Dec. 5 MARYLAND----impending execution Baker Could Be Executed At Any Time Condemned killer Wesley Baker's death warrant is now in effect. He could be given his lethal injection anytime between now and late Friday night. The legal maneuvers to halt the execution haven't ended. Baker's lawyers said that a Maryland court would rule on one appeal early Monday morning. The Supreme Court could also consider 2 other appeals. Gov. Robert Ehrlich has the power to stop Baker's execution at any moment. During a protest Saturday, dozens of death penalty opponents called on Ehrlich to spare Baker's life. Baker was sentenced to death for the 1991 robbery-slaying of Jane Tyson, in front of her grandchildren, outside the Westview Mall in Baltimore County. (source: TheWBALChannel) OREGON: Pleading for life----Juries have given Randy Lee Guzek the death penalty 3 times for murdering a Terrebonne couple. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed all 3 sentences. Now the nation's highest court weighs in. Randy Lee Guzek For the past 17 years, Randy Lee Guzek has spent upward of 22 hours each day in a 9-by-6-foot maximum-security cell on Oregon's death row. His role in the brutal murders of Rod and Lois Houser in their Terrebonne home prompted a jury to sentence him to death in 1988. The 18-year-old was the youngest inmate sitting on death row at the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem. To date, the Oregon Supreme Court has overturned Guzek's death sentence three times, most recently in 2004. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will review that decision. Of approximately 7,000 cases appealed to the high court each year, the justices agree to hear only about 100. Guzek's murder convictions are not in question. The issue before the high court is whether evidence questioning a convicted murderer's guilt is admissible at a sentencing hearing. The justices will review the Oregon Supreme Court's 2004 opinion that Guzek's mother and grandfather should have been able to testify about an alibi at his most recent sentencing hearing. Guzek is now 35 and has been sitting on Oregon's death row longer than any other prisoner. Given the slow and laborious nature of the appeals process, insiders say he is unlikely to be put to death any time soon. The decision in Guzek's case will reach far beyond Central Oregon. It could affect the February sentencing hearing of Zacarias Moussaoui. He is the only person in the United States charged in connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Known as the 20th 9/11 hijacker, Moussaoui pleaded guilty in April to six felony counts, including conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and conspiracy to murder U.S. employees. He continues to deny involvement in the attacks. As with Guzek, a jury will decide whether Moussaoui deserves to die. In another parallel, Moussaoui is asking a judge to allow captive al-Qaida members to testify about his innocence at his sentencing hearing. "We think the taking of this case definitely has to do with the prosecution of Moussaoui," said J. Kevin Hunt, one of Guzek's attorneys. Hunt said Moussaoui's attorneys repeatedly asked a judge for more time to prepare, but government lawyers objected. Once the Supreme Court accepted the Guzek case, Hunt said, the government lawyers agreed to postpone Moussaoui's sentencing. But that is incidental to Rod and Lois Housers' relatives, who have waited for an end to Guzek's case for nearly 18 years. Rod's brother, Douglas Houser, is a Portland attorney. He said his faith in the legal system has been repeatedly tested as the years have gone by. "I am the patriarch of the family and have been trying to convince everybody that the system works," he said. "The (sentencing) trials have the effect of kind of putting us through this all over again. We started out with 16 family members sitting through the trial and now we're down to about a dozen. I think my mother, who passed away just shortly before the last trial, did not want to live through it again." After the Supreme Court issues its ruling, Guzek's case will be sent back to Oregon for a 4th sentencing proceeding. A jury will decide whether he is sentenced to death or life in prison with the possibility of parole. And the Houser family will be there, once again reminded of the summer night when their loved ones were gunned down. THE MURDERS On June 28, 1987, Guzek, Mark James Wilson and Donald Ross Cathey went to the home of a Bend woman with plans to kill her. They selected her at random after reading her address on a deposit slip over her shoulder at a bank. One of the men noticed the quality of her jewelry. He saw an easy mark. What happened next was revealed from Guzek's trial, statements from attorneys who have handled the case and past news reports. When the 3 men arrived at the woman's home, they were high on methamphetamine and armed with a rifle and a gun. The trio found the street filled with cars. The woman's next-door neighbor was having a well-attended summer party and revelers were all about. Daunted by the prospect of so many potential witnesses, they left and began discussing alternate plans. Guzek suggested they head to Terrebonne, targeting Rod and Lois Houser as substitute victims. Guzek met the Housers while dating their niece, Anne Houser, who lived with them at the time. She ended her relationship with Guzek but he attempted to see her repeatedly, prompting Rod Houser to intervene and tell Guzek to stay away. The 3 men approached the Houser home around 3 a.m. on June 29 and pounded on the door