should stanley tookie williams be executed?

[princeof56k 0]

I was interested in how people on this forum felt about this issue.

[mrdannyg 274]

i am not familiar with the situation, but i think it is absurd and inhuman to even consider executing another person.

[KowboyKoop 0]

i am not familiar with the situation, but i think it is absurd and inhuman to even consider executing another person.

first off, let me say that I am undecided on the death penalty debate....I'm not even sure I can every really decide...however, do you not think that, IF Hitler had been taken to trial and convicted, that he shouldn't have been executed? just a question.

[mrdannyg 274]

i am not familiar with the situation, but i think it is absurd and inhuman to even consider executing another person.

first off, let me say that I am undecided on the death penalty debate....I'm not even sure I can every really decide...however, do you not think that, IF Hitler had been taken to trial and convicted, that he shouldn't have been executed? just a question.

certainly there are a few examples, like hitler, whom it is easy to think the world would be better off without. and it seems wasteful to not kill them, since it would be absurd to allow them to live with any type of freedom and this would be expensive. so i don't have a better option, but i simply cannot justify murder. execution is murder. the typical thinking runs that "why are we better than them?" if we are murderers like them. that is silly in that these people have killed thousands in cold-blood, and we are merely responding to them. but if this person has only killed one person, then you can argue that we are no better, since we ("we" being society) are murdering one person, just like they did.so, am i saying that executing someone is allowable only if that person has murdered two or more people? no, i think it is simply too much of a slippery slope scenario and impossible to judge. since i believe it is far more important not to execute someone who deserves it than it is important to execute someone who does deserve it, i think the only logical conclusion is to eliminate executions.danielas an add-on, i just quickly apprised myself of the williams situation. it seems that (according to wikipedia) he is somewhat reformed. it is absurd then to suggest executing someone who is making positive contributions to society. it seems that his crimes are too heinous to consider letting him go at any point, but to execute someone who in their current state of mind is not making extraordinarily negative contributions to society (whether his contributions are even positive are moot) seems wrong.daniel

[KingAustin 0]

mrdannyg, I'm aware it's your opinion, but you're wrong.Executing a murderer is NOT MURDER. They killed someone and dont deserve to be alive. Period. If prisons just started executing someone who had a misdemeanor, then that would be murder, but once you kill someone like that you should have no rights.So, once again, excecuting a murder is not murder because they don't deserve to live.

[KowboyKoop 0]

mrdannyg, I'm aware it's your opinion, but you're wrong.Executing a murderer is NOT MURDER.  They killed someone and dont deserve to be alive.  Period.  If prisons just started executing someone who had a misdemeanor, then that would be murder, but once you kill someone like that you should have no rights.So, once again, excecuting a murder is not murder because they don't deserve to live.

it boils down to the question of, do we, as humans, have the authority/moral righteousness to decide who "doesn't deserve to live" and be executed.....no humans are perfect and the legal system is CLEARLY not perfect, so that is the argument as to why you shouldn't be allowed to execute people....but at the same time, it is easy to see the other side of the argument too........

[shinychicken 0]

"it boils down to the question of, do we, as humans, have the authority/moral righteousness to decide who "doesn't deserve to live" and be executed.....no humans are perfect and the legal system is CLEARLY not perfect, so that is the argument as to why you shouldn't be allowed to execute people....but at the same time, it is easy to see the other side of the argument too........"How do we know that morals in general are right? Haven't we just been told how to feel? I get in religous arguements with people when they tell me that others are living their lives wrong. My arguement with them is what exactly do you know? have you experienced other ways of live and other religons? Not just reading about them, but actively participating. The truth is that most people only know what they are told and not "experimenting" for lack of a better word.

[KowboyKoop 0]

"it boils down to the question of, do we, as humans, have the authority/moral righteousness to decide who "doesn't deserve to live" and be executed.....no humans are perfect and the legal system is CLEARLY not perfect, so that is the argument as to why you shouldn't be allowed to execute people....but at the same time, it is easy to see the other side of the argument too........"How do we know that morals in general are right?  Haven't we just been told how to feel?  I get in religous arguements with people when they tell me that others are living their lives wrong.  My arguement with them is what exactly do you know?  have you experienced other ways of live and other religons?  Not just reading about them, but actively participating.  The truth is that most people only know what they are told and not "experimenting" for lack of a better word.

I essentially agree with this....I personally hate religion..I personally feel that as long as I live a "good" life (good being a relative term....don't do to others what I don't want done to me kinda thing..), I could care less what some "higher power" has in store for me...I can't control any of that, i can only control trying to live my life as healthy as possible....that being said, I don't think this mindset can really help me decide on which side of the death penalty debate I fall........such a tough issue....

