71–80 of 514 posts
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.
So it seems that the original case rested on the following: - 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 reas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.
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.
Think hard about why someone commits a crime. What is their background, their circustances, and what would have prevented it from happenign. Then think about what you think the purpose is of a sentencing? Is it for revenge, revalidation, setting an example, or removing undesireables from society (temporarily, indefinitely, or permanently)?
> 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.
“Evidence of innocence” is a very problematic concept. Have you thought through what is your evidence of your innocence? (Not just regarding to this case, but regarding all cases involving dead or missing people.) Should we execute you if you ever come up short?
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.
Here’s another thought experiment. We have ample evidence that the death penalty hasn’t made America safe from murder. But we don’t know if it has deterrence value for lesser crimes. I propose death by hanging for repeat littering and speeding near a school. I bet that’d be effective.
Justin Brooks (2023) You Might Go to Prison Even Though You're Innocent, University of California Press
https://www.amazon.com/Might-Prison-Though-Youre-Innocent/dp...
Brandon Garrett (2011) Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Harvard University Press
https://www.amazon.com/Convicting-Innocent-Where-Criminal-Pr...
Mark Godsey (2017) Blind Injustice: A Former Prosecutor Exposes Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions, University of California Press
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology...
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.
Even if we had 100% certainty what crimes are 100% worth death? Not even that is simple. If you want to consider cost, it costs literal millions to execute someone.
But he was guilty and it would probably have been better to execute him because what if he did something else wrong?
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 can't even make a statement whether killing is always morally injustifiable or not.