Stanley "Tookie" Williams - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby baseball6791 » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:17 am

Disclaimer: I don't want to start an arguement, just get a collection of opinions. Mods, if you think that this isn't ok, feel free to lock it/delete it.

I have to do a report for school, and we had a variety of topics we could choose from that were related to books we had just read, and I chose to do a report on Stanley "Tookie" Williams. If you don't know, he was a notorious Crips member and co-founder, and was convicted for killing four people and sentenced to death. While sitting on death row, he wrote a series of children's books denouncing gangs and gang activitites, for which he was nominatated for a Nobel Prize in 2001. All of his appeals failed, and his final try was a clemency hearing. Governor Schwarzenegger denied him clemency based mainly on two things: that he never at any time admitted his guilt or apologized for his crimes, and throughout his time in prison, he refused to help give the government an inside look into the inner workings of the Crips. What I would like to know (preferably if you followed or heard about the story before this) is your opinions on him, his crime, and whether or not he should've gotten clemency. This is NOT a death penalty question, I feel that it has none or very little relevance to my report and the whole story in general.
Image

[size=18]

[url=http://baseball6791.deviantart.com/]My DeviantArt[/url][/size]
baseball6791
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby Phatferd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:21 am

baseball6791 wrote:Disclaimer: I don't want to start an arguement, just get a collection of opinions. Mods, if you think that this isn't ok, feel free to lock it/delete it.

I have to do a report for school, and we had a variety of topics we could choose from that were related to books we had just read, and I chose to do a report on Stanley "Tookie" Williams. If you don't know, he was a notorious Crips member and co-founder, and was convicted for killing four people and sentenced to death. While sitting on death row, he wrote a series of children's books denouncing gangs and gang activitites, for which he was nominatated for a Nobel Prize in 2001. All of his appeals failed, and his final try was a clemency hearing. Governor Schwarzenegger denied him clemency based mainly on two things: that he never at any time admitted his guilt or apologized for his crimes, and throughout his time in prison, he refused to help give the government an inside look into the inner workings of the Crips. What I would like to know (preferably if you followed or heard about the story before this) is your opinions on him, his crime, and whether or not he should've gotten clemency. This is NOT a death penalty question, I feel that it has none or very little relevance to my report and the whole story in general.


I personally don't support the death penalty because it essentially means the state (my representative) convicts someone and sentences someone to death.

I just feel it's not my place to make a decision like that, therefore, I don't support it.
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Re: Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby bigh0rt » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:23 am

Phatferd wrote:
baseball6791 wrote:Disclaimer: I don't want to start an arguement, just get a collection of opinions. Mods, if you think that this isn't ok, feel free to lock it/delete it.

I have to do a report for school, and we had a variety of topics we could choose from that were related to books we had just read, and I chose to do a report on Stanley "Tookie" Williams. If you don't know, he was a notorious Crips member and co-founder, and was convicted for killing four people and sentenced to death. While sitting on death row, he wrote a series of children's books denouncing gangs and gang activitites, for which he was nominatated for a Nobel Prize in 2001. All of his appeals failed, and his final try was a clemency hearing. Governor Schwarzenegger denied him clemency based mainly on two things: that he never at any time admitted his guilt or apologized for his crimes, and throughout his time in prison, he refused to help give the government an inside look into the inner workings of the Crips. What I would like to know (preferably if you followed or heard about the story before this) is your opinions on him, his crime, and whether or not he should've gotten clemency. This is NOT a death penalty question, I feel that it has none or very little relevance to my report and the whole story in general.


I personally don't support the death penalty because it essentially means the state (my representative) convicts someone and sentences someone to death.

I just feel it's not my place to make a decision like that, therefore, I don't support it.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 348)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Re: Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby Phatferd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:26 am

bigh0rt wrote:
Phatferd wrote:
baseball6791 wrote:Disclaimer: I don't want to start an arguement, just get a collection of opinions. Mods, if you think that this isn't ok, feel free to lock it/delete it.