until Rod Houser, 51, came downstairs. Houser answered the door and Guzek ordered Wilson to shoot. Evidence showed Rod Houser's body was riddled with more than 20 bullets from a .22 caliber gun. Guzek chased Lois Houser, 49, up a flight of stairs, shooting her twice as she fled. She tried to take refuge in a linen closet but Guzek found her, placed the barrel of the revolver against her head and fired a 3rd time. He stole the wedding rings from her finger as she lay dying. "We know she was alive when he took the rings because of the bruising on her hand," said Josh Marquis, then a deputy district attorney who handled two of Guzek's sentencing hearings. "Dead people don't bruise." Marquis now serves as Clatsop County District Attorney in Astoria. In an attempt to make the murder look like a ritual killing, Marquis said, the men decided to stab Lois Houser and place the knife and an open Bible in her husband's hands. Then the 3 men looted the house. A few days later, the Housers' adult daughters, Susan Shirley and Maryanne Cristman, became worried. They were a close family, and the women hadn't been able to reach their parents. Shirley and Cristman decided to check on the couple and made the drive from Redmond to Terrebonne in the evening. They found their parents' cars in the driveway, the front door unlocked and the house dark. They went inside. Their father was downstairs in the front living room. Their mother was upstairs where Guzek left her to die. "I try not to feed the anger and the hate and all the sadness this has brought, and that's a lot," Shirley said. "My immediate family was taken and that's a pain that never goes away." Douglas Houser described his brother as "a unique guy with lots of talents." He said Rod worked for Walt Disney when he was in college, drawing cartoons. Rod Houser served with distinction in Korea, where he won several medals, Douglas Houser said. And he overcame an even bigger challenge upon his return. "They said he'd never walk again after he got polio in Korea, and he ended up running marathons," the brother said. Rod Houser went on to get his master's in business administration at the University of Oregon and spent his career working as a labor negotiator for Kaiser Permanente. After 20 years, he retired with his wife, Lois, to Central Oregon. "Lois was an artist, a homemaker, a wonderful mother and wonderful wife," Doug Houser said of his sister-in-law. "Her home always smelled of cookies or pie." Within 2 weeks of the Housers' murders, police arrested Guzek, Wilson and Cathey on suspicion of robbery and murder. The Housers' table cloth was among the stolen items investigators located. It was spread on the dinner table in Guzek's family's Redmond home. Then just 18, Guzek stayed intermittently with his parents. THE TRIALS At Guzek's trial, his mother and grandfather told the jury that he had an alibi. They said Guzek was with them at different times on the night of the Houser killings. His grandfather testified that Guzek was with him from 9 p.m. until 2 a.m. the night of the murders. His mother testified that Guzek was at her house from 2:16 a.m. until 4:20 a.m., when she awoke to find him sleeping on a love seat. In March 1988, a 12-person jury found Guzek guilty of the Housers' murders, as well as of charges of robbery, burglary and theft. Wilson and Cathey also were convicted of aggravated murder, but agreed to testify against Guzek to avoid the death penalty. They are serving life sentences in state prison. As in all capital cases in Oregon, Guzek's trial consisted of 2 phases. During the "guilt phase," jurors decided whether or not to convict Guzek. The question of his sentence was addressed at a separate "penalty phase." Jurors were asked to decide between two sentencing options: life in prison with eligibility for parole after 30 years, or death by lethal injection. At the time, these were the only sentences for aggravated murder allowed under Oregon law. The same jury that found Guzek guilty sentenced him to death. He was the 1st person given the death penalty after Oregon voters reinstated capital punishment in 1984. The series of appeals and reversals in the Guzek case has left even seasoned experts scratching their heads. And Oregon taxpayers have footed the nearly $750,000 bill. GUZEK'S APPEALS Under Oregon statute, death sentences are automatically appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. In 1990, Guzek won his 1st appeal. The court reversed his sentence based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Oregon's death penalty law. The high court found that a jury must be able to take into consideration any evidence - such as past good deeds or accomplishments - that might sway it from imposing the death penalty. The jury that imposed Guzek's death sentence heard such mitigating evidence, but the judge refused to instruct the jury to consider it. The case was sent back to Deschutes County Circuit Court for a new penalty phase. In 1991, a 2nd jury was impaneled to decide Guzek's fate. During the sentencing trial, relatives told the jury that Rod and Lois Houser fostered a close family. They characterized Rod Houser as an active, generous man and Lois Houser as a devoted mother. Oregon State Hospital's chief medical officer, Dr. George Suckow, testified that Guzek was a sociopath with an antisocial personality disorder. Suckow said Guzek would kill again if he was released from prison. After deliberating for several hours, the 2nd jury imposed the death penalty, kicking in another automatic appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. In 