4 ms·

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 guil

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 would maintain his innocence for years. That said we shouldn’t execute him, there’s enough doubt to make it possible he didn’t do it and executing an innocent man is horrendous. And IMO we should eliminate the death penalty anyway. But regardless, I still find the weight of evidence much stronger in favor of guilt over innocence.

tokai 2y ago
>People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars Only 27% of them apparently[0], so even murderers are still more likely to not be a psychopath. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178918301678 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917891...
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tokai 2y ago
    Thats an opinion. It could easily be argued the other way around. Murders during burglary has a higher chance of have happened accidentally than other kind of murders. Stealing is more likely to happen because of poverty than psychopathy. Its kinda a useless exercise making up arguments uninformed by reality.
- tempfile 2y ago
  Thanks for posting this, the quoted text smelled like something pulled out of... the air.
kergonath 2y ago
> 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 am not familiar with the case so I don’t have an opinion on whether he is guilty or not, but this is not a way of running a justice system. In any case, yes, the death penalty is a barbaric anachronism in a liberal society.
- y-curious 2y ago
  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.
  - soneil 2y ago
    I'm against the death penalty - I do believe there's times it makes sense, and I certainly believe there's crimes worthy of it. But I don't trust the state to make this determination with 100% accuracy - and anything less than 100% means we have to make the choice between not giving the death penalty to those who do deserve it, or executing those who don't deserve it. It's not unusual to hear stories of people being found innocent after decades in prison - and every single time it hammers home to me that they could have been pardoning a grave.
  - zigararu 2y ago
    If it were up to me it would be in the constitution that everyone has the right to euthanasia and suicide with no conditions. At first i thought it seems like a completely unrelated issue to the death penalty. After thinking about it more maybe you have a point. Society will likely never get over the taboo of enabling suicide so i suppose it can be seen as a lesser moral evil to kill someone rather than subject them to life imprisonment under suicide watch. Interesting moral questions
jmclnx 2y ago
I cannot help but wonder if his race had something do with the outcome :( The US Supreme Court denied a stay, with 3 liberal justices saying they would have stopped the execution. Thus my comment.
- giarc 2y ago
  I haven't read anything about the Supreme Court's decision, but did they dissent on the grounds that they believed he was innocent, or that capital punishment shouldn't be allowed (and not comment on his guilt)?
  - jmclnx 2y ago
    IIRC, they declined to hear the case. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/09/supreme-court-allows-marcellus-williams-to-be-executed/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/09/supreme-court-allows-marc...
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Supreme Court justices don't typically explain their reasons for dissenting in emergency applications like this. They can if they choose to, but they didn't here.
  - krferriter 2y ago
    The US Supreme Court's decision was that there was not grounds for them to interfere in the case, because the state courts had already provided sufficient due process. They made no official ruling about guilt or capital punishment.
sofixa 2y ago
> The prosecutor who wanted to pardon him was not the original prosecutor, but a recent progressive elected one It's beyond stupid to elect people who are in charge of upholding laws and prosecute crimes. They have to campaign, make their views known, and to get elected, show views which of course aren't necessarily related to what their job should be about. Get professionals that are as impartial as possible. They will still have biases, but they won't have to advertise them and be beholden to them in order to get reelection.
- Hasu 2y ago
  If prosecutors are going to be biased either way, I'd prefer a choice in those biases.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    I'd prefer them to not have biases, to be criticised when they do, and not to be incentivised (reelection) to proudly show them.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Then you're also okay with me choosing the bias of a prosecutor prosecuting you?
    - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
      Who, exactly, gets to choose how unbiased the prosecutor is? You won't get that from a democratic election and you won't get that from elected officials choosing them.
      - seadan83 2y ago
        My question is sincere. 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. To your question, a priori bias would be hard to evaluate. Post facto there would be some data and perhaps some metrics that could be used. It would less be "who", but "how." Prosecutor bias is a bit nebulous though. Prosecutors should be honest and present the best case possible, met with the best defense possible. The best defense being a function of wealth rather than a consistent standard is damning. But I quickly digress... I would be interested to have my original question answered.
nyeah 2y ago
"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.
hdlothia 2y ago
Bell and the victim's family wanted a commuted sentence, not a pardon. They did not believe in his innocence.

