Here is the response of the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office to Tookie’s Petition for Clemency. Chock-full of compelling evidence of Tookie’s guilt. Anyone who harbors doubts — either about his guilt or about his essentially evil nature — has not read this document.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
[…] There has been plenty of media coverage about all of the reasons why Tookie Williams should be granted clemency. Patterico points to the LA DA’s response. Anyone looking for specifics on the case might do well to read this document. From the introduction: This cold-blooded killer, Stanley Williams, now seeks mercy, the very mercy he so callously denied Albert, Tsai-Shai, Yen-I, and Yee-Chen. Stanley Williams does not deserve this mercy. In fact, despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him, and despite the non-existence of any credible defense, Stanley Williams has steadfastly refused to take any responsibility for the brutal, destructive, and murderous acts he committed. Without such responsibility, there can be no redemption, there can be no atonement, and there should be no mercy. For nearly 25 years, justice has been held in abeyance while Williams took advantage of a legal system designed to protect his rights. His rights have been protected. It is now time for the victims’ voices to be heard. We ask that clemency be denied, and that the ultimate punishment, imposed so many years ago, now be fulfilled. Related Topics: High Profile/Celebrity Trial, Law, Current Events Technorati Tags: Tookie_Williams, Death_Penalty, Crips, Arnold_Schhwarzenegger […]
The Southern California Law Blog » Tookie Williams (36e489) — 12/3/2005 @ 12:24 amAmbitious son of a bitch, isn’t he?
See Dubya (8313ba) — 12/3/2005 @ 12:43 amStanley “Tookie” Williams Watch: NOT Afraid to Die
Caution: This POST contains graphic violent images.
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (baa0b4) — 12/3/2005 @ 12:25 pmProtesters gather on the steps of City Hall to demonstrate against the pending execution of Stanley Tookie Williams in San Francisco, Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2005. Death penalty opponents rallied around…
Should Tookie Die? Cast Your Vote
After sitting on death row for 25 years, should convicted multiple murderer Stanley “Tookie” Williams be executed as sentenced by law?
Yes
No
Free polls from Pollhost.com
RELATED:
California Conservative (53ecd1) — 12/3/2005 @ 2:53 pmLet Tookie W…
Has anyone noticed how the majority of black celebrities — those who have a history of involvemnt in causes — have boycotted the “Save Tookie” movement:
We haven’t heard a word from Oprah, Denzel Washington, Magic Johnson, Stevie Wonder … and any number of others.
It’s only the hard leftists, Nation of Islam or anti death penalty activists who want anthing to do with this monster.
I’m not sure, but if I were on death row seeking clemency, I don’t think I’d want Snoop Dogg telling the world about my gentle soul.
dennis mosher (14f06c) — 12/3/2005 @ 5:59 pmChilling. Utterly chilling. I wonder whether Mr Williams’ supporters know the real facts of the case. Naahhhhh….no, I don’t.
CraigC (b6a973) — 12/4/2005 @ 1:34 amI briefly read the LA prosecutor’s letter denying plea for clemency. The part that struck me most, was, Tookie did not want to debrief. He did not want to inform the government of the workings of the gang group. In ordinary parlance, he did not want to snitch on his former pals.
If he was prepared to debrief, denying death by state execution and enabling him to debrief the government of the gang, might have been a good reason to give clemency to enable him to really do good work on the debriefing.
While I sympathise with the loss of lifes, for which he was charged and convicted and probably more lifes affected adversely by the gang he co-founded; whether he recanted or not becomes a non issue if he agreed to debrief and showed concrete signs of providing invaluable debrief.
How does one ensure it would be a good debrief? It has to be before clemency is granted. As after, and if he does not give good invaluable debrief, it would be not possible to reverse the clemency. It cannot be a conditional clemency conditional on invaluable inputs of a good and reliable debrief.
As he has not agreed to debrief, the issue of clemency is easily settled for NO clemency. Had he agreed to debrief and had he provided really invaluable debriefing, clemency could have been practically and pragmatically considered for invaluable input which could not have been otherwise obtained easily except from a real insider.
On the other hand, had he debriefed and really provided invaluable information, that is, he is seen by his previous gang and others to have snitched; his life could be at stake, at risk, of gang members, whether outside his prison wall or inside his prison wall. Debriefing would cost him his life, as it could be a price exacted for snitching. It could also cost his family’s members life or close friends’ life. He would have risked a lot to debrief and had he provided real debrief, a clemency plea should in those circumstances be granted, well knowing that with his snitching, his days could already be numbered. Yet he did it for the greater good of society. Before the allowing of clemency, a fair report would have been made of the debriefing information by the best and most appropriate authorities and whether it is really invaluable input, and whether it really makes our society safer and protects vulnerable youths from street and gang life. If the report affirms the true and real value of the debriefing which really helps all those areas, then, a plea for clemency could be supported. If the report says the debriefing was nominal and did not provided any new invaluable helpful information that the authorities do not already know or could not have in the course of the routine investigation obtained it by themselves, then a plea for clemency should not be considered.
All other issues, like “against death penalty”, authoring or co-authoring children’s book against gang life, etc are side shows, thrilling but of no substance to this plea for clemency. Proponents of “against death penalty” require a different Trojan Horse. While I take the practice rule of not killing insects, animals, fish, I agree with [human] death penalty as set out by state or federal laws to protect society.
Yi Ling (013c98) — 12/6/2005 @ 9:54 pmThe whole point of your argument is that he hasnt been “debriefed”. Thats because prisoners are only debriefed for prison gangs. The crips are a street gang ans therefor excluded from debriefing. Also his children’s books are not without substance.
dj (bd9cb9) — 12/7/2005 @ 8:46 amThe whole point of your argument is that he hasnt been “debriefed”. Thats because prisoners are only debriefed for prison gangs. The crips are a street gang ans therefor excluded from debriefing….
