Bye Bye Tookie
 

The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

However, it would be far more cruel and unusual punishment to force
him to stay alive in prison for another 40 years without the
possibility of parol. It also would have saved us a lot of money, due
to the extensive appeals process.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I'm thinking public hangings should be brought back.

Seahag

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior
.@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not
that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

However, it would be far more cruel and unusual punishment
to force
him to stay alive in prison for another 40 years without
the
possibility of parol. It also would have saved us a lot of
money, due
to the extensive appeals process.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Tookie should be terminated. He was convicted for the brutal killing
of a family and the shooting in the back and killing of a 7-11
employee. And these are only the crimes he was tried for. As the
leader of the violent Cripts it is believed he is responsible for 50
murders. The left wing Hollywood whiners who say he should be spared
because he wrote a few childrens books won't tell you he's been a
violent prick in jail. He's beat up and raped a number of his fellow
imates. He's a violent thug and the book writing has just been his
angle to try to get his sentence overturned. Every jerk off on death
row trys to come up with a angle to play and a story to tell. If his
death sentence was overturned tonight he would start working on getting
out of his life sentence tomorrow. Start the pumps!

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Seahag wrote:
I'm thinking public hangings should be brought back.

Seahag

And, allow children to attend. If you're going to traumatize people, you
should start as soon as possible.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

And witch burning?


"Seahag" wrote in message
...
I'm thinking public hangings should be brought back.

Seahag

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior
.@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not
that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

However, it would be far more cruel and unusual punishment
to force
him to stay alive in prison for another 40 years without
the
possibility of parol. It also would have saved us a lot of
money, due
to the extensive appeals process.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Whats cruel is taxpayers paying for his room and board. We allready
spent the trail money ...Now juice him.

You do PCP and murder 4 people and get caught then you deserve to be
re-cycled IMO.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I have to agree with you there Jon. It would
make a fine impression on children, that they
would not likely forget. Probably the best age
for this is about 9 years of age.

At the same time show kids chronic smokers,
alcoholics, and drug users.

Haggie is right on target. We might as well get some
deterent use out of these executions.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Seahag wrote:
I'm thinking public hangings should be brought back.

And, allow children to attend. If you're going to traumatize people, you
should start as soon as possible.

"j" ganz @@

Bye Bye Tookie
 

You can't avoid the cost--unless you expedite the
process. I'm in favor of that also..

I think death row inmates suffer more waiting and
knowing they are going to die. I think the last few
days must be rougher than a lifetime in jail.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

However, it would be far more cruel and unusual punishment to force
him to stay alive in prison for another 40 years without the
possibility of parol. It also would have saved us a lot of money, due
to the extensive appeals process.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
You can't avoid the cost--unless you expedite the
process. I'm in favor of that also..

I think death row inmates suffer more waiting and
knowing they are going to die. I think the last few
days must be rougher than a lifetime in jail.

Actually, Life without parol is less expensive. I'm also in favor of
shortening the appeals process.

How about we say we're going to execute them.. right up to the last
few mintes, then tell them we were just kidding and put them in a hole
for 40 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
I have to agree with you there Jon. It would
make a fine impression on children, that they
would not likely forget. Probably the best age
for this is about 9 years of age.

At the same time show kids chronic smokers,
alcoholics, and drug users.

Haggie is right on target. We might as well get some
deterent use out of these executions.

Little kids don't need to see this sort of thing. That would be
cruel and inhumane.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I say give him the comfy chair!

Amen!

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
You can't avoid the cost--unless you expedite the
process. I'm in favor of that also..

I think death row inmates suffer more waiting and
knowing they are going to die. I think the last few
days must be rougher than a lifetime in jail.

Actually, Life without parol is less expensive. I'm also in favor of
shortening the appeals process.

How about we say we're going to execute them.. right up to the last
few mintes, then tell them we were just kidding and put them in a hole
for 40 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I agree Joe!

It's the bleeding hearts that have cost us all the money for his keep;
now it's finally over (I Hope)

Ole Thom

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@.
wrote:
I have to agree with you there Jon. It would
make a fine impression on children, that they
would not likely forget. Probably the best age
for this is about 9 years of age.

At the same time show kids chronic smokers,
alcoholics, and drug users.

Haggie is right on target. We might as well get some
deterent use out of these executions.

Little kids don't need to see this sort of thing. That would be
cruel and inhumane.


They see worse on TV, and in video games.

SV

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Tookie has reached room temperature.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote:
I have to agree with you there Jon. It would
make a fine impression on children, that they
would not likely forget. Probably the best age
for this is about 9 years of age.

At the same time show kids chronic smokers,
alcoholics, and drug users.

Haggie is right on target. We might as well get some
deterent use out of these executions.

Gotta do something, seems like we're raising a bunch of
effete little b-----ds these days.

Seahag

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Seahag wrote:
I'm thinking public hangings should be brought back.

And, allow children to attend. If you're going to
traumatize people, you
should start as soon as possible.

"j" ganz @@

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@.
wrote:
I have to agree with you there Jon. It would
make a fine impression on children, that they
would not likely forget. Probably the best age
for this is about 9 years of age.

