Perhaps a more persuasive article might have brought in comments by the prosecuting attorney or even the victim's family. We don't require boards of inquiry for affirmation of a death sentence, that is function that is fulfilled by the courts.
Wesley Bell isn't like some of the prosecutors in other parts of the country who are bat shit insane, but I don't think you can take his word uncritically. Having said that, if there are real questions of innocence the execution should be stayed on the governor should go through with the board of inquiry. The guy is in jail and isn't going anywhere.
I'm not sure what the point is to this piece , to shame pro-life , or to get someone wrongly convicted off . Little evidence given to clear him (No DNA, so why is that important ) , and who on the pro-life stage are you talking to that could convert this to just a life sentence ? Is this all pointed at the gov , really unclear .
As an attorney, having lived the reality of the legal system, I have been moved from a strong supporter to a detractor of capital punishment.
First, the legal system is a system of rules meant to aim at justice, but which is a fallible system that sometimes yields false positives. Consequentially, capital punishment is sometimes carried out unjustly. It is one thing to incarcerate indefinitely, another to end a life permanently based on a fallible system. No one has good numbers on how prevalent such injustice is precisely because of systemic fallibility. It is not a question whether someone who actually committed a murder could fairly be executed, but that we can almost never be entirely certain - or certain enough to end a life. Sometimes, yes, but that brings us to the next problem.
The very notion of whether evidence proves guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so subjective it cannot be and is not consistently practiced. Some people's concept of reasonable is other people's concept of conspiracy theory. Bias across racial groups, against law enforcement, against "the system," as infinitum generate entirely different ideas and applications of "reasonable doubt." With such variability, we just do not have a sufficiently consistent and objective way to ensure we have the right person when the consequence is execution.
Finally, the structure of the system is not aimed at accuracy but at protecting certain liberties and relying upon ethical competition at the cost of accuracy. That is, the rules of evidence, most particularly the exclusionary rule, are not entirely aimed at ensuring the most complete and reliable evidence is presented, but at ensuring the government is dissuaded from violating our 4th amendment rights. That is coupled with the adversarial process, where the underlying notion that pitting prosecution and defense against one another competitively would yield greater accuracy. In the end, these elements incentivize, even ensure gamesmanship over the key question of what evidence a jury should even know when the only rational answer is that the jury - the tryer, or decider of fact - should have all reliable factual information or else they simply cannot reach a reliable factual conclusion.
We have to have a system that removes criminals from the generally upstanding population on which they prey (yes, that's a lot to unpack, but for another lifetime). So, we have to have some system that can convict people on some acceptably reliable basis. But when the system is so - perhaps unavoidably - flawed, ending a life on the results is too unjust for me.
This "opinion piece" is very weak and clearly biased. I wouldn't mind seeing a thoughtful and extensive review of the case. The Free Press could do better.
It seems that there are multiple witnesses who heard Williams talk about the murder, at least one of whom was able to provide details about the crime scene to law enforcement that hadn't been made publicly available. The victim's belongings were found in Williams car. The man who purchased the stolen laptop identified Williams as the seller. That seems like pretty decent evidence.
The one thing that is weird about the case is that the killer's hair was found in the hands of the victim, but neither side claims DNA evidence in their favor: Those trying to free Williams state that DNA evidence has not placed him at the scene while those arguing for his guilt simply say that DNA evidence has not exonerated him. Was the hair never tested? If it was Williams', that would certainly make for an ironclad case against him, but if it wasn't his it would make a strong case that those trying to free him would shout from the rafters.
A Republican stating they think this specific man is innocent isn’t a criticism of the institution as a whole, nor does it signal a lack of support for the death penalty by that specific person.
There continues to be a fallacy which comes from people who have zero interaction with the criminal justice system. It’s that you lock someone up and they never hurt anyone ever again. Which is false. Guys with life without parole can be very dangerous in prison since they have nothing to lose.
This man raped and tortured women, got life without parole, murdered a female corrections officer. Laughed at detectives saying they can’t do anything to him. So, they got him the death penalty which progressive Washington State Supreme Court vacated.
What is the purpose of this man continuing to live? His life does nothing but pose a threat to others.
Mike Parson (MO governor)rejected one of the last bids to halt the execution on Monday, saying in a statement that "no jury nor court, including at the trial, appellate, and Supreme Court levels, have ever found merit in Mr. Williams’ innocence claims.”
What were all those juries and levels of appeal blind to?
Perhaps this man in innocent, and maybe there are others, but there are thousands of killers in jail who are 100% guilty and they admit it. There is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Will there never be justice for the families left behind? Life imprisonment will be the next pillar to fall once death penalty is abolished. The price of killing will drop lower and lower. When the killer is dead, there is no point of endlessly seeking to raise doubt about their guilt. The price of murdering innocent people should be very high, and it is up to the state, if it assumes power, to use that power to deliver justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, as they used to say in the Civil Rights movement. When we delay justice in a death penalty case, we torture the families of the dead. "Tex" Watson has been on California death row for 50+ years. He's fathered FOUR KIDS from jail. Imagine you are the Tate family and year after year, you have to go testify before a board just to keep the killer in jail. This is not justice. The state has forced taxpayers to feed and defend the killers. Just kill them already.