I am not sure I follow you, nor the context of your observation above.
The point I made was based on my reading of Williams refusal to be debriefed and the prosectuors’ analysis of this refusal. The rest I built on it myself from the prosecutors’s analysis at the conclusion.
I have reproduced the extracts that are relevant on the debriefing and if you think I have read it wrongly, I would appreciate your reading of the prosecutors’ analysis and conclusion and your views of it. Thank you.
First refer to page 52 of 57 on “review of letters opposing clemency page” :
Then refer to the “Conclusion” at page 54 of 57
Yi Ling (db7e9a) — 12/7/2005 @ 9:34 amStanley Tookie Williams was born on December 29th 1953. According to ancient Greek numerology, at the time of Pythagoras, as explained by Dan Millman at http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/091581160X/qid=1134038898/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/702-6999974-4778428 “The Life You Were Born to Live : A Guide to Finding Your Life Purpose” Stanley Tookie Williams’ life path is calculated as follows 2+9+ 1+2+ +1+9+5+3 = 32/5 = 5 . It is his life path “5” to know what is real freedom from true discipline. Not false freedom without inner discipline. Example, of false freedom, one can come home as late as one likes, one can have as many man/woman for sex as one likes, one can drink as much as one likes. It is “freedom” but not true freedom for a person born with life path “5”. Reviewing his life, based on the mentioned ancient Greek numerology, per the above linked book, Stanley Tookie Williams has tried to and in some limited way succeeded in fulfilling his life path, as gleaned from this Christian Science Monitor article reporting :
My conclusion: The seven years in the hole seemed to have given Stanley Tookie Williams the opportunity and occasion to work towards his chosen life path “5”. His death [justified for the murders he committed many years ago] on December 13th 2005, does not take away his attempt and success in fulfilling his own life path to a certain degree.
While I support his execution on December 13th 2005 in accordance with the law of the land by which he was tried and found guilty with all avenues exhausted, and clemency possibly denied, I nonetheless consider Tookie has lived his life better in later parts of his adult life and that is his own real success that no one can take away from him. The long years of appeal process had enabled him to turn around to a degree that has enabled him to fulfil his own life path to know what is true discipline and true freedom as opposed to false freedom. The system has helped him to find time, occasion and opportunity to fulfil his own life path “5” 🙂
“He’s proof that someone can change the direction of his life and give a good example to other young people,” says Mario Fehr, who, along with five fellow members of the Swiss Parliament, put forth Williams’s Nobel nomination.
Mr. Fehr, the Swiss Parliamentarian, makes clear that the Nobel nomination is intended to honor Williams, as well as call attention to the injustice of the death penalty. “This will help push the death-penalty debate to a higher level,” says Fehr from Zurich.
Stanley “Tookie” Williams (born December 29, 1953) was the founder, along with Raymond Washington, of the Crips, a Los Angeles, California youth protection organization that grew, after Williams’ incarceration and Washington’s murder, into one of the most widely-known and notorious street gangs.
Convinced he was behind a budding gang power struggle, prison officials sent Williams to “the hole,” a place where even minimal prison liberties are denied, where he stayed for seven years.
It was there, says Williams, that the conversion began.
“It didn’t happen overnight,” he says. “It wasn’t an epiphany. It was gradual, and that’s what made it more effective – not like one of those crash diets where it doesn’t last,” he chuckles.
“He’s proof that someone can change the direction of his life and give a good example to other young people,” says Mario Fehr, who, along with five fellow members of the Swiss Parliament, put forth Williams’s Nobel nomination.
Mr. Fehr, the Swiss Parliamentarian, makes clear that the Nobel nomination is intended to honor Williams, as well as call attention to the injustice of the death penalty. “This will help push the death-penalty debate to a higher level,” says Fehr from Zurich.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/11/28/fp1s4-csm.shtml
Yi Ling (9ac0ce) — 12/8/2005 @ 2:59 amI had not intended to copy the addition and by oversight they appeared. As they have been reproduced above, I shall go over them and comment.
My comment: I think members of the Swiss parliament are misguided in policy to nominate on the basis of honoring a criminal on account of some good works he has done in prison.
My comment: I think Swiss Parliamentarian are misguided in policy to dictate the debate of death penalty across the Atlantic because Swiss have repealed the death penalty. Citizens of each state have to make that decision for their own society and should not be dicateted to in this manner. It is wholly inappropriate and utterly misguided and a wrong use of the Nobel peace prize nomination.
My comment: for extracting the date of birth to determine, at his close hour of his death and execution on Dec 13th 2005, how he has lived his chosen life path. To add to “5” which is his big hill to climb, he was to start with smaller hills, two of them. The first small hill deals with “3” which is his ability to express himself in a good way than I n bad way. Bad expression would be temper and fist fighting. He had to deal with those challenges to be become better at expressing himself in a supportive uplifting way. These are things he should have done as a child and teen and he did not. Instead he did it in a bad way. It appears that he started doing it the right way after his 7 years slow conversion and thus his emails from youths http://www.tookie.com/mail.html he reached expressing thanks for his sharing with them . This shows he fulfilled his first hill climb in later part of his life and thus he could uplift some youths. His second hill deals with “2” he needed to cooperate with people and his getting his books published shows cooperation and his working with some internet program for youths also shows cooperation. He thus succeeded in some measure on his second hill”2” and with it he was then ready for his final and main and real hill of “5” which is experiencing real freedom as detailed above post.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/11/28/fp1s4-csm.shtml
Yi Ling (9ac0ce) — 12/8/2005 @ 3:17 amDebriefing would cost him his life, as it could be a price exacted for snitching.
