Stanley Tookie Williams

[hiphop]

Well not really, only that I will say..I see ppl posting about vengence and that but it this has nothing to do with vegence-this is a clear example of Liberals projecting their views on the majority of our country and the majority of our country disagreeing with them, and Liberal folk not getting it, thinking they are more enlightened, hence a symptom of a disorder.

Load of BS. Im not a bloody Liberal and have told you for years.

SHAME on Arnold, I repeat, he is a traitor of our values here.

 

[Justin24]

So then your saying 98% of Austrians are Anti-death penalty old man. So do you speak for all Austrians. Did you ask all austrians if they were or are in favor of certain situations.

 

[Calluna]

It might have been satire but it still can offened other people out there, take that into consideration. I am a Democrate Conservative and I am 24 yrs old. So I am not that young.

Oh, please.

 

[hiphop]

If you support the death penalty in any cases then you cannot really claim to be opposed to it in principle.

That may be your view, and you´re entitled to it.

I am a Christian and therefore I strongly support the death of tyrants. Other then killing tyrants (which is justified and even a necessity, according to the Bible), I don´t support it.

 

[indra]

Personally I don't care if Williams lives in jail for the rest of his natural life or is executed. I don't give a rats ass about him at all.

But executing him will not bring back any of the people he killed. It won't stop anyone else from killing either. It costs more to execute people than to imprison them for life. And people who have been proven later to not have committed the crime they were convicted of have been executed in this nation.

For all these reasons it makes no logical sense to do. I can understand wanting kill the person who commits such heinous crimes, especially for the people who knew and loved the victims. There have been many times I have thought "that asshole should die for that" upon hearing of some particularly sad case, and I haven't even had someone close to me be a victim, so I do realise I can only guess at their pain.

But our justice system is supposed to benefit our society as a whole, not extract vengeance on behalf of some. And executions do nothing at all to benefit our society. In fact they are divisive, expensive, and do nothing to stop crime, so I feel they actually hurt it.

Besides, does it strike anyone else as odd that the argument "he must pay for his crime" is the very same one gang members use to justify their killings? Shouldn't we be better than the gangs?

 

[Justin24]

LOL caluna. I am just being "Politically Correct" I mean you can say a joke with out "Offending some one and have the ACLU on their Ass.

 

[indra]

yeah the truth hurts.

db9

Then nothing you've posted hurts any of us.

 

[hiphop]

So then your saying 98% of Austrians are Anti-death penalty old man. So do you speak for all Austrians. Did you ask all austrians if they were or are in favor of certain situations.

I have talked to a lot of friends and we are all ashamed for Arnold. I know that 98% of Austrians are against death penalty because we have polls and you are invited to post them here. It´s just not an issue here. We oppose it, and the media asks what values Schwarzenegger grew up with - apparently none?

Mind your words. Your last sentence I have quoted is nothing but provocation again. Of course I did not ask all Austrians if they were in favor; how should I ask 8.1 million people?

Any more of those assumptions, and you´ll end up on my ignore list, kid.

 

[Justin24]

Why are you going to put me on the ignore list. Do you only want to hear what your in favor of and cannot handle what other people say. Old man. do you not liked being called old man. If you dont like it stop calling me Kid. Comprede.

No duh your not going to ask 8.1 million people so stop assuming that all are in favor of getting rid of the death penalty. How do you know some of those that are against are only partialy against.

 

[hiphop]

Do you only want to hear what your in favor of and cannot handle what other people say. Old man. do you not liked being called old man.

kiddoh, chill out ok? I like you calling me old man.

Do you only want to hear what your in favor of and cannot handle what other people say.

Yeah that must be it. Check out my other 6000 posts and you will see that´s exactly the case.

 

[hiphop]

I know that because I AM FROM HERE AND YOU ARE NOT. Trust me, I know very well where my country stands on certain issues. You are invited to fly over and ask Austrians on the street, if you can´t possibly get yourself to believe me.

Maybe for Californians, this ain´t a shame. If about 70% support death penalty, that´s that. For Austrians, it is a shame.

Stop badmouthing the intentions of the people from my country. Thank you.

 

[hiphop]

In one hour he´s gonna get killed.

I can feel the fear.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That may be your view, and you´re entitled to it.

I am a Christian and therefore I strongly support the death of tyrants. Other then killing tyrants (which is justified and even a necessity, according to the Bible), I don´t support it.

Funny, I think that Robertson had a very similar Christian idea about Hugo Chavez.

 

[hiphop]

Funny, I think that Robertson had a very similar Christian idea about Hugo Chavez.

Wrong. Chavez is not a tyrant, but a democratically elected president. Before you have the nerve to say that Schwarzenegger, the traitor, is democratically elected Governor, you should note that there is no death penalty in Venezuela.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I just don't understand this whole Christianity thing, redemption is possible unless your a poltician. I too support the execution of war criminals and tyrants after their crimes documented and independent judgement of their complicity. I also don't support the death penalty in cases where their incarceration will suffice. I just don't make downright illogical statements such as I oppose the death penalty in principle when there are cases of exception.

From a completely atheistic standpoint I think that killing him is probably to easy, if we punish people their existence must be made harsh, death is always the ultimate release since it is just the complete end of the individual, from that point on the body can just rot.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don´t give a f.

I guess that helps with the hypocrisy of an anti-death penalty statement coupled with a desire for the death of the governor.

 

[nbcrusader]

That may be your view, and you´re entitled to it.

I am a Christian and therefore I strongly support the death of tyrants. Other then killing tyrants (which is justified and even a necessity, according to the Bible), I don´t support it.

Care to expand on this unique exception in Scripture?

 

[trevster2k]

It's done. 12:35 am PST unofficial time of death.

 

[nbcrusader]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[VintagePunk]

I can go to bed feeling safer tonight.

 

[indra]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

That's just so trite.

 

[hiphop]

ok.

from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm
and
http://www.davidkopel.com/Misc/Mags/Policraticus.htm


The idea is implicit in much of the Old Testament, which is full of righteous Hebrews overthrowing tyrants. And certainly the history of Republican Rome and classical Greece has many similar stories. But in the first millennium of Western Christianity, Christians fell under the sway of the law of the Roman Empire, which emphasized absolute obedience to government, and claimed that the government was above the law. Cicero, who lived in the last days of the Republic, was the last great writer to articulate the right of revolution.

John of Salisbury was the first Western writer to provide a detailed theory of tyrannicide. He went even further, and made tyrannicide a positive duty:

"t is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.

"But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

Tyrannicide literally is the killing of a tyrant, and usually is taken to mean the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. There are two classes of tyrants whose circumstances are widely apart -- tyrants by usurpation and tyrants by oppression. A tyrant by usurpation (tyrannus in titula) is one who unjustly displaces or attempts to displace the legitimate supreme ruler, and he can be considered in the act of usurpation or in subsequent peaceful possession of the supreme power. A tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine) is a supreme ruler who uses his power arbitrarily and oppressively.

While actually attacking the powers that be, a tyrant by usurpation is a traitor acting against the common weal, and, like any other criminal, may be put to death by legitimate authority. If possible, the legitimate authority must use the ordinary forms of law in condemning the tyrant to death, but if this is not possible, it can proceed informally and grant individuals a mandate to inflict the capital punishment. St. Thomas (In II Sent., d. XLIV, Q. ii, a. 2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 7), and the majority of authorized theologians say that private individuals have a tacit mandate from legitimate authority to kill the usurper when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant are available. Some, however, e.g. Crolly (De justitia, III, 207), hold that an express mandate is needed before a private person can take on himself the office of executioner of the usurping tyrant. All authorities hold that a private individual as such, without an express or tacit mandate from authority, may not lawfully kill an usurper unless he is actually his unjust aggressor. Moreover, it sometimes happens that an usurper is accorded the rights of a belligerent, and then a private individual, who is a non-combatant, is excluded by international law from the category of those to whom authority is given to kill the tyrant (Crolly, loc. cit.).