We probably just have different values we focus on in this issue, but I think it's progress for us to execute prisoners less and less, save in specific circumstances where safety is truly an issue. To me it's kind of a no-brainer given our error rate with guilty/not-guilty verdicts, but I think even in a world of perfect information and a perfect court system, I'd feel this way too, since we'd know which convicts would actually be amenable to rehabilitation and which would need to be imprisoned indefinitely. For extreme cases which would come down to either lifetime solitary confinement or execution, execution may be the more humane option, but presumably from a pure information gathering standpoint it may be useful to keep even those criminals alive.
If economics are your prime concern, you might want to rethink your position. Perhaps the information I found is biased, but if you google "execution vs lifetime imprisonment costs", you'll find some information saying a death penalty case cost millions more than a life without parole, which more than accounts for the cost of keeping the inmate alive. As above, in a world of perfect information this probably wouldn't be true, since we'd know exactly who is innocent and who is guilty, but reality is a sticky thing.
All that said, you probably are on the right side of human psychology, in that there is a deep-seated taste for retributive justice within most of us. I think one of society's most important functions is to curb our baser instincts. Someone has to be the adult in the room, and I question whether execution actually provides justice in any meaningful sense.
This story left out the fact there is a lot of other evidence tying the accused to the murder. This includes his own confession and well as testimony of his then girlfriend who found the stolen laptop and saw him convered in the victims blood. You can hate the death penalty but omitting facts to try and prove a point does you cause a disservice.
There is no inconsistency for pro lifers on capital punishment - massive difference between an innocent baby and someone that is a convicted killer.
Absolutely take steps to correct mistakes in convictions - that's a separate issue. Stabbed 43 times? Criminal minds episode would tell you that is a crime of passion - husband did it. Why would a robber take the time to stab someone 43 times??
Perhaps a more persuasive article might have brought in comments by the prosecuting attorney or even the victim's family. We don't require boards of inquiry for affirmation of a death sentence, that is function that is fulfilled by the courts.
Wesley Bell isn't like some of the prosecutors in other parts of the country who are bat shit insane, but I don't think you can take his word uncritically. Having said that, if there are real questions of innocence the execution should be stayed on the governor should go through with the board of inquiry. The guy is in jail and isn't going anywhere.
I'm not sure what the point is to this piece , to shame pro-life , or to get someone wrongly convicted off . Little evidence given to clear him (No DNA, so why is that important ) , and who on the pro-life stage are you talking to that could convert this to just a life sentence ? Is this all pointed at the gov , really unclear .
As an attorney, having lived the reality of the legal system, I have been moved from a strong supporter to a detractor of capital punishment.
First, the legal system is a system of rules meant to aim at justice, but which is a fallible system that sometimes yields false positives. Consequentially, capital punishment is sometimes carried out unjustly. It is one thing to incarcerate indefinitely, another to end a life permanently based on a fallible system. No one has good numbers on how prevalent such injustice is precisely because of systemic fallibility. It is not a question whether someone who actually committed a murder could fairly be executed, but that we can almost never be entirely certain - or certain enough to end a life. Sometimes, yes, but that brings us to the next problem.
The very notion of whether evidence proves guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so subjective it cannot be and is not consistently practiced. Some people's concept of reasonable is other people's concept of conspiracy theory. Bias across racial groups, against law enforcement, against "the system," as infinitum generate entirely different ideas and applications of "reasonable doubt." With such variability, we just do not have a sufficiently consistent and objective way to ensure we have the right person when the consequence is execution.
Finally, the structure of the system is not aimed at accuracy but at protecting certain liberties and relying upon ethical competition at the cost of accuracy. That is, the rules of evidence, most particularly the exclusionary rule, are not entirely aimed at ensuring the most complete and reliable evidence is presented, but at ensuring the government is dissuaded from violating our 4th amendment rights. That is coupled with the adversarial process, where the underlying notion that pitting prosecution and defense against one another competitively would yield greater accuracy. In the end, these elements incentivize, even ensure gamesmanship over the key question of what evidence a jury should even know when the only rational answer is that the jury - the tryer, or decider of fact - should have all reliable factual information or else they simply cannot reach a reliable factual conclusion.
We have to have a system that removes criminals from the generally upstanding population on which they prey (yes, that's a lot to unpack, but for another lifetime). So, we have to have some system that can convict people on some acceptably reliable basis. But when the system is so - perhaps unavoidably - flawed, ending a life on the results is too unjust for me.
This "opinion piece" is very weak and clearly biased. I wouldn't mind seeing a thoughtful and extensive review of the case. The Free Press could do better.