[MapleLeafs 142]

After reading up on him, and what he has done in prison, I think maybe execution isn't the answer. Just keep him locked up for life.

[Tehol 0]

mrdannyg, I'm aware it's your opinion, but you're wrong.Executing a murderer is NOT MURDER.  They killed someone and dont deserve to be alive.  Period.  If prisons just started executing someone who had a misdemeanor, then that would be murder, but once you kill someone like that you should have no rights.So, once again, excecuting a murder is not murder because they don't deserve to live.

So who kills the executioner then?Or does he still deserve to live? If so, why?

[TheIceman05 0]

mrdannyg, I'm aware it's your opinion, but you're wrong.Executing a murderer is NOT MURDER.  They killed someone and dont deserve to be alive.  Period.  If prisons just started executing someone who had a misdemeanor, then that would be murder, but once you kill someone like that you should have no rights.So, once again, excecuting a murder is not murder because they don't deserve to live.

I think you miss the entire point of the death penalty debate. You're speaking in broad strokes that paint the picture too sloppily. There are 2 ways to justify the death penalty1) Retributivism- ie, lex talionis, an eye for an eye. Retribution deals with the issue of desert. In our society, almost everyone agrees that GOOD deeds should be REWARDED, and BAD deeds should be PUNISHED, and it should be done proportionally. I won't get into it, but the question of "well, why?" is quite interesting. Most death penalty advocates believe that there MUST be some extreme form of punishment that equates with the most extremely bad deeds. We can all agree that 3-counts of armed robbery and 4 counts of assault is nowhere NEAR as bad as 2 counts of first degree murder, but they usually yield the same sentence: Life in prison. Most death penalty advocates believe there has to be something reserved for the most HEINOUS of crimes.2) Deterrence- both specific and general. Obviously, the specific component is slightly more effective with the death penalty (how can you commit anymore crimes if you're dead?) than life imprisonment, but by a miniscule margin.General deterrence is the idea that the THREAT of a penalty- in this case, the death penalty- will act as a deterrent to crime. The death penalty doesn't make much of a difference, though, (though many people will argue otherwise, incorrectly) so we're left with number 1.I'm a staunchly anti-death penalty person. Our legal system is so imperfect, and the death penalty can take a multitude of small errors and prejudices, and exacerbate them to a degree so egregious as to be inhumane. We execute minorities significantly more frequently than their white counterparts for the same crimes. Same with the poor. Is it okay to make a mistake in these cases, especially when we can patently disregard the utilitarian benefits (deterrence), or lackthereof?I don't take a high-and-mighty stance with the death penalty, but anybody who jumps to a quick, gut-based decision would be well-served to think the matter through more carefully. There are so many facets to the debate, that a blanket statement like, "He doesn't deserve to live" doesn't cut it.It's just not that simple.Sorry for the long post,Ice

[24fanatics 0]

Don't forget to wet the sponge.

[mrdannyg 274]

well i think iceman responded to austin's post as well as i could have, and KK is nicely arguing the other aspect of my argument, so i don't have much to say.to austin i can only say that you seem to be unilaterally deciding who "deserves" to die. this seems dogmatic and without good reason. someone has killed another, so we can kill them? maybe that person killed for what they believe was a very good reason - how can we then kill them for what we consider a very good reason and not ourselves be killed?I don't have a definition handy, but murder is the purposeful killing of another person. doesn't matter whether they deserve it. so an executioner is a murderer. and since the executioner is doing what we, as a society, have asked him to do, we by extension are also murderers.on a far more important note, i do feel it is important to apologize for signing my name twice on my post. i want to edit it out, but instead i'll let people see it, since it makes me look like such a pompous jerk danieldaniel

[Don Giovanni 0]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

[iveyfan30 0]

fry the murdering bastard

[mrdannyg 274]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

i'm surprised at that, since i thought it was the opposite. i find it hard to believe that executing someone costs more than keeping them in jail for potentially 30-40 years.

[KowboyKoop 0]

fry the murdering censored

yeah, that's the same thing people said about Ruben Carter.....

[SAM_Hard8 50]

After reading up on him, and what he has done in prison, I think maybe execution isn't the answer.  Just keep him locked up for life.

He has never shown any remorse for his crime so he deserves no reprieve of his sentence.That being said, I am against the death penalty. No society that kills their own citizens can call themselves just.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

i'm surprised at that, since i thought it was the opposite. i find it hard to believe that executing someone costs more than keeping them in jail for potentially 30-40 years.

