WharfRat wrote:Art Vandelay wrote:I got the point...I just disagree with it. You assign arbritrary numbers to actions that you deem good or bad and then pass off your made up equation as something substantial. You also assume that his non-action in giving the police information about the make up of the gang is bad (and somehow warrants a rating of -7...but you give no explanation as to why). It seems like a fun game, maybe I'll try:
I like children's books, so I'll say they're worth a positive 10. And I don't consider non-action bad...so he gets no negative points. That's a net of positive 10...which proves that he should have been not only granted clemency...but released from prison. And don't try to argue...the numbers prove it.
Evaluating Tookie's case: What does writing children's books accomplish? The children who read them may or may not be deterred from a life of crime. I have no idea how many children read his books, but I never did and neither did anyone else I know. I assume the books are targeted at inner-city youth at-risk to gang influence. So it's entirely possible that a kid who reads the books may feel some pressure to join the Crips or some other gang. The books are a nice asset, but questionable as to how much of a dent they may have on the monster that Tookie helped create.
On the flipside: If Tookie cooperates with law enforcement, he provides insight into the operations and structure of the Crips. I really hope I don't need to spell out the value that type of information can have, Art. It could be an extremely helpful tool against the Crips. It could prevent crime and lead to the encarceration of other criminals. Living in DC, I don't need to tell you about the American gang problem.
So yes, I would assign a higher value on the information he could provide, than the books he writes. But, if he doesn't cooperate...well, tough break for him, since he's not in much of a position to negotiate. Sorry Took, it's been nice knowin ya. Fried.
EDIT: And actually, my original point was that it did not actually matter what his crime was, like Phatferd was saying - it's a simple evaluation of whether or not he deserved clemency, regardless of the severity of the crime.
I don't even think Tookie should have been granted clemency (well...not any more than I think every person on death row should have their sentence comuted), but you continue to make outrageous assumptions and arbitrary designations that you somehow think prove your point.