41–50 of 514 posts
There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!
To me the definition of a 'civilized society' is an absence of the death penalty. Many people are also very confused about the justice system in America. It isn't about determining the truth. It's about trying to get you convicted, to advance the career of the prosecutor. In that sense, the 'justice department' is anything but. The 'innocence project[0]' has shown time and time again that truth finding isn't the goal…
> Even the victim’s family believes life without parole is the appropriate sentence That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.
As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.
There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Furthermore it is highly suspect that he was caught selling the laptop stolen from her house and the story about how he came into it is implausible. Things like “the State destroyed or corrupted the evidence that could conclusively prove his innocence and the available DNA and other forensic crime-scene evidence does not match him” should at the very least make everyone pause and reconsider the course of action. I…
I'm not entrenched in my position, but I would argue that there are cases where the death penalty makes sense. It seems more cruel to lock someone up for the rest of their life with no chance of parole AND denying them the ability to commit suicide. Maybe avoidance of cruelty isn't the point of getting rid of the death penalty, though.
It does, but at least it is reversible. I think when the worst case (an innocent being killed) is so wrong, it makes sense to design the system to avoid it, even if this has side effects such as making it worse for the actual criminals.
I would support leaving the opportunity to commit suicide in good conditions rather than strangling themselves with their bedsheets, but doing that properly would be tricky.
> Maybe avoidance of cruelty isn't the point of getting rid of the death penalty, though.
That’s a tricky one. It is hard to want to avoid cruelty in the case of gruesome murders. Nobody wants to say that they want to make the life of jailed terrorists better.
But among the opponents to the death penalty, I don’t think that cruelty is the main point. By keeping them alive, we don’t lower ourselves to their level, we leave them an opportunity to become better, and we avoid the moral cost of killing innocents.
Besides, life in prison is as good or bad as we collectively want it to be. There is a spectrum between Swedish jails and a hole in a dungeon.
- Williams GF witness testimony, that Williams confessed to her.
- Jailhouse witness testimony, that Williams had confessed to them.
- That Williams had items (purse, laptop, etc.) in his car, on the day or day after the murder.
But no DNA evidence?
A death penalty seems pretty egregious, when you have that kind of evidence. Seems like there's plenty of reasonable doubt in the picture.
(FWIW, I completely oppose the death penalty - on the grounds that innocent people have been executed. One is one too many)
Marcellus Williams was executed yesterday, Tuesday. https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-will...