Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

“The” prosecutor was not pushing against the execution. “A” prosecutor was, who did not have significantly greater relationship to the case than thousands of other prosecutors in this country. I don’t see how this guy’s opinion is more relevant that anyone else’s.

You made at least two claims: " it prevented lying activists from freeing an obviously guilty"

(1) activists are lying

(2) obviously guilty

If you cannot rebut the points made, the second claim is not supported. The article lists points that exactly put into question the guilty verdict in this case

If you cannot point out the specific lies, your first claim is then also unsupported.

You seem to have started in a rebuttal when stating: "and do not suffer from elementary logic errors." Perhaps you can demonstrate those logic errors? (Preferably with full quotes from the article)

I am certainly very specifically interested in the lies you believe to have been conveyed.

asaro had more reasons to make these claims

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missour...

>And though Picus’ laptop was recovered, the prosecuting attorney’s office says Roberts told investigators Williams said he’d gotten it from Asaro – a claim Roberts reiterated in an affidavit signed in 2020. Jurors at trial never heard this assertion, which the prosecutor’s motion says illustrates “the person with the most direct connection to the crime” was “Laura Asaro, and not Marcellus Williams.”

additionally, they only made the statements after being threatened by police

>The woman at first denied having information about the crime, prosecutors’ motion states. But after meeting with police several times – and being promised charges she was facing would be dropped and told she would be eligible for the reward – Asaro eventually cooperated, telling police she had indeed seen Williams on the afternoon of the murder, the motion states.

It is important to understand the difference between moral laws, which are immutable, and other laws in the Bible, often categorized as civil or ceremonial.

In modern legal theory, we have a similar distinction, which you may know from Legally Blonde: malum in se (that which is inherently wrong) and malum prohibitum (that which is wrong because a lawful authority prohibits it). Example: endangering the safety of others by driving too fast is wrong in itself, while breaking the speed limit is wrong because the town said so.

The former type (moral, and in se) doesn't depend on the existence of a government or system of laws and justice. The latter type certainly does, and the wrongness of those things 1) is changeable at the will of the governing authority, 2) applies only to those properly under the authority, and 3) expires when the governing structure expires.

Christians believe the ten commandments are moral law, whereas when we get into the ins and outs of the ancient Israel system of justice, described at length in Leviticus, eg, we are seeing one civilization's implementation of that moral law into civil law, coupled with religious law and ceremonies that symbolized and pointed to deeper realities.

When Jesus says he does not abolish but fulfills the law (and he means all of the law, not just some laws), he can't mean you are now free to murder. He means if you murdered someone, you may yet receive eternal life and not eternal death, because he can pay the penalty on your behalf. He means he lived a perfectly moral life and can impute that to you. That's fulfillment of moral law.

It also doesn't mean eating pork was immoral and now it's moral. That dietary restriction was a malum prohibitum component of the ceremonial cleanness symbolism that was meant to point the Israelites to the reality of what happens to a soul that consumes unholy things. It was never immoral, only prohibited. But the law is fulfilled in that the symbol is no longer required. Jesus institutes a new symbol that fixates on his own holiness and cleanness imputed to us as if by eating it (the Lord's Supper). The early Christian movement quickly incorporated non-Jews who had no heritage of living under the authority of the Israelite state, which was, by this time, already expired/expiring, many times over through successive conquests and occupations by various other governments. Neither the non-Jewish Christians nor the Jewish Christians needed to abide by those laws, though many did for a time, as it was an integral part of cultural and religious custom.

The Catholic Church at least is pretty strongly against it.