Yi Ling, I think you’re confusing atonement and debriefing – two different things altogether.
The basis for Tookie’s clemency plea is that he has (in some heavily nuanced way) “atoned” for his sins and “redeemed” himself through his children’s books that no one read (last I heard he sold a grand total of about 300 copies).
The problem with this that “atonement” = “confession” + “taking full responsibility”, and Took’s done neither; instead all he’s done is write some bad literature that no one has read as a threadbare excuse for the anti-DP crowd to recruit him as their latest posterboy.
More than anything else this shows the anti-death penalty movement has fallen on hard times indeed if Tookie is the best they can come up with.
Now, “debriefing” would have helped get a reduced sentence earlier in the game, if he had given the prosecutor something of value – but you need to understand that the prosecutor could care less about whether the perp feels “sorry” – that’s the governor’s concern. With the prosecutor, you get something for something, and nothing for nothing. Took offered nothing, so that’s what he got in return (I guess he was hoping for some affirmative action).
By the way your argument about “fearing for his life” doesn’t even qualify as sophistry – he and whoever he calls “family” would have been entered into what’s called a “witness protection program” if he had done a plea bargain.
Scott (57c0cc) — 12/8/2005 @ 7:04 amScott,
Yi Ling, I think you’re confusing atonement and debriefing – two different things altogether.
(1) I am not sure what ‘atonement’ means and in what context. In what context are you using it and what does it mean? [ atonement] I understand atonement in spiritual sense of atoning for one’s sin.
(2)I do not have prosecutorial background to have an independent view in depth view and opinion of how the prosecutors intended when they wrote what they did in the report, other than what I would infer from what they wrote. If you have, as you seem to project so, could you clarify the quotes of what they meant by debriefing and their context?
(3) If debriefing did not carry the meaning as I read it superficially, how does one read the debriefing point and conclusion analysis as reproduced ad verbatim above?
My exposure/ thoughts are more towards foreign private commercial law and international law in economic development [GATT,WTO], and I am currently planning to prepare for the CA bar Summer ’06 .
IF Tookie has a “known” face, how does witness protection help him unless he has plastic surgery to alter his face altogether?
I would appreciate your direction on all the above. Take the prosecutors’ report apart [ its linked by Patterico at the top of his article above about 57 pages] if you have and show how it supports your analysis and contentions above.
Yi Ling (6e5d2c) — 12/8/2005 @ 9:15 amTookie has brought an uncontrilable disease in our cities especially in the Black Community. His stupidity and lack of reponsibility has the youth killing each other for over 25 years. He has created an epidemic that is out of control. You think writing a children’s book is going to stop this plague that he spread the seed for. He deserves a public hanging for what he has brought into this world. He deserves to die just like Charles Manson, Berkowitz and all the other losers in our prison system that have commited atrocities against their fellow man. Throw in child molesters and rapists. I am sick and tired of these free loaders having luxuries in prison while the working class in the inner city have to take the bus.
Demitrius Washington (a6843f) — 12/8/2005 @ 2:12 pm(1) I am not sure what ‘atonement’ means and in what context. In what context are you using it and what does it mean? [ atonement] I understand atonement in spiritual sense of atoning for one’s sin.
I’ve got a better idea – why don’t you explain the point of bringing up Tookie’s ‘debriefing’ and how that is relevant to his clemency plea. i.e. what’s your position on the Save Tookie movement?
(2)I do not have prosecutorial background to have an independent view in depth view and opinion of how the prosecutors intended when they wrote what they did in the report, other than what I would infer from what they wrote. If you have, as you seem to project so, could you clarify the quotes of what they meant by debriefing and their context?
See my first answer.
(3) If debriefing did not carry the meaning as I read it superficially, how does one read the debriefing point and conclusion analysis as reproduced ad verbatim above?
Ditto
My exposure/ thoughts are more towards foreign private commercial law and international law in economic development [GATT,WTO], and I am currently planning to prepare for the CA bar Summer ‘06 .
Sorry, was I supposed to be impressed?
IF Tookie has a “known” face, how does witness protection help him unless he has plastic surgery to alter his face altogether?
Same way it helps anyone else in the program (or do you think witness protection is reserved just for low profile hoodlums?)
I would appreciate your direction on all the above.
Anything I can do to help.
Scott (57c0cc) — 12/9/2005 @ 6:21 amScott
I’ve got a better idea – why don’t you explain the point of bringing up Tookie’s ‘debriefing’ and how that is relevant to his clemency plea. i.e. what’s your position on the Save Tookie movement?
As you asked and as it did not seem clear to you, my position on Tookie is that he should be dealt with in accordance with the law and executed on December 13th 2005.
As far as clemency plea is concerned, I take the view that the clemency plea would have been worth considering if he had debriefed [ here, the district attorneys’ repor does not distinguish debriefing prior to trial, conviction and after , and paraphrasing the district attorney’s report arguing against clemency, inter alia [among other reasons] on the ground that, Williams had NOT provided substantial, in-depth insight into the history and structure of the Crips gang nor did he provide significant information relating to many unsolved crimes, including murders both inside and outside the prison walls, which information would have helped bring closure and some sense of justice to the families of many, many victims. For direct quote refer to page 54 of 57 as follows:
I look for substance, and the good work that Williams did with the children’s internet campaign and writing, are not of the same substance as the provision of substantial, in-depth insight into the history and structure of the Crips gang, and provision of significant information relating to many unsolved crimes, including murders both inside and outside the prison walls, which would have helped bring closure and some sense of justice to the families of many, many victims.”
