Live data from Hacker News

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

innocenceproject.org

401–410 of 514 posts

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

#401

> “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.” Imagine we lived in that world.

Aside the fact that the death penalty shouldn't exist in the first place, the victim's family should be able to veto it (automatic commutation to a life sentence).

Incidentally, that's a feature of Islamic law, and where the concept of blood money comes into picture. Which also means that you might be able to get away with murder, if you're rich enough.

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

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full quote from the article in justia.com states the following: "In November of 1999, University City police approached Asaro to speak with her about the murder. Asaro told the police that Williams admitted to her that he had killed Gayle. The next day, the police searched the Buick LeSabre and found the Post-Dispatch ruler and calculator belonging to Gayle. The police also recovered the laptop computer from Glen…

In your prior comment you say that Asaro was incentivized by a reward offered in May 1999, but that doesn't agree with waiting for the police to approach her in November.

The "approach" by the police was essentially an offer to either testify and get the reward money and have police drop some charges against her, or not testify and face the charges herself.

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

#403

If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should require incontrovertible proof. Circumstantial evidence should not be allowed. Expert testimony should be barred. The evidence must be conclusive, plain, and certain to every member of the jury. This would allow you to execute, e.g., mass shooters who give th…

There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial. Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. The sheer number of people who confessed to crimes and were then found innocent through DNA evidence is perturbing.

> There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial

Having watched a few FBI interrogations and other true crime related videos there certainly are such proofs.

I have a few of these come to mind, like the dude who killed his ex, took the house surveillance cameras down after the facts but didn't know they were backed up on servers, he was caught with the cameras in his truck shortly after. Most of these publicly known cases have a ridiculously long trail of proofs actually

I'm not saying mistakes don't happen, they obviously do, but in many cases it's extremely easy to prove if someone's guilty or not.

> Even if the suspect is on camera confessing.

That's not enough in most countries

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

#404
post #2

> 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.

Apparently the family believes that he is guilty but doesn't want him executed (but does want him in prison). In some countries the families wishes are enough to prevent an execution but not in the US.

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

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's often the same people who claim to be "pro life".

As in: "Only God can administer life and death, so stop those abortions or we'll set on fire your clinic and kill the doctors". Psychology can explain completely that behavior, however this is not the right place for such discussions.

>Where isn't the right place for such discussions?

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

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial. Even if the suspect is on camera confessing. The sheer number of people who confessed to crimes and were then found innocent through DNA evidence is perturbing.

> There's almost never incontrovertible proof in a criminal trial Having watched a few FBI interrogations and other true crime related videos there certainly are such proofs. I have a few of these come to mind, like the dude who killed his ex, took the house surveillance cameras down after the facts but didn't know they were backed up on servers, he was caught with the cameras in his truck shortly after. Most of thes…

I wonder how one would encode such a level of burden of truth into the legal system such that the "really incontrovertible" cases are distinguishable from the "not really incontrovertible" ones.

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

#407
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. The entire point is that I don't trust one person, or a small group of people, to pick someone who is "unbiased". I don't trust the electorate as a whole either, but I trust them more than elected officials. Only three states in the US have appointed, rather than elected, district attorneys. The United State…

> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. Which is why (personnally) I don't want you, or any electorate choosing prosecutors. If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of…

> In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate.

In a democracy, you can argue with and convince your fellow citizens to change the law and how it is enforced. If a majority doesn't agree, you won't get your way. This is not a good system, but it is better than any other system.

If there were some other alternative that guaranteed that everyone always gets a completely unbiased prosecutor - great, I'm all for it! That system doesn't exist, though.

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

#408
post #369

If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should require incontrovertible proof. Circumstantial evidence should not be allowed. Expert testimony should be barred. The evidence must be conclusive, plain, and certain to every member of the jury. This would allow you to execute, e.g., mass shooters who give th…

> It should require incontrovertible proof. There's really no such thing. Instead, there is a very high burden of proof, there's a lot of protections built into the process, and, most important, it's an adversarial process in which one side is standing up for the defendant. If the evidence isn't good enough, the defendant's lawyer can and must show that to the jury, with them making the final decision on who is right…

In principle , I am in favor of capital punishment, but the way we do it is a mechanism of injustice. I’m not sure there is a solution.

The problem is the way that the severity of the crime makes juries less reliable.

When there is particularly severe circumstances (like a particularly horrific homocide) the psychological penalty for -not- convicting is much higher, and the desire to feel certain that a perpetrator has been found is much higher than say, a case of property theft.

Combined with the death penalty, these biases add up to a murder machine rather than an instrument of justice.

Estimations based on actual exonerations place the false conviction rate in some states >1%. If 1% are exonerated (which requires extraordinary evidence, often obtained by happenstance in solving other crimes) it’s a pretty safe bet we may be looking at >10% false convictions.

Add to this the fact that even confessions are unreliable, something I have some personal anecdotal experience with.

When I was eleven, school officials accused me of doing something I absolutely did not do. (and in fact there was no evidence that the thing had actually even happened, it was later told to me by the person claiming the event that it was fabricated from whole cloth)

I became so convinced that I did in fact do it that I invented an entire scenario where I had some kind of psychological episode, explaining why I did not directly remember doing the thing, but I was 100 percent sure that I had actually done it.

I am not, and was not , a weak minded person. I did, however, at that time, trust in the idea of authority figures.

It is not hard to to imagine that an adult on the other side of the bell curve that was basically trusting in society might easily fall into the same trap of disbelief->rationalization in an effort to to conform their reality to the “objective truth”.

After this experience,I don’t place much weight in confessions, even less in plea bargains.

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

#409
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the upstream comment wants to choose bias, then a "yes" answer to my question would be a consistent position and interesting if sincerely answered that way. I have no idea what you're saying here, but my comment was just saying that I want to vote for prosecutors rather than having them appointed. I prefer to decide for myself how biased the candidates are than to trust an elected official to pick someone who is…

> I prefer to decide for myself how biased the candidates > have my fellow citizens vote as well. I find those positions at odds to one another. Personally I don't want prosecutors to be neither appointed by elected officials nor elected. Though, I am more digging into that you think you might get a choice when voting. Re-read what I wrote. I believe the grammar correct and it is clear. Though, I'll illustrate with a…

Your point is completely out of scope of what's being discussed. My comment was a reply to a comment saying "It's beyond stupid to elect people who are in charge of upholding laws and prosecute crimes." My argument is entirely and only an argument that prosecutors should be elected instead of appointed.

All this other stuff about language is not relevant and I don't care about your thought experiment because it's completely unlike the way elections work in the real world, and has nothing to do with me preferring that over a situation where one of the 10 people gets to pick the prosecutor!

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

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This downplays the GOP’s role. Their decades-long plan, including stacking the courts, reveals just how hateful and ruthless they are in pursuing their agenda. While Democrats could have done more, obstacles like the filibuster and narrow majorities made passing protections difficult. The bigger issue is the GOP’s deliberate and depraved effort to strip away rights. Don’t give them a pass on it by blaming others.

I'm sorry but this is such a loser take. You're mad at your opponents for playing the game? I would hate to be on your team in any kind of competition

It's fine to be mad at an opponent whose goal is making people miserable.
Post reply on HN