I have to do a report for school, and we had a variety of topics we could choose from that were related to books we had just read, and I chose to do a report on Stanley "Tookie" Williams. If you don't know, he was a notorious Crips member and co-founder, and was convicted for killing four people and sentenced to death. While sitting on death row, he wrote a series of children's books denouncing gangs and gang activitites, for which he was nominatated for a Nobel Prize in 2001. All of his appeals failed, and his final try was a clemency hearing. Governor Schwarzenegger denied him clemency based mainly on two things: that he never at any time admitted his guilt or apologized for his crimes, and throughout his time in prison, he refused to help give the government an inside look into the inner workings of the Crips. What I would like to know (preferably if you followed or heard about the story before this) is your opinions on him, his crime, and whether or not he should've gotten clemency. This is NOT a death penalty question, I feel that it has none or very little relevance to my report and the whole story in general.


I personally don't support the death penalty because it essentially means the state (my representative) convicts someone and sentences someone to death.

I just feel it's not my place to make a decision like that, therefore, I don't support it.


I disagree it has everything to do with the death penalty. Dude was put to death. He wanted clemency, which basically means he didn't want to be put to death. It's cut and dry and I feel too many people want to view this issue at weird angles to find something that isn't there.

It also has everything to do with my opinion on it. I don't support people being put to death on my behalf.
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Re: Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby baseball6791 » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:38 am

Phatferd wrote:
bigh0rt wrote:
Phatferd wrote:
baseball6791 wrote:Disclaimer: I don't want to start an arguement, just get a collection of opinions. Mods, if you think that this isn't ok, feel free to lock it/delete it.

I have to do a report for school, and we had a variety of topics we could choose from that were related to books we had just read, and I chose to do a report on Stanley "Tookie" Williams. If you don't know, he was a notorious Crips member and co-founder, and was convicted for killing four people and sentenced to death. While sitting on death row, he wrote a series of children's books denouncing gangs and gang activitites, for which he was nominatated for a Nobel Prize in 2001. All of his appeals failed, and his final try was a clemency hearing. Governor Schwarzenegger denied him clemency based mainly on two things: that he never at any time admitted his guilt or apologized for his crimes, and throughout his time in prison, he refused to help give the government an inside look into the inner workings of the Crips. What I would like to know (preferably if you followed or heard about the story before this) is your opinions on him, his crime, and whether or not he should've gotten clemency. This is NOT a death penalty question, I feel that it has none or very little relevance to my report and the whole story in general.


I personally don't support the death penalty because it essentially means the state (my representative) convicts someone and sentences someone to death.

I just feel it's not my place to make a decision like that, therefore, I don't support it.


I disagree it has everything to do with the death penalty. Dude was put to death. He wanted clemency, which basically means he didn't want to be put to death. It's cut and dry and I feel too many people want to view this issue at weird angles to find something that isn't there.

It also has everything to do with my opinion on it. I don't support people being put to death on my behalf.


I think that in this case it isn't a question of the death penalty, it is a question of whether one specific person should be specially exempt from a punishment, not whether or not that punishment is wrong. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the death penalty, we have it in our country, and that was the punishment that he recieved. There's nothing that we can change about that, it is now a question of whether he, specifically, shouldn't have to face the same penalty that others who committed similar or lesser crimes do, because of what he did or did not do in prison (wiriting the children's books). I see it like this:

Person A = Punishment A (highest punishment)
Person B = Punishment A

While in prison, person A attempted to contribute something to society, person B did not. Should Person A be allowed to recieve punishment B (the next highest level of punishment) becuase of that. Because of that, I think that it is more a question of redemption and reformation in our prison system, and whether the purpose of our prison system is to attempt to reform people, and help them to contribute something to society (as Tookie did with the books), or if it is actually just to keep criminals off the streets and we don't really care what you try to do to make it up, you committed the crime.
Image

[size=18]

[url=http://baseball6791.deviantart.com/]My DeviantArt[/url][/size]
baseball6791
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Phatferd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:59 am

It still has to do with the death penalty though.

If 2 seperate inmates helped better society while in prison should they both get a lesser punishment?

What if one was in for 5 years on robbery and the other was on death row.

Should the guy with 5 years be set free while the guy on death row just get life? What would the equal "reward" be. Because of this the person on death row gets the better end of the stick. To me it ultimately comes down to the death penalty.

Also, how have they contributed to society? They harm it then all of a sudden they give something back so its all ok? That's like saying if I go into bank and rob 1 million dollars, but 4 years later decide to give 10k back each year to the bank and being rewarded for my giving act.