As there is no substance in the clemency plea, in the absence of provision of substantial, in-depth insight into the history and structure of the Crips gang, and provision of significant information relating to many unsolved crimes, including murders both inside and outside the prison walls, which would have helped bring closure and some sense of justice to the families of many, many victims; I would agree that the clemency plea should be rejected and execution be carried out.
I raised the debriefing point, because, a glance at the district attorneys’ report [ refer to 57 pages report at top of Patterico’s article here above] arguing against clemency for Tookie, showed that the most interesting point and substantial point for a clemency plea in such a case would be Tookie’s opportunity , in the TWENTY FOUR [24 ] YEARS from conviction and pending the finalization or exhaustion of the appeal process, to provide substantial, in-depth insight into the history and structure of the Crips gang, and provide significant information relating to many unsolved crimes, including murders both inside and outside the prison walls, which would have helped bring closure and some sense of justice to the families of many, many victims.
I looked at the District attorneys’ report mentioned and produced by Patterico, as a closure to the core issue of the Nobel Peace Prize Nomination being tainted and mocked by several nominations of Tookie Williams for this prestigious prize. I do not think that any inappropriate nominations improperly disclosed for political motives of challenging and debating the death penalty , should be a cause for disparaging the Nobel Peace Prize nomination and award. Any grievance can be properly ventilated to the relevant authorities and appeals for changes be made in accordance with the procedure that is available and failing which, by court action in the proper court forum.
After looking further into the Tookie’s nominations, it appears that, it is nominations from abroad that spurred the issue because of the political motive of challenging the death penalty as the European ideal of human rights which negates and abolishes the death penalty. The ideal of human rights premised on abolishing death penalty is a European ideal or for that matter that of the Swiss parliamentarian and that should remain their ideal, save for the states here that have abolished death penalty. Where states chose to retain death penalty, it is their right. Professors who have aligned with the ideal of abolishing death penalty have acted improperly to use the Nobel peace process to change state laws on death penalty without using the state process. In so doing it has cast more disrepute to a political Nobel Peace Prize.
The state of conflict in the world, and the peace sought, and wars fought, in hot spots and regions, necessarily means that nominations for Nobel Peace Prize are necessarily premised on politics. Peace is not an ideal in an ideal world, and there is politicization. However, they remain a subject worthy of peace prize nominations nonetheless, and the context of politicization needs to be understood, and the parties or persons authorized to and invited to nominate the nominees for this Nobel Peace Prize, are assumed to have a grasp of the politicalisation process in this nomination and award process. There being no perfection in a non ideal world, the Nobel Peace Prize is, a realistic attempt to move mankind to peace, given the conflict that existed, exists and continue to exist and forever will exist, in one form or another 🙂
Yi Ling (229bf7) — 12/9/2005 @ 8:31 amScott,
Anything I can do to help.
This article linked gives a different basis for extending clemency to Tookie http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051209_markel.html
If you can review the merits of the claimant’s arguments [ and share your opinion on it], that leads to his conclusion Not by sparing Williams alone, but by commuting the sentences of all those on California’s death row. And not in the name of mercy, but in the name of justice that would be nice 🙂
Yi Ling (a184c1) — 12/9/2005 @ 4:33 pmAn appropriate sentence for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, convicted four time murderer.
Many others and I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, that is, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Therefore, using this criterion, Tookie should be sentenced to death by SHOTGUNNING, as he sentenced his victims to die by.
I can see it all now, a macabre flight of fancy, with myself cast as the Chief executioner of San Quentin correctional facility.
One hour before the execution, final preparations would be made in the green room, the warden presenting me with hearing protection muffs and a sawed off, Mossberg 935 12 gauge magnum autoloading shotgun. The magazine would contain brass cased, hotloaded 00 buckshot.
“Are you sure you can handle this?” the warden would ask, a review panel having found that lethal injection was much too merciful for those such as Tookie Williams.
“Sure, I’ve dropped many a deer with one of these babies,” I would answer, hanging the muffs around my neck.
“No, that’s not what I mean, do you think you can slaughter inmate Tookie in such a brutal manner?”
“Why not, he killed his victims in the same way.”
“Very good,” the warden would reply, “Your weapon has been provided with four shells, one for each of his victims. The entire procedure is to take five minutes, in order for Tookie Williams to feel the maximum amount of pain for his crimes.”
“Yes sir.”
“Remember that each shot must be felt by the condemned, the last shot being a point-blank blast to the left side of his face, in memory of his victim Ye Chen Lin. Oh yes, and please be certain the final shot is so directed that it blows his brains out.”
“No problem,” I would answer confidently, sitting down in the death chamber with the Mossberg autoloader in my lap, awaiting instructions to carry out the duly ordered execution.
“Executioner, remember also that you must not speak to the condemned, as it is against prison procedure.”
“Yes, sir,” I would answer from my seat.
Later, Tookie would be drug in, kicking and screaming, to the death chamber. He would look at me with sullen eyes as he was strapped in the chair. The warden would pronounce the sentence, and the chamber would be closed.
“You may proceed, executioner,” the warden would remark over an intercom speaker.
I would nod, place the muffs over my ears, rise from my chair, and cock the Mossberg, chambering the first round.
“You’re a sick muthafucker,” Tookie would yell while I would pause to determine where to place the first shot, for maximum prolongation of his agony.
