Under penalty of death

[weaktwos]

In 1979, a man was convicted of murdering 4 people. Despite the trial by press presented by various folks, appeals courts seem to be unable, based on the laws of our state, to overturn the conviction. No matter what supporters of Tookie bring to light, for whatever reason, attorneys for Tookie cannot seem to compel appellate courts to overturn the conviction.

I find I am still torn on the death penalty. Part of me hates the thought of an innocent person being put to death. I believe that is wrong. However, what does it mean to me, a person being innocent? Tookie says he didn't do it. Then again, it appears to be in his best interests to say he didn't do it, especially since it helps ensure that people clamor for clemency on his behalf. And the people he was accused and found guilty of killing cannot speak for him.

The childrens books he wrote advising l'il tykes to not get involved with gangs will not bring those people back, either. And you wonder if a man who founds an organization as reviling as the Crips didn't commit other murders for which he was not tried. After all, if it is possible that he was found guilty for crimes that he did not commit, then it's quite possible that other people were found guilty for crimes he committed, especially in the line o' gang work.

But that's not so important, really. It's speculation, and not valid. However, a jury of his peers found him guilty, and numerous appeals later, he's still guilty. As a member of this society, that is sufficient for me. That is why we created our legal system.

Truth is very hard to grasp, but the legal system exists to resolve disputes in our society. In this dispute, Tookie was determined to be guilty of murdering four people.

Given that, and that our state decides to put such people to death, I really have no problem with that

So yes, he has done good things with his life since then. Was that really for society or for himself? I don't know. I suppose if he had done a number of things up to but not including killing a person, I suppose I could allow for redemption. But I see an imbalance in giving a murderer a second chance when his victims do not get a second chance. When] someone takes the life of another, I tend to think that someone's life is less precious.

When you've taken the life of another, and your reason for taking that life was not in self defense, then you've pretty solidly fucked up. Accidents happen, but not four times.

If we could ship convicted people off to an uncivilized planet where they can fend for themselves, I wouldn't mind that so much. But I don't fancy the notion of paying over 30,000 a year for a murdering jackass when we cannot afford to provide health care for people who don't murder other people, or good education for children who need to be educated and nurtured so that a life of crime and murder.

Because I've never brutally killed anyone, or started a gang organization that continues to spread violence and crime, I have a hard time understanding why someone who truly is remorseful of those circumstances would want to live, anyway. And if I were truly remorseful that I had started a violent gang organization, I would probably dedicate myself to destroying it. I wouldn't just write childrens books advising kids not to join gangs.

Writing childrens books saying "gangs are bad, mkay" while helping to solve the problem of gangs is like Philip Morris making public service commercials advising that smoking is harmful to your health, all the while continuing to manufacture cigarettes. Well, it's not quite the same, but it's close enough.

Comments

[blush10ac.livejournal.com]

People also seem to forget that clemency is supposed to show leniency in punishment based on the circumstances surrounding the crime. In order to truly get clemency Tookie would have to admit he did the crimes but that the punishment didn't fit the crime. Clemency was not built to protect career criminals who commited multiple murders.

I heard them quote someone today saying "How do you put a children's author to death?"

You don't, you put a murder to death.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

You know, I wonder what kind of childrens books Charles Manson would write, if he were so inclined?

[eyow.livejournal.com]

The death penalty does not seem to deter people from committing murder. States in the South have the highest murder rate, and they account for more than 80% of executions. The Northeast, with less than 1% of executions, also has the lowest murder rate.

But I don't fancy the notion of paying over 30,000 a year for a murdering jackass when we cannot afford to provide health care for people who don't murder other people, or good education for children who need to be educated and nurtured so that a life of crime and murder.

The CA death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for *each* of the state's 11 executions. It seems to me that if you eliminate the death penalty, you have more money available for health care, education, that sort of thing.

[scrapdog.livejournal.com]

How could an execution possibly cost $250 million?

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

For a capital trial, everything costs more. Court costs, the cost of death row support. Since our state does go to such lengths in appeals, etc, it costs a lot more. Or so they say. I don't write the checks myself.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

That's right. I had forgotten about that.

[imlac.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of that money goes into judical review and oversight. If you stop spending that money then the odds of an innocent person being executed skyrockets. If you simply eliminate the death penalty then the odds of an innocent person going to jail for the rest of their life sky rockets. And have no illusions: life in prison is a death sentence.

Bottom line is this: you can't decrease the odds of innocent people being punished without spending an ass load of cash.

[imlac.livejournal.com]

"The death penalty does not seem to deter people from committing murder. States in the South have the highest murder rate, and they account for more than 80% of executions. The Northeast, with less than 1% of executions, also has the lowest murder rate."

