|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:31 am
Xx~Bob Makihara~xX Ok. I'm not trying to start another s**t storm, but this bothers me. Charlie Manson, one of the world's most notorious serial killers get's to live. True, it's life in prison, but he isn't getting the death penalty. He has stated that he is guilty and would do it again, is far from reformed, and has been quoted as saying he still has followers who do his bidding. Manson is a white man with a swastika on his forehead.
Then, we have "Tookie" Williams. A man who founded the crips, an inner city gang. Tookie is in prison for the murder of some store clerks who were robbed and gunned down. Somehow, Tookie, who maintains that he was innocent and had nothing to do with that incedent gets the death penalty even though he is openly reformed, won a nobel peace prize, and is writing books to better our youth. Tookie is a black man with multiple gang related tattoos.
So, Tookie get's the death penalty, but Manson lives? WTF? To me, this one is blatantly racist. If you feel I'm wrong, educate me on why. Please don't degrade this into a thread where everyone is doing nothing but calling each other names and racist slurs. I just want opinions.
Discuss:
Manson living and Tookie dying.
Reasons you think Tookie should die and Manson shouldn't.
Reasons you think Manson should die and Tookie shouldn't.
Is this as bltantly racist to you as it is to me?
Anything else that may relate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:56 am
Wait...were is this event taking place? (Tookie's death penalty). If it's on the Jesus Belt of the US, I would understand.
It's majorly hicks. (Some hick chicks, who are not inbred and devoid of intelligence...are kinda hot, but alas, nost of them are inbred when reffered as hick.)
I am so not a nice person. Yes, this is definitly a clear case of racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:39 am
I would say this is an example of differing opinions from judges. Possibly the udge that sent our murder to prison had a "bigger heart" or felt drawn to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:42 am
Manson didn't kill anyone directly. His underlings did it for him, so he cannot be held responsible for murder in the first - as much as he should be. Manson was also put into life in prison during the time that the state he resided in had abolished the death penalty. It was returned some two or so years later, but cases of this nature are not usually re-tried. Hence, life in prison, not death.
Tookie, however, was.
Also to note, if it was a clear-cut racist issue, then the jury that tried him for the murder charges would've been all white. As far as I believe, it wasn't - hence, it could possibly be a charge based not on racist-influence, but because he murdered people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:13 am
I'm with the Big "T" on this one. It's not about racism or how bad the perpetrator is, it's all about circumstance. The circumstances were very different, so are the crimes, their MOs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:50 pm
Lord Vyce I'm with the Big "T" on this one. It's not about racism or how bad the perpetrator is, it's all about circumstance. The circumstances were very different, so are the crimes, their MOs, etc. I have to agree with Tailos on this as well. Manson was tried during a period when the death penalty was abolished, and re-trying a case with the intent of worsening the sentence (Life in prison to death) is Double Jeopardy (not like the show), which is expressly forbidden in the Bill Of Rights (5th Amendment IIRC). Even with the heinousness of Manson's crimes, it's not worth breaking the constitution to kill him. As for Tookie, he has reformed, and his reformation is admirable. It's unfortunate that death penalty cases are not retried to lessen sentences, nor is parole or delay of sentence usually an option, but he was convicted on heinous crimes, and must accept punishment for them as has been mandated by courts of law. Sad, but true. sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Tailos Manson didn't kill anyone directly. His underlings did it for him, so he cannot be held responsible for murder in the first - as much as he should be. Manson was also put into life in prison during the time that the state he resided in had abolished the death penalty. It was returned some two or so years later, but cases of this nature are not usually re-tried. Hence, life in prison, not death. Tookie, however, was. Also to note, if it was a clear-cut racist issue, then the jury that tried him for the murder charges would've been all white. As far as I believe, it wasn't - hence, it could possibly be a charge based not on racist-influence, but because he murdered people. You mean to tell me that this did not take place in the same court of the same state? There is nothing to be discussed here then. There is no racism, since we would have to take every man and woman convicted of a certain thing, regard as to if they were white/yellow/red/black/purple/etc. and vindicate if they were or not victims of partial racism. Bob Makihara did not reveal the whole story to us it seems (maybe on purpose?)...(or rather, I am too hasty to check things out further in detail, therefore, it was my fault sad )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:06 am
The death penalty is ridiculous because it is not infallable.
For example, if you REALLY wanted to keep scum from doing scummy things, we'd all wear neck devices that would explode if we were to do something harmful to someone else. But even then, there would be problems with it malfunctioning or injuring "innocents" etc.
The best way that I can think of is somehow getting God or Zeus or someone to come down and judge each accused person and then THUNDERBOLT the ******** out of the guilty ones....and especially the ones who never get brought to court. That would make things easier.
Seriously, why should we be killing people when we could be rehabilitating them? If we're going to kill people, then let it be right after the decision, none of this sitting around for decades until the immediacy of their actions is dulled.
Personally, I don't like the prison system. It costs us tons of money in taxes, and they make more money than our military.....There's just something wrong with a system that makes the law abiders pay for the criminals' room and board.
Australia was a good idea.....if you ask me. You just put a ton of criminals out there, and a few generations later you have sexy Aussie women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:31 am
We could just put all of the criminals in a huge a** prison in ********, Antartica. Just a chunk, not all of Antartica. I mean, if I were going to prison in a place where my d**k would be small because of the cold all the time, where I could die of frostbite or have my limbs chopped off because of the cold, I'd think twice before commiting a crime. Then, we'd have the flying spaghetti monster come down, touch them with his noodly appendage, and have them feel honored, only to be mass hanged with said appendage. Boy, we'd have a lot less criminals if this was implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:36 pm
Yays for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Anyways, I agree with Tailos, and blahblablablah.
It would, though, be best for them to reconsider the death penalty on someone who has reformed, etc. Although I suppose it is arguable that being imprisoned for life would be worse than dieing, it still would not be fair to give someone no chance to really change.
Which is why I don't agree with the idea of a definite and eternal heaven or hell, but that's a different story to be told another time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
