Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 514 posts

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

#51

Post by kergonath »

nemo44x wrote: post #24
blcknight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public Do you have a source? "The case against Mr. Williams turned on the testimony of two unreliable witnesses who were incentivized by promises of leniency in their own pending criminal cases and reward money. The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed t…

Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.

I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.

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

#52

Post by nicolas_t »

gizajob wrote: post #34
nomilk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.

If murder is illegal, then it makes no difference if the state does it as punishment for committing murder. You’ve still sanctioned a murder, admittedly of a murderer. A civilised country accepts this simple logic and doesn’t sanction murder under any circumstances.

In that case, would a civilised country have a military? Any military operations is state sanctioned killings.

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

#53

Post by spacechild1 »

nomilk wrote: post #21
spacechild1 wrote: post #8

There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!

Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.

> Curious to know if your views would change?

It wouldn't. There are cases where we do know someone's guilt with 100% confidence, but in my country we still don't execute them.

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

gizajob wrote: post #34
nomilk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.

If murder is illegal, then it makes no difference if the state does it as punishment for committing murder. You’ve still sanctioned a murder, admittedly of a murderer. A civilised country accepts this simple logic and doesn’t sanction murder under any circumstances.

[deleted]

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

#55

Post by game_the0ry »

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.

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

#56

Post by nyeah »

monero-xmr wrote: post #5

The prosecutor who wanted to pardon him was not the original prosecutor, but a recent progressive elected one. The original prosecutor still believes he is guilty. 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. People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars. It isn’t surprising he…

"People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars. It isn’t surprising he would maintain his innocence for years."

An innocent person would also maintain his innocence for years. With respect, this reminds me of some commentary at the time of the Central Park Five case. "They did it because they're evil." Well, somebody was evil, but we needed to know a little more than "we found these kids and there is evil". In the end that attitude led to a horrifying miscarriage of justice.

Somebody was a murderer, it sounds like we agree on that.

I'm ignorant about the case, but the abundance of physical evidence at the crime scene, none of it pointing to the executed man, seems much more relevant than anything you cited in your comment. Again, I say this with respect. If you care to respond, I hope I'm open to logic and reason.

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

#58

Post by bbor »

gizajob wrote: post #34
nomilk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.

If murder is illegal, then it makes no difference if the state does it as punishment for committing murder. You’ve still sanctioned a murder, admittedly of a murderer. A civilised country accepts this simple logic and doesn’t sanction murder under any circumstances.

I love the moral direction, but this sadly doesn’t hold up to philosophical scrutiny. Is it murder to

1. Kill someone who’s about to kill someone?

2. Kill someone in a defensive war to defend your freedoms?

3. Kill someone by prioritizing things other than their medical care, eg in hospice?

4. Kill someone by letting them smoke/drink/overeat?

5. Kill someone by letting them starve?

If you want to say that no country is civilized yet then hey I’m with ya. Otherwise, it’s not quite so simple. The death penalty is a tragic injustice, I agree, but just saying “it’s murder” is not a serious engagement with the issue IMO.

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

#59

Post by knodi123 »

rdtsc wrote: 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.

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 solid enough for a death penalty conviction, that's tougher to say. But there's plenty of evidence.

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

#60

Post by tempfile »

gizajob wrote: post #34
nomilk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.

If murder is illegal, then it makes no difference if the state does it as punishment for committing murder. You’ve still sanctioned a murder, admittedly of a murderer. A civilised country accepts this simple logic and doesn’t sanction murder under any circumstances.

No. Murder is not the same as killing, just like not all taking is stealing. Even the most civilised society imaginable admits that killing is sometimes acceptable (in self defense, for example). Killing done by the state is trivially not murder by definition, and less trivially there are justifications you can argue about. But you have to argue about it, your "simple logic" is unfortunately too simple.
Post reply on HN