1995, the court ruled that the family members' testimony - allowed under the U.S. Constitution - was not admissible under Oregon law. In an unrelated move that same year, the Oregon Legislature passed a statute allowing family members of murder victims to testify about how they were affected by the crime. But the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the law allowing "victim impact evidence" could not be applied retroactively to Guzek's 1991 resentencing hearing. The case again went to the Deschutes County Circuit Court and, in 1997, a 3rd jury was selected. Guzek choked back sobs as he pleaded for his life at the hearing. "There have been many tears that have been shed in this courtroom in the last 10 years," Guzek said. "Without a doubt, I am responsible for those tears. I accept the responsibility for the pain and anguish I've caused." Guzek told the jury he was a changed man who did not deserve to die. "If I could give my life to bring back Rod and Lois Houser ... I would do it," Guzek said. "My death won't end that pain." In contrast, death row guards from the Oregon State Penitentiary and deputies from the Des-chutes County Jail testified that Guzek was highly manipulative, always tested prison rules and sought to control other inmates. After nearly 6 weeks in court, the jury deliberated for less than 3 hours before sentencing Guzek to death for the third time. The case was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court in 1997. The sentence was reversed in 2004. The court ruled that the 3rd jury should have been able to consider sentencing Guzek to life in prison without the possibility of parole, known as the true life sentencing option. Guzek was not eligible for true life at his first sentencing hearing because the law creating that sentence was not passed until 2 years after the Houser murders. Instructing a jury to consider a true life sentence would have been illegal, as a retroactive application of Oregon law. In its 2004 ruling, the Oregon Supreme Court wrote that Guzek could have agreed to the retroactive application, making him eligible for true life. The court also opined about issues likely to arise at a 4th sentencing hearing. The justices wrote that alibi testimony from Guzek's mother and grandfather should have been allowed at his third sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court The state of Oregon appealed the 2004 ruling, arguing that "residual doubt" evidence - such as the alibi testimony offered by Guzek's attorneys - was not relevant to sentencing and would only confuse a jury. "I have trouble imagining what a jury in a sentencing proceeding is supposed to do if they have that type of information coming at them," said Mary Williams, solicitor general for the state of Oregon. Williams will argue the Guzek case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. "If the jury is being asked if this person should get the death penalty or life and they are being presented with information that, if they believe it, indicates innocence, then there shouldn't even be a life sentence," Williams said. But the Oregon Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the alibi testimony Guzek offered was allowed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment gives a capital defendant the right to present mitigating evidence. Attorney Richard Wolf, who will argue on Guzek's behalf Wednesday, said state law also supports the Oregon Supreme Court's 2004 decision. Under Oregon statute, any testimony offered at a trial is admissible at a retrial sentencing hearing. According to the law, witnesses who testified at the original trial also can be recalled. If the state can offer evidence that a defendant deserves the death penalty, Wolf said, the defense should be able to present evidence that shows he doesn't. "The state shouldn't be able to cherry pick aggravating evidence it presented at trial and exclude other evidence the first jury heard," Wolf said. "I think they feel it is going to be much more difficult to obtain death sentences if this ruling is left to stand because juries will be able to consider a broader range of evidence when deciding whether to impose the death penalty." "These are irreversible decisions," he continued. "Even if it's true that it is more difficult for the state to obtain a death sentence under Oregon statute, that's as it should be." Williams said Wolf's argument misses the point. "The state didn't take this to the Supreme Court because we are looking for an easy way to impose the death penalty," she said. "We're not saying that we don't want to hear evidence when a defendant has solid information that shows he didn't do it. We do want that to be raised, just not to a jury trying to decide the penalty." Williams will be yielding 10 minutes on Wednesday of her allotted half-hour argument time to an attorney from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General. This has fueled speculation that the U.S. government has a special interest in the case, particularly how the ruling will affect Moussaoui's sentencing hearing. Bryan Sierra, public affairs specialist with the Justice Department, said his agency does not comment on pending cases. Sierra acknowledged that the solicitor general filed a brief with the Supreme Court and said a staff attorney will present argument Wednesday. The court has not directly tackled the question of whether a jury can consider residual doubt evidence during the penalty phase of a death penalty case. But 2 justices have weighed in on the issue. In 