Lol...what a crock of BS.
"Republicans" or "Conservatives" are not trying to save this guy.
All for show.
It seems that there are multiple witnesses who heard Williams talk about the murder, at least one of whom was able to provide details about the crime scene to law enforcement that hadn't been made publicly available. The victim's belongings were found in Williams car. The man who purchased the stolen laptop identified Williams as the seller. That seems like pretty decent evidence.
The one thing that is weird about the case is that the killer's hair was found in the hands of the victim, but neither side claims DNA evidence in their favor: Those trying to free Williams state that DNA evidence has not placed him at the scene while those arguing for his guilt simply say that DNA evidence has not exonerated him. Was the hair never tested? If it was Williams', that would certainly make for an ironclad case against him, but if it wasn't his it would make a strong case that those trying to free him would shout from the rafters.
A Republican stating they think this specific man is innocent isn’t a criticism of the institution as a whole, nor does it signal a lack of support for the death penalty by that specific person.
There continues to be a fallacy which comes from people who have zero interaction with the criminal justice system. It’s that you lock someone up and they never hurt anyone ever again. Which is false. Guys with life without parole can be very dangerous in prison since they have nothing to lose.
Read about this case:
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/death-sentence-vacated-in-murder-of-officer-jayme-biendl/
This man raped and tortured women, got life without parole, murdered a female corrections officer. Laughed at detectives saying they can’t do anything to him. So, they got him the death penalty which progressive Washington State Supreme Court vacated.
What is the purpose of this man continuing to live? His life does nothing but pose a threat to others.
Mike Parson (MO governor)rejected one of the last bids to halt the execution on Monday, saying in a statement that "no jury nor court, including at the trial, appellate, and Supreme Court levels, have ever found merit in Mr. Williams’ innocence claims.”
What were all those juries and levels of appeal blind to?
Perhaps this man in innocent, and maybe there are others, but there are thousands of killers in jail who are 100% guilty and they admit it. There is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Will there never be justice for the families left behind? Life imprisonment will be the next pillar to fall once death penalty is abolished. The price of killing will drop lower and lower. When the killer is dead, there is no point of endlessly seeking to raise doubt about their guilt. The price of murdering innocent people should be very high, and it is up to the state, if it assumes power, to use that power to deliver justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, as they used to say in the Civil Rights movement. When we delay justice in a death penalty case, we torture the families of the dead. "Tex" Watson has been on California death row for 50+ years. He's fathered FOUR KIDS from jail. Imagine you are the Tate family and year after year, you have to go testify before a board just to keep the killer in jail. This is not justice. The state has forced taxpayers to feed and defend the killers. Just kill them already.
We probably just have different values we focus on in this issue, but I think it's progress for us to execute prisoners less and less, save in specific circumstances where safety is truly an issue. To me it's kind of a no-brainer given our error rate with guilty/not-guilty verdicts, but I think even in a world of perfect information and a perfect court system, I'd feel this way too, since we'd know which convicts would actually be amenable to rehabilitation and which would need to be imprisoned indefinitely. For extreme cases which would come down to either lifetime solitary confinement or execution, execution may be the more humane option, but presumably from a pure information gathering standpoint it may be useful to keep even those criminals alive.
If economics are your prime concern, you might want to rethink your position. Perhaps the information I found is biased, but if you google "execution vs lifetime imprisonment costs", you'll find some information saying a death penalty case cost millions more than a life without parole, which more than accounts for the cost of keeping the inmate alive. As above, in a world of perfect information this probably wouldn't be true, since we'd know exactly who is innocent and who is guilty, but reality is a sticky thing.
All that said, you probably are on the right side of human psychology, in that there is a deep-seated taste for retributive justice within most of us. I think one of society's most important functions is to curb our baser instincts. Someone has to be the adult in the room, and I question whether execution actually provides justice in any meaningful sense.
This story left out the fact there is a lot of other evidence tying the accused to the murder. This includes his own confession and well as testimony of his then girlfriend who found the stolen laptop and saw him convered in the victims blood. You can hate the death penalty but omitting facts to try and prove a point does you cause a disservice.
He did not give a confession to police. His GF claimed he confessed to her & so did his cell mate.
There is no inconsistency for pro lifers on capital punishment - massive difference between an innocent baby and someone that is a convicted killer.
Absolutely take steps to correct mistakes in convictions - that's a separate issue. Stabbed 43 times? Criminal minds episode would tell you that is a crime of passion - husband did it. Why would a robber take the time to stab someone 43 times??
There is no physical evidence in a death penalty case? That is barbaric!
This is why the death penalty sucks.
It's this persistent attitude that Caesar can do no wrong, and that includes killing people.
Can we please quit making an idol out of authority and power?
It's a nice goal but it's not going to happen in this world.
"The human heart is an idol-making factory." Fr. Mike Schmitz.
"The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the boastful pride of life." Saint John.