3 ms·

> 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 l

> 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
- kergonath 2y ago
  > 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. 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.
nemo44x 2y ago
This was all considered by the state Supreme Court. Due process was invoked and after numerous reviews at every level no court found anything to retry or reverse the case. My personal take - of course he was guilty as unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public. And the property findings. Saying that I’m not sure killing people is the greatest thing.
- stbenjam 2y ago
  > 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 that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own. Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. "
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.
      - nemo44x 2y ago
        Everything is fallable, sure. But consider this: the guy had millions of dollars of pro bono legal machinery behind him and even still could not produce an argument or counter evidence to support his claim. Our system is amazingly transparent and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent. And it’s not there. The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.

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
kergonath 2y ago
> 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. 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.

nemo44x 2y ago

This was all considered by the state Supreme Court. Due process was invoked and after numerous reviews at every level no court found anything to retry or reverse the case. My personal take - of course he was guilty as unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public. And the property findings. Saying that I’m not sure killing people is the greatest thing.

stbenjam 2y ago
> 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 that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own. Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. "
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      Everything is fallable, sure. But consider this: the guy had millions of dollars of pro bono legal machinery behind him and even still could not produce an argument or counter evidence to support his claim. Our system is amazingly transparent and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent. And it’s not there. The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.