Remaining silent and focusing on the lower part of his legs, I would pull the trigger, shredding the prison uniform and blowing off his left kneecap, flesh, bone and blood flying everywhere. The spent shell would eject to the floor with a metallic clatter; smoke and the smell of burned powder would fill the room. An overhead exhaust fan would come on, ventilating the noxious fumes from the death chamber. Tookie would shriek in pain, his formerly powerful arm muscles struggling against the nylon restraining straps.
The warden would call out, “Hold for one minute.”
I would nod, preventing myself from uttering a word.
A minute would pass.
“You may proceed.”
Having time to decide where to place the second shot, I would direct the muzzle at Tookie’s right arm and pull the trigger. The blast would sever the arm below the elbow as the condemned would thrash about, writhing in exquisite torment as the spent shell bounced off a thick glass window in the death chamber. Blood would shoot in torrents from the remains of his thrashing arm; the severed lower part still strapped to the arm of the chair.
“Hold for thirty seconds,” would come over the speaker while the exhaust fan would hum in the background.
I would turn to the warden with a quizzical expression.
“He’s running out of blood, at this rate he’ll be dead before you blow his head off.”
I would nod.
“Proceed.”
The muzzle would be aimed as to produce a painful lower gutshot, the 00-buck blasting in a wide pattern, nearly severing his penis and lower spine; the third shell casing bouncing off a wall before landing on the floor of the death chamber.
“Hold for thirty.”
Blood would be dripping to the floor from Tookie’s wounds and spattered about the death chamber; I would pause to wipe blood from my shooting glasses as the smoke cleared.
My glasses replaced, the bored warden would remark in monotone, “You may again proceed executioner.”
“Finish me off you cruel muthafucker!” Tookie would yell with his remaining strength.
“With pleasure,” I would retort with a vicious smile, momentarily losing control and violating prison procedure for the first time in my career as Chief executioner of San Quentin correctional facility.
Calmly aiming point blank at the left side of his face, I would move the checkered buttstock of the sawed-off Mossberg high to my right, so the kill shot would enter his skull at an oblique angle. The trigger would be pulled, the final brass shell casing ejecting automatically. The blast would erase the left side of Tookie’s face; his brains erupting through the skull from the rear of his head, splattering like red, white and gray Jell-O over the green walls of the death chamber.
Slumped in the chair, a dying Tookie would gurgle blood from his mouth for a minute or two; I feeling remorse for having spoke to him in his final moments.
As the smoke cleared the chamber would be opened for a physician to pronounce Tookie dead. The doctor, not really caring, would look over the mangled remains and say, “Well, if Tookie Williams isn’t dead, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that he wishes he was.”
The warden would walk in, stare at me and say, “Christ, what a gory mess, look at you, you’re practically covered in blood from the condemned!”
Yeah, it’s a good thing Tookie didn’t have AIDS or hepatitis,” I would answer nonchalantly, quickly adding, “Sorry warden, I violated procedure by speaking to the condemned.”
“Don’t worry about it, I don’t blame you, he was a mouthy piece of shit; were I you, I’d have punched him for his smart remarks.”
With those words, the execution party would leave, with other death row prisoners assigned to remove the body and disinfect the death chamber.
Later, the warden looking on in sheer disgust, the remains of Tookie Williams would be carried off from San Quentin in an unmarked coroner’s van, to be dumped into San Francisco Bay from the Golden Gate Bridge.
Frank Gonzalez (c3d38b) — 12/11/2005 @ 7:20 pmI think the dead and dying need to be honored. Personally, I eschew taking life, but recognise the need for society to set rules on taking life, whether it is (1) death penalty for serious crimes or (2) self defence in war or pre emptive wars as the case may be.
On Tookie’s expected execution on Dec 13th 2005, I would, in silence, thank life, for the opportunity afforded Tookie to grow more deeply into himself in the 6-7 years of more solitary life in prison, where, he experienced gradual inner transformation with the result of being able to reach out to youths tempted with the lure of gang life.
I would thank the system that enabled him the time and opportunity afforded by the intervening 24 years to explore himself and thus grow in his own chosen ways.
I would thank the people who contributed to the system that gave Tookie this 24 years’ leash of life, where, fortunately he made something of it for himself and some others.
I would honor the system that sentences and executes him on Dec 13th, 2005, to preserve the workings of the system, and the price that some have to pay to carry out the execution as a duty to all of us.
Yi Ling (2436ff) — 12/11/2005 @ 7:44 pmStanley ‘Tookie’ Williams killed those people and there was ballistics evidence traced to his gun. His two friend that he hung out with reported that he confessed to both of them. I am convinced that Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams did kill people violently for little or no reason. Regardless of his new jailhouse halo and stuff. He should have thought twice before he killed those people. He referred to the Asian family that he killed as “Buddha-Heads” as he confessed to a friend.
Steve (488b00) — 12/12/2005 @ 10:34 pmI am against the death penalty, but I feel that Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams is most definitely guilty.
What is so odd about this is that we all judge on a subject that we don’t know about 100%. Now whether he was innocent or not is the first problem. I don’t know if he commited a crime (and if he did, then only God knows). It’s strange that a man who would have done anything possible to get off death-row, wouldn’t give up his integrity to ‘confess’ to a crime; now if he didn’t and we are all wrong, then there is something terribly wrong is the judgement we place(d). It’s hard to believe that ‘Mr.Freeze,’ the same guy who played roles as a pregnant man (someone who as an actor can’t fulfill his job), was deciding the fate of a human being. So what does that say? That basically the person who decides is arbitrary; now can we say that what Arnold says is the law. Technically yes – but morally i will not agree on his words. You condemn him because he didn’t atone. Okay well if he didn’t do it then many people out there will be eatting their words, but regardless you are judging him because of what you think is right – and what that answer is and might always be unclear. Heresay….