At the same time show kids chronic smokers,
alcoholics, and drug users.

Haggie is right on target. We might as well get some
deterent use out of these executions.

Little kids don't need to see this sort of thing. That would be
cruel and inhumane.


They see worse on TV, and in video games.

Mostly, they see make-believe on TV and most kids understand the
difference.

When you were a kid, did you ever see someone killed in front of you?
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Seahag wrote:
Gotta do something, seems like we're raising a bunch of
effete little b-----ds these days.

Seahag

Perhaps, perhaps not. But, subjecting children to violence is not the
solution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Commodore Joe Redcloud wrote:
Actually, young kids don't. They see cartoon characters walk away from smoking
car wrecks and they think that's what a car wreck is really like. I remember
that as a kid, I, and everyone I knew assumed that if you were shot, you were
automatically dead. Surviving being shot would fall in the "very unlikely
miracle" department. That's the way it always was in the movies.

When you were a kid, did you ever see someone killed in front of you?

Unfortunately, I did.

They do if their parents are around to explain it.

Well, clearly you were traumatized and it shows.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
They see worse on TV, and in video games.

Mostly, they see make-believe on TV and most kids understand
the
difference.

When you were a kid, did you ever see someone killed in front
of you?


No. Do you remember when the news showed the guy getting shot in
the head in, I believe VN?
I can still picture it.

Scotty

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Time magazine

Won a prize IIRC, Same guy shot the picture of that little girl running
from a napalmed village.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:48:45 -0000, "Donal"
said:

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Truly remarkable how after a jury of 12 sat and heard all the
evidence, and
decided he was guilty, and after who knows how many courts
reviewed every
element of the conviction, Donal sitting over in Ireland, never
having seen
or heard any of the evidence, can divine that the guy was
innocent. Are the
voices telling you, Donal?


"Donal sitting over in Ireland"

Right there is your 1st clue.

He's drunk as a skunk.

Scotty

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Donal wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Fortunately, you weren't on the jury or the appeals court.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
Scotty wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
They see worse on TV, and in video games.

Mostly, they see make-believe on TV and most kids understand
the
difference.

When you were a kid, did you ever see someone killed in front
of you?


No. Do you remember when the news showed the guy getting shot in
the head in, I believe VN?
I can still picture it.

I remember it also. Also that sill of when that girl was burned and
running down the street. We used to watch Walter every night during
dinner when they added up the score.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:48:45 -0000, "Donal" said:

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Truly remarkable how after a jury of 12 sat and heard all the evidence,
and
decided he was guilty, and after who knows how many courts reviewed every
element of the conviction, Donal sitting over in Ireland,

I'm not sitting in Ireland.


never having seen
or heard any of the evidence, can divine that the guy was innocent.

I didn't "divine" anything.

I said that I didn't "believe" that the guy was guilty.

Are the
voices telling you, Donal?

Yes .... No ..... Sorry, I'm confused. Could you re-phrase your question,
please? This time, please try to make some sense.

Regards


Donal
--

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Donal wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Bart Senior .@. wrote:
The Terminator is living up to his name.

Bye Bye Tookie. This is long overdue.

http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=30668

It is and it isn't. I'm opposed to the DP, but I'm not that concerned
about Williams. He certainly deserves it.

I don't believe that he was guilty.

Fortunately, you weren't on the jury or the appeals court.

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, according to a researcher at UCLA's
School of Law Enforcement (may not have that name quite right). 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, plus an assortment of innocent
bystanders.

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.

Max

Bye Bye Tookie
 

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?


... 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?


... 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?

... plus an assortment of innocent
bystanders.


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


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.

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.

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!

Regards
Doug King

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
DSK wrote:
just like nobody is in favor of abortion. It's a question of
rights vs gov't authority.

Depends on the person... oh wait, that's a detail. :-)

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.

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone. There are worse things that are less expensive.

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.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice. The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity. There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.

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!

Perhaps that's why the Illinois governor suspended all such penalties
in his state?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Who cares now? Problem gone.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

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.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does
it serve any purpose to live in the first place?

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.

... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that
it's the subject of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile,
health care for prisoners is not a trivial expense for the
state, either.



The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.


Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small
group in certain circumstances" always opposes the best
interest of certain other groups. Some people are opposed to
anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to drunk driving,
beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.



I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person
could escape, a change of administration policy, or a
paperwork mistake could release them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.




War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a
matter of scale.

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Indeed. Found Guility ...pop a 10cent round.

Simple and cost effective.

FN liberals mess up the process and spend millions.

Joe

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article ,
DSK wrote:
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.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.

???
Is this one of those 'meaning of life' type statements? Does
it serve any purpose to live in the first place?

Of course. I mean, who the f*ck knows.

In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.

He wasn't a threat any more. In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

... There are worse things that are less expensive.


The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that
it's the subject of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile,
health care for prisoners is not a trivial expense for the
state, either.

I agree! I think there should be very few appeals. However, there
would be even fewer right now, if the DP were removed from the table.

The state should be a reflection of the people contained in it, but
not an exact reflection. It should act in the best interest of as many
people as possible, but also act in the best interests of a small
group in certain circumstances.


Well, here's the problem. "The best interest of a small
group in certain circumstances" always opposes the best
interest of certain other groups. Some people are opposed to
anybody owning a gun, others are opposed to drunk driving,
beer in cans, etc etc. Obviously not everybody gets their
own way all the time.

Sure. I know. That's why we have courts, lawyers, politicians, etc.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.

But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.

... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."

When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).

... There is
no necessity in executing someone who would otherwise be behind bars
for the rest of their life.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It puts the guards at risk, the person
could escape, a change of administration policy, or a
paperwork mistake could release them, etc etc.

There is no recidivism from the death penalty.

Not much. There's always a slight chance of just about everything, but
I don't think it's much of a chance in reality. It would be
interesting to see some stats about something like that
happening.. I'm sure it has happened, but it's so rare.

War is a different matter, where the survival of the state (and the
people) is at stake.


Pretty much equivalent cases, I'd say. The difference is a
matter of scale.

Scale is one of those important details. In the case of some things,
looking at the limiting cases doesn't really help.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Indeed. Found Guility ...pop a 10cent round.

Simple and cost effective.

FN liberals mess up the process and spend millions.

Joe

Heck, we don't even need trials. Just hang 'em when you suspect
someone's done something you don't like. It's a slippery slope, and
that's why we have courts of law.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bye Bye Tookie
 

... I'm arguing that it serves no purpose to
execute someone.


In any event, execution *definitely* serves a purpose. It
removes a threat & a waste of good oxygen.


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
He wasn't a threat any more.

Disagree strongly.
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no
unreformed murderers on death row.


... In fact, he did some good while in
prison. While this in no way justifies or excuses he prior actions, it
does remove the "threat" concern from the table.

Nope, just the opposite... it is a point in favor of
granting clemency, after all he can't write many positive
influence children's books from that great solitary cell in
the sky. But the man was, as far as can be proven, a
multiple murderer. Definnitely a threat to society IMHO.




I don't believe in the death penalty as a practice.

That's OK, you don't have to be the one that throws the switch.


But, that's the fun part. I think we should abolish the death penalty,
but not tell anyone. You go right up to execution time, they put the
hood on your face, but instead of dropping cyanide, drop Alka Seltzer
tablets. Now, that's cruel and unusual.


Better yet, hold alka-seltzer in one hand and cyanide in the
other and say 'guess which hand?'


... The state should
not be in the business of killing people without necessity.

Now here's one of those problematic details: define "necessity."


When the state faces utter destruction (we're talking about a
legitimate state of course).


Or when a person has committed at least one heinous crime
such that his very humanity is in doubt, and it is too great
a risk to let him continue to share our planet.

It would be the same with some people in my house or yard,
same for the whole planet. A problem removed is a problem
solved.

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that it serves no purpose
to
execute someone.

Why not ask some of the survivors of a murder victim how they
feel about it?

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:


I remember it also. Also that sill of when that girl was burned and
running down the street.

She's a Canadian citizen now and living in Toronto!

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Tookie should have had his organs should be
havested while he is still alive.

"DSK" wrote
have no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of
heinous crimes *should* be executed.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
The reason why the death penalty is so expensive is that it's the subject
of endless meaningless appeals. Meanwhile, health care for prisoners is
not a trivial expense for the state, either.

Auction off his organs. That would help recoup the expense
and might even help expedite the process.

Bye Bye Tookie
 

have no problem with capital punishment, IMHO those guilty beyond doubt of
heinous crimes *should* be executed.


Bart Senior wrote:
Tookie should have had his organs should be
havested while he is still alive.


Without anesthesia... now *there's* a deterrent, and it
could also help recoup cost by making it a popular TV show.

Actually, using prisoners for medical purposes is on that
slippery slope. At the beginning, it's a good idea. But the
temptation to expand the boundaries would be very difficult
to resist.

DSK

Bye Bye Tookie
 

I find it unsurprizing that I could not find Governor
Schwarzenegger's six page statement anywhere in the
press. Here it is at the State of California web site.

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/p..._Statement.pdf

*****************************

The governor's decision was met without opposition from
Democratic Party leadership in California. Jesse Idiot
Jackson, Democratic extortionist was the one vocal critic.
Politicians maintained a deathly silence, showing that the
governor's decision was not only bi-partisan but overwhelmingly
supported by the populace.

The Gubernator noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 memoir,
Life in Prison, to "Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis, Malcolm X,
Assata Shakur, Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt, Ramona Africa, John
Africa, Leonard Peltier, Dhoruba Al-Mujahid, George Jackson,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the countless other men, women and
youths who have to endure the hellish oppression of living behind
bars."

[Makes you wonder if he felt any compassion for people he had
killed.]

In his statement rejecting clemency, Schwarzenegger made
it a condition that the prisoner admit guilt: "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...
Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal
killings there can be no redemption."

Schwarzenegger singled out the mention of George Jackson,
the Black Panther and prison activist killed by prison guards in
1971, declaring, "the 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."