If an usurper has already established his rule and peacefully reigns, until the prescriptive period has run its course the legitimate ruler can lawfully expel him by force if he is able to do so, and can punish him with death for his offence. If, however, it is out of the legitimate ruler's power to re-establish his own authority, there is nothing for it but to acquiesce in the actual state of affairs and to refrain from merging the community in the miseries of useless warfare. In these circumstances, subjects are bound to obey the just laws of the realm, and can lawfully take an oath of obedience to the de facto ruler, if the oath is not of such a nature as to acknowledge the legitimacy of the usurper's authority (cf. Brief of Pius VIII, 29 Sept., 1830). This teaching is altogether different from the view of those who put forward the doctrine of accomplished facts, as it has come to be called, and who maintain that the actual peaceful possessor of the ruling authority is also legitimate ruler. This is nothing more or less than the glorification of successful robbery.


Looking on a tyrant by oppression as a public enemy, many authorities claimed for his subjects the right of putting him to death in defence of the common good. Amongst these were John of Salisbury in the twelfth century (Polycraticus III, 15; IV, 1; VIII, 17), and John Parvus (Jehan Petit) in the fifteenth century. The Council of Constance (1415) condemned as contrary to faith and morals the following proposition:


"Any vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." (Session XV)
Subsequently a few Catholics defended, with many limitations and safeguards, the right of subjects to kill a tyrannical ruler. Foremost amongst these was the Spanish Jesuit Mariana. In his book, "De rege et regis institutione" (Toledo, 1599), he held that people ought to bear with a tyrant as long as possible, and to take action only when his oppression surpassed all bounds. They ought to come together and give him a warning; this being of no avail they ought to declare him a public enemy and put him to death. If no public judgment could be given, and if the people were unanimous, any subject might, if possible, kill him by open, but not by secret means. The book was dedicated to Philip III of Spain and was written at the request of his tutor Garcias de Loaysa, who afterwards became Bishop of Toledo. It was published at Toledo in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to the king, with the approbation of Pedro de Oñ, Provincial of the Mercedarians of Madrid, and with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Toledo (see JUAN MARIANA). Most unfairly the Jesuit Order has been blamed for the teaching of Mariana. As a matter of fact, Mariana stated that his teaching on tyrannicide was his personal opinion, and immediately on the publication of the book the Jesuit General Aquaviva ordered that it be corrected. He also on 6 July, 1610, forbade any member of the order to teach publicly or privately that it is lawful to attempt the life of a tyrant.

Though Catholic doctrine condemns tyrannicide as opposed to the natural law, formerly great theologians of the Church like St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlii, a.2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 15), and Bañez, O.P. (De justitia et jure, Q. lxiv, a. 3), permitted rebellion against oppressive rulers when the tyranny had become extreme and when no other means of safety were available. This merely carried to its logical conclusion the doctrine of the Middle Ages that the supreme ruling authority comes from God through the people for the public good. As the people immediately give sovereignty to the ruler, so the people can deprive him of his sovereignty when he has used his power oppressively. Many authorities, e.g. Suarez (Def. fiedei, VI, iv, 18), held that the State, but not private persons, could, if necessary, condemn the tyrant to death. In recent times Catholic authors, for the most part, deny that subjects have the right to rebel against and depose an unjust ruler, except in the case when the ruler was appointed under the condition that he would lose his power if he abused it. In proof of this teaching they appeal to the Syllabus of Pius IX, in which this proposition is condemned: "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel" (prop. 63). While denying the right of rebellion in the strict sense whose direct object is the deposition of the tyrannical ruler, many Catholic writers, such as Crolly, Cathrein, de Bie, Zigliara, admit the right of subjects not only to adopt an attitude of passive resistance against unjust laws, but also in extreme cases to assume a state of active defensive resistance against the actual aggression of a legitimate, but oppressive ruler.

Many of the Reformers were more or less in favour of tyrannicide. Luther held that the whole community could condemn the tyrant to death (Sämmtliche Werke", LXII, Frankfort-on-the-Main and Erlangen, 1854, 201, 206). Melanchthon said that the killing of a tyrant is the most agreeable offering that man can make to God (Corp. Ref., III, Halle, 1836, 1076). The Calvinist writer styled Junius Brutus held that individual subjects have no right to kill a legitimate tyrant, but that resistance must be authorized by a representative council of the people (Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, p. 45). John Knox affirmed that it was the duty of the nobility, judges, rulers, and people of England to condemn Queen Mary to death (Appellation).