Also everyone in jail will write children books if they could get out.
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Postby baseball6791 » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:33 am

Phatferd wrote:It still has to do with the death penalty though.

If 2 seperate inmates helped better society while in prison should they both get a lesser punishment?

What if one was in for 5 years on robbery and the other was on death row.

Should the guy with 5 years be set free while the guy on death row just get life? What would the equal "reward" be. Because of this the person on death row gets the better end of the stick. To me it ultimately comes down to the death penalty.


Also, how have they contributed to society? They harm it then all of a sudden they give something back so its all ok? That's like saying if I go into bank and rob 1 million dollars, but 4 years later decide to give 10k back each year to the bank and being rewarded for my giving act.

Also everyone in jail will write children books if they could get out.


That's exactly my point, I don't think that he should've gotten clemency and don't think that writing children's books should get you exempt from the punishment you were given for the murders of four people. This is why I think the death penalty is pretty much irrelevant in my argument, because its not a question of whether he should be killed for his crimes, but whether he should be exempt from his punishment he was given because of what he did after. What I am trying to say is that you have to ignore what the punishments are, and just rank them - punishment A, punishment B, punishment C. Should you get to move down from A to B because of what you did while in prison? No. As to the first part of your statement, I don't think that it is a competitive case, I'm sure that the first inmate who would be set free would be perfectly happy with that, and the guy on death row not having to die would be perfectly happy with that. With that said, I don't think that either of them should get to be in that situation, because no matter what you do, you killed four people, end of story. You should have to face the punishment handed down to you by the law.
Image

[size=18]

[url=http://baseball6791.deviantart.com/]My DeviantArt[/url][/size]
baseball6791
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Phatferd » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:51 am

baseball6791 wrote:
Phatferd wrote:It still has to do with the death penalty though.

If 2 seperate inmates helped better society while in prison should they both get a lesser punishment?

What if one was in for 5 years on robbery and the other was on death row.

Should the guy with 5 years be set free while the guy on death row just get life? What would the equal "reward" be. Because of this the person on death row gets the better end of the stick. To me it ultimately comes down to the death penalty.


Also, how have they contributed to society? They harm it then all of a sudden they give something back so its all ok? That's like saying if I go into bank and rob 1 million dollars, but 4 years later decide to give 10k back each year to the bank and being rewarded for my giving act.

Also everyone in jail will write children books if they could get out.


That's exactly my point, I don't think that he should've gotten clemency and don't think that writing children's books should get you exempt from the punishment you were given for the murders of four people. This is why I think the death penalty is pretty much irrelevant in my argument, because its not a question of whether he should be killed for his crimes, but whether he should be exempt from his punishment he was given because of what he did after. What I am trying to say is that you have to ignore what the punishments are, and just rank them - punishment A, punishment B, punishment C. Should you get to move down from A to B because of what you did while in prison? No. As to the first part of your statement, I don't think that it is a competitive case, I'm sure that the first inmate who would be set free would be perfectly happy with that, and the guy on death row not having to die would be perfectly happy with that. With that said, I don't think that either of them should get to be in that situation, because no matter what you do, you killed four people, end of story. You should have to face the punishment handed down to you by the law.


I still think you're way off, but hey to each his own.

Its still death penalty or clemency in this particular case. I think you are doing what the media did and find some angle to this and disect it when it really comes down to the basis of the entire thing which is clemency or death.

I think the mistake you're making is using the "Tookie" case. His case is about the death penalty. If you want to make a point about people getting off because they contribute to society while in prison then you should look at that and not "Tookie's" case.

I think it has everything to do with the death penalty. Tookie is on it because he murdered people and therefore his case for getting a lighter punishment became the issue. The severity of his crime is what determined if he would be exempt or not, so it ultimately has everything to do with him being on death row.
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Re: Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Postby wrveres » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:02 am

Phatferd wrote:I disagree it has everything to do with the death penalty. Dude was put to death. He wanted clemency, which basically means he didn't want to be put to death. It's cut and dry


It was pretty cut and dry for the four people he gunned down, and just a guess, but they probably wanted to live too.
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 692)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wrveres » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:05 am

baseball6791
how is what you are asking and any different than say .. "Time off for good behavior"

That might be an interesting angle ..

The only difference I see is that his sentence was actually death, so there is really no way to reduce that ... there is no half dead.
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 692)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Oct. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Kansas City
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact