I haven't addressed Stanley's death on this blog, and I'd rather not now. But here's a link to one man's story about the protests. Granola-eating tree-hugging fascists will not like his take. Remember my story about how the peaceful lefties treated me at the Day of Action Rally in May. I'm reminded of this quote.
I'm not so worried about linking to the foul language as much as I am about linking to a picture of one of Stanley's victims, who had been shotgunned in the face.
Thanks to the student who emailed me the link.
6 comments:
The only reason I've heard for Governor Arnold's refusal to grant clemency was the fact that Stanley could not have atoned for his crimes since he hasn't truly admitted or even apologized for them. This was in the governor's released remarks.
My guess is that what you've heard is from some race-baiter who views Stanley as some kind of hero/martyr. But I'm just guessing here.
"It is enough justification for killing him that there be solid evidence against him in at least one case where the family of the victim wants to see him killed, but a statement like the aforementioned one would not be terribly out of character for the governor"
No, it's justification that he's committed a capital crime, was convicted in a fair trial and was allowed adequate access to the courts for appeal. I'm not crazy that it takes decades to execute a guilty man, but I'd rather spend that time and money than execute an innocent man.
This is not about reforming Tookie..it's about punishing him at the highest level, because he has committed the most heinous crime. I really do hope he's reformed...that will have helped him at his final judgment right after he assumed room temperature.
I agree with Mike: If he was truly penitent, he can take that issue up with his God.
Back to the racist comments. The Governor released a 5-page report on his decision not to grant clemency, but I cannot find it online. I would find it utterly amazing--and no doubt it would be all over the news--if this report contained the comments that Edward asserted above. Ergo, I don't think the Governor made those statements.
If he made them behind closed doors, I'm compelled to ask: who heard these statements and forwarded them to Edward? Again, I see no evidence that he made such statements.
Here's some of what the Sacramento Bee reported:
"Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case," Schwarzenegger said in his five-page statement released Monday at 12:31 p.m, less than 12 hours before Williams was scheduled to die.
"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do."
Schwarzenegger said the evidence against Williams in the slaying of Owens and the later murders of Tsai-Shai Yang, 63, her husband, Yen-I Yang, 76, and their daughter, Yee-Chin Lin, 43, in a motel robbery was "strong and compelling." Moreover, Schwarzenegger cited testimony saying that Williams laughed afterward about shooting Owens in the back and that he later referred to the Asian American victims as "Buddhaheads."
The Republican governor said that Williams was afforded multiple appeals in state and federal courts, all of which he lost, and that there was "no reason to disturb" the decisions "that he is guilty of these four murders and should pay with his life."
Although Williams wrote numerous children's books over the past 11 years warning young people of the dangers of gang violence, Schwarzenegger said "it is hard to assess the effect of such efforts in concrete terms," but that "the continued pervasiveness of gang violence leads one to question the efficacy of Williams' message."
Schwarzenegger mentioned that one of Williams' books contains a dedication to Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing a police officer in Philadelphia, to Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing two FBI agents on an Indian reservation in South Dakota, and to George Jackson, who was accused of killing a correctional officer at Soledad State Prison and who was himself killed - along with three prison officers and two other inmates - in a 1971 breakout attempt from San Quentin State Prison.
"(T)he inclusion of George Jackson on this list defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems," Schwarzenegger said.
So the Governor did refer to certain cop killers, but he apparently didn't refer to Malcolm X or (how could anyone even believe this) Nelson Mandela--at least not according to the report in the left-leaning Sacramento Bee.
My guess is that the whole "redemption" angle played by Williams was just that. A strategem cooked-up by Williams and his lawyers in an effort to negate the execution of sentence and "win" clemency.
The only reason why Williams was able to "redeem" himself was because he had plenty of time in which to pull off the deception.
Williams had all of this time because of California's asinine system of redundant appeals that, in his case, ran for some 25 years.
It is said that in California that criminals sentenced to "death" are much more likely to die of old age than they are at the hands of the executioner.
I have to agree with opponents of the death penalty. As it currently exists, it is not fairly imposed or justly applied.
Let's have a new standard for death penalty cases. The state should only impose it in those cases where there is no doubt whatsoever of guilt by the accused.
In the case of the proverbial fox and chickens, it wouldn't be enough for the fox to be caught inside the coop. He would also need to also have blood on his muzzle.
There would be one (and only one) immediate appeal to ensure that due-process had been followed and that evidence of guilt was both unimpeachable and overwhelming.
And then let the convicted be executed within 30 days.
Such a system might actually have some sort of deterrent effect.
Edwonk, I'd be inclined to go with your idea, especially if DNA evidence is conclusive.
Would Scott Peterson die under these requirements, though? The case against him was entirely circumstantial.
Post a Comment