"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
One of the cable/satellite news channels ran a piece on Tookie's life
today. During his involvement with the Crips, the continuing war between
them and the Bloods took over 20,000 lives

What???
That's crazy. That would mean he'd have to be responsible for every murder
in every major metropolitan area for several years. Can't anybody do math?

The explanation is that the Crips and Bloods didn't stay confined to LA.
There are chapters, if you want to call them that, in most of the major
cities throughout the country. And if you would bother to read my previous
paragraph, above, you'd see that I didn't imply that he was directly or
indirectly responsible for them all, rather he was involved with the gang
leadership during a period in which that many died. Before doing the math,
you might bother to read concisely.

... according to a researcher at UCLA's School of Law Enforcement (may
not have that name quite right).

Hmm, sounds like one of those pointy-headed scientist types working on a
gov't grant... don't you neo-cons usually dismiss this kind of stuff with
a laugh?

No. But we tend to dismiss cranks like you with a chuckle.



... While Tookie was convicted of four murders, it was estimated that he
was directly or indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, mostly
young inner city black men between the ages of 12 and 22

Don't you neo-cons usually shrug this off as being no loss?

No. But believe what you wish. After all when you base your political
beliefs from left-wing hatemongering websites, such as moveon.org, it's not
likely anything I say is going to change your mind.


... plus an assortment of innocent bystanders.


Hey, as long as it's nobody you know personally, what's the diff?

Now that we've witnessed your mastery of cynicism, Doug, perhaps you'd care
to have a reasonable discussion.


Not guilty, eh? If he'd been on the jury, Jon, he'd have seen the
preponderance of evidence against Williams. That said, I'm not a fan of
capital punishment and would like to see it eliminated.


Nobody in their right mind is a "fan" of capital punishment, just like
nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of rights vs gov't
authority.

Personally, I think that if one believes that the state has no moral right
to capital punishment; then by logic, the state would also have no right
to wage war.

That doesn't surprise me. You tend to think in terms of black and white,
not shades in between. Reality is a far cry from philosophical mental
gymnastics. Fortunately those who opposed capital punishment in the first
half of the Twentieth Century were not intractable pacifists as well.
Rational men and women believe in the intrinsic right of individuals and
societies to defend themselves against aggressors. Incarceration of
criminals is a means of defending society against further criminal activity
from the convicted. Capital punishment is not necessary to achieve that
end. But waging war is and has been necessary to insure the continuation of
a society, or of individuals. Your presumption, above, is ridiculous.


If an individual has the right to defend his own life, his family, & his
property, then by all logic that right extends to use of deadly force at
the extreme. The state is nothing but a large group of citizens, therefor
the citizens have the right to endow that state with authority to use
deadly force (when in extremis) to protect them. In other words, I have no
problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of heinous
crimes *should* be executed.

I would agree if capital punishment were the only method of insuring
security for that group of citizens. But it is not. A society of
thoughtful, reasonable citizens will use only that level of force necessary
to achieve its security.

However I have a big problem with the way the death penalty is currently
applied in this country. But hey, it's always detail detail detail!

That's my chief argument with capital punishment as it is applied
today--unfairly and with prejudice. However, subsequent to seeing that
piece on TV, I've learned that Stan "Tookie" Willaims, if granted clemency,
would have likely sought, and possibly received, another trial which could
have conceivably found him not guilty. The evidence against him, presented
properly or not, was preponderant and not circumstantial. Society will
benefit by his absence.

Max