1988, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "'residual doubt' about guilt is not a mitigating circumstance." Justice Harry Blackmun agreed and signed his name to the opinion, written in response to a ruling by the high court. "The Supreme Court has never said that evidence of innocence is admissible at a penalty phase," said William Long, a professor at Willamette University College of Law and author of "A Tortured History: The Story of Capital Punishment in Oregon." "But let us assume the court agrees with the defense in the Guzek case and allows the alibi testimony," Long continued. "My sense is it will probably backfire on the defense." "People who are listening to this testimony as a jury will say, 'Didn't we cover this before? You weren't credible before, so why would I find you credible now? In fact, you're kind of reminding us why we put him to death in the first place.' And this will frustrate the jury even more," Long said. But that scenario will not come up for years, Long said. He estimated that, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, a new penalty phase in the Guzek case will not happen until 2007 or 2008. "If he is sentenced to death, it will be automatically appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and they will get to it in 2010 or 2011. At that point we will have spent more state resources on Guzek than any other person in the state of Oregon," Long said. Which is a troubling prospect to the Housers' family. "It's a frustration that justice should be swifter, that the system bends over backward to assist the accused and doesn't pay enough attention to the victims' families," said Douglas Houser. "The only way they can defeat the death penalty is by delay." The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the Guzek case in late winter or early spring. Susan Shirley said her objective is to honor her parents' memory rather than focus on Guzek's case. But every court date brings back the pain of loss, and strengthens her desire for a final resolution. "The state of Oregon seems quite unwilling to recognize what three juries have said is the appropriate sentence," Shirley said. "I don't know how anyone can understand this. It's about points of law instead of what is right for people, and that's unfortunate." (source: The Bulletin) USA: Executions kill U.S. integrity As the United States continues to execute people, we lose the respect of our allies. Europe is execution-free, except for Belarus. Australia, Canada, Mexico and most Central and South American countries have abolished the death penalty. Worldwide, 117 countries have done so; 84 retain capital punishment. In the United States, the number of death sentences has dropped 50 % since the late 1990s, and executions have declined 40 %. A major reason is the increasing concern that innocent people may be executed. Since 1973, 122 people in the United States have been exonerated and released from death row because of evidence of their innocence. Two cases are being studied. Meanwhile, some innocent people likely have been executed. In November, the case of Ruben Cantu came under examination in San Antonio, Texas. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was executed in 1993. The only witness now claims he was intimidated by the police to testify against Cantu, and his co-defendant now says Cantu wasn't present. Joseph O'Dell, whose case was described in Sister Helen Prejean's book, The Death of Innocents, was executed in 1997. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected his appeal in part because his lawyer wrote "Notice of Appeal," instead of "Petition of Appeal" on the title page, according to Prejean's book. Authorities destroyed evidence that may have exonerated him after the execution. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is considering allowing DNA testing of evidence in the case of Roger Coleman, executed in 1992. Previous governors had refused to permit such testing. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18. And in June the high court ruled that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishment," violating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. If the United States wants the respect of the world, it must accept the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." (Trop v. Dulles.) (source: Rochester Democrat & Chronicle----Clare Regan is a member, Reconciliation Network: Don't Kill in My Name, and emeritus member, New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty) CALIFORNIA----impending execution Debating the defense of 'Tookie' Williams -- Actor Farrell and talk show host Sliwa discuss fate of Crips founder Some big-time Hollywood stars right now are doing all they can to stop the execution of California convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams. But many are wondering whether it is going to be enough to sway Arnold Schwarzenegger in signing a clemency appeal and getting him off the case. There has been a great deal of attention paid to this case not because of what Tookie Williams did in his distance past, but what he's been doing recently, going out and actually telling others not to follow his lead and turn their lives around. On Friday's 'Scarborough Country,' actor Mike Farrell, best known as 'B.J. Honeycutt' on 'MASH,' and a Willliams supporter, joined MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, along with Guardian Angels founder Curtis Silwa, to discuss the case and whether Williams should be put to death. To read an excerpt from their conversation, continue to the text below. