The impending execution of Stanley "Tookie" Willia

[Canis]

So some say the death penalty is about retribution. So? Is there anything wrong with wanting too see the dirtbag that murdered a loved one put to death? If one of my family members was murdered and they caught the guy red-handed, I'd do everything I could to be able to shoot him myself. Call me barbaric, atavistic, whatever. Can any of you really say you wouldn't feel the same?

I'm sure most of us would feel the same, NS. The question I would have is this: How far can or should we go in using acute emotional reactions to traumatic events as part of the basis for coneptualizing justice?

Well, what is any form of "Justice"? Is it purely reform and rehabilitation, or is it also to provide closure to those affected by the crimes at hand? Reform and rehabilitation are what most of society wishes, and its the goal. However, in the face of the afflicted families, friends, and loved ones, rehabilitation (especially incomplete rehabilitation, such as this case where Tookie admitted and apologized for his crimes) is not necessarily justice. I believe strongly that the idea of "rehabilitation and reform" has much to do with the satisfaction of those affected, within certain reason of course. To release a person such as this without the families being at ease with it is tormenting to the families. Closure is a big part of justice, and in a case of execution killings and a whole family wiped out, death is a viable option to ease the mental agony for the surviving family members.

[Canis]

Is he dead yet??

12:01am PST. That's in ~1:11 from now.

[[xeno]Julios]

According to the Supreme Court, the death penaly is meant to serve 3 purposes: deterrence, removal from society, and retribution. Deterrence has never been shown to be effective, removal from society can be accomplished as efficiently by imprisonment, and anyone who feels a need to enact eye-for-an-eye needs to be removed from society themselves. Add to this the very real possibility of executing the wrong person, and you have a useless and even harmful policy.

bout sums up my thoughts.

[[xeno]Julios]

It's these types of crimes that I think the death penalty is good for. While I can say that a very few cases of murder may not deserve the death penalty, something as sick and fucked up as carving out a young woman's heart needs to be fucking punished. If I ever met anyone that had been convicted of that I'd fuckin run across the court room and start beating the shit out of him. I don't even care if some asshole guard shot me. I fucking detest shit like that. Rape and mutilation of women is #1 on my list of shit that fuckin' pisses me the fuck off.

but can't you see that the reaction you get to these crimes is simply that - a fucking reaction. You see something you hate, and you want to destroy it.

But this is a selfish desire - you want to feed your hate by inflicting hate.

In my own personal meditations, I have found that this desire is something of a "false god". To feed it is to worship it.

Let's say that man was going to be hung in a few hours, yet you still went ahead and beat the shit out of him.

Furthermore, assume that nobody else could witness this, and thus could not derive any gratification from it (so you'd be doing nobody else a favour).

The only "benefit" you'd be doing, would be to satisfy your own hunger.

Now compare the satisfaction of feeding this hunger, with the bliss of seeing this man break down in tears, wrenching his soul, and apologizing from the bottom of his heart. Assume that he has truly understood the nature of his crime, and truly detests it, and wants nothing more than to change himself.

My claim is that, whether or not the second scenario is possible, this is the desire we should worship.

This is essentially the same thing as saying "hate leads to the dark side".

[Canis]

According to the Supreme Court, the death penaly is meant to serve 3 purposes: deterrence, removal from society, and retribution. Deterrence has never been shown to be effective, removal from society can be accomplished as efficiently by imprisonment, and anyone who feels a need to enact eye-for-an-eye needs to be removed from society themselves. Add to this the very real possibility of executing the wrong person, and you have a useless and even harmful policy.

bout sums up my thoughts.

There's a limit to how much someone is removed from society by imprisonment. He's always there, regardless of whether or not he's behind bars. I'm not casting this as a better or worse situation, but rather as a notion that plagues folks who're victems to such crimes. In many cases its almost like a mental illness such as obsession that eats away, knowing the guy who killed your loved ones is still there. Granted whether or not this is a good mentality is questionable, but its still there, and society has it in its power to put this agony to rest. I believe the mentalities of the family members should be taken into account when sentencing death or granting clemency.

[Hannibal]

Closure is a big part of justice, and in a case of execution killings and a whole family wiped out, death is a viable option to ease the mental agony for the surviving family members.

