Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
Not quite so. He never really reformed. After having admitted to the crimes (in gory detail) at the time of there happening he declared innocence when convicted and never changed his story after that. You can't reform if you don't take responsibility.
I think that people who are new to this whole subject (and I am not talking about you specifically Lil') think that Williams was a totally reformed, kind and gentle man who wrote some books for kids and became the Dahli lama of San Quentin.
Though I am unsure of the effectiveness of capital punishment and have conflicting opinions regarding it, I do think it is odd how people rally around the short list of admirable accomplishments that he has suceeded in doing in the last 12 years and seem to gloss over the terror that he inflicted on many over the previous 40.[/B][/QUOTE]
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
The only reason Tookie was in jail that long was because of the judicial system that allows him to appeal his sentance.
I can appreciate the fact he wrote children books however he never apologized for his crimes. Also he wouldn't help authorities help stop leadership in the gangs he couldn't be a snitch.......yes he certainly was a changed man.........
Perhaps people concentrate on the good things he has done because, for some people, it is more important the good others do, than the evil they have done.
Regardless of the fact that he didnt snich on his gang, or helped the authorities, he should not have been murdered.
Besides, I know I would certainly not help my murderer catch my friends.
The example of tolerant culture and justice should not be given by killing someone. Its given in forms of reform and forgiveness.
Anyone who believes that this has shown the way or brought fear to the gangs or any kind of justice to the people who are dead, are wrong.
The reason people are so unwilling to forgive is that they feel that if they show compassion and forgiveness, they are somehow letting the victims down.
Very worrying, that is.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Last edited by lil bitchiness on Dec 14th, 2005 at 02:08 PM
Gender: Male Location: Planning to take over the WORLD!
[/B][/QUOTE]
hmm, i agree with you a lot, it seems. must be because we're both canadian.
i'm curious about something: is there anyone who supports the idea that it is a right to bear a gun, but DOES NOT support capital punishment? it would seem a very contradictory view. if someone breaks into my house i can shoot them, but if they shoot a family member i cannot condone their being put to death by someone else.
and in canada there are many fewer shooting related deaths. we have many fewer people of course, but currently there is an effort to reduce the # of guns even further as there has been a very recent INCLINE in gun-related deaths in canada. a friend of mine was an innocent bystander (he was a dj at a bar) killed in a gang shooting in vancouver last year. the shooter was never caught.
something like that tends to colour your views on these types of issues . . .
i'm curious about something: is there anyone who supports the idea that it is a right to bear a gun, but DOES NOT support capital punishment? it would seem a very contradictory view. if someone breaks into my house i can shoot them, but if they shoot a family member i cannot condone their being put to death by someone else.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. I don't really agree with everyone having the right to bear arms, but I'm not sure that it's a contradictory view.
After all, you can use reasonable force in self-defence here (UK), but you wouldn't then feel the need to say the police or guards can beat someone up in jail after they've committed a crime. Moreover an act of self-defence is in the heat of the moment, and done under the threat of immediate danger.
i brought up his accomplishments just to stress one point. that he served a purpose when he was alive. doesnt mean i think he deserved leniency at all,
just saying that he but at the same time i think the death penalty, in any case, is wrong. he deserved to be locked away for the rest of his life imho. i believe that regardless of someone's reformation, a sentence must be carried out...or else anyone could just do murder and then pretend to find jesus and "HALLELUIA HE'S CURED!!!" and bullshit like that. well maybe someone can be reformed and that would be commendable, but that cannot erase concequence. with that said...
i feel that our society proves its own hypocricy when we commit murder and hide behind the law to justify it. they will say that murder is an unlawful killing by definition, so since it was according to the law of the state, it wasnt murder. well if the state gets to decide what is murder and what is not, then by that same mentallity not a single jew, homosexual, gypsey, etc was murdered during WW2. ponder that.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Yup, from killing 4 people to writting children's books. It does make you wonder why people do such things and expect to be praised. The criminal mind is a puzzle.
hmm, i agree with you a lot, it seems. must be because we're both canadian.
Guns and capital punishment are two separate issues. You're talking about the right to self defense VS. a decision made by lawmakers based on a predetermined set of actions by someone who deliberately muders someone, as where self defense is NOT deliberate.
Again, a case of the irrepsonsible acting in a way that those who are
law abiding have to suffer for their crimes. And to be fair, Michael Moore has polarized his views and gotten every soccer mom and knee jerk reactionist riled to the point that "Bowling For Columbine" is used as a guilt trip against gun owners and NRA members, and as both, I'm not listening to any of it..and I find it hypocritical in his case that he speaks so ill of guns yet has his own and has an armed bodyguard to defend him.
