Tookie Williams Case

IMO, good.

If you kill someone then you deserve to die, I think that Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo deserved to die after what they did to those schoolgirls in Ontario a few years back, but as Canada does NOT have the death penalty, they weren't executed. IMO, Canada should have the death penalty as the US does, pretty much...what Im saying is, good riddance, the guy deserved to die.
 
I never stated my opinions, but here it goes. I dont support the death penalty. In fact, I think that the Tookie Williams case could be classified as cruel and unusual punishment, which is totally against the Constitution, and I'm serious. Think about it for a second. He was thrown in a jail cell for 26 years in which he had a lot of time to reflect on his past, then, after 26 long years, he is put to death. It even seems as if the man had changed because he became a strong person in the anti gang movement, he even reminds me of the poor man who is executed on Hallowed be Thy Name. So Tookie, who probably wished he had never commited his crime (even if he would have gotten away with it), after 26 years of being in a cell, is put to death. To me, that sounds like a cruel (but sadly, not) unusual punishment.

I agree with what a lot of you guys said. Prison should serve as a rehabilitation facility, not just as a place to store criminals. Also, I agree with what Perun said about having a "comprehensive examination to check if the guy has really changed".
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
Finally, the purpose of prison is not to rehabilitate criminals - at least, not in the USA.  One of the reasons they have longer prison terms and the death penalty is because a prison is designed to hold people, not to change them.  Some prisons offer progressive education and trades training, but not too many, especially not in pro-execution states.  The entire US correctional system needs a major overhaul to be brought up to Western standards.  The purpose of prison is to keep dangerous people off the street.
[snapback]125075[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Actually prisons in the U.S.A were made with rehabilitation as its primary function and not a "waiting room" to execution. Another way they wanted to diferentiate themselves from Europe. However they have fallen short of this ideal and indeed need a major overhaul.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Liberation+Dec 15 2005, 01:27 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Liberation @ Dec 15 2005, 01:27 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]IMO, good.

good riddance, the guy deserved to die.
[snapback]125104[/snapback]​
[/quote]

While I understand it is your opinion, nobody deserves to die and regardless of a higher power or not who are you to judge such things? if you want to be someone who does get to do that become a judge or be part of a jury....
 
In France, the death penalty no longer exist, president Mitterrand put an end to it in 1981. According to polls, at that time, if we would have been allowed to choose, most French would have decided to keep death penalty, even so it haven't been used for years.
Now, still, it seems that a lot of people are pro-death penalty in France.

I was wondering, regardless of your own opinion on that matter, what is exactly the situation in your own country. Is it something written for ages in the National Constitution, is it the choice of the people, is it the choice of one government (as it was the case in France in 1981)???



Also, has any of you ever seen 12 Angry Men by Sydney Lumet (1957)?
An excellent movie to think about death penalty.
 
Last word about the religion discussion for death penalty. People quoting "Thou shall not kill" must be aware of that the Israelites could even kill trespassers at some circumstances.

As for the death penalty itself, in our country it is sadly not used. A couple of years ago there was an election and one of the biggest men was shot to death because one single guy didn't agree with him. If people know that they could be brought to death by killing they will stop more easily and if not then I guess that person must die. It mustn't be people think someone could have changed. Remember he was/is a killer and a danger to society and still has the potential.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Liberation+Dec 15 2005, 03:27 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Liberation @ Dec 15 2005, 03:27 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]IMO, good.

If you kill someone then you deserve to die, I think that Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo deserved to die after what they did to those schoolgirls in Ontario a few years back, but as Canada does NOT have the death penalty, they weren't executed. IMO, Canada should have the death penalty as the US does, pretty much...what Im saying is, good riddance, the guy deserved to die.
[snapback]125104[/snapback]​
[/quote]


"Deserve to die"? Who the hell are you to judge that? Good riddance? Do you even know what you are talking about? You are talking about the life and death of human beings like yourself.

[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Dec 15 2005, 07:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Dec 15 2005, 07:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Last word about the religion discussion for death penalty. People quoting "Thou shall not kill" must be aware of that the Israelites could even kill trespassers at some circumstances.[/quote]

With that you want to tell us...?


[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]As for the death penalty itself, in our country it is sadly not used. A couple of years ago there was an election and one of the biggest men was shot to death because one single guy didn't agree with him. If people know that they could be brought to death by killing they will stop more easily and if not then I guess that person must die.[/quote]

I assume you are talking about The Netherlands, and I assume that you are talking about Pim Foytun. If not, please specify. It is a very arrogant thing to give an example and leave people in the dark about what exactly you are talking about.
What I have to say to that is the fact that Foytun, from what I understand, was a very radical man and was not very popular with some people. Apparently, someone was personally insulted by what he said, and killed him for that, because in his estimation, it was the right thing to do. Which is going to what I said in an earlier post.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] It mustn't be people think someone could have changed. Remember he was/is a killer and a danger to society and still has the potential.
[snapback]125164[/snapback]​
[/quote]

That is why they are put to prison to rehabilitate, and not to Disneyland.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Dec 15 2005, 05:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Dec 15 2005, 05:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Last word about the religion discussion for death penalty. People quoting "Thou shall not kill" must be aware of that the Israelites could even kill trespassers at some circumstances.
[snapback]125164[/snapback]​
[/quote]
As Perun said, what has that piece of information got to do with arguing for or against the death penalty?
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]"Deserve to die"? Who the hell are you to judge that? Good riddance? Do you even know what you are talking about? You are talking about the life and death of human beings like yourself.
[/quote]
You have hit the nail on the head here Perun. Who are we to judge, nobody is perfect, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I know that people need to be punished for murder, but killing them is not the right answer. Rehabilitation in prison is the best way to give somebody a second chance in life, we shouldn't just kill somebody because they are an inconvenience.

