Do u think we suffer for some of the things they do? How do u feel about them killing Tookie William? I know he couldn't change the things he did but i do believe he changed his life.He did a lot positive things for the teens when he changed and he stop a lot of teens from joining gangs.
Your first question is should be a topic on its own. Depending on where you live and what the gangs do in that area would determine the answer.
As for tookie....I personally believe that even though he did change and became a "better man" this doesn't change the things that he did prior. He was responsible for the deaths of others therefore he deserved the punishment he came to. He isnt any different than the thousands of others that claimed to be a changed person after killing others just because he was a high profile name.
@!#$ Tookie he was responible for the death of many people, I was overjoyed to hear CA executed him and sent him to hell. Anyone that is convicted of 1st degree murder should be executed, as should anyone who drives drunk and kills someone.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
If they had nailed Tookie at the time he had commited his crimes it would be ok. But the point is that he made a switch and prevented many more youth from falling into the life he had known. A man who killed many keeps others from killing many others to a larger magnitude, sounds like a fair tradeoff for not being executed.
I don't feel that I suffer from any actions of street gangs. In the area I live in there non-existent as far as I know. Most street gangs here are unorganized youth with nothing better to do and typically Suburban kids who think there tough. I belive that people living closer to major citys will be more affected by it, street gangs take from the community more than they give back. On the otherside of the coin some cities couldn't survive without an underground economy whose end means feed into the local economy so its really a no win situation.
-Chris
well i live literally a block from philly and i see this @!#$ day in and day out. it just gets worse and worse. last year i think there was 410 homicides in philly. right now were already up to 110 or so (that was back on easter sunday so it could be more by now). i think its pathetic. the whole gang mentality has grown out of control. what started from a simple group of friends hanging together to protect themselves from white kids now grew into this nearly 50 years later. i dont feel i suffer from the same things they do because i dont put myself in the same situations as they do. what i do suffer from is the effect it has on the city.
The minute you went from 2 kids (ie. teens) duking it out with fists to knives, it went downhill. You suffer for it because of the increased police presence, paranoia, and other encumberances to your daily life.
Tookie did the crime, and for my dollar, the death penalty is far overrated... Life in prison for murderers is good enough (Don't start arguing this one. It's been done to death, and you can't make a case for the death penalty), Tookie would have been able to do good while paying out his debt to society.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
Life in prison for murderers is good enough (Don't start arguing this one. It's been done to death, and you can't make a case for the death penalty)
Using our tax dollars to feed, clothe and house a waste of a human life for life or a quick cheap death yeah kind of hard to argue that
.
As for the debate at hand. Street Gangs are nothing but a leech on society by a bunch of thugs with nothing better to do than ruin other peoples lives whether it be by feeding peoples addictions or stealing from people or just plain beating or killing people.
Depends on your definition of a "gang". Most people think gang, they see a bunch of black/latino kids dealing drugs and doing drive-bys in pointless turf wars. However, the Irish/Italian Mafia's a gang. So are the Bikers. So are the Yakuza. Hell, in Japan the Yakuza are so strong that they even advertise in the newspapers. People like to join "teams" to fight other groups of people. That's how sports were invented. Know how primitive people have mock wars where they pretend to fight and we snicker at them? How is that different than Football or Civil War re-enactors?
But I know what you mean. As for gangs, they're not much of a problem in Montreal. The city's not 100% safe, but I wouldn't be worried about walking anywhere by myself at night. The bikers don't worry me at all and the Haitian gangs have so much public heat that they tend to either keep their activities as secret as possible or keep it within the Haitian community.
Tookie Williams killed people. That he changed is a laudable act, but you have to pay for taking someone's life. If he really had been for peace and understanding he'd have told people that he was giving his life in payment for the deaths he caused and that no one was taking it from him. He didn't do that, so... maybe he wasn't as rehabilitated as we think.
Wiezer Walley wrote:Your first question is should be a topic on its own. Depending on where you live and what the gangs do in that area would determine the answer.
As for tookie....I personally believe that even though he did change and became a "better man" this doesn't change the things that he did prior. He was responsible for the deaths of others therefore he deserved the punishment he came to. He isnt any different than the thousands of others that claimed to be a changed person after killing others just because he was a high profile name.
Yes, he is. Because his voice carried weight and he changed. Joe-Blow-Crip-Banger reforming cause he said so is one thing, being the founder of the crips and writting children's books about staying away from gangs is another.
---
Rob S wrote:@!#$ Tookie he was responible for the death of many people, I was overjoyed to hear CA executed him and sent him to hell. Anyone that is convicted of 1st degree murder should be executed, as should anyone who drives drunk and kills someone.
According to the Bible, he wouldn't of gone to hell.
---
I think keeping Tookie alive would of done more good than killing him.
I wouldn't of released him from prison, but I wouldn't of executed him either.
---
u want to stop teens from joining a gang, then dont create one. tookie deserved what he got. if he was still on the street would he have changed?
Spike J wrote:Street Gangs are nothing but a leech on society by a bunch of thugs with nothing better to do than ruin other peoples lives whether it be by feeding peoples addictions or stealing from people or just plain beating or killing people.
agreed
Spike J wrote:Quote:
Life in prison for murderers is good enough (Don't start arguing this one. It's been done to death, and you can't make a case for the death penalty)
Using our tax dollars to feed, clothe and house a waste of a human life for life or a quick cheap death yeah kind of hard to argue that .