This is falacious. The south also has much higher poverty rates, much worse public education stats, and greater amounts of other crime-provking factors, such as racial tensions. To show there is no deterant effect you need to do a lot more than simply show geographical correlations.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

but they can never hurt anyone again. and because we don't use the death penalty nearly enough, nor is it nearly efficient enough, it takes way to long. if we could streamline it and make it a more regular rather than speacial big deal when it's used, it'd be cheaper and act as more of a deterrent.

[eyow.livejournal.com]

True, they can never hurt anyone again. But if they're in prison for life, they also can't hurt anyone.

And streamline the process, make it easier for the state to execute someone? What then happens to the people who've been on death row for 15, 20, 25 years, but have been released and discovered not guilty on DNA evidence? If we'd streamlined the process for them, they would already have been execute, despite being innocent.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

But if they're in prison for life, they also can't hurt anyone not necessarily true. parole means they can often get out (unless they really get life without parole) and there are gangs inside the prison, they can escape, they can run things ont he outside still thru informants (unless you put them in solitary) or even thru corrupt guards that take bribes and such. Also then they can still impact society, write books, receive media attention that they have no business getting, and still plague the families of the victims and in this case, perhaps have dealings with the Crips.

streamlining doesn't mean to be any less stringent. but the courts are slow and sucky in all cases and could stand improvement. but less frivilous appeals would be good, if someone doesn't appeal, then don't force them too. if they admit to being guilty and all that then accept it as proof, we don't need to question things so much unless we think they are inaccurate and really need questioning.

and also finally, DNA evidence was not around back then, now it is. Now it can be applied right away without having to wait 10 or 20 years.

We need to be more strict on what evidence qualifies for the death penalty. ie if it's just one eywitness and no DNA or other really strong corroborating evidence then no death penalty because the certainty is not close enough to 100%. it still needs to be case by case but we need to be more strict with guidelines as to what ought to be required to use the death penalty as far as evidence, burden of proof, not just say we can for a captial crime. that would streamline things and i think be more fair in both directions, it would make less of a possibility of sending innocent folks to death while giving the chair sooner and more effiicently to those who do deserve it. and save taxpayer dollars meanwhile.

[torsoheap.livejournal.com]

I am torn on the issue as well. Part of my believes that incorrigibly evil folk deserve to die. However, how do we determine if they are incorrigible? How can we be 100% certain that they are guilty? Does close enough count in this situation?

Unfortunately, it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to incarcerate them. I guess it would be nice if we could send all of them to the moon or something like that. Maybe we could send them to Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ok, here you are. Here's one month's worth of food and water plus one handgun and three boxes of bullets. See you around."

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

you never know anything 100%. if you lock them away for life or whatever, you never know. you have to accept close to 100% as being good enough.

hehe that last part would be nice. then they'd just kill each other and we could forget about it and thus keep our consciences clean while still sending them to die or be miserable but not in front of us. most peopel woudl have an easier time with that.

[imlac.livejournal.com]

"Part of me hates the thought of an innocent person being put to death."

The alternative is an innocent person spending the rest of their life in jail, not really that much better. And since life cases get much less oversight than death cases, the odds of an innocent person going to jail for the rest of their life is much higher. Hence, eliminating the death penalty raises the chances of more innocent people going to jail for the rest of their lives.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Yes, while I was researching data on costs for death row inmates versus the average prision inmate cost, the difference is huge, mainly because greater judicial care is taken to resolve the dispute of innocence. This made me think. And you're right, there's no way to make that determination without a huge outlay of cash. The other aspect is maximum security costs. Murderers are more dangerous and require more security. So even if we had them imprisoned for life without parole, costs would still be high because they have proven more dangerous than the non-murdering criminal.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

not to mention that if he's not innnocent and stays alive, and continues to cause deaths or lead gangs fromt he inside, more other innocent people are dying.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

yeah i agree with you. putting an innocent to death is bad, but we never know for sure. we have to make the requirements stiff to be as sure as we can, and then just accept that as good enough. you never know anything 100%.

and the difference with Philip Morris is that they are forced to put out those warnings as part of a settlement :-) thing is, they don't worry about it because by now, everyone who smokes knows it's bad for them and they do it anyway. and they just got a lawsuit reversed today and the stock went up $4.50! woot! :-)

but yeah, not only should tookie not have been alive this long to impact society and complicate things by "reforming" but there is no redemption once you murder someone because they can never come back no matter what you do. besides which he deserves death just for founding the crips alone. why anyone comes ot his defense is beyond me, it just shows how warped and soft we are in this country. we have such a short memory over things and we forget what peple even our own government and officils do after a relatively short period of time.