Look at it this way, if it was you who had made a mistake and killed somebody, would you like a group of people who don't even know you condemming you to death over an internet forum?
 
In reply to Owly:

In Canada, capital punishment is forbidden. The last execution took place in 1962, and it was formally abolished in 1976. All executions were done by hanging.

Under the Emergency Measures Act and National Defense Act, members of the military can be executed for certain offenses like treason or dissertion (both in war time only). The convicted person faces a firing squad in these cases.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Le Hibou - The Owl+Dec 15 2005, 08:34 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Le Hibou - The Owl @ Dec 15 2005, 08:34 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Also, has any of you ever seen 12 Angry Men by Sydney Lumet (1957)?
An excellent movie to think about death penalty.
[snapback]125153[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Yeah, I've seen 12 Angry Men. I think it's a great film. The plot really portrays how deceiving evidence can be, and also shows how some people can come to quick conclusions just to attend their personal matters when in fact their decisions will greatly impact the defendant. The film is not much of an example that we should use in debating over the death penalty, because afterall, it is in fact a fictional film, but nonetheless, it's a worth a view.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Dec 15 2005, 09:38 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I assume you are talking about The Netherlands, and I assume that you are talking about Pim Foytun. If not, please specify. It is a very arrogant thing to give an example and leave people in the dark about what exactly you are talking about.
What I have to say to that is the fact that Foytun, from what I understand, was a very radical man and was not very popular with some people. Apparently, someone was personally insulted by what he said, and killed him for that, because in his estimation, it was the right thing to do. Which is going to what I said in an earlier post.
[snapback]125179[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Yes I am talking about this case but I thought that if I would say Pim Fortuyn people around here would ask questions like "who the hell is he?". About the insulting, he wasn't a very nice guy to all of us but he was in for changes most of the people thought to be good. Killing a person has no regret. But so it seems for the death penalty too.

Now about the Israelites. I meant by that that people in a religious environment can together sin for convenience/revenge. So I think, why should we come up with Christian quotes in a half-Christian society while the Isrealites, people who were united by religion, who did only have the Thora as the law. They could just get someone killed because he steals. That's no balance. And we aren't even all Christian so why should we use Christian arguments?
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Dec 16 2005, 09:55 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Dec 16 2005, 09:55 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Yes I am talking about this case but I thought that if I would say Pim Fortuyn people around here would ask questions like "who the hell is he?". About the insulting, he wasn't a very nice guy to all of us but he was in for changes most of the people thought to be good. Killing a person has no regret. But so it seems for the death penalty too.[/quote]

Well, the murderer was locked in, wasn't he? Has he killed anyone since?

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]And we aren't even all Christian so why should we use Christian arguments?
[snapback]125244[/snapback]​
[/quote]

It is right that our society is secular, and that Christian laws, as stated in the Bible, do not have any place in our modern law books. Consequently, they are not present in any. Thus, the Christian argument per se is not valid.
However, our code of ethics and morales is founded on Christian principles (With principles, I mean precisely the principles themselves, and not how they were enforced in the past). Even a die-hard Marxist can not deny that this is a fact. In fact, well-known Leftist poet Bertold Brecht has (indirectly) stated that. Since it is the very fundament of the western civilization, there is nothing wrong with turning to its basics every once in a while for orientation.
The Ten Commandments are not antiquated. The first commandment requires a bit of individual thought, but it too is valid. The third commandment is to be followed on the basis you follow the first one on. In general, the Ten Commandments remain the very backbone of our (western) moral code.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Bunkle+Dec 16 2005, 08:55 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Bunkle @ Dec 16 2005, 08:55 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]And we aren't even all Christian so why should we use Christian arguments?[/quote]
Some people here are using quotes from the Bible or "Christian arguments", because most of us here belong to a judeo-christian society.
History, all over Europe, is linked to Christian religions. It's the same thing in America (north and south). It is a question of culture. Most of our principles, ideals, laws, rules... in the western world are closely related with it. You can have faith or not, our culture is a christian culture.