And because of him, gun owners are looked at like the soldiers of the devil, and I refused to be labelled by someone whose motives were clearly propagandist in nature to deliberately destroy his political adversaries.
Why should MY rights, or the rights of anyone be totally removed so that we no longer enjoy what we've been doing for years? There were 99,000 dmedical malpractice deaths in America in the last 3 years, more than any one number of gun deaths in any peacetime decade in American history.
Sounds a bit odd here but I'd worry more about the licensed doctor putting me under the gas than someone with a gun. A possible chance encounter versus my life in the hands of a licensed professional...makes it a bit scarier.
Last edited by Dagons Blade on Dec 14th, 2005 at 05:13 PM
People should accentuate the positive of all things in life, rather than dwell on the negative. I don't think anyone is condoning that a convicted murderer be set free, but rather if he is attempting to right a wrong, then we should congratulate this behavior. The best way to teach a child is by positive encouragement, rather than constant negative feedback. The same method can be applied to people. Of course, if an adult does something wrong, then he/she has a far greater responsiblity for his/her actions. In the case of Tookie, I think it is a terrible waste to murder someone who has begun to do some good. Some people have talked about 'setting an example', well the example he was setting was that people have the ability to change. Surely, this is a far greater symbol than another body in a grave...
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Last edited by Ya Krunk'd Floo on Dec 15th, 2005 at 12:35 AM
The problem is that many people felt that his "good deeds" weren't sincere and that he only did them to try and give himself a more positive image rather then out of a genuine desire to actually help people.
I understand that, and it certainly is a risk. However, as fundamentalists are keen in saying, we should "err on the side of life" (direct Bush quote)...
Also, many people believe the opposite to what you have stated.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
I know, point is that his perhaps his good deeds weren't good enough to overshadow is horrible deeds, murder and such. The scope of his negatives far outweigh whatever possitive acts he commited.
People are confusing that issue. I don't think he deserves to be set free for what he did. I'm anti-death penalty not anti-prison.
Whether his positive changes were genuine or not, some people believed they were and as a result, were inspired to change also. So genuine or not, his actions have had some positive consequence. Like if a famous person said "Shoot someone" jokingly. There would be a dumb enough follower that could go out and do that. In this case, whether he was sincere or not, people were clearly positively inspired by the "changes".
I don't believe bad deeds should be weighed against good, rather he was doing something good up to the moment he was murdered, so that is how we should judge a person. His bad deeds - while impossible to forget - were 20-odd years ago. I stole some money from my mother's purse when I was 15, do you think she still reprimands me for it now? This is a trivial example, but I'm sure you can understand my point.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
People should be remembered for their biggest and most crucial actions. Hitler is remembered initially for commiting genocide, and rightfully so. He did some good for some people, but his negatives far outweigh his positives and it's fair to remember him in a negative light since he commited such horrible actions, while recognizing whatever positives he may have done.
"Tookie" should be remembered as a murderer, first and foremost, seeing as he was. Though his positives should also be recognized for what they were.
I don't care what color he was, he murdered 3 people and was indirectly responsible for possibly hundreds more. And on all the news reports I watched not once did I even hear the names of his 3 victims getting mentioned. Yet all these people outside the prison were chanting Tookies name. Did THEY know the names of his victims? No, probably not.
I'll go with that, Krunk'd. I believe in positive reinforcement for good behavior, and that was never an issue with me despite the face-off's you and I had. Catch someone doing something right for once, so to speak, in the terms of teacing children as you said above.
The same can apply to adults.
Well noone can deny that someone from the backyard of the criminal element, reaching out to youngsters to teach them the dangers is a bad thing. What better way to let kids know of the dangers than from someone who was there and lived the life?
But Backfire said it well in the last reply:
The problem is that many people felt that his "good deeds" weren't sincere and that he only did them to try and give himself a more positive image rather then out of a genuine desire to actually help people.
That's what killed him. And good intentions aren't good enough to prove that he wouldn't go out and do it again. And if he was set free and killed again, then how would you feel?
Some people pretend to change to suit their own needs.
And despite what you may think of me, I understand your values for the preservation of life, but there are some who don't, and will continue to act the way they do until interrupted by an outside intervening force.
And Tookie was one of them. if he wasn't he wouldn't have been jailed for what he did..
KMC Community Forums
Dec 14th, 2005 01:11 PM
Attachment: 