tokai 2y ago

>People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars Only 27% of them apparently[0], so even murderers are still more likely to not be a psychopath. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178918301678 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917891...

monero-xmr 2y ago
[flagged]
- tokai 2y ago
  Thats an opinion. It could easily be argued the other way around. Murders during burglary has a higher chance of have happened accidentally than other kind of murders. Stealing is more likely to happen because of poverty than psychopathy. Its kinda a useless exercise making up arguments uninformed by reality.
tempfile 2y ago
Thanks for posting this, the quoted text smelled like something pulled out of... the air.

kergonath 2y ago

> 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 am not familiar with the case so I don’t have an opinion on whether he is guilty or not, but this is not a way of running a justice system. In any case, yes, the death penalty is a barbaric anachronism in a liberal society.

y-curious 2y ago
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.
- soneil 2y ago
  I'm against the death penalty - I do believe there's times it makes sense, and I certainly believe there's crimes worthy of it. But I don't trust the state to make this determination with 100% accuracy - and anything less than 100% means we have to make the choice between not giving the death penalty to those who do deserve it, or executing those who don't deserve it. It's not unusual to hear stories of people being found innocent after decades in prison - and every single time it hammers home to me that they could have been pardoning a grave.
- zigararu 2y ago
  If it were up to me it would be in the constitution that everyone has the right to euthanasia and suicide with no conditions. At first i thought it seems like a completely unrelated issue to the death penalty. After thinking about it more maybe you have a point. Society will likely never get over the taboo of enabling suicide so i suppose it can be seen as a lesser moral evil to kill someone rather than subject them to life imprisonment under suicide watch. Interesting moral questions

jmclnx 2y ago

I cannot help but wonder if his race had something do with the outcome :( The US Supreme Court denied a stay, with 3 liberal justices saying they would have stopped the execution. Thus my comment.

giarc 2y ago
I haven't read anything about the Supreme Court's decision, but did they dissent on the grounds that they believed he was innocent, or that capital punishment shouldn't be allowed (and not comment on his guilt)?
- jmclnx 2y ago
  IIRC, they declined to hear the case. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/09/supreme-court-allows-marcellus-williams-to-be-executed/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/09/supreme-court-allows-marc...
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Supreme Court justices don't typically explain their reasons for dissenting in emergency applications like this. They can if they choose to, but they didn't here.
- krferriter 2y ago
  The US Supreme Court's decision was that there was not grounds for them to interfere in the case, because the state courts had already provided sufficient due process. They made no official ruling about guilt or capital punishment.

sofixa 2y ago

> The prosecutor who wanted to pardon him was not the original prosecutor, but a recent progressive elected one It's beyond stupid to elect people who are in charge of upholding laws and prosecute crimes. They have to campaign, make their views known, and to get elected, show views which of course aren't necessarily related to what their job should be about. Get professionals that are as impartial as possible. They will still have biases, but they won't have to advertise them and be beholden to them in order to get reelection.

Hasu 2y ago
If prosecutors are going to be biased either way, I'd prefer a choice in those biases.
- sofixa 2y ago
  I'd prefer them to not have biases, to be criticised when they do, and not to be incentivised (reelection) to proudly show them.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Then you're also okay with me choosing the bias of a prosecutor prosecuting you?
  - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
    Who, exactly, gets to choose how unbiased the prosecutor is? You won't get that from a democratic election and you won't get that from elected officials choosing them.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      My question is sincere. 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. To your question, a priori bias would be hard to evaluate. Post facto there would be some data and perhaps some metrics that could be used. It would less be "who", but "how." Prosecutor bias is a bit nebulous though. Prosecutors should be honest and present the best case possible, met with the best defense possible. The best defense being a function of wealth rather than a consistent standard is damning. But I quickly digress... I would be interested to have my original question answered.

nyeah 2y ago

"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.

hdlothia 2y ago

Bell and the victim's family wanted a commuted sentence, not a pardon. They did not believe in his innocence.