hulkein]

The government killed MLK and John Lennon?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
My point was that Thou shall not murder is different from killing which is a prescribed punishment for many offences in the OT.Except you were saying that as a rebuttal of Jesus telling everyone to not kill. Even assuming the interpretation you describe is correct, Jesus still trumps it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
My point was that Thou shall not murder is different from killing which is a prescribed punishment for many offences in the OT.Except you were saying that as a rebuttal of Jesus telling everyone to not kill. Even assuming the interpretation you describe is correct, Jesus still trumps it.

I think I successfully pointed out that the Jesus never said anything against Capital Punishment. I successfully rebutted John 8 and The Sermon on the Mount. You got anything else?

[Latrinsorm]

...

What you did was make references to the OT and say "So he avoids the conflict by saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He doesn't say no don't stone her." which is a contradiction, besides the other stuff that was disproven.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
...

What you did was make references to the OT and say "So he avoids the conflict by saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He doesn't say no don't stone her." which is a contradiction, besides the other stuff that was disproven.

Your post makes no sense, what I said about John 8 was that the Pharisees tried to trap Christ. If Christ said stone her, he won't be breaking Roman law, if he said don't stone her, he would be breaking Mosaic law. He says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". By doing this he advocates neither. Saying this isn't contradictory at all. We don't know here Christ sits on the issue because he avoided it. We can assume that he would have picked Mosaic law if he wasn't trapped. We know this from Matthew 5
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"

I don't remember anything being disproven.

[Latrinsorm]

Your statements on Matthew and Romans = disproven.

Jesus' statements were not contradictory. All people sin, therefore Jesus is colorfully saying nobody gets to throw stones without giving the Pharisees a way of getting at him. He did this all the time (see the greatest Commandment bit). It's like if someone says "our love will last until the stars turn cold". They don't mean that after 4 billion years they'll turn to each other and go "GTFO luozar".

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Your statements on Matthew and Romans = disproven.

Jesus' statements were not contradictory. All people sin, therefore Jesus is colorfully saying nobody gets to throw stones without giving the Pharisees a way of getting at him. He did this all the time (see the greatest Commandment bit). It's like if someone says "our love will last until the stars turn cold". They don't mean that after 4 billion years they'll turn to each other and go "GTFO luozar".

This is your interpretation of what he means thus you haven't disproven anything.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ebondale
I'm just noticing a disturbing trend. John Lennon was killed by a mentally disturbed man who read The Catcher In The Rye one too many times. The government had nothing to do with his death.

[xtc]

It is time for this thread to die like Tookie.

[Androidpk]

Martin Luther King and John Lenon never shot a guy in the back twice with a shotgun while he was laying down. Nor did they blow off a little 14 year old girls head. I have no remorse over this guy. My only regret is that he died by lethal injection and didn't get the electric chair.

Reformed? My ass. He never once showed any remorse for what he did, or denounce the gang he started, which is accountable for who knows how many murders, rapes, kidnaps, drug deals, ect.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Ebondale

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Ebondale
Our government has a habit of killing people that speak for peace. John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind.

They don't need to kill another.

Heh, you're not seriously putting this guy on equal terms with Martin Luther and Lennon are you?

I'm just noticing a disturbing trend.
Get real, Tookie was a cold blooded murder who was convicted by a jury in 1981, since that time he has lost every appeal he filed, including The Supreme Court. After his conviction he had 24 years of due process. The man never took responsibility for his murders, he never helped the authorities out by providing information on the crips. He never apologised to the families of his victims. The man is a thug and I for one am glad he is dead.

To compare him to the like of John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr is immoral.

p.s. I would keep that tat to yourself.

And I suppose you should have the moral authority to say who should live and who should die based upon whether or not they are a 'thug'? I'm sure that poor minority gang members receive a fair trial in the state of California.

Even from prison Tookie did more in his life than you will amount to.

Get off your soap box, bloodthirsty conservative ape-child.

[Ebondale]

Woops, double post! :D

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Ebondale]

[ElanthianSiren]

XTC and conservative.... I await the keening cry of protest from the actual conservatives on this board. It may surprise you to know that several liberals, independents, and moderates support the death penalty.

-M

edited to add: XTC didn't decide anything with any kind of sway. The jury did that, albeit perhaps on insubstantial evidence. At this point, we don't and won't know.

[Edited on Tue, December th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[Skirmisher]

Ding ding ding.

Liberal here who supports the death penalty. :beer:

[Androidpk]

Even from prison Tookie did more in his life than you will amount to.



The only thing Tookie ever did with his sorry ass life in prison was waste taxpayer's dollars.

[Shari]

Originally posted by Xandalf
If we are congizant of what this man did and still do not punish him as a jury of his peers ordered, then we set a dangerous presecdent where anyone convicted of a crime can just do some good deeds in prison and get their sentence reduced.


:yeahthat:

My dad asked me this same question posted a week ago, and I didn't give a straight answer. I mean the man has done good, but does that mean that anyone who has commited murder can serve out a life in prison if they turn around and start doing good things?

Tricky.

[Kainen]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Even from prison Tookie did more in his life than you will amount to.

Yes because some of us aspire to be bloodthirsty killers that shoot innocent people in the back while lying face down on the ground, refuse to help catch the gang of fucks HE started, NEVER express remorse or even aknowledge the crimes he commited and try to make people think he was rehabilitated by writing childrens books, when it wasnt even his idea but actually the idea of some journalist who saw fame within her grasp. Sorry Ebondale, but that now dead killer is not something anyone should aspire to. All he did was murder people, start a gang then cry reformed when he got caught.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Ding ding ding.

Liberal here who supports the death penalty. :beer: Liberal, moderate... doesn't matter. I support it as well. People who are saying this man has done more than others out of prison being productive members of society need to really take a look and reevaluate that statement.

Gangs are still in existence. Even a small gang can easily terrorize a community and its members. It still happens. The man was a maryr while living and I'm sure that won't change with his death. While he may have made a difference in others lives while living, hopefully his death can serve as notice. Since people say he had the ability to change and touch so many lives, that should not stop with his death.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ebondale

Even from prison Tookie did more in his life than you will amount to.

Get off your soap box, bloodthirsty conservative ape-child.

1 - If you weren't an idiot and didn't jump to conclusions, you'd find xtc is far from a 'conservative ape-child.'

2 - It's debateable about whether or not Tookie did more in his life about xtc. You don't know xtc.

While I do not know xtc more than what he posts here, I can conclude one thing: Xtc has murdered less people than Tookie. I think that's safe to say seeing as he isn't incarcerated, but hey, our justice system isn't perfect.

In closing - Stop crying, Ebondale. Making baseless assumptions and acting like an overall dipshit is not a good reaction to your boy Tookie being put to death. Man, must be a lot of 'conservative ape-men' in California for him to be put to death there. :lol2:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Ebondale
I'm just noticing a disturbing trend. John Lennon was killed by a mentally disturbed man who read The Catcher In The Rye one too many times. The government had nothing to do with his death.

That's what I thought, too. I was wondering wtf Ebondale was talking about.

[Sean of the Thread]

Wow Ebondale get hit by the stupid bus today.

[Ebondale]

Maybe you have a point, Xyelin. Reading back through this I'm saying things that don't even really sound like me at all. I don't even know whats gotten into me lately... in any event I apologize for the "not amounting to anything" comment. That was rude of me, xtc.

Think I'm starting to really lose it over this crap going on at home...