Posted: 12/12/2005 7:05:52 AM EDT
|
Tookie was convicted in 1981 of a 1979 murder, IIRC. Now, 25 years later, the people who are determining his fate are - get this - an entirely different generation of people than those who knew the victim, tried the case, sat on the jury, When this 'tookie' thing got coverage recently, I had to google 'tookie' to learn exactly who tookie was, and why I was supposed to care one way or the other about whether he got 'juiced'. My generation didn't know about tookie. I barely remember Reagan (RIP) getting elected. So, with all of that: Does it seem unfair to Tookie, to the victims, and to all those who prize justice, that this guy's fate is being decided by people who don't even remember the crime? Given our predisposition towards revisionist history nowadays, does it seem unfair to our justice system in general, to let a guy linger on death row for 25 years only to get to make his last appeal to an entirely different generation, a generation that never knew (or long ago forgot) the horros of his crime? I'm not asking whether he should be executed or not. I'm sure that's being hashed out everywhere from here to DU on the internet. My question is this: Is there a point in time where a trial (or more importantly, the appeals process) becomes so drawn-out that justice is lost, that the connection between crime and punishment is lost, that the whole thing becomes as huge waste of time? <----didn't check for dupes or read much of the other tookie threads, so is apologizing in advance if this has already been discussed.... |
|
""Williams founded Los Angeles’ violent Crips street gang, but his supporters say he has turned his life around and redeemed himself by speaking out against violence and writing children’s books on the evils of gang life during his 24 years at San Quentin prison. He was condemned for the murder of a man during a robbery in February 1979 and the slayings of a couple and their daughter at a South Los Angeles motel the following month."" But since he's apologized for killing the kid and the 3 other people and wrote childrens books about the dangers of gangs, even though he founded the Crips, we should let him live  I'm sure if that kid who he killed's parents could be interviewed they would want him to die too,, oh wait, Tookie killed them too... The real problem here that's going to happen I believe will be some limited violence and rioting by the gangs or by men of color who feel this somehow has to do with race. The terminator can kiss my ass if he lets this guy live. |
That is a VERY good point. Makes you wonder what would happen today if Charlie Manson hadn't been convicted during those years the death penalty was illegal. This is not a jury of Tookie's peers. My answer to your question is any sort of appeals process in a death penalty case (outside of a single appeal to have a higher court review the original conviction - just to be sure) is drawing out the process and justice is lost. |
| Some countries after convicted in a death penalty case they do it with in a year .I think that should be the norm here. but you just got to be sure. When I hear 125 death row inmates were released by dna proving it wasn't them that did the crime. Makes you think |