• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Government Teaches By Example

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The title of my thread is enough said:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_re_us/williams_execution
 
116 people have been exonerated from death row since 1992.
They spent a culmanitive total of over 1000 years behind bars.
These are those people.



These were innocent people that were almost put to death
if the states had their way. I can't for the life of me think of
any reason why an innocent person should be put to death
for the good of society.

For those of you that support the death penalty,
what would you say to this women?

Sonia Jacobs Florida Convicted 1976
Released 1992



Sonia Jacobs (Photo: Loren Santow)

 
I found some of this info on the founding of the Crips from Wikepedia:

 
Hmm, Wikepedia also mentions that Tookie's son is a convicted murderer as well and is in the same prison that his father was executed in.
 
TimmyBoy said:
Hmm, Wikepedia also mentions that Tookie's son is a convicted murderer as well and is in the same prison that his father was executed in.

Is he going to the slab also, or are we going through 30 years of appeals with him too?
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Is he going to the slab also, or are we going through 30 years of appeals with him too?

Gee, what a "deturrent" eh? I would imagine Tookie's son's kids would go to the slab too eh? Why don't we just go ahead and put the whole ghetto on the slab while we are at it.
 
TimmyBoy said:
Gee, what a "deturrent" eh? I would imagine Tookie's son's kids would go to the slab too eh? Why don't we just go ahead and put the whole ghetto on the slab while we are at it.
Now there's an idea....
 
KCConservative said:
Now there's an idea....

Yeah, that idea is called racism and genocide.
 
TimmyBoy said:
Yeah, that idea is called racism and genocide.
You're right, of course. Question: Is putting Tookie Williams to deat for the crimes he commited racist?
 
TimmyBoy said:
Gee, what a "deturrent" eh? I would imagine Tookie's son's kids would go to the slab too eh? Why don't we just go ahead and put the whole ghetto on the slab while we are at it.


UMMMM.. has the whole ghetto been convicted of brutal muliple murders of defenseless people? Is that what your inferring? wow what a racist assumption..... You should be ashamed of yourself....
 
KCConservative said:
You're right, of course. Question: Is putting Tookie Williams to deat for the crimes he commited racist?

Answer - NO

Far more whites have been executed then blacks as of Dec 5 2005.

BLACK
338
34%
HISPANIC
63 6%
WHITE
579
58%
OTHER
22
2.3%

Not to mention there are more whites on death row then blacks....
 
I guess I'm not surprized that nobody has the balls to discuss the issues raised in post #2. Neo's sure know a lot about cutting and running.
 
Billo_Really said:
I guess I'm not surprized that nobody has the balls to discuss the issues raised in post #2. Neo's sure know a lot about cutting and running.


Hence the reason we have the process that we do. Try to weed out any mistakes, or give people the right to show new evidence that may occur with better technologies
 
Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Hence the reason we have the process that we do. Try to weed out any mistakes, or give people the right to show new evidence that may occur with better technologies
There have been cases where the government would not allow the evidence to be admitted. I posted a link in the other thread responding to your post. That's a pretty good place to start if your interested in seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. I was pretty appauled by the way we process capitol crimes. It is definately not what you would think. Here's another link too. It's not hard to find info on this issue.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=220&scid=19
 
Billo_Really said:
I guess I'm not surprized that nobody has the balls to discuss the issues raised in post #2. Neo's sure know a lot about cutting and running.
Because, unlike the examples you gave in post #2, the Williams case is open and shut, unrefutable.

On a side note, there is a wonderful play you might be interested in reading or seeing, if you ever get a chance. It's called The Exonerated.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0571211836/104-7791467-2982319?v=glance&n=283155


Review

"[A]stark, spellbinding play [and] a profoundly moving excursion through the cracks in the justice system." -- Peter Marks, Washington Post

"An artful and moving evening of documentary theater . . . The play is on the one hand a devastating memorial to injustice but it also pays handsome tribute to the resilience of human hearts and minds." --Charles Isherwood, Variety

"Both compelling and deeply moving... This documentary-style presentation relating the true stories of people exonerated of their crimes while serving on death row is a riveting theatrical experience." --Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter

"Intense and deeply affecting"--Ben Brantley, The New York Times



Review
"[A]stark, spellbinding play [and] a profoundly moving excursion through the cracks in the justice system." -- Peter Marks, Washington Post

"An artful and moving evening of documentary theater . . . The play is on the one hand a devastating memorial to injustice but it also pays handsome tribute to the resilience of human hearts and minds." --Charles Isherwood, Variety

"Both compelling and deeply moving... This documentary-style presentation relating the true stories of people exonerated of their crimes while serving on death row is a riveting theatrical experience." --Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter

"Intense and deeply affecting"--Ben Brantley, The New York Times
 
Apparently, all the appellate Judges that reviewed the case tend to agree with you. Since I haven't done a lot of research on the "Tookie" case, I have to trust their better judgement.