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Mike, if people have not been following this case closely, can you give them background not on what Tookie Williams did that got him on death row, but what he's been doing over the past 10, 15 years, as far as talking to young people, telling them don't do what I did; take a different path? MIKE FARRELL, ACTOR: Sure. Stanley Williams grew up in South Central Los Angeles. He was at the -- at the effect of circumstances in life there. He formed a gang that is now known widely as the Crips. He behaved very badly. He was a criminal, as he now admits. He behaved extraordinarily badly, brutally, violently. The Crips grew. Stanley was considered a threat, I think, by police, who wanted him off the streets. He was arrested, tried and convicted of 4 murders, four brutal murders for which he's always claimed his innocence. And he was convicted, as said, sentenced to death. He was quite an extraordinarily uncooperative prisoner for the first few years he was in prison. He was put in the hole, in solitary confinement and spent a number of years there. And all he had -- or all he was given initially was a Bible. And during the process of these years, he went through a period of introspection, asked for, in addition to the Bible, a dictionary. He taught himself to read. He found a deep faith and determined to make up for the things he had done -- to the degree, best degree he could, make up for the things he had done in his life that were so inappropriate and antisocial. And, since that time, for the last 13 years, I believe, he has been a very articulately outspoken opponent of gangs, the gang life. He has written a series of books for grade school children, telling them just what you said, Joe, to stay away from drugs, stay away from gangs, stay in school, learn about caring about themselves, becoming productive citizens. He wrote a book for junior high school and high school kids about destroying the myth, dispelling the myth that going to prison is a good thing that earns you your manhood or your womanhood. He wrote a very powerful and empowering, I think, autobiography on which the movie "Redemption" was based. SCARBOROUGH: And, again, the focus of this is, again, telling others, Curtis, not to follow in his path. Obviously, there are a lot of people who support the death penalty. And they support the death penalty, Curtis, as you know, because they believe it will save lives. But what if you have got a guy on death row that changed 12, 13 years ago, and is actually doing things to stop others from getting into gangs and killing more people? Do we go ahead and put him to death anyway? Or do we believe that there is such thing as redemption and let him keep preaching his message of peace? CURTIS SLIWA, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Sure, there is redemption, but what about the remorse? 4 people were executed. Do you know their names? Do you know their families? No, of course we don't, because we are spending all this time focused on the killer Tookie. And if he had that Bible in his hands, the New Testament says, remorse. Beg for forgiveness. This man has claimed he never killed those 4. He's has heard Johnnie Cochran-style defense lawyers, dream teams, come together, try to collect evidence, go back into court. And he's been rejected. Now, if he were to show to remorse, if he were to apologize for these executions, coldblooded, that he committed years ago, I might give it a second thought. But because he's written children's books? Because he has said creating the Crips was a bad thing? Hey, I'm from the inner city. I do my work in the inner city. I knew the Crips were bad. I didn't have to, understandably, read that in a book. I could see them as uzi-toting, dope-sucking, psychopathic killing machines. So, it is nice that he renounces that. But he's like Dr. Frankenstein. He created this monster. And look at all these monster youth who are around the nation now literally launching siege attacks on inner city neighborhoods and causing mayhem and destruction. And he wouldn't even apologize for the 4 executions that he's responsible for. SCARBOROUGH: Mike. FARRELL: Well, yes. There's a significant question as to whether or not he's responsible for those killings, first of all. The trial was extraordinarily faulty. And Stanley has always maintained he did not do them. He maintained so before, during and after the trial and consistently for all these years, before and during and after his extraordinary transformation. So, he has apologized, and he has shown remorse, and he has reached out for the behavior that he acknowledges. As to the question of the murder of those people, he has consistently claimed he didn't do it and cannot, therefore, apologize or ask for clemency on the basis of a crime that he says he didn't commit. Now, neither you nor I were there, Curtis, so I don't suppose you know any better than I do about whether he committed these crimes. But the point is, he has made an extraordinary change in his life. And the work he has done in the dozen years plus has had a serious impact on the lives of young people, who have been steered away from the very kind of life that you're condemning. SCARBOROUGH: ... Curtis, ... go ahead and respond to Mike's suggestion, again, that Tookie Williams should be granted clemency by Arnold Schwarzenegger because of what he's done over the past 13 years. SLIWA: Well, you know, celebrity like Mike Farrell, Jamie Foxx, they are well intentioned, I think hopelessly naive, about this. But then Snoop Doggy Dogg, he's a Long Beach Crip. He throws gang signs on his MTV-BET videos. He himself beat a 20-year-to-life rap on a drive-by shooting that he was accused of committing. And he has been one of the prime-time supporters of giving clemency to Tookie. Well, now, wouldn't Tookie be denouncing Snoop Doggy Dogg, who basically promotes the Crip lifestyle and gangsterism and gang-banging across the nation? So, there seems to be a bit of a disingenuousness here. No. I think, if Tookie were to actually apologize and remorsefully say, I did the wrong thing in executing these four innocent people, it's the worst possible thing you can do, I might consider that. But I would suggest, between now and Dec. 13, when he is sent to the gas chamber in San Quentin, he make a lot of videos. And maybe we can distribute them around the country. And maybe it can do something to suppress the outrage he created initially called the Crip gang, which has spread malaise and destruction across this nation. SCARBOROUGH: Mike, you know a lot of Americans, even though America has grown increasingly conservative over the past 10, 15 years, on the issue of the death penalty, you even have evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson and other conservatives starting to voice concerns about the death penalty. And you're starting to see a movement back of people saying, hey, you know what? Maybe we are putting people to death that aren't guilty after all. Now, all that being said, there are still people who look at a Hollywood star like you or Jamie Foxx and say, oh, gee, they are hopeless elites. They don't understand how dangerous it is in our cities or in Middle America. What would you say to those people tonight who say, hey, you know what, this case is different; this really is a man who has turned over a new leaf; he deserves to live? FARRELL: The people who have expressed their support for clemency for Stanley Williams are Nobel laureates, legislators, religious leaders, people from all over the world and all over the country. And, mostly, the most important ones, as far as I'm concerned, are the children who have been impacted, children in the disadvantaged areas who has been impacted positively by Stanley's work and by his writings and by his outreach and by the extraordinary degree of the impact of his Peace Project. So, in spite of what Mr. Sliwa says, the fact is that Mr. Williams' transformation has very clearly been demonstrated, consistently and beautifully, I think. And the fact is, if he is going to be committed to life in prison for the rest of his life, he's not -- without possibility of parole -- there's no damage that he can do to anybody. And what he can do is continue to do the good work that he has been doing for the last dozen-plus years and provide the example for the young people today, who very much need it, of somebody who can show them-somebody with street credibility, if you will, who can show them the right way. SCARBOROUGH: Yes. FARRELL: Somebody who is not slobbering for blood. SCARBOROUGH: Mike, let me ask you another question to follow up, again, because I can hear people, again -- and I say in Middle America. That's where I grew up. And I know what my dad, sitting in his chair watching the show tonight, is saying. He's like, yes, well, maybe he's influenced people over the first 12 or 13 years, but I think that Sliwa guy has got it right in saying, look at all the death and destruction he's caused by starting the Crips. I mean, if there's a balance sheet out there, a lot of people would say, well, he's probably ended up causing the deaths of a lot more people than saving the lives of these people over the past 12 or 13 years. What do you say to critics on that score? FARRELL: I guess, Joe, if you believe in redeposition, if you have faiths, if you believe in the possibility of human transformation, then you have to ask yourself whether or not that means anything. And it seems to me it does. It means a great deal to people of religious. It means a great deal to people of faith. When somebody makes a visible, obvious positive change, that is something that I think we ought to treasure. And we in this country, in my view, we should not have a death system at all. We should have life in prison without the possibility of parole. But, in this particular situation, what we can do is demonstrate that change, transformation, doing good, making something out of your life really has a positive impact, and it is valued by society. And if the governor grants clemency in this case, what he will be doing is giving those kids that message. And I hope he does it. SCARBOROUGH: And, Curtis, I do support the death penalty, but I believe in redemption. Tell me, if I support Tookie, again, having a stay of execution, how do I have it wrong? SLIWA: You have it wrong. Look how many minutes we have spent talking about Tookie. We don't even know the names of the 4 victims that he executed. I searched the 'L.A. Times' story. They love this guy. They worship him. They put him on a pedestal. They might as well as deified him. And I said, gee, but who did he kill? What are the names? Have we even mentioned it? There were three Asian-Americans and one Caucasian. And, to this moment, we do not even know their names, because they're out of sight, out of mind. Do you know they nominated this guy for a Nobel Peace Prize? But, then again, Yasser Arafat, the baby killer, actually got one. So, I guess this is a good qualification. You kill people, you eventually can win a Nobel Peace Prize. (source: MSNBC.com)