Andrea (fdefa7) — 12/15/2005 @ 12:54 pmThere is something also very disturbing about needing to see that someone is murdered on the basis of a crime that hasn’t even been proven (but strongly demonstrated to be true). We all know of the cases where people have died innocently; the tendency here is for people to respond by saying ” whatever that was in the past, and this HAS to be right because the government knows now.” Now how can there be justice from this point of view? I mean if there is some bit of doubt from any circumstance, then let’s do something so unreversable as kill? As history proves, nothing is certain.
Regardless of innoncence in this case, the main point is that Tookie has had some influence in diverging youth from entering gang life. Now if he did it to ‘look good’ or whatever the reason is, he’s touched a group of kids that otherwise (from the government) are ignored. How many out there who are ‘sooo against’ Tookie, have been to a hood? How many know the causes of what leads to gangs? If you all led the life of an underpriviledge neighborhood, then what Tookie did was a step forwards than what Arnold S. has possibly ever done for the ‘hoods of the US’.
The problem is that everyone wants to make it a race issue, but it is an issue of who gets saved in such cases. Its not the rich white or black or hispanic person. Its the immigrants, the poor, those who can’t fend for themselves, and those who ‘do bad things’because of their lifestyle. And the government does little to make sure that the problems that LEAD to gangs don’t occur. But then again, how can we talk to these kids? Definately not by having the upperclass, elitist politicians go out there and talk against a life they’ve never lead, or don’t understand. That’s why someone like Tookie, who would live a life until death in jail, would be beneficiary to such communities. Let’s not bring down his accomplishments by saying “so what if that gangster helped kids out there by writing books.” Thats absurd, because if it affected and helped your community, and your people then a different song would be sung.
Lastly, we keep refering to Tookie as a gang member…YES he was…and yes other people like Snoop Dogg WAS also, but by example we see that it doesn’t make them a bad person for the rest of their lives. There comes a point when anger and such a life can’t govern who you are, i’m sure as Arthur Williams finally realized (and as others who have left gangs have as well). Maybe it was jail that allowed him to step back, but no one else can discredit who he became because you didn’t KNOW him. Neither did I, but no one is the same person the were at 14. What if someone judged you in that light?
This case moves beyond what did and didn’t happen. It’s about transposing the same sensibilities towards others about what is fair and what is equal. This “we have to follow the goverment” is bull as well. It’s true, but has the law been fair in history? No…innocent people have died before. No…it’s not your cousin who gets arrested because he was poor & hispanic on a Thursday. I mean we all break the laws in some form or another; does it make it right? No, but what is ‘right’ anyway? Its more a matter of governing our lives as we see proper and moral.
Another thing that you may not know about ‘gang’ culture is to prove oneself to be ‘tough’ by not ratting others out. So what if he was trying to play the roll of a gang leader and confess to these crimes (because im’ sure that someone in the sheriff’s department harrassed him to the point that if he agreed, then —. I mean how many people want to believe it that they CAN pin it one the black, gang kid?) Don’t we remember the case of the Central Park Joggers & killings…some kids confessed, and it turned out NOT to be them in the end. Another black runner was also running, and was shot by the cops? I mean in so many cases this is what happens; so if he confessed and said this or that about the people….then its also feasible to consider another possiblity. We can’t base what we know on the ‘facts’ presented…the truth isn’t always what is percieved to be.
I do though can’t deny that 4 people died during this time. I hope that they can rest now, if this is how justice is rightfully sought… Justice does prevail in the end.
Andrea (fdefa7) — 12/15/2005 @ 1:01 pmAndrea,
At some point, we have to accept the legal-judicial system’s finding of guilt, upheld over 24 years appellate process. If we wish, we can go back to the trial transcripts and decision and grounds of appeal and decisions, and then review it. Alternatively we could in good faith, accept the system we have has delivered the hand of justice in finding him guilty and upholding his guilt over 24 years appellate process.
We all judge based on best information we have. The best information are based on the adversarial system we have for justice [ as opposed to the European inquisitorial system] and the structure of the courts, and appellate processes, and the jury system and the trial court hearing.
We could look at the district attorney’s report recommending denial of clemency where they set out the grounds for conviction based on facts they know.
God whoever He is or however God is conceived would know whether he did commit the 4 murders. We are not priviledged with the “true” knowledge whether he did or not.
Opponents of death penalty cite the 100+ cases where there have been wrong convictions and thus oppose death penalty, so that one does not commit irreversible error. This is a public policy issue that is work in progress and each state has to determine for itself, how to weigh the risk of 1 error that is irreversible versus the perceived benefits of death penalty. Each person has a say on THIS and their say is then translated through the legislative process, however they exert their say. If you look at the different states, there are differing positions.
In CA at one point the court prohibited death penalty but this was over turned by the legislature.
Now it could come up again with a possible moratarium on death penalty till 2009 when it could be decided again, if some Dems have their way. Whether they have their way is part of the process of EACH person having their say based on their understanding and convictions.
I accept the court’s finding and appellate decisions of finding of guilt and accept that there could be valid reasons why Tookie did not admit committing the 4 murders [ without exploring what those reasons are, whether amnesia of that part of his mind, whether strategically aiding the cause of abolishing death penalty by creating a doubt in caring people’s mind about his innocence and thus propelling the cause of abolishing death penalty forward] and am for Tookie’s execution because he did not debrief the authorities.
If there was a CA moratarium on death penalty, when Tookie was scheduled for execution, then he would have benefited from the people’s say.
Since there was no moratarium, on Dec 13th, 2005, his death was in accordance with the laws of CA.