Thanks for the tip about "Exonerated".
 
God-dammit, I forgot to say something about Bush in that last post!
 
Billo_Really said:
God-dammit, I forgot to say something about Bush in that last post!
lol....I knew you meant to.
 


Not all were exonerated and in the case of Jacobs her conviction was lessened to second degree MURDER. Your cause seems to like to misrepresent many such cases as if the people were actually innocent when in fact they were not.

As far as the staged picture

>>Jacobs, now 57, pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree murder of two police officers under an "Alford plea," in which she accepted a guilty verdict without abandoning her claim of innocence.
A transcript of her plea-bargain hearing says she acknowledged that prosecutors could prove she took part in the fatal shootings if the charges went to trial. In return for her plea, she was released after nearly 17 years in prison. Jacobs' boyfriend had been executed for the crimes.<<


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-24-exonerated_x.htm

Yes what a sweet innocent person she is.


Further to her case:



"A filmmaker persuaded of Jacobs's innocence helped her carry her legal fight to the federal court of appeals, and in 1992 the Broward County prosecutor gave her a choice. She could be retried -- and possibly wind up back on death row. Or she could take what's called an "Alford plea." She pleaded guilty to second-degree murder without admitting guilt but conceding there was enough evidence to convict her. Jacobs was sentenced to time served and released. In 1996 a documentary on her case was aired on ABC. This year Jacobs was the central character in an award-winning play about innocent people on death row, The Exonerated.
"While it is true an Alford plea allows a defendant to continue to deny guilt," Marquis wrote me, "the legal effect is exactly the same as a guilt plea. Jacobs's case is in some ways typical of many of the 'poster child' cases involving people released (as opposed to exonerated) from death row. In many cases not one but two juries found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt [but] the courts overturned the conviction, frequently not for actual innocence but because evidence was withheld from the defense -- certainly bad behavior, perhaps even properly sanctioned with a reversal, but not an affirmation of actual innocence."

http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2003/031107_2.html
 
You do a pretty good job of mis-representing the facts too. You can't say she was "not innocent" because she was not proven guilty. The prosecution's chief witness gave contradicting testimony. You can't make a judgement from that. However, you do. The truth is, we don't know. She could be as guilty as sin. But there is an equal amount of weight that she could be innocent of all charges. I personnally think they gave her the plea bargain to save face for the fact that they botched the trial. And you notice the plea bargain allowed her not to admit guilt. And you also noticed they let her out of prison right away.

My whole point of bringing this up was to bring light to the fact that we are not 100% sure that the people we send to death row are guilty. 116 have been released from death row that were going to die. If they are released, how can anyone say they are still guilty? I will tell you how, P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S!

By the way, they executed her companion who had the same evidence that she had. So they might have executed an innocent man. Your probably OK with that!
 

A transcript of her plea-bargain hearing says she acknowledged that prosecutors could prove she took part in the fatal shootings if the charges went to trial.

By the looks of it she is guilty according to her own words, unless of course the plea bargain transcript is wrong
 
I think that was a condition of the plea bargain if that was the case. I haven't seen that statement in her transcripts. Mainly because, I haven't seen her transcripts. But I would think that if they could prove she took part in the shootings, they wouldn't be giving her a plea bargain and releasing her from prison with that being closure for the case. No parole. No probation. Exoneration.

I do not want the guilty walking the streets. If they release someone after 17 years, I doubt she was guilty. We live in a prison state. Releasing people is the last thing on the govenments' mind.

It is interesting they call it the Dept. of Corrections. What are they correcting?
 
Billo_Really said:
You do a pretty good job of mis-representing the facts too. You can't say she was "not innocent" because she was not proven guilty.

I haven't misrepresented anything she was found guilty by a jury and by her own words admitted the state could probably prove her guilt. She was involved in a henious murder and took off in the patrol car along with the other perpetrators.

You can't make a judgement from that. However, you do. The truth is, we don't know. She could be as guilty as sin.

The justice system made the judgement not me and the truth is she admitted that there is enough evidence to tie her to the murders.

My whole point of bringing this up was to bring light to the fact that we are not 100% sure that the people we send to death row are guilty.

And we are not 100% sure that people we send to prison for life are guilty by that measure, but we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt and they are afforded a lengthy appeals process as further protection.

116 have been released from death row that were going to die. If they are released, how can anyone say they are still guilty? I will tell you how, P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S!

Releaseing from death row does not prove they were innocent of the crime. All it proves is a judge believed they did not merit the death penalty NOT that they did not commit the crime.

By the way, they executed her companion who had the same evidence that she had. So they might have executed an innocent man. Your probably OK with that!

I have no reason to believe he was innocent after the court found him guilty of killing the two troopers.

Let's look at a more clear cut case, how about the Atlanta courtroom killer, the guy who shot the judge and police officer in cold blood. Caught on the scene. Do you support the death penalty in that case?
 
If she was guilty, they wouldn't have released her!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…