Clemency

We understand that Stanley Tookie Williams has renounced his gang affiliations and has worked as an activist against them after his incarceration. On behalf of the state of California we can not allow clemency to be granted. Even through all his good works it does not bring his victims back. They were murdered due to organized gang activity. What if Mr. Williams was never caught or even convicted, would he have changed and turned a new leaf? Or is it because he is on Death Row, Mr. Williams is trying to make amends for his crimes against society? We can not assume that he changed because he truly wanted too. The crimes were committed and the Crips are major part of gang related society today, the cause of Mr. Williams. Clemency must be denied.

Wendigo Prosecutor

The defendant should be charged with manslaughter and be found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. The court recognizes the private practices and beliefs of the Indian Tribe, although that does not warrant killing someone in cold blood because of what you thought you saw. The defendant should have fully investigated before acting on their own. Even if the defendant were to call the authorities, it would have been handled in a proper manner. Due to the wrong judgement of the defendant an innocent persons life was taken.

VooDoo Case

Technically Victor could be convicted under these circumstance, since he does fit the definition for "Attempt". Although, not one District Attorney's office will charge him with anything. There are more elements to the case. Due to the fact that he did not physically harm her or even cause her death. It would like a follower of the Catholic faith praying to God to smite down someone. Then they happen to get hit by lightning and die. He can not be charged even if he confessed to praying to God to do this, no matter how much he believes he is guilty. The D.A. knows he/she cannot get an unanimous guilty verdict of a belief of voodoo.

Kadish disagrees that the law is defined in outcomes of an event. Kadish does not like the fact that someone will get less time if they become unsuccessful in comminting the crime. I do not agree with Kadish's outlook on this. The law cannot play the role of Psychic and live in the mystical land of 'What Ifs'. The Law deals in the realm of concrete evidence and sound theory. You get punished for what you have done, not what you could have done. It sounds like Kadish would love to live in the time of Minority Report where people are arrested before they commit the crime.

Kadish would criticize the 'harm doctrine' saying that it rewards criminals for failure to complete the crime. They should be charged and convicted of the full crime whether or not they completed the crime. He also states that it would prevent crime more if this was the law, especially if we did reward failures. I Disagree with him again, simply put, on murder charges you can not be charged with murder if there is not a dead body to account for. That theory just sounds ridiculous to me. On minor crimes the punishment is more severe depending on the crime.

According to Kadish we still have the harm doctrine because of our moral and ethical views. We as a society want to get justice after a crime is committed. As well as having a hard time to change beliefs based on our emotional ties. Once again I do not believe this is the case. If as a society we were so hell bent on getting justice and retribution then every state will still have the death penalty, with the eye for an eye attitude like Hammurabi believed which he thought prevented crime.