Will the execution of Crips founder be a mistake?

Beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/gasper181105.html

Stan has always maintained that he did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted. The main evidence against Stan was the testimony of informants who claimed that he had confessed to them. All of these "witnesses" were facing serious felony charges and had strong motivations to make a deal with the police to reduce their own sentences. In fact, in its 2002 ruling, the Ninth Circuit admitted that these informants had "less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie in order to obtain leniency from the state in either charging or sentencing."

Since the original trial, another prisoner has come forward to say that he witnessed one of the informants being given the file on Stan's case by members of the Sheriff's Department so that he could learn details about the murders.

None of the physical evidence found at the two crime scenes, including fingerprints and a boot print, matched Stan. A witness's description of a person seen leaving the scene of one of the crimes did not fit him either. A shotgun shell supposedly matched a weapon he had bought several years earlier, but that gun was in the possession of a couple that was also facing serious felony charges. After they claimed that Stan had confessed to them, the investigation against them was dropped.

Now that Stan finally has competent legal representation, his lawyers have reinvestigated the evidence used in the case and found that it is even less adequate than previously known. According to one expert, for instance, the ballistics analysis used to identify the shotgun shell was nothing more than "junk science." Stan's lawyers have filed a new appeal with the California Supreme Court, pointing out many holes in the case against him, and the police and prosecutorial misconduct that convicted him.

How come whats so easy for me to see is so hard for everybody else to see. Am I (we) from a different planet?

Ask yourself these questions.

1. To what degree would Rampart go to to put the founder of the Crips behind bars for life. The ultimate prize. Remember L.A.s Rampart is probably the most notoriously scandalous police department in history?(This is the source of the evidence)

2. Would the people that tesified against Tookie do so to save there own ass. Would they lie to escape felony charges and jail time?

When the poor and the middle class break the law we throw the book at them but when people like Martha Stewart break the we send her to Camp Cupcake. Not to mention Ken Ley, Karl Rove, George Bush. If Rampart is the law we put men to death by f**k the law. We can't afford your law. We'll make our own.

Your wonderful CA governor is giving ample consideration to Tookie's application for clemency and may ultimately honor your wish to save the violent criminal who is largely responsible for the existence of gangs that entice and entrap our nation's most troubled young people into lives of violence and crime, prey upon the vulnerable and kill whoever tries to escape, and terrorize the populations of entire cities.

When we finally capture Osama Bin Laden, perhaps we should grant clemency to him too . . . if only he will write a few books discouraging the young, would-be terrorists from joining al Qaeda.

Keep your fingers crossed and pray for your hero.

That wasn't worthy of you, Debra.

Void

Debra
I have to censor what I would like to say to your inhuman rants.

Opinion and wishes of the victims kin.killer must die.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/369271p-314207c.htm

Emotions versus facts.

Indeed.

Inhuman? I have never created, organized, nor financed a terrorist organization. That would be inhuman.

I didn't invent the death penalty nor do I live in a state that imposes the death penalty. I would vote against the institution of the death penalty if it was proposed in my state. Nevertheless, I don't place great value on violent murdering criminals as human beings: Joseph Edward Duncan comes to mind. His vicious acts were inhuman.

The California governor may grant Tookie's petition for clemency. The people of California are free to abolish the death penalty if that's what they want to do. Even if you think it is inhuman to say so, I don't think Tookie Williams is someone who should be glorified as a hero or a role model.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that there appears to be no credible evidence he did those murders for which he was convicted.

The death penality works best if there are persons executed on ocassion who are totally innocent. the sole function of the death penality is to instill fear of the power of government.

edgarblythe
If there is no creditable evidence why in 26 years has he not been able in spite of all the people backing him been able to get a new trial and the verdict overturned. I suspect the evidence against him is indeed creditable.

You suspect, but probably have not bothered to research any of it.

Edgar
Research is what his lawyers no doubt have done and apparently come up with a zero.
I wonder if the zeal to have his sentence commuted is based upon your opposition to capital punishment or knowledge of the case.

It states explicitly on this thread that he has new lawyers, of a better caliber than before, and that they have unearthed enough to cast doubt on the conviction. The old lawyers apparently didn't try very hard.

perhaps not quite to the point, but : within the last year or two there have been a number of cases in canada, where people had been accused of murder and would likely have been executed, had canada not abolished the death penalty some years ago.
the number of cases showing a miscarriage of justice is certainly astonishing . as many defence lawyers have pointed out : the state has almost unlimited resources when trying to convict an accused .
as edgar pointed out : " It states explicitly on this thread that he has new lawyers, of a better caliber than before, and that they have unearthed enough to cast doubt on the conviction. The old lawyers apparently didn't try very hard. "
a famous canadian lawyer (mr. greenspan, who is handling the defence of conrad black on the canadian end - mr. black still seems to have some money left) has often pointed out : there are two kinds of justice - the justice for the rich and the justice for the poor , or not so rich. hbg

If we accept as fact the notion that 'once a murderer, always a murderer', then there is no point to even attempt anything resembling rehabilition of a convicted felon. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Tookie Williams is guilty of the murders as charged. He is sent to prison, awaiting execution. While in prison, over a couple of decades, he comes into contact with social social workers who discuss his past with him; he reads; he considers his past life. Over the years, he becomes a different person, one who is concerned about the welfare of the young kids growing up in the same sort of environment that he did. He begins to send a message to kids via the books he writes.

Is such a person not rehabilitated?

Then we say, "Okay. Good job, Tookie. You're a prince a fella now. Now it's time for that lethal injection."

What was the point of rehabilitation? Presumably, the point is to make a former miscreant a better member of society. To take his life at a time when that person is ready to contribute something positive to society is inhumane. Worse, it is counter-productive.

Let's stop pretending that our laws provide for anything other than revenge. Let's stop calling our prisons "correc tional" institutions because, apparently, having been "corrected" gives one no standing in society. I suspect that part of the reason we are even having a disagreement here is because we, as a people, have very mixed feelings about whether our prisons are meant to punish or to rehabilitate.

weell said, merry a.

Thank you, snood. If one's sins are not going to be forgiven, what is the point of renouncing them?