This case is about when a man named Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams tried to gain executive clemency from the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the case he was tried for being accused of murder using a shotgun. When Williams was being arrested there was a twelve-gauge shotgun shell found at the crime scene while there was an investigation going on at the Brookhaven motel. This shell was then use against Mr. Williams in the murder trial against him stating that about 5 a.m. on March 11, 1979, he broke into the Brookhaven motel and killed Yen-Yi Yang and his wife who was Tsai-Shai C. Yang who were both immigrants coming from Taiwan. The accusation comes because of the shotgun found in Williams’s possession and he took their cash that
R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 v. Williams was a criminal case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the accused appealed the decision of; Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Facts: Victor Daniel Williams is an aboriginal man who pleaded not guilty but was charged via trial by judge and jury for the robbery of a pizza parlour in October, 1993. in Victoria BC. His defence was that another aboriginal had committed the crime. Williams challenged the jury on the basis of s.638 of the criminal code “an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that.. a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused” as they had established significant amounts of prejudice against aboriginals, which was dismissed in the Court Of Appeal, leading to his conviction.
Nathanson continues to argue against capital punishment by arguing not only against the equal punishment principle but also the proportional retributivism view. While Nathanson believes proportional retributivism plays an important role our determination of appropriate punishment for criminals, it does not, however, apply nor aide arguments in favor of the death
Stanley “Tookie” Williams III is a prime example of two things: the power and glory of God and the devastating effects of juvenile delinquency. When reading Williams’ occupations of murderer, thief and philanthropist it is a testament to someone giving their heart to the Lord. By his own admission, Williams’ was a violent youth and adult who idolized criminals. Not only was he violent to others but, through his alliance with Raymond Washington and the founding of the Crips, he encouraged others towards violence. His life was spiraling out of control the moment his father abandoned him and, despite his mother moving them from New Orleans to Los Angeles, he continued to steer his heart towards sin.
David Oshinksy’s most recent book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, focuses on the extremely controversial yet important issue of capital punishment in the United States. Oshinsky’s text covers the debated topic in a scholarly yet concise way. With the text being a mere 125 pages, he covers the prolonged, contentious history of the death penalty. At the beginning of the book, Oshinsky describes what occurred in the early hours of August 11, 1967. William Micke was suddenly murdered in the hallway of his house by William Henry Furman, a disabled, illiterate 24 year old who had a troubled past with law enforcement.
In May, 1924, two boys, Nathan Leopold Jr. and Richard Loeb, sought to commit the perfect crime: kidnapping and murdering their 14-year-old neighbor, Robert Franks. However, instead of executing the perfect crime, they were caught the following day and were sure to be hung. Their families hired a defense attorney by the name of Clarence Darrow who made one of the most influential and well-known speeches against the death penalty: “A Plea for Mercy.” Darrow utilizes historical references, logical and emotional appeals, anaphora, and persona, to sway the court to not employ the death penalty for Leopold and Loebs’ murder. Darrow explains the relationship between past wars and contemporary themes and a large part of that is society changing to be more forgiving.
The author claims that the argument against capital punishment based on the possibility of executing an innocent person is intellectually and morally shallow. He also claims that abolitionists who use this argument are intellectually dishonest because they accept other social policies that lead to the death of innocent individuals. Prager claims that murderers who are not executed have already murdered innocent people, and the possibility of escape from prison means that they threaten even more innocent lives. Additionally, he claims that abolishing capital punishment does not necessarily protect innocent lives because murderers who are not executed may continue to kill. Finally, the author argues that abolitionists should acknowledge their responsibility for innocent lives lost due to murderers who were not executed and state their genuine belief that murderers should never be
Capital punishment, or better known as the death penalty, had made its first appearance with the Babylonians through “the Code of Hammurabi”, the first written set of laws and punishments in history. It has since spread worldwide and evolved to fit the customs and traditions of numerous civilizations as time progressed, which explains why some states in America today have implemented some form of Capital Punishment. Used only for the most vile offenses, Capital Punishment may seem appropriate for those who have done the unthinkable. However, it is unclear where we draw the line between whether or not one should be submitted to the death penalty based on the magnitude of the offense. The Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia had helped
Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty. " In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal.
