Was it right to execute Stanley Williams? He found redemption after being a gang leader of the crips, and was actually nominated for a nobel prize after writing books about disenfranchised children and teaching about anti-gang activism from prison. He was producing a change. President Bush even sent him a letter to commend him for his social activism and change.

If this man was showing ideological and spiritual change, and was helping educate the youth on not joining gangs, why was execution so necessary?

I wasn't too sure under which category this question should belong. I feel that it could go under politics, government, and many more categories.

This isn't only a spiritual question. Any frames of reference are welcomed.

I'll treat this as a question that isn't asking if the death penalty should be in place or not, and just base it off current law.

You don't get to be let off death row because you're "really really sorry" or because you helped kids, or found god, or whatever. He was jailed and executed for his PAST not his present. No matter what he does, he can't un-do his past crimes, he can't bring the people he killed back to life. He can't un-do the formation of the Crips. So yes, given that, his sentence should have been carried out.

Jillian said it all. Nothing more for me to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duckling

Was it right to execute Stanley Williams? He found redemption after being a gang leader of the crips, and was actually nominated for a nobel prize after writing books about disenfranchised children and teaching about anti-gang activism from prison. He was producing a change. President Bush even sent him a letter to commend him for his social activism and change.

If this man was showing ideological and spiritual change, and was helping educate the youth on not joining gangs, why was execution so necessary?

---

Perhaps it was his life path. It's not the length of our existence on this planet. Time is an illusion. In the bigger scheme of thing perhaps his death will outrage enough of the people whose lives he touch to do away with this barbaric practice. Everything serves a purpose even if we can't see what that purpose is. May the intent of your compassion impel our spiritual evolusion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I'll treat this as a question that isn't asking if the death penalty should be in place or not, and just base it off of current law.

You don't get to be let off death row because you're "really really sorry" or because you helped kids, or found god, or whatever. He was jailed and executed for his PAST not his present. No matter what he does, he can't un-do his past crimes, he can't bring the people he killed back to life. He can't un-do the formation of the Crips. So yes, given that, his sentence should have been carried out.

---

Then why has someone like Charles Manson not received the death penalty? There are strange double standards here in the law. But I guess if we investigate our history and law, there are clear and much worse examples of double standards.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind "leaving Charles Manson alive", versus making sure that Stanley Williams dies, is?

I mean, I guess some sort of argument can be presented (like that the death penality is based on the state government).
But I am questioning the arguments. I mean, for example, there were arguments in our history and laws as to why certain races were not permitted to "sit on the bus" or there was reasoning out there as to why women in this country were restricted from voting once upon a time. And yes, there could be a logical reason as to why the law makes it okay for Charles Manson to stay alive, but to have Stanley Williams dead. Is this reasoning flawed though?

I don't know? Just a little confused here...

The Death Penalty is not evenly done. You were not asking in your first question if the entire death penalty issue is fair, but was it fair for this one criminal and killer to be killed, and the answer is yes it was fair, since that was the law in his state and he had a fair trial and sentence and all the appeals anyone could have.

Now some states don't allow death penalty, some DA makes death penalty deals for convictions and so on. So with that said is the over all idea of the death penalty fair, of course not, it is applied unevenly by race, type of crimes and varies greatly from state to state. So two people doing the same crime 1 mile apart, but across state lines will be treated differently.

So are the laws flawed, of course, take simple pot possession, in some states you get a traffic style ticket and a fine, in others jail time.

But did this person committ the crimes, yes, did they get a good trial, yes, so was it fair, it was based on their laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duckling

Then why has someone like Charles Manson not recieved the death penalty? There are strange double standards here in the law. But I guess if we investigate our history and law, there are clear and much worse examples of double standards.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind "leaving Charles Manson alive", versus making sure that Stanley Williams dies, is?

I mean, I guess some sort of argument can be presented (like that the death penality is based on the state government).
But I am questioning the arguments. I mean, for example, there were arguments in our history and laws as to why certain races were not permitted to "sit on the bus" or there was reasoning out there as to why women in this country were restricted from voting once upon a time. And yes, there could be a logical reason as to why the law makes it okay for Charles Manson to stay alive, but to have Stanley Williams dead. Is this reasoning flawed though?

I don't know? Just a little confused here...

---

Manson was originally sentenced to death, as were the other convicted family members. That was in 1971. In 1972, California declared the death penalty unconstitutional, so his sentence (and those of the other family members) was reduced to life in prison with no parole. Why has his sentence not been changed back? I guess no one has petitioned the courts, or perhaps they have and it's been ruled you can't place someone BACK on death row after reducing their sentence. I'm not sure, to be totally honest. So my best assumption as to "leaving Manson alive" and "making sure Williams dies" is simply a case of the law at the time of the crimes and the ways in which they were sentenced.