In short, "As the image of the deity, the prince is to be loved, venerated, and respected; the tyrant, as the image of depravity, is for the most part even to be killed." Thus, tyrannicide was "honourable" when tyrants "could not be otherwise restrained."

There were two important limits: First, poison could not be used. Second, a person could not rebel against a person to whom he legally owed fealty.

The political theory of the Dark Ages had insisted that obedience to God required obedience to any ruler, no matter how awful. John of Salisbury turned this theory on its head: "it is just for public tyrants to be killed and the people to be liberated for obedience to God."

At great length, Policraticus denounced tyranny and justified tyrannicide. A few passages did counsel patient reliance on deliverance by God, warned against taking drastic actions based on small or isolated offenses, and urged prayer as the method of ending tyrannical oppression. These cautionary lines, however, did not undermine the revolutionary impact of the book.

Going beyond political tyranny, John of Salisbury explained that tyranny could occur in many forms; "many private men are tyrants." "[E]everyone is tyrant who abuses any power over those subject to him which has been conceded from above." A father, a land-owner, or a merchant could be a private tyrant, to those over whom they abused their power.

An ecclesiastical tyrant was a priest, bishop, or other church official who abused his power, harming rather than protecting the people in his spiritual care.

One of the problems of the tyranny of petty officials was that it was illegal to resist their depredations, even though, according to Justinian’s code of Roman law, "it is otherwise lawful to repel force with force without blame if one has safeguarded moderation." However, tyrannicide was appropriate for only actual rulers of governments, not for private tyrants.

 

[nbcrusader]

That's just so trite.

Sorry, but that is one of the maxims of our legal system.

 

[hiphop]

I guess that helps with the hypocrisy of an anti-death penalty statement coupled with a desire for the death of the governor.

Go read the Forum FAQ/ Rules.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I hardly see how that could qualify as a personal attack.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The world moved to the side of good by 1/6000000000+

This post is just indicating how insignificant his life really is in the scheme of things regardless of the justness of his execution.

 

[BonosSaint]

I am not philosophically against the death penalty. But apparently we fuck up too many times for me to be comfortable with the practice of it. I'm not sure I am wholly confident in our justice system's ability to get it right.

I won't tell you I have no vengeance in my soul. You kill someone I love and if it is in my ability, I'm going to come at you with everything I have, including using the justice system if I can get that to kill. I will not forgive. That being said, I am aware that I would be (as is the state) committing coldblooded, premeditated murder and there would be blood on my hands and there is no justification that would change that. There is a coldness in the procedure of the death penalty that chills me. I feel a vague disturbing any time an execution is carried out. And I should.
Sometimes I think it would be better to let the family or loved ones of the victim (who actually suffered the loss) perform the execution. At least it would not be done in the dispassion with which it is carried out now.

There is blood on the hands of everyone who condones capital punishment. Are you willing to accept that personal blood on your hands? Sometimes I am. Sometimes I am not. But I accept it as personal blood and I can't distance myself from it, even when I think it is just to kill sometimes. The state kills. I am part of that state. I kill. It is with my will a person dies.

I waver between pro and con. I'm not comfortable with either.
I know it is not deterrence. I know it is not justice. It is vengeance and it is murder. And God help me, if it was someone I loved murdered, I would want vengeance. I would murder and drench my body and my soul with the blood of the person who killed my loved one. But I would know the moral cost.

 

[hiphop]

I hardly see how that could qualify as a personal attack.

Sure it does. It is a flagrant allegation that I have "desire for the death of a governor".

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that talking about the crips taking out the man could be interperated as such sentiment.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The world moved to the side of good by 1/6000000000+

This post is just indicating how insignificant his life really is in the scheme of things regardless of the justness of his execution.

I've always believed it is this thinking which is precisely why the death penalty is fucking ridiculous.