I've not read a lot on this topic, but I wonder if this 'death-penalty-as-closure' notion is not just pure fantasy (generally speaking). Setting aside the actual execution for a moment, the lengthy appeals process could actually postpone any healing that might occur, sometimes as long as 20 years...in fact, victims' families would be forced to re-live the trauma over and over at regular intervals since they would be involved at each step Billy Bob takes through the appeals process.

Does the actual execution itself offer closure or promote healing? For some people it might, but I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases it would have the opposite effect. That's just a guess, of course. I'm sure there are a bazillion online resources one could dick about with to examine the cartharsis dealio in more detail.

[mrd]

It's these types of crimes that I think the death penalty is good for. While I can say that a very few cases of murder may not deserve the death penalty, something as sick and fucked up as carving out a young woman's heart needs to be fucking punished. If I ever met anyone that had been convicted of that I'd fuckin run across the court room and start beating the shit out of him. I don't even care if some asshole guard shot me. I fucking detest shit like that. Rape and mutilation of women is #1 on my list of shit that fuckin' pisses me the fuck off.

but can't you see that the reaction you get to these crimes is simply that - a fucking reaction. You see something you hate, and you want to destroy it.

But this is a selfish desire - you want to feed your hate by inflicting hate.

In my own personal meditations, I have found that this desire is something of a "false god". To feed it is to worship it.

Let's say that man was going to be hung in a few hours, yet you still went ahead and beat the shit out of him.

Furthermore, assume that nobody else could witness this, and thus could not derive any gratification from it (so you'd be doing nobody else a favour).

The only "benefit" you'd be doing, would be to satisfy your own hunger.

Now compare the satisfaction of feeding this hunger, with the bliss of seeing this man break down in tears, wrenching his soul, and apologizing from the bottom of his heart. Assume that he has truly understood the nature of his crime, and truly detests it, and wants nothing more than to change himself.

My claim is that, whether or not the second scenario is possible, this is the desire we should worship.

This is essentially the same thing as saying "hate leads to the dark side".

I would love to agree with you jules, and I can definetely see where you're coming from. I was mainly saying I would beat the crap out of someone that did a sick crime like cutting out someone's heart. I know that beating the shit out of him doesn't solve fuck all, I know it creates more problems than it solves.. but something inside of me just can't help but feel extreme disgust and hatred for those types of acts and people. I know that it's hard to generalize this crap... what if the guy was mentally retarded, what if he was in a drug induced psychosis and he hadn't a clue what the fuck he was doing, all that sort of stuff. Maybe it's the way I've been brought up, I don't know. But I strongly believe that any sober, intelligent man who doesn't have 20 IQ who mutilates a woman in that kind of manner doesn't deserve anything at all. He deserves to fucking get the pulp fucking beat from him and then slain. Possibly in public. I don't have any mercy for that kind of shit. However, I know that if it really came down to me being in a court room with one of those dicks in front of me, I wouldn't do anything... I'd think about it, though.

It's hard to say. I know I probably sound like some barbarian just saying all this stuff... but what can I say. I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy... but I can't see any reason for a sober man cutting out a woman's heart. At all. If you can give me something maybe I'll change my way of thinking.

[Canis]

It's these types of crimes that I think the death penalty is good for. While I can say that a very few cases of murder may not deserve the death penalty, something as sick and fucked up as carving out a young woman's heart needs to be fucking punished. If I ever met anyone that had been convicted of that I'd fuckin run across the court room and start beating the shit out of him. I don't even care if some asshole guard shot me. I fucking detest shit like that. Rape and mutilation of women is #1 on my list of shit that fuckin' pisses me the fuck off.

but can't you see that the reaction you get to these crimes is simply that - a fucking reaction. You see something you hate, and you want to destroy it.

But this is a selfish desire - you want to feed your hate by inflicting hate.

In my own personal meditations, I have found that this desire is something of a "false god". To feed it is to worship it.

Let's say that man was going to be hung in a few hours, yet you still went ahead and beat the shit out of him.

Furthermore, assume that nobody else could witness this, and thus could not derive any gratification from it (so you'd be doing nobody else a favour).

The only "benefit" you'd be doing, would be to satisfy your own hunger.

Now compare the satisfaction of feeding this hunger, with the bliss of seeing this man break down in tears, wrenching his soul, and apologizing from the bottom of his heart. Assume that he has truly understood the nature of his crime, and truly detests it, and wants nothing more than to change himself.

My claim is that, whether or not the second scenario is possible, this is the desire we should worship.

This is essentially the same thing as saying "hate leads to the dark side".

