Stanley Tookie Williams III (December 29, 1953 – December 13, 2005), was an early leader of the Crips, a notorious American street gang which had its roots in South Central Los Angeles in 1969. In December 2005 he was executed for the 1979 murders of Albert Owens, Yen-Yi Yang, Tsai-Shai Lin, and Yee-Chen Lin. Witnesses testified that Williams referred to the victims in conversations with friends as "Buddha-heads", a derogatory term for Asians.
While in prison, Williams refused to aid police investigations with any information against his gang, and was implicated in attacks on guards and other inmates as well as multiple escape plots.
Despite the attempts of some individuals to claim Tookie was rehabilitated, Tookie never expressed remorse or regret for his vicious crimes.
2006-09-28 06:43:12 · 9 answers · asked by college_republicans_club 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Tookie got what he deserved. Only, it could have been done alot sooner.
Liberals cried when Tookie died.
2006-09-28 06:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion it was the right thing to do for several reasons. One, simply because he was convicted of a crime and that was the punishment handed down by the jury. Second, regardless of an inmates claim of finding religion since the crime, I do not believe this should be the basis for a change of sentence.
And finally, I understand that he may have attempted to do something good in prison for kids and steer them away from gangs after the fact that he was a founding member of one of the more dangerous gangs in the country, however; another way he could have looked at it was that even after his death he may still help other kids by showing that if you commit a crime this severe you must be prepared to accept the consequences.
2006-09-28 07:01:09 · answer #2 · answered by Peaches_n_Cream18_82 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
The only thing unfair about the situation were the millions of tax dollars wasted in carrying it out. He killed dozens more on 1/64 the budget.
2006-09-28 07:02:39 · answer #3 · answered by Manny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not think it was fair for that man to be executed in the fashion that he was. After making a tremendous rebound and changing his life behind bars, he shuold have been granted clemency. Now that doesnt mean i dont think he shuoldnt have stayed in custody forever, because I truly believe you should.
Murder is murder no matter how you cut it. I for one am against death row anything- i think if you are assigned to death row you should die within about 6 months so we can quit wasting money on people who have no regards for others life. It is ironic how Charles Manson/group is STILL in prison for the murders he caused!
2006-09-28 07:04:28 · answer #4 · answered by mixedchick4blkguys 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Fair != Legal
2006-09-28 06:51:02 · answer #5 · answered by Master J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it wasn't far. He should've been executed in the cruelest way possible.
2006-09-28 06:49:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they should have done it with a bullet
and save the taxpayers some money.
2006-09-28 06:47:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fair's got nothing to do with it.
2006-09-28 06:55:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he got what he deserved..actually it should have been much harsher!
2006-09-28 06:50:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