Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/wi...ion/index.html

Appeals court refuses to block Williams' execution

Monday, December 12, 2005; Posted: 6:01 p.m. EST (23:01 GMT)

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied clemency Monday for convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams, who co-founded the Crips street gang in Los Angeles.

Schwarzenegger announced the decision shortly after a federal appeals court refused to block Williams' execution by lethal injection scheduled for shortly after midnight local time Monday.

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who met with Williams earlier in the day, criticized Schwarzenegger for deciding not to spare Williams.

Jackson said Williams, who was convicted of killing four people in 1979, had earned clemency and that Schwarzenegger's decision was about "making politicians look tough, but that does not make it right."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, rejected an affidavit from Williams' lawyers that suggested someone framed the onetime gang leader.

Unless the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, Williams is scheduled to die by injection at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday (3:01 a.m. ET) at San Quentin State Prison, near San Francisco.

California's Supreme Court rejected an emergency request to stay the execution on Sunday. The state has executed only 11 inmates since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

In their appeal to the 9th Circuit, attorneys pinned their hopes on the declaration of a new witness -- Gordon Bradbury von Ellerman -- a jail trusty detained with Williams in the Los Angeles County Jail from 1979 to 1980.

In the affidavit, von Ellerman said he was the cellmate of another trusty, identified as George "Roger" Oglesby.

Von Ellerman said Los Angeles Sheriff's Department personnel provided Oglesby with documents to aid him in testifying against Williams in return for reduced or dropped charges.

"I was personally aware that Los Angeles Sheriff's Department personnel would often provide information to these inmates so that they could help frame defendants for crimes," he said in the statement.

A statement from Schwarzenegger read: "The possible irregularities in Williams' trial have been thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the courts, and there is no reason to disturb the judicial decisions that uphold the jury's decisions that he is guilty of these four murders and should pay with his life."

Williams, who would be 52 on December 29, spent part of Monday with his attorneys and family members at San Quentin.

While in prison, Williams became an anti-gang crusader, but he has consistently refused to take part in a debriefing with authorities to provide them potentially valuable information about the Crips gangs, said lead prosecutor John Monaghan.

Williams has denounced gang violence and written children's books with an anti-gang message, donating the proceeds to anti-gang community groups.

He said he was trying to prevent young people from making the choices he did, which led to a life of crime and a death sentence.

Celebrities, teachers and anti-death penalty advocates have spoken on Williams' behalf, but Schwarzenegger questioned the sincerity of Williams' conversion to nonviolence.

"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," the governor wrote.

"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

A jury convicted Williams of killing a 26-year-old Los Angeles convenience store clerk in February 1979, shooting him twice in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun while the victim was face down on the floor.

The jury also convicted him of shooting and killing an immigrant Chinese couple and their 41-year-old daughter less than two weeks later while stealing less than $100 cash from their motel.

Both cases were handled in a single trial. Williams was sentenced to death in 1981.

I for one am glad. See ya later A**hole.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. I'm also wondering if south central is going to go up in flames tonight. I hope not. :(

So do I. I respect, but disagree with your position btw.

Yeah, expected as much from Arnold. I hope he gets clobbered in the next election.

Oh well. Why should people value life when the state clearly doesn't?

Yeah, from what I've heard, his re-election chances arent looking too good.

He is going to be terminated.

He WON'T be back.

Hasta la vista, baby.

Jon Carroll



Monday, December 12, 2005



"Stanley Tookie Williams, the convicted murderer, has done an impressive amount of stuff since his incarceration in 1981. He has written an autobiography plus eight books for children about gangs and gang violence. He has spoken eloquently about the destruction that drugs and gangs can cause. He has rallied an impressive array of people to the cause of his appeal for clemency from his death sentence. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize any number of times.

His supporters say he has turned his life around. He has become a force for good. He merits special consideration because he has been so important in motivating children not to choose the life that he did. Those arguments, quite frankly, make me nuts.

I have no opinion about whether Tookie Williams has been rehabilitated. I'm not even sure that "rehabilitation" is a meaningful concept. A lot of people in prison are con artists; it's a useful skill on the street. The way to clemency was undoubtedly clear to a man of Williams' intelligence, and the fact that he chose that path means that either (a) he has had a change of heart or (b) that he hasn't. I dunno. I can't judge from afar, and neither can you.