May his soul rest in peace.
All the best 🙂
Yi Ling (335fd1) — 12/15/2005 @ 6:02 pmAndrea, you do NOT compare apples with oranges. ANY governor’s duty is to the respective state and one important duty is to make sure that the trade and economics of the respective state is vibrant, healthy bank account and in march with the national economy and global economy.
Andrea, also bear in mind, the good that Tookie did, he also did bad :
Yi Ling (335fd1) — 12/15/2005 @ 6:17 pm1) murdered 4 people
2) co founded and started Crips gang in LA and spread to other states in US and also spread to South Africa
3) indirectly responsible for the deaths in gang fights for drug trade. Competing gangs fight for turf or territory for drug trade and thus results deaths in gang fights.
4) gang membership in LA [ Los Angeles county] grew from 30,000 in 1980 to 150,000 by 1998.
5) Tookie did not debrief authorities of Crips gang
Thanks for your input guys~
I understand that there is a court process and laws. I am not arguing that these laws exist or that it works a certain way, I’m arguing first that they are messed up, to simply put it.
Furthermore about the gang thing, its hard to pinpoint the increase of gang violence on tookie. Considering that he did not control what happened after he began the crips; i’m sure he didn’t imagine that that gang would have surged to such numbers. It could have been any other gang as well, and the results may have been different. What if the crips had died out?
Tookie also didn’t create the ideas of a gangs. In 1969, a Los Angeles teenager named Raymond Washington gathered together a few buddies and started up a gang called the Baby Avenues. It was a few years later that they would join with Williams. But even before Washington, gangs existed.
In the South Bronx of the early 70’s, because of the contruction by Robert Moses to make the Cross Bronx Expressway, the south bronx was to simply put it, a piece of shit, the slums,buildings burnings everywhere, no order…Why? because no one cared about it, it was beyond ‘law.’ Because of the situation, no political involement, and chaos, gangs arose. Gangs were a way of surivival, of protecting oneself and the other ‘brothers’ (they were basically family). Maybe they continued to grow because there were no youth programs to intervene to say it was wrong. To make a long story short, these gangs (after killings and rivalry) ultimately united to speak out and fight against violence and moreso to fight for the rights of Blacks and Puerto Ricans. They became a positive influence that changed lives, and sought equality and proper attention to their community from the government. Now, many of these ex-members are advocates against gangs to the youth of the bronx.
Regardless, gangs exist in the Bronx, and who do we blame in that case? The failure of the government to even tend to these people in the first place? or the ignorance of the youth to be tough and better and find stability through what they have to live? We can’t compare the lives of the kids out of these projects with that of life in scarsdale, with picket fences, and a great education. Undoubtedly, gangs arise all over the nation because of reasons like this; youth that are confused and are looking for stability and power. And not because Tookie said so, or wanted it that way for all of his existing life.
I’m just trying to say that gang violence exists and will exist for powers that are beyond Tookie WIlliams. He may not have ‘denounced’ or snitched on the crips, well for the same reason that these gangs find honesty in one another, find brotherhood. But is he going to put away people who he considered to be his friends? If this was you, now let’s think outside of the box here, what would you do; and how could you to JUST save yourself? We tend to believe that every gang member will forever always be terrible horrible people. When the reasons that they enter gang life is to find support and trust outside of this world (of their needing neighborhood)that doesn’t care for them.
We can not stereotype why or who every person is in a gang, because the reason for gang involvement may not be what you expected.
In anycase, another issue is that we also don’t understand gang codes either. There are people who should be spared from the stigma with their involvement with gangs beacuse they CAN change if they want and they CAN bring about positive changes and they DO deserve the right to have a family and move on (i will use again the case of Snoop because we all know who he is…and also we can think of the ex=gang members of the Bronx).
And not to be mistaken here, i do not support gangs we need to as a whole find a way to stop gang violence. PUtting these people in jail only brings about immediate justice, but it does not solve the underlying problems that have perpetuated gangs to form in history. I do not fully understand the lives these people lead to make them feel so angry to the point that crimes and death is the answer. But many can and do change and maybe tookie is no worse. I don’t think that if Tookie debriefed the government about the crips, that it will have changed things except caused an enormous chaos and uprise among anyone even RELATED to someone in the crips. Maybe he gave up his life, to show others what gang life can lead to. Hopefully, and surely, others will see the example that was made of him and the messages of his book to further minimalize and stray away from involvement in gangs.
_______
In 1994:
FORT WORTH — Leaders of the Crips and Bloods, two of the city’s largest warring gangs, called for a truce yesterday afternoon while city and county officials made promises to help find alternatives to their dangerous lifestyle.
“I’m here today to start a gang truce between the Bloods and the Crips gangs, to stop all the shooting and killing, to help the little kids be raised right and not be scared to go outside thinking they’re going to get shot because they wear blue or red,” said one of about 10 gang members during the meeting, which was closed to the media but was broadcast over KHVN, a religious radio station.
Andrea (aec968) — 12/16/2005 @ 1:42 pmThe gang leaders, who represented six gang factions, selected the station and put the word on the street beforehand that the broadcast was going to take place, according to city and law enforcement officials who attended the meeting.
Andrea,
You did not define mess up so I do not know what you really mean. Incidentally, there are those who think, constitutionally, there should be no death penalty and one such person who argues that way says it here http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051209_markel.html . I do not agree with his view, but that is another subject. I tend to think it is a public policy issue for the people and/or the legislature to decide than for the court to decide. Incidentally, when you say the law is messed up, do you mean constitutionally, there should be no death penalty or do you mean something else?