Williams never admitted to his crimes, so he never apologized for killing the people he did. In the book he wrote, he included a dedication to George Jackson, a known member of the Black Panthers. This made the decision-makers who would have granted him clemency question if his "reformation" was legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Williams never admitted to his crimes, so he never apologized for killing the people he did. In the book he wrote, he included a dedication to George Jackson, a known member of the Black Panthers. This made the decision-makers who would have granted him clemency question if his "reformation" was legit.

---

Williams never apologized for the deaths because of these reasons: There was no evidence, and no finger or foot prints. The gun that was used was even later proven to have bullets that did not even go with his gun (that the police claimed it came out of). Although, Williams did apologize countless times for being in a gang and being an awful person, but maintained that he never killed those people. Also, his books (that led to a letter being sent to him from President Bush and even being nominated for a nobel prize) help prove how sorry he was. I think his changed "actions" speaks volumes here.

Yet, with Charles Manson, he admitted to having taken pleasure in committing murder. He also said in interviews that he would kill 500 people if it would make him feel better. Yet he was kept alive. You can see one interview with Manson here: YouTube - Charles manson parole hearing

Look, Duckling, I'm not interested in debating the guilt or innocence of Williams (that was the job of the jury and his lawyers during his appeals), or the constitutionality or perceived unfairness of Manson not sitting on death row. You asked if the man should have been executed, and I said that since that was his sentence, yes. Should his sentence have been different? That's a different debate. Is the death penalty wrong? That's another debate. None of that changes the fact that his sentence was death, and people are executed for their PAST actions, not their PRESENT actions; that goes for Williams and everyone else on death row.

Its in your constitution, so yes, it was fair. Should it be in your constitution is another matter entirely.
But Jillian is spot on with her posts!

Im sure you could find a thread here that deals with the death penalty. If not start one. Id love to participate and express my views and facts on it, but here isn't the right place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Look, Duckling, I'm not interested in debating the guilt or innocence of Williams (that was the job of the jury and his lawyers during his appeals), or the constitutionality or perceived unfairness of Manson not sitting on death row. You asked if the man should have been executed, and I said that since that was his sentence, yes.

---

That's an interesting point of view. I fear it a bit though, when you say that you are not interested in guilt or innocent. You also say you believe that if someone is sentenced to death, that means they must be put to death.

Think about it: there was a time when Rosa Parks was put in jail for sitting on the bus. Thank God people questioned that and did not say, "yes, she belongs in jail since that is her sentence". And here you are saying you don't care to discuss whether a person is innocent or not, and believe their sentence should stick "because it's their sentence"?

I'm magnifying my point through this example, so you understand the severity of saying that simply because it a person's sentence, it means that they need to be put to death. I don't believe that someone should be executed just because that was their sentence.

I'm not saying I'm against the death penalty. But this case is baffling me, especially when I look at the context.

Thanks all the same for your frame of reference. I'm sorry you do not wish to discuss whether he was innocent or not. I wrote the previous reply because you brought out the reasoning of the people who believed he should die.

I didn't say I'm not interested in his innocence or guilt, I said I'm not interested in debating it with you. If he is proven innocent post-mortem, that would put the death penalty on shaky ground, possibly outlawing it. But still, there is no point in trying to establish his guilt or innocence here, on this forum, when neither of us has access to the proper court documents, evidence and people to interview. THAT is why I'm not interested in debating his guilt or innocence with you.

The only reason I say he should have been executed is because that was his sentence - I actually don't agree with it. I don't support the death penalty, not at all. So if it were up to me, no, he would not have been executed; but it's not up to me. It's up to our lawmakers. If you are interested in proving his innocence, I'm sure you can join or found an organization to do so. Maybe if you are able to prove an innocent man was put to death the death penalty would be abolished in this country, I don't know.

So, should he have been executed, from a moral standpoint? No. Should he have been executed because according to his sentence that is his punishment, and at the time it was legal? Yes. Does the fact that it is a law make it right? Not in my opinion.

Should Rosa Parks have been arrested for sitting in the "white" section of the bus? No, of course not. But she was. Because of her, rights to blacks across the US were implemented, and a nation realized it was wrong. But you didn't ask about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the death penalty, you asked about it for a SPECIFIC case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Its in your constitution, so yes, it was fair. Should it be in your constitution is another matter entirely.
But Jillian is spot on with her posts!

Im sure you could find a thread here that deals with the death penalty. If not start one. Id love to participate and express my views and facts on it, but here isnt the right place!

---

The death penalty is not in the constitution.
United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia