Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: The scheduled execution of William Andrews
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:14:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Jul21.061827.18470@leland.Stanford.EDU> james@objy.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.045228.20592@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
>(Michael Friedman) writes:
>In soc.culture.african.american article  
><1992Jul20.045228.20592@oracle.us.oracle.com> you wrote:
>> In article <1992Jul20.013315.18993@leland.Stanford.EDU> james@objy.com  
>writes:

>> >HELP!!
>> >Does anyone know that a Black man will be executed on July 30 by the  
>State  
>> >of Utah, despite the fact that he did not kill anybody?

>> Yup.  And it's a damned good thing too.  Let me ask you - why are you
>> defending scum just because the scum happens to be Black?

>> >I am puzzled and pissed that almost nobody in California knows who or  
>what  
>> >I'm talking about.  There was a robbery that occurred in 1974 in Salt  
>Lake  
>> >City, in which two men, one of whom was William Andrews, held several  
>> >people hostage.  While Andrews participated in initially torturing some  
>of  
>> >the hostages, he left when his companion (Selby) decided to shoot and  
>kill  
>> >the hostages.  

>> Your statement above implies causation - that Andrews left becasue he
>> did not want to be involved in the killings.  Do you have evidence of
>> this beyond Andrews' own testimony?  I certainly haven't heard any.

>I do have evidece: the two survivors testified that Andrews left when  
>Selby decided to shoot the victims.

If you want to reply to my post please read it first.  I am not
denying that Andrews left a bit before Selby shot the victims.  I am
asking whether there is any evidence that he left because Selby was
going to shoot the victims.  Note the difference between the words
'when' and 'because'.  

I'll add that your sentence above strongly indicates that you are a
true believer who does not intend to be swayed by the facts.  How the
heck do you know when Selby decided to shoot the victims?  He could
have decided it at any time at all.

>> >After Andrews left, Selby killed the hostages in the  
>> >immediate vicinity, excluding a woman whom he raped and a man that he  
>> >nearly killed by kicking a pen through his head. In any case, Selby was  
>> >executed not long after the robbery and murders 

>> In any case, while Andrews participated in the initial  
>> >stages of brutalizing the hostages, this did not kill any of the  
>hostages;  
>> >their death was caused by Selby shooting them.  The torture that  
>Andrews  
>> >helped administer was making them drink Drano.  He poured the Drano  
>while  
>> >Selby gave it to the hostages.  It is true that this could have killed  
>the  
>> >hostages if they didn't receive medical help. 

>> Actually, according to testimony at the trial, the correct adjective
>> is 'would', not 'could'. 

>You are correct.  I didn't mean to leave it so open.

Details like that are important and distortions support the hypothesis
that you aren't interested in the truth.

>> >I am not trying to let Andrews off of the hook; 

>> So why not let Utah fry his butt?

>Not letting someone off the hook can mean putting them in jail for 5  
>years, 20 years or life.  Killing someone is not the only answer.  This is  
>an extremely simple-mided response.  Are you hearing yourself?

Yup.  I ask again.  Why not let Utah fry his butt?

>> >Andrews committed henious  
>> >crimes and and brutally violated the hostages.  I certainly hold him  
>> >accountable for his actions.  However, does this man deserve to die  
>given  
>> >that 1) is not clear that he thought his actions would lead to someone  
>> >else's death, 2) he clearly refused to shoot any hostages, and 3) no  
>one  
>> >died from his torture?  At this point, it looks like on July 30, he  
>will  
>> >indeed die.

>> Excuse me, but when you make people drink poison what the heck do you
>> think is going to happen to them?  Now if you had some evidence that
>> Andrews had a sub-moron IQ then you might have a point.  As it is,
>> however, you're just parroting the claims he is making in order to try
>> to save his miserable life.  Do you really believe that Andrews was
>> not trying to poison the hostages when he made them drink Draino?

>First, it seems as if it were Selby's idea to use the poison.  It would be  
>odd that if he weren't he would be the one actually giving it to the  
>hostages.  In any case, I would never claim that he didn't know that he  
>was poisoning them, but that doesn't mean he knew that they would die.

Excuse me, but as I understand it, it was Andrews who made them drink
Draino.

Second, what the heck do you think Andrews thought when he was
poisoning them?  Perhaps he thought it would merely produce
indigestion? 

