191–200 of 514 posts
Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a civil case, probably. But for a criminal case, the threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plenty of reasonable doubt in there.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your neighbours, isn’t it?
Christian is an umbrella term that describes many differing sets of beliefs. This is an oversimplification but Protestants for example believe in Sola Fide, the believe that salvation comes from faith alone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide ), whereas Catholics believe that salvation requires "good works", the sort of thing you're likely thinking of. So ... different groups hold differing sets of beliefs with…
“Protestants” are not a monolith and can have very different ideas. And no, I was not thinking of good works, it’s more general than that. The New Testament is all about being merciful, letting go of hate and not seeking retribution. How we are supposed to act on those ideals is not always clear, but that is a recurring theme in the foundational book of all Christian denominations (the big ones anyway).
Anyway, that was mostly rhetorical. The actual reason is that religion is just a way of making a point without having to support it, the ultimate appeal to authority. These people are happy claiming that Jesus loves people, except for some scapegoats, whom he hates. It’s pathetic, really. I have a lot of respect for people who actually live in accordance with their principles, even if I don’t agree with them. None of the Christian I know who are like that support the death penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part: > The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he…
>Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. I think you are out of your element. To my understanding hearsay refers to a claim made by someone not in court. In this case the girlfriend and jailmate were called as witnesses and gave testimony in court. Witnesses are evidence and they are one of the oldest forms of evidence, your view that evidence is only material is a gross misunderstanding of trial procedures.
> Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
Tying the two together, basically it would be anything that can't be verified (in court) by the one who the witness is 'quoting'.
Regarding witness testimony, I don't think the tradition of it makes it any more iron clad. We used to have a lot more testimony of sorcery and such as well that got people killed. Further, we have only recently begun to study it scientifically. From what I gather, from my very limited knowledge of the studies thus far, it doesn't look good for eye-witness accuracy in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part: > The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he…
Someone who is incarcerated snitching on someone who’s in there with them just screams “give me your cupcake or I’m gonna tell the cops you confessed to me”. Williams was also a person who was black and Muslim so prejudice alone could have been a motivation
Does anyone find it deeply disturbing that the justice system will just sit on its own hands when presented with new evidence? It seems like prosecutors are more interested in maintaining a hi conviction rate rather than seeking justice. Judges seem totally apathetic.
Yes very disturbing, but not unexpected.This is the foundational nature of government, and why citizen's don't generally want big government. Government jobs inherently suffer from a number of structural issues. Both organizationally, as well as psychologically. Without a loss function, such as is required in business (where people get fired for lack of production and revenue dictates hiring), psychology changes in f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2), burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and unlawful use of a weapon. Now, as to whether this evidence is so…
[flagged]
If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your neighbours, isn’t it?
Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven. Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity). Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also…
Indeed, but for this you need to let the person in question time to realise their errors and repent, which is impossible if you kill them.
> Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity).
Calling on God’s mercy does not imply playing god ourselves and disposing of the lives of others.
> Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).
It is not really relevant in this case, though. Murderers can be Christian as well and accept his “reign”. But yeah I take your point: the bible has a lot of inconsistencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pure speculation that the partial DNA profile recovered years after the murder came from the murderer. The police recovered the murdered woman's property from his car. How did it get there? Either it was an elaborate frame-up or a career criminal murdered a woman and stole her property. You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. But is it the c…
You are severely misunderstanding the role of DNA evidence here - you suggest that those arguing for Williams' innocence (including The Innocence Project) rely solely on the absence of DNA evidence linking Williams to the crime. However, this misrepresents the argument. The absence of DNA evidence is significant not because DNA is expected to be found in every case, but because other substantial forensic evidence (fi…
> When it comes to fundamental principles of criminal law like "reasonable doubt" your subjective opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what objectively creates reasonable doubt. The fundamental principle in criminal law is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the presence of conflicting evidence, particularly in forensic data, inherently introduces reasonable doubt. Dismissing or distorting this principle undermines the legal safeguards designed to prevent wrongful convictions.
Where in criminal law does it say "if there's no clear forensic data then you can't convict someone?" You just made that up!
And the justice system is subjective. It's not a formally specified algorithm that decides guilt or innocence. It's a jury deciding a fuzzy boundary ("reasonable doubt").
I think there's a chance Williams didn't commit the murder, but it's awfully low, and I'd say unreasonable.
If you're wondering if the Missouri governor Mike Parson sparingly uses his clemency and pardon power, you'd be mistaken [1]: > Parson, a former sheriff, has now granted clemency to more than 760 people since 2020 — more than any Missouri governor since the 1940s including those who waved guns at BLM protestors [2] and the son of the KC Chiefs coach who caused grave bodiy injuries to someone in a DUI. Available data…