Yi Ling (53a522) — 12/16/2005 @ 3:26 pmAndrea,
The following goes on a hypothetical that he did commit the 4 murders but we know he denied it, and goes on a hypothetical that if he did commit the 4 murders , and he was a transformed man, to help others and himself, what explanation can there be, to justify his telling the lie that he did not commit the 4 murders. [The record stands he was convicted of the 4 murders and lost his appeals through 24 years.]
Since you asked if it was me, what would I do? I want to deal with his claim of innocence and the reason for it. If it were me, and if I had a transformation after 6-7 years in almost solitary confinement, and I wanted to help the Black youths exposed to gang life that wrecks life, I might have been tempted to strategically deny having committed the murders to cast a doubt on advocates of death penalty and further the cause of abolishing death penalty for the “greater” good of abolishing death penalty for the benefit of those few who could really be innocent and for the averred discrimination in use of death penalty as abolishers of death penalty tout. I would balance the “greater” good against the moral wrong of telling a lie and justify the moral wrong of telling a lie. If I find the justification for the cause, then I am still congruent with myself. Earlier post I dealt with the issue of congruence. How he could be congruent with himself and deny the 4 murders if he did commit them . This post addresses it.
[ He at 17 co founded Crips. That’s young age . If he had the brains to do that, he can think of the justification to lie about his guilt for a reason that is considered better and good to him. In other words, he is a smart man. Smart enough to find his congruence in a lie denying the 4 murders. After all Crips was so well formed that even today, they occupy bigger larger territories than their competitor Bloods]
But if I had more time and had gone deeper into my self, and had 14 years of solitary confinement, I would not justify the moral wrong of telling the lie for the greater good of saving others. I would admit my guilt for the 4 murders and leave the world to take care of herself. I would honor truth for truth sake and not justify the wrong with my perception of a cause.
I would not tarnish the cause of abolishing death penalty with the lie of denying the 4 murders.
We get attached to the fruits of our work and want immediate result. We lose faith in efforts that bears no immediate fruit and so we seek out faster results via justifying the lie for the greater good. If we are not attached to the fruits of our work, we would have no need to tell a lie to further a cause. If the time is ripe, the death penalty will be abolished if it was really for the good of our society. It needs no push, by creating a doubt in good people’s mind, and thus urging them to vote for abolishing death penalty less they make a mistake in executing another innocent man.
People have transformation at various points in their life. It’s a human experience. We are not Gods to judge them in the first place. But we live in society and we need to have rules to govern society. If we commit murder, and if the state has death penalty, we know the rule is we can be executed if convicted. That 24 years appellate system of a fine judicial system has given us a new leash of life for 24 years albeit in prison, is the grace of the system, of the people who contributed and make up the system and fought for the system. But the rule is still enforced at the end of the 24 years appellate process, and that is execution. I see a distinction between the better man that he has become, because of his 6-7 years of close to solitary confinement and the man he was before, but I see no reason why the rule should not be enforced. I do not understand why the transformation should exonerate him from crime he had earlier committed. His being a better man is for his personal good and he reaps the benefit of it here and possibly in his after life. I congratulate him for trying to be a better man for himself and in that process he helped some people and they in turn too helped him.
In short the means do not justify the ends. Telling a lie of not committing the 4 murders does not justify the ends of abolishing death penalty for others.
I repeat: The following goes on a hypothetical that he did commit the 4 murders but we know he denied it, and goes on a hypothetical that if he did commit the 4 murders , and he was a transformed man, to help others and himself, what explanation can there be, to justify his telling the lie that he did not commit the 4 murders.
Yi Ling (53a522) — 12/16/2005 @ 3:58 pmThe record stands he was convicted of the 4 murders and lost his appeals through 24 years.
Sorry it was loud, because of the error in the html I made. This is better…
People have transformation at various points in their life. It’s a human experience. We are not Gods to judge them in the first place. But we live in society and we need to have rules to govern society. If we commit murder, and if the state has death penalty, we know the rule is we can be executed if convicted. That 24 years appellate system of a fine judicial system has given us a new leash of life for 24 years albeit in prison, is the grace of the system, of the people who contributed and make up the system and fought for the system. But the rule is still enforced at the end of the 24 years appellate process, and that is execution. I see a distinction between the better man that he has become, because of his 6-7 years of close to solitary confinement and the man he was before, but I see no reason why the rule should not be enforced. I do not understand why the transformation should exonerate him from crime he had earlier committed. His being a better man is for his personal good and he reaps the benefit of it here and possibly in his after life. I congratulate him for trying to be a better man for himself and in that process he helped some people and they in turn too helped him.
In short the means do not justify the ends. Telling a lie of not committing the 4 murders does not justify the ends of abolishing death penalty for others.
I repeat: The following goes on a hypothetical that he did commit the 4 murders but we know he denied it, and goes on a hypothetical that if he did commit the 4 murders , and he was a transformed man, to help others and himself, what explanation can there be, to justify his telling the lie that he did not commit the 4 murders.
Yi Ling (53a522) — 12/16/2005 @ 4:03 pmThe record stands he was convicted of the 4 murders and lost his appeals through 24 years.
Its kind of like when they exicuted the notorious ROBERT ALTON HARRIS for the coldblooded murder of two teenage boys all those liberal bleedingheart holding their stupid protests waving their stupid signs in the air and the usial idiots giving speeches and all the other crap i mean it gets sickening the way the liberal left-wing news media fawns over convicted killers i say SCREW THE MURDERES REMEMBER THE VICTIMS AND THEIR RELITIVES
krazy kagu (4455b0) — 8/30/2006 @ 12:03 pm