Average Cost of a death penalty Case in California: $4 Million Dollars assuming 3 appeals (excluding the OJ simpson case @12 Million). Tack on another $350,000 for the actual execution. *not including imprisonment expenses, in Tookie's case it was about.. what.. 18 years (figure $40,000 per year in Maximum Security prison plus inmate moving expenses)?
Average Cost of keeping an inmate imprisoned In california for 35 years: $1.4 million dollars, and tack on $135,000 for the trial.
Death Penalty cases tack on a lot of Jeopardy, and with that comes a lot more cost. State cases are CHEAP in comparison to federal cases, which average about $6-7 million.
There's no such thing as a state-administered quick and cheap exectution. Look at the costs, and then look at the Death Penalty thread that I created, there's tons of information in there.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^ Except Timothy McVay who was executed shortly after his conviction. Makes me wonder what he knew. No appeal and nobody shouting about it. I don't get it.
Rob S wrote:@!#$ Tookie he was responible for the death of many people, I was overjoyed to hear CA executed him and sent him to hell. Anyone that is convicted of 1st degree murder should be executed, as should anyone who drives drunk and kills someone.
What is the difference between driving drunk and driving drunk and killing someone? An accident, that's it. The perp. takes the risk of killing someone by getting behind the wheel. Should every DUI be treated as an attempted murder case? Considering the actions on the part of the perp do not change at all between the two scenerios should everyone who drinks and drives be executed? You could do it like Equador and simply shoot them right there at the side of the road.
OR you could stop with the vigilante style "justice" and stop killing people. No matter how you slice it killing is wrong. Period.
No more double standard.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Quote:
No matter how you slice it killing is wrong. Period.
That's a matter of opinion.
I feel that there are people who shouldn't be alive.
You will put down a dog can't control itself and bites people, why wouldn't you do the same for humans?
If you actually think the majority of people who say they're "reformed" are, I've got a bridge I can sell you. We're a crafty bunch, and when faced with our own mortality, we will crumble and do anything to try not to die. That's instinct. Especially when you're a coward in the first place like Williams.
There are likely people out there that don't think you should be alive. It doesn't make them right.
Let's face it. The "Criminal Justice System" evolved out of a medeival prison system and hasn't really improved that much. When we actually start trying to rehab people, it can be done. Most criminals have some kind of mental health issue, just like the dog that bites. The behavior can be corrected if anyone bothers to try. At least most can. Sure there are some that cannot be rehabilitated but that still does not give anyone the right to kill them.
If you are prepared to take a life then remember the same could happen to you because someone else desided you should die.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them?
From a purely moral standpoint: how does that make any of us better than they are?
Hahahaha: McVeigh was executed because he didn't want to appeal his case. And his court case including imprisonment, transportation and execution (just the court proceedings, not the investigation) ran the US tax payers just under 32 MILLION dollars if I remember right.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:17 PM
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
That's suicide and therefore should have been commuted as he is clearly insane. His case is one of the odd ones that's for sure. I remember clearly on the day of the bombing reporters stating that bomb disposal units found three bomb in the parking garage that had not gone off and were in the process of disarming them. The next day it was a fertilizer bomb in a truck. Weird.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
here in Orlando its getting BAD! Were one of the top on the most deaths in a year. More that new your and cali.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from when you say:
Quote:
Sure there are some that cannot be rehabilitated but that still does not give anyone the right to kill them.
What's more humane? Locking up a psychopath for 50 years, or putting them down. Again, you wouldn't keep a dog in a cage for 17 years if they bit someone, you'd put them down. I fail to see the difference. Then again, I don't think any one form of life is inherently more valuable than the next. Value is subjective and determined through interaction and experience. One life isn't as valuable as the next.
Quote:
If you are prepared to take a life then remember the same could happen to you because someone else desided you should die.
That's a risk I take walking down the street. Of course it could happen to me. Even if I thought like you, I could still be gunned down by a lunatic as I'm sitting in class. I'm not grasping your point.
Everyone is prepared to take a life, for some it's just easier (and for some, fun). Regardless of what you say, you'd take a life under the right circumstances.
Quote:
Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them? From a purely moral standpoint: how does that make any of us better than they are?
I really hate this argument, because it's so silly. Can you really not tell the difference? If you bring morals into it, then it should be even easier to see. But I suppose that depends on how you define morality. If you break it down to it's purest form (right vs. wrong), then should good not triumph over evil and banish it? Or does good triumph over evil and tuck it away in a corner?
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Killing is wrong, no matter who's doing it. Doesn't matter how much someone deserves to die, it's not my, your, our, nor society's job to kill them. Keep them away from the rest of us, but kill them?
so what you're saying is that even if someone had you pinned down and was ready to kill you, if you had the chance to save your own life you wouldnt because killing is wrong?? doesnt make much sense does it? neither does your statement. sure most of the time killing is wrong, but killing to protect is ok. i mean do you think everyone in the military that has killed someone to protect the lives of millions of americans are bad people because they killed?? GAM normally you are a level headed person who makes great points, but in this thread you lose. killing is sometimes a necessary evil needed to survive
so killing is wrong no matter what?
SURE!!!!!!
you keep thinking killing is wrong no matter what.
that is your stupidity.
Killing is wrong. Yes
No matter what?
Not exactly
Look what happened in Virginia
over 30 people got killed so you would let the killer live because killing is wrong no matter what?
I'm glad he took his own life because if that was the case tax payers would take care of him in prison.
you might want to rephrase that statement a little bit
I think in the case of Tookie William's, you are forgetting that if it was not for the death penalty, he would not have changed his ways.
^^ That speculation. There is no way to know he wouldn't of changed if he didn't get the death penalty.
I do agree that it hurt his credibility though.
---