Listen to what you're saying.  Say that instead of making them dring
poison he had gut-shot them?  Would there be a difference?

>> >It is important to note...

>> Why is it important?

>> >that a man named David Hoffman, a white Mormon  
>> >killed two people who knew because he was afraid that they had figured  
>out  
>> >that he had sold phony, supposedly sacred, documents to the LDS (Latter  
>> >Day Saints - Mormon) Church.  He built bombs from galvanized pipe,  
>nails  
>> >and explosives and put them at the victims residences dressed up as  
>mailed  
>> >packages.  The two people's bodies were blown in several parts.   
>Hoffman's  
>> >case was settled out of court and he is now in medium security prison.   
>He  
>> >may be released in the next five years.

>> 1.  It wasn't settle out of court.  You don't get sent to jail without
>> going to court.

>Correct, I should have been more careful.  He succesfully plea bargained -  
>a benefit of having good legal representation.

Yes.  What other mistakes did you make that I didn't catch?

>> 2.  Hoffman, as I remember it, plead guilty.  It's a lot tougher to
>> get the death penalty if you plead guilty.

>You don't plead guilty if you didn't commit the crime you're charged with  
>or if your lawyer believes that you won't be convicted.   If Andrews'  
>lawyer was any good, he would have had him plead guilty to the charges  
>rather than having face a possible death penalty. 

So now you are claiming that Andrews had inadequate representation?
As far as I know, he is not making this claim in his own appeals.
Where do you get it from?

>And as far as Hoffman  
>goes, in such an important case as this, if the courts were serious, they
>wouldn't have plea bargained and reduced his charges as they did.

I don't think you have a very good understanding of the US judicial
system.  The courts don't plea bargain.  The DA does.  As for why?
Maybe they weren't sure they could win.  That's the usual reason.

>> 3.  The death penalty usually requires aggravating factors.  Andrews
>> has torture as an aggravating factor.  Hoffman?  Well, premeditation,
>> but Andrews had that too.

>> 4.  If you've got a problem with Hoffman getting off why don't you try
>> to get the death penalty used on more murderers both white and black
>> instead of trying to get people like Andrews off too?

>In theory, I don't have a problem with the death penalty being used  
>against murderers. However, while Andrews attempted murder, he did not  
>murder anyone.  These are separate crimes. 

Note, however, that he participated in a felony in which people were
killed.  That's murder in most states.  I beleive Utah is included there.


>Also note that the prosecuting  
>attorney stated that if were Andrews were Black, he would probably not be  
>facing the death penalty.

First of, I think you forgot a 'not'.  Second, evidence please?

>> >While I don't know as much about the Hoffman case, it is the case which  
>> >many in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas point to as evidence that  
>> >racism underlies the planned execution of Andrews. 

>> Many?  Who is this 'many'?  I can find many idiots anywhere I go.
>> Want to explain why you think Hoffman's crime is on the same level as
>> Andrews'? 

>In the articles which I read, Hoffman's was compared.  I don't intend to  
>lean on it heavily as evidence of racism or foul play.  But it is relevant  
>to show that a confessed murderer who premeditated his crime can escape  
>capital punishment, while someone who coudl be characterized as an  
>attempted murderer does not.

Sure.  That is a known and accepted part of death penalty legislation.
Andrews participated in a crime that included a murder.  He did not
confess.  He fries.  Hoffman actually killed.  He confessed.  He gets
a light sentence.  The law isn't perfect.  Hoffman should fry too.
He won't.  Is that any reason to let Andrews live?

>> >At this point it is  
>> >likely that nothing will stop the execution.  

>> Good.

>> >Don't let this be another Black man who goes out in the wrong way and  
>for  
>> >the wrong reasons. 

>> How bout if he goes out in the right way for trhe right reasons -
>> frying in the electric chair because he is murdering scum whatever
>> color of skin he has?

>Since any lawyer or judge that Blacks get harsher sentences than Whites  
>for similar crimes, I think it is important to examine a case in light of  
>possible racial bias of the judge, jury, and legal defense, before  
>determining whether or not some is executed.  I believe that whatever  
>penalties society determines for crimes, they should changes based on the  
>race of the accused.

Did you forget another 'not'?  I hope so.

Second, doesn't this apply to any sentence?  Does this mean we can't
even throw Andrews in jail?  If it doesn't then why can't we fry him
too.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american