How about the idea that someone can only be truly redeemed if he does (among devoting his life to his changed ways) break down in tears as you described? What about an idea that the only way for him to be redeemed is to gain the favor of the family members who he's affected (provided they are not blind to any possibility of redemption)?

[Canis]

Closure is a big part of justice, and in a case of execution killings and a whole family wiped out, death is a viable option to ease the mental agony for the surviving family members.

I've not read a lot on this topic, but I wonder if this 'death-penalty-as-closure' notion is not just pure fantasy (generally speaking). Setting aside the actual execution for a moment, the lengthy appeals process could actually postpone any healing that might occur, sometimes as long as 20 years...in fact, victims' families would be forced to re-live the trauma over and over at regular intervals since they would be involved at each step Billy Bob takes through the appeals process.

Does the actual execution itself offer closure or promote healing? For some people it might, but I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases it would have the opposite effect. That's just a guess, of course. I'm sure there are a bazillion online resources one could dick about with to examine the cartharsis dealio in more detail.

Its definitely situational. I've seen documentaries on condemned killers where interviewed family members expressed deep relief from the daily terror they felt. There was one lady who expressed it as something she didnt know she had weighing on her until the killer was put to death. Of course, I'm sure in many cases folks end up just more hurt and confused, or unchanged in their feelings of loss. I think as such, each family's psychological situation must be taken into account. I saw one documentary where a killer of a child was forgiven by the child's grandmother. This was a situation that split the family. However, given that some family members found peace with the guy, I'd say that situation needed much more time to see whether or not it would be possible to grant clemency.

[[xeno]Julios]

but something inside of me just can't help but feel extreme disgust and hatred for those types of acts and people. I know that it's hard to generalize this crap...

I know what you're trying to express. My most powerful thought experiment was imagining walking with my youngest sister, who i love dearly, and being forced to watch her being murdered. I then try to analyze the feelings I have towards that person, and what they mean.

what if the guy was mentally retarded, what if he was in a drug induced psychosis and he hadn't a clue what the fuck he was doing, all that sort of stuff.

my claim is that even if he was a highly intelligent person who knew the suffering he was causing, and knew its consequences, the desire to soothe the hate should not be fulfilled.

Here's a thought experiment: imagine someone killed your sister, and got away with it, and there was nothing you could do about it.

You would suffer - you would want "justice". Justice is the only thing you believe will cure your suffering.

But it is a selfish desire. To rationalize this hunger into some abstract idea of justice is to be dishonest and not face up to your own self.

This is how we are built as humans - these feelings are designed to help us function and survive.

But when we can reflect on them, and see them for what they are, we then see them for exactly that:

They are nothing more than tools.

And tools are meant to achieve ends.

If there is no end to achieve, then you are merely using the tool as an end to itself. i.e. you are just feeding your own hunger.

[Massive Quasars]

How about the idea that someone can only be truly redeemed if he does (among devoting his life to his changed ways) break down in tears as you described? What about an idea that the only way for him to be redeemed is to gain the favor of the family members who he's affected (provided they are not blind to any possibility of redemption)?

Are you serious?

[mrd]

but something inside of me just can't help but feel extreme disgust and hatred for those types of acts and people. I know that it's hard to generalize this crap...

I know what you're trying to express. My most powerful thought experiment was imagining walking with my youngest sister, who i love dearly, and being forced to watch her being murdered. I then try to analyze the feelings I have towards that person, and what they mean.

what if the guy was mentally retarded, what if he was in a drug induced psychosis and he hadn't a clue what the fuck he was doing, all that sort of stuff.

my claim is that even if he was a highly intelligent person who knew the suffering he was causing, and knew its consequences, the desire to soothe the hate should not be fulfilled.

Here's a thought experiment: imagine someone killed your sister, and got away with it, and there was nothing you could do about it.

You would suffer - you would want "justice". Justice is the only thing you believe will cure your suffering.

But it is a selfish desire. To rationalize this hunger into some abstract idea of justice is to be dishonest and not face up to your own self.

This is how we are built as humans - these feelings are designed to help us function and survive.

But when we can reflect on them, and see them for what they are, we then see them for exactly that:

They are nothing more than tools.

And tools are meant to achieve ends.

If there is no end to achieve, then you are merely using the tool as an end to itself. i.e. you are just feeding your own hunger.