About your previous post, and as far as I understood your point last night in the chatroom, what you are saying is: why can't we have death penalty to punish murderer, even so the Bible says we must not kill and even so we may not believe in God, since the Israelites of the ancient time, who respected strongly their laws (one of them being "you won't kill), used to kill also.
Basically, it is why can't I do something wrong since my neighbour is doing it also? Why can't I steal, which is wrong, since some people do?
That's "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"...
Personaly, that's not something I rely on.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Le Hibou - The Owl+Dec 16 2005, 11:11 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Le Hibou - The Owl @ Dec 16 2005, 11:11 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Basically, it is why can't I do something wrong since my neighbour is doing it also? Why can't I steal, which is wrong, since some people do?
[snapback]125286[/snapback]​
[/quote]

That is a different matter, it's not he steals so I can steal too or he kills so I can kill too. Death penalty is used as a solution, not as an excuse to kill because someon else kills too.

Recently I'm neutral about this case, problems must be solved at any cost but charging a life while that isn't always needed. I think some people cannot be healed so it must depend on the case and the situation the person was in when killing.

And about the murderer Volkert van der G (That's just the name it was given by the news and I will keep it that way) didn't kill anyone since as far as I know. He is still in prison and will stay there for a while I'm sure.

A murder is a serious crime and must be seriously judged, but what's the use of giving a serial killer oceans of time in prison because he killed a lot of people. The person in question will only starve in a place he will never leave.

And if you charge a death penalty for murder people will kill less. Now they still could think as in the Pim Fortuyn case, I will be locked away for years but when I'm free it will only turned out to be a "tribute to society". I know this sounds mad but people who kill are mad too.
 
I know this is a multicultural forum, but come on. Here is a man who killed 4 people, laughed for close to seven minutes shortly after, and then bragged about doing it. Of course he deserved to die, my only complaint is they did it with lethal injection, far too humane for such a criminal. Don't let the liberal propaganda machine convince you that he had changed. So he wrote some childrens' books and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so was Yasser Arafat, hardly a symbol of peace. Besides, the debate over clemency was largely defined by race, very few white Americans, myself included, wanted to see him alive. Anything that Jesse Jackson shows up to should not be taken seriously, and outside some elite African establishments, rarely is.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-MexicanBurtReynolds+Dec 17 2005, 03:44 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(MexicanBurtReynolds @ Dec 17 2005, 03:44 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I know this is a multicultural forum, but come on.  Here is a man who killed 4 people, laughed for close to seven minutes shortly after, and then bragged about doing it.  Of course he deserved to die, my only complaint is they did it with lethal injection, far too humane for such a criminal.  Don't let the liberal propaganda machine convince you that he had changed.  So he wrote some childrens' books and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so was Yasser Arafat, hardly a symbol of peace.  Besides, the debate over clemency was largely defined by race, very few white Americans, myself included, wanted to see him alive.  Anything that Jesse Jackson shows up to should not be taken seriously, and outside some elite African establishments, rarely is.
[snapback]125295[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Wow.
Just. Wow. I thought Bunkle was bad.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-MexicanBurtReynolds+Dec 16 2005, 10:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(MexicanBurtReynolds @ Dec 16 2005, 10:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I know this is a multicultural forum, but come on.  Here is a man who killed 4 people, laughed for close to seven minutes shortly after, and then bragged about doing it.  Of course he deserved to die, my only complaint is they did it with lethal injection, far too humane for such a criminal.  Don't let the liberal propaganda machine convince you that he had changed.  So he wrote some childrens' books and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so was Yasser Arafat, hardly a symbol of peace.  Besides, the debate over clemency was largely defined by race, very few white Americans, myself included, wanted to see him alive.  Anything that Jesse Jackson shows up to should not be taken seriously, and outside some elite African establishments, rarely is.
[snapback]125295[/snapback]​
[/quote]


Though you put it in a rather crude way, I think I understand what you are trying to say. Just because he said he's sorry and wrote a few books doesn't mean he's truly been rehabilitated. If you tell me I'll die unless I say I'm sorry for something, you can be I'll apologise - the man was probably trying to save his life, not show some kind of sorrow.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-MexicanBurtReynolds+Dec 16 2005, 07:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(MexicanBurtReynolds @ Dec 16 2005, 07:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I know this is a multicultural forum, but come on.  Here is a man who killed 4 people, laughed for close to seven minutes shortly after, and then bragged about doing it.  Of course he deserved to die, my only complaint is they did it with lethal injection, far too humane for such a criminal.  Don't let the liberal propaganda machine convince you that he had changed.  So he wrote some childrens' books and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, so was Yasser Arafat, hardly a symbol of peace.  Besides, the debate over clemency was largely defined by race, very few white Americans, myself included, wanted to see him alive.  Anything that Jesse Jackson shows up to should not be taken seriously, and outside some elite African establishments, rarely is.
[snapback]125295[/snapback]​
[/quote]



Sounds like I'm not the only Republican on here.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-rytoda+Dec 17 2005, 02:28 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(rytoda @ Dec 17 2005, 02:28 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Sounds like I'm not the only Republican on here.
[snapback]125303[/snapback]​
[/quote]

This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. People try to make it one sometimes, but it's something which trancends party lines. Both parties are essentially the same anyway, so it's not really an issue.

And if you want to go tit for tat and make it political, someone could point out the hypocrisy of the current Republican Party leadership on "life issues". They are 100% against abortion because they say taking a life is wrong, yet they love deep fried Texas felon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top