Because of the mandatory appeals that have to come with a capitol punishment it cost literally millions of dollars to carry out a death sentence.

[mb5322 0]

Since everyone that has responded to this post in misinformed and flat out wrong about the facts, and myself being a member of the judicial system I'll shed some light:1. it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in jail. Certainly something all the liberals would want it to believe, but unfortunatly wrong. On average to keep a Murderer or part one offender (rape, robbery, aggravated burglary etc...) in prison for life in maximum security costs the tax payer on average of $230,000 a year.2. For those of you who believe the death penalty is murder and wrong, explain that to the parents of a 12 year old girl that was kidnapped, ra ped and murdered.3. If people in prison that commit murder are suddenly "reformed", how about you take them in your home with your family and help them adjust to society. Most of these people are so disturbed that if given the chance 99% of them will re-offend.

[mb5322 0]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

i'm surprised at that, since i thought it was the opposite. i find it hard to believe that executing someone costs more than keeping them in jail for potentially 30-40 years.

Because of the mandatory appeals that have to come with a capitol punishment it cost literally millions of dollars to carry out a death sentence.

Show me where you got the "millions" of dollars to carry out appeals, again your misinformed, The appeals process is in place to ensure innocent people haven't slid through the cracks and are executed. Millions of dollars is way off. Figure it out the cost for the appeals proces= several hours of court time, which costs the tax payer the Judges salary, the court employess (12) at most, $5 a day for jurorsThe cost to keep someone on death row= Every Corrections officer's salary till the inmate dies of natural causes, which has been up to 60-70 years, food service, all amenitys of prison (yes amenitys) I bet most of the public didn't know that if an inmate wishes to go to college they can and earn a degree on the tax payers dollar. Lets see how about the tax payer providing this inmate: clothing, toiletries, vocational schools, food, not to mention upkeep of the prisons where we keep them. If you think an appeals process which can last 10 years costs more than what housing an inmate for potentially 60+ years, your mistaken.

[NortonFan 0]

Arnold said he had nice arms so he has to live.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yeah, executing someone because it's less expensive is a really valid arguement.SW

[SAM_Hard8 50]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

i'm surprised at that, since i thought it was the opposite. i find it hard to believe that executing someone costs more than keeping them in jail for potentially 30-40 years.

Because of the mandatory appeals that have to come with a capitol punishment it cost literally millions of dollars to carry out a death sentence.

Show me where you got the "millions" of dollars to carry out appeals, again your misinformed, The appeals process is in place to ensure innocent people haven't slid through the cracks and are executed. Millions of dollars is way off. Figure it out the cost for the appeals proces= several hours of court time, which costs the tax payer the Judges salary, the court employess (12) at most, $5 a day for jurorsThe cost to keep someone on death row= Every Corrections officer's salary till the inmate dies of natural causes, which has been up to 60-70 years, food service, all amenitys of prison (yes amenitys) I bet most of the public didn't know that if an inmate wishes to go to college they can and earn a degree on the tax payers dollar. Lets see how about the tax payer providing this inmate: clothing, toiletries, vocational schools, food, not to mention upkeep of the prisons where we keep them. If you think an appeals process which can last 10 years costs more than what housing an inmate for potentially 60+ years, your mistaken.

OK we are not talking about a couple of hours in court we are talking much much more than that in legal costs.The California 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 (LA Times March 6 2005) That’s in a crazy liberal state. Let’s look at a couple of conservative ones.In Indiana, the total costs of the death penalty exceed the complete costs of life without parole sentences by about 38% (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission Jan 10 2002)The most comprehensive study the country found that the death penalty cost North Carolina $2.16 million per execution OVER the costs of sentencing murderers to life in prison. (Duke University May 1993)I have more if you are interested but more importantly when a society makes the cost of a citizen’s life more important than that life the society is doomed.

[KingAustin 0]

mrdannyg, I'm aware it's your opinion, but you're wrong.Executing a murderer is NOT MURDER.  They killed someone and dont deserve to be alive.  Period.  If prisons just started executing someone who had a misdemeanor, then that would be murder, but once you kill someone like that you should have no rights.So, once again, excecuting a murder is not murder because they don't deserve to live.

So who kills the executioner then?Or does he still deserve to live? If so, why?

I believe it is NOT wrong to execute a murderer, so the executioner is fine.Maybe it's different if you've had someone in your family killed. You WANT the ****** dead.Not even 2 months ago, someone dressed up as an undercover cop, went to my cousin's house, said he wanted to question him so he was let inside, pulled out a shotgun and pulled the trigger. He died in the hospital.So I want the killer dead. He does not deserve to live, AT ALL.