I think subjective judgments about character are not really relevant in death penalty cases. To believe that they are relevant is to believe that uncharismatic, untalented, surly and/or mentally retarded death row prisoners are not worth saving, while a really cool guy is. Are we saying that it's OK to kill sneaky little weasel-faced people and not OK to kill handsome, intelligent, well-muscled people? It's fine to construct a hierarchy of character if one is, say, choosing a mate or a president. It certainly may be more convenient for advocates if they choose a guy who can speak well for himself and has done many useful things. But that's not the point.

The death penalty is wrong because the state (which is to say: us) should not be involved in killing people, particularly in cold blood. To kill people because they killed people -- it doesn't make any actual sense. A society should be slightly more civilized than its sociopaths. Revenge is an understandable emotion. Greed is an understandable emotion too, but stealing is still not legal. The death penalty does not deter and it does not cure.

Williams may be guilty of extremely unpleasant crimes; I do not have an opinion on his guilt. His lawyers make a strong case for racial bias on the part of the prosecutor and the jury, but lawyers are paid to make strong cases. They are not quarreling about the facts of the case, which suggests that the facts are against them. But I don't care. Even if I were positive that we were executing only guilty people, I'd be against the death penalty.

But of course we're not sure, and that's the other point. Eyewitnesses are not infallible; law enforcement people will tell you that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence there is. Juries can be stupid or misguided or both. The state may have an excellent advocate, and the defense lawyers could be drunks one step short of disbarment. Are we really prepared to kill people because their lawyers were drunks?

And I repeat what I said about rehabilitation. Most criminals are drug addicts or alcoholics; it comes with the territory. Drug addicts and alcoholics are among the best con artists in the world. They have had long practice in saying things that people want to hear. They can read a room, because often the room is what's standing between them and their drug of choice. If a jailhouse witness can get time off for testifying in a certain case, of course he will. He might coincidentally be telling the truth, but I wouldn't lend him money on the basis of what he said -- and I sure wouldn't kill another man on his word.

And, sadly, most of the people who testify against criminals are themselves criminals. It's a flawed system. We now know, because of advances in DNA evidence, that innocent men have been executed. I have no idea whether those executions weigh heavily on the prosecutors and police officers who built the case, but they weigh on other people. The governor of Illinois suspended all executions because of the possibility of killing an innocent man. It seems like a good idea for all the states.

At this writing, the fate of Stanley Williams is unknown. Whatever happens to him, it's time to look forward to the next case and all the cases that follow, and bear witness."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000

I doubt a Dem governor would have granted clemency either. Most politicans just don't have the balls to fight the death penalty, even if they oppose it themselves.

Very sad day. I don't see how life without parole isn't a fitting sentence.

Yeah, but if there was ONE state where his poll numbers would improve by NOT putting a guy to death, it's California.
In this case, I agree that "life" would be best. However, there are times when you just have to thin the heard out every once in a while.

The title to this thread made me laugh hard. "ex-gang" leader. He's only an "ex" cause he got caught. Idiot still denies responsibility.

Another weed of society plucked. Good...let the grass grow.

This really makes me sad. While it's quite amazing that he still will not admit to the crimes he committed, this type of action is in no way "justice." It solves nothing and only serves to perpetuate barbarism, the very thing that this death sentence supposedly condemns. If this is what passes for justice, I'm sorry to say that the word is being horribly misused; the last time I checked, justice was the principle of moral rightness. I fail to see how moral it is to commit the same act that is being condemned, but in the end, we all create our own heaven and our own hell. The people who support this will realize that soon enough.

I feel that he committed the ultimate barbarism, murdering innocent people. At least he had years in prison, to think it over, and change his life. BUT, of course, changing his own life, in no way changes the fact that he murdered innocents. I'm glad for him that he was able to change, but the price for his barbarism still must be paid. And, IMO, the payment is past due.

The "payment"? What "payment" is that? How lovely that we're calling actual human life "payment."

It sends shivers down my spine to think that we're incapable of doing what Tookie Williams himself was incapable of doing: showing mercy. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

I second that :xoxo: :wavey: