Tookie Williams Against Clemency

Stanley Tookie Williams was an early leader of the ‘Crips’, a notorious American street gang which had its roots in South Central Los Angeles. He was convicted of three murders in 1979. While on Death Row in California, Williams became an anti-gang activist, he renounced his gang affiliation and apologized for the Crips' founding, while maintaining his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted. He co-wrote children's books and participated in efforts intended to prevent youths from joining gangs. In late 2005, a campaign began to urge the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to grant clemency for Williams in consideration of his work as an anti-gang activist and asserted "redemption." Thousands of people signed online petitions calling for Schwarzenegger to commute the death sentence. Those who campaigned against the execution included celebrities, politicians, and Nobel laureates. In early November, 2005, Williams' attorneys filed his formal petition for executive clemency, as well as a motion to obtain new evidence. On December 12, 2005, Schwarzenegger denied clemency for Williams, and he was executed via lethal injection on December 13, 2005.

Mr Stanley Williams has been a menace to society. Atotal disregard for the law and the well-being of the citizens of california causing multiple homicides and diluiting his community with drug trafficking and harmful pollutents. People living in fear of the defendant making small tasks such as going to the store a fearful reality. Mr. Willaims being of sane mind took three innnocent lives, once a life is taken it cannot be brought back! Even though Mr. Williams committed reformation while being incarcerated does not change the fact that acts against the people and humanity still need to be rectified. What about those slain, where they given fair and equal treatment? Did they ask to have their lives, "ripped," away? One phrase; punishable by law!

Wendigo

 Even though religion changed the faced, and for arguments sake, let us feels a sense of remorse. However, killing an individual is nothing short of ending a person’s life abruptly. Playing God with the fates and choosing when an individual lives’ and dies is not a game. The Native American in question decided to take a life, he believed it to be a “Wendi go,” that does not give the right to commit the act of murder. The Native American in question did commit the act of murder! However, he has leeway, because he could have taken the life on one’s property giving justification to “self-defense.” More circumstantial evidence should be brought up on behalf of the defendant. The prosecution has a clear-cut way to move forward with establishing a case based upon negligence. Even though the defense is going to have a case clearly based upon the theological aspects, one must argue the fact; that were there any type of opiates taken prior to the killing of the individual. Opium related drugs are sometimes used in Native American rituals and it could have changed this individual's means of perspective. These are factors one takes into consideration when prosecuting an individual on a "capital," offense.

Anthony K.

The Model Penal code1, section 5.01 gives the following definition of attempted crimes:

“(1) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”


Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?
How would Kadish analyze this case?
What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?
According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?


1. Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?

Danny C. Original Response,


Yes, all three premises of M.P.C.'s definition of "Attempted Rape". The first requires that one commit an act that harms another if the conditions were as if one imagined it. In other words, Victor believes that his wife is under the power of voodoo, and commences his activity. A second requirement is that one makes no (action/or inaction) to prevent the crime. Victor, once he has had enough, continues without hesitation to the completion of the act. The third premise requires a substantial step in the direction of the crime. Victor, in this case, completes the entire crime.


In response to Danny C.,


Everyday Americans go daily with attempted “murder,” thoughts floating around in their brains, with no serious attempts of actually committing the crime when it comes down to the fact. No, Victor cannot be charged with attempted crime, because the crime could be viewed from the theological" approach. The Voodooist can be viewed as conducting a religious activity that alone circumvents; because of the United States Constitution, I wanted to point this out as a response to the questions…but also from a rebuttal approach.


2. How would Kadish analyze this case?


Kadish is trying to base cases upon information vs. taking things by literati on. Also between the cases actual death in comparison to stabbing an inanimate doll, they are two different things. Implicating a man, off whimsical evidence is the primary concern.

3. What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Kadish argues that the "harm doctrine" is theoretically incoherent and ineffective in its goal of crime prevention. Therefore, to judge him based on the results of the outcome, whether attempted murder or murder, is nonsensical. Misdemeanors & ticketed offenses are based somewhat on a
whimsical viewpoint (nonsensical). In "layman terms," if one becomes aware of the punishment associated with a crime he/she is less likely to commit the act due to an unwanted outcome. Kadish makes this claim simply to prove the ineffectiveness of judicial system under the "harm principle" while linked with premeditation. 4. According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?
Society has an ever-changing attitude with a hopefully even slower change on morals and values when compared with philosophy. The American people though mislead are perhaps the reason for mainstream awareness. Kadish will further assert that the law is merely a reflection of the society's ability to justify. Mainstream society, culture, religion, and popular vote shape persecution and ratification.