True enough. Like I said previously.. I like to think I would never actually kill anybody regardless of what they had done. And I know that not succumbing to dumb shit like killing the killer makes you appear and feel stronger in the end.. because it does. I guess it's just easier to feel the need to destroy him or think about destroying him because it grants a sense of instant, but temporary, gratification. And the more you think about it, the more you wanna do it. I think this is one thing that seperates a lot of people, is how they act on what they think and feel.

But one thing I wonder about, though, does forgiving a murderer, mutilator, rapist, child-killer, etc. deter other people from these crimes? I like to think that punishing murderers does help a bit to deter people from doing this sort of stuff. But who knows.. maybe if we all just forgave everybody but kept them in jail everyone would just give up killing people? Not likely.. damnit I could talk about this forever. I'm gunna shut up.

[[xeno]Julios]

How about the idea that someone can only be truly redeemed if he does (among devoting his life to his changed ways) break down in tears as you described? What about an idea that the only way for him to be redeemed is to gain the favor of the family members who he's affected (provided they are not blind to any possibility of redemption)?

My idea of "redemption" is developing an understanding of one's "crimes".

I believe it is a logical impossibility for one to truly understand the nature of a crime, yet still commit it, since implicit in this true understanding would be an aversion so strong that the mind would not commit to the crime.

As for gaining favour, I think these considerations are secondary. However, that doesn't deny that part of what i consider to be "enlightened" functioning is to express this newfound understanding to those that you hurt.

If someone hurts me, i would much rather see that they truly understand the nature of what they did.

By doing so, they are in sympathetic introspection with my suffering.

It is the same as putting yourself in another's mind - you build a simulation of their situation, and can gain insight into their consciousness, since you have constructed, within your own mind, a cognitive simulation of their cognitions.

If someone truly understands the nature of a crime she has committed, this means she has constructed such a simulation of the psychological impact that it has upon her victims. If one has truly done this (and these are all impossible levels of achievement - they are ultimate standards to which we can strive) then one has in fact changed one's being to the extent that one could never commit such an act.

[So... Who Wants Smasht?]

A murderer is about to be murdered.

Murrrrrrrrrr

[[xeno]Julios]

And the more you think about it, the more you wanna do it. I think this is one thing that seperates a lot of people, is how they act on what they think and feel.

Don't get me wrong - if i was in that situation, I don't know if i'd be able to hold myself back. It's easy to sit in an armchair and discuss enlightenment.

But one thing I wonder about, though, does forgiving a murderer, mutilator, rapist, child-killer, etc. deter other people from these crimes? I like to think that punishing murderers does help a bit to deter people from doing this sort of stuff. But who knows.. maybe if we all just forgave everybody but kept them in jail everyone would just give up killing people? Not likely.. damnit I could talk about this forever. I'm gunna shut up.

I'm open to the possibility that if the deterrent effect of capital punishment really was amazing, then an argument could be made for capital punishment. I haven't devoted enough though to the issue to decide which way I'd stand on the argument. I'm not sure where I stand on the "sanctity of life" thingie (I think i tend to think the preciousness of life is overrated).

That said, i really don't think that CP is a good deterrant. I wonder how many ppl who commit these crimes believe in hell. Surely hell would be a more effective deterrant.

Maybe we need public and exquisite torture-followed-by-death deterrents...
:icon26:

[Massive Quasars]

If someone truly understands the nature of a crime she has committed, this means she has constructed such a simulation of the psychological impact that it has upon her victims. If one has truly done this (and these are all impossible levels of achievement - they are ultimate standards to which we can strive) then one has in fact changed one's being to the extent that one could never commit such an act.

This is all that I require of the justice system, prevent a criminal from re-offending. Granted it's difficult to ascertain at this time if a criminal has been reformed, so erring on the side of safety may be required.

[[xeno]Julios]

I'm not casting this as a better or worse situation, but rather as a notion that plagues folks who're victems to such crimes. In many cases its almost like a mental illness such as obsession that eats away, knowing the guy who killed your loved ones is still there. Granted whether or not this is a good mentality is questionable, but its still there, and society has it in its power to put this agony to rest. I believe the mentalities of the family members should be taken into account when sentencing death or granting clemency.

yes this is an important point.

perhaps if it could be shown that CP really does put an end to this anguish, and that these families are unable to deal with their anguish in more "enlightened" ways, then CP could be justified.

I'm open to the possibility of this argument, but am not committing either way.

[Hannibal]

BTW, since I've been looking at this thread title over the past hour or so, it now appears to me thusly:

The Impending Execution of STANLEY TUCCI....



Sure hope he's alright. :icon32:

[Massive Quasars]

yes this is an important point.

perhaps if it could be shown that CP really does put an end to this anguish, and that these families are unable to deal with their anguish in more "enlightened" ways, then CP could be justified.

I'm open to the possibility of this argument, but am not committing either way.

That's a weak argument in and of itself, for CP. The psychological anguish of the families involved can be addressed through others means before we resort to CP to soothe the pain.

I would be more convinced if the stats regarding crime rates reflected positively on CP, rather than relying on the anecdotal reports of families before and after execution.

edit: Canis brought up some fair criticisms earlier about dubious stats that can be skewed to reflect what one or another ideological group would like to see. Despite the difficulty in deriving meaningful stats, it can done and shouldn't be dismissed outright in every case.

[Foo]

My biggest fear, and something that I am fairly certain will occur at some point (if it hasn't already), is that an innocent man be executed and exonerated post-execution.

Christ, do some reading will you?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =6&did=110

[Hannibal]

My biggest fear, and something that I am fairly certain will occur at some point (if it hasn't already), is that an innocent man be executed and exonerated post-execution.

Christ, do some reading will you?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =6&did=110

The 'post-execution' bit is the important part Foo. Chill Winston.

[[xeno]Julios]

That's a weak argument in and of itself, for CP. The psychological anguish of the families involved can be addressed through others means before we resort to CP to soothe the pain.

hence the " and that these families are unable to deal with their anguish in more "enlightened" ways" clause.

And i wasn't presenting an argument. I was presenting the possibility of an argument.

i.e. the idea of justifying CP on that basis is a prima facie coherent one.

[Massive Quasars]

hence the " and that these families are unable to deal with their anguish in more "enlightened" ways" clause.

And i wasn't presenting an argument. I was presenting the possibility of an argument.

i.e. the idea of justifying CP on that basis is a prima facie coherent one.

Fair enough.

[mjrpes]

the man's dead.

[So... Who Wants Smasht?]

What is interesting are all the reporters who incessantly use the, "Tookie," gang moniker, while his lawyers, family, and friends call him Stanley.

Does it come with infamy, or is it a brand that media conglomerates place on those they wish to emblaze as a icon?

After all, the news makes the news. Now more than ever are we seeing unstories being pushed by the media to the brink.

How many white girls get murdered or go missing every year? Natalee Holloway is a household name, but with all due respect to her, she's just one in a slew of the slain.

Pun or idiom? You decide.



Ah, the racism card. Doesn't that have as much power as the joker?

Remember the line above about the news creates the news. The same goes for blacks like Jessie Jackson. In order to further their cause, they construct conspiracies to benefit them.

Is the death penalty racist? Or are blacks committing more violent crimes worthy of the ultimate punishment? I suppose a third argument could be: Are blacks singled out by the jury while whites are given life in prison?

The death penalty isn't very humane, however I believe it should be used if there is no doubt of their crime, and if any risk of that person doing it over again is present. I wouldn't like hearing about my protester friends who're serving five years for setting police cars ablaze getting shanked by some murderer called, "Tookie."

What's more, he had plenty of time to prove his so-called innocence. By association with a questionable lifestyle, he failed to present a valid reprisal to his sentencing.

If you're innocent, then there should certainly be a way to prove it... Unless you were involved in some real X-Files/Untouchables shit. But even with these criminal gangster wannabes, that would be hard to come by. When millionaires like, "Lil Kim," can't work a proper defense scheme, I highly doubt, "Snow Jones," from the block could orchestrate a clean coverup.

So, Governor Schwarzenegger, you've done the public a far worse deed than letting this case sizzle on the burner for a few more years.

You see, rap, like most popular music, is a long-term fad. I see rap going out of style before 2012. By allowing this execution to go forward, probably for some political benefit to yourself (like how you'll handle the riots you hope happen) you've damned us to dozens of rap songs in memory of Tookie.

They'll bloat his image to astounding proportions, much like those two wannabe thugs in the 90s, with ridiculous lyrics that sound like a Bill Brasky SNL skit. "Tookie killed and ate an alligator because it stared at him funny. He shat out shoes, that's how he made his money."

Or... Perhaps Arnold has killed rap with this? Here's to hoping for endless Tookie songs.