I can’t believe The Free Press would publish an article like this. This is the level of “reporting” I’d expect from The Guardian, not a newsletter striving to provide old school, fact based, investigative journalism.
I'm very disappointed. The Front Page said this would be a "full analysis," which I very much wanted. Knowing that Bell is anti-death penalty and won on a platform of ending "mass incarceration," for instance, might give a different gloss on the fact that the prosecutor's office supported reversing the conviction. No information is provided about why Williams was convicted, aside from the claim that the witnesses were untrustworthy. The current governor's decision not to pardon him is questioned because he's a former sheriff, an ad hominem attack that I wouldn't expect here.
Try again, please. A charge of executing an innocent man is a serious one, and deserves careful attention. As it happens, my son is preparing for a debate in his homeschool class on whether to abolish the death penalty; I'd love for him to have some fresh evidence to work with.
Wow! What a skewed/misleading article - something I would expect from the mainstream media - which is the biggest insult possible for this site. Here is the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say...
I hope Peter (and Bari) carefully read the comments. Readers have overwhelmingly weighed in with a simple and obvious conclusion: the article is totally devoid of any factual evidence to support the argument being made. Above all, I am disappointed at the editors at FP for allowing this slipshod and irresponsibly written article through the editorial process. Shame....
The death penalty serves a useful purpose. If life in prison is the maximum sentence, what do we do with prisoners serving a life sentence who murder a fellow inmate or guard? What other than death is a fair and just punishment for a serial killer or mass murderer? Dr. Thomas Sowell does not believe the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and that it's used so seldom or after such long delays it's hard to tell. As for the argument that pro-life folks should oppose the death penalty, there is a difference between killing an unborn child and killing a person who has been proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, and whose conviction has withstood an appeal, which I believe is mandatory in most if not all states.
From a substantive justice perspective ("Is an eye for an eye good policy?") I think you are right. From a procedural justice perspective ("Can we trust the state to administer an irreversible punishment?") I must respectfully disagree. Police and prosecutorial misconduct occur all the time. Juries made up of good, honest people are misled by feckless prosecutors and unable to see evidence that has been suppressed. What should happen when new evidence comes to light after the jury has already spoken? These are massive problems with HOW America does capital punishment. Check out innocenceproject.org.
There's actually a very pro-life argument for capital punishment: if life is so valuable, then death is a just punishment for murder.
That said, I have many concerns with how criminal trials work in the US, and I'm leaning towards opposing or at least reforming when we apply capital punishment, in the interest of saving innocent people.
Where is the argument? “And I don’t think that the government should have a monopoly on violence.” Perkins is an idiot. I don't know what you are, Peter; but a long way from a journalist of any description.
This is a terrible article; it's just an opinion piece and a poorly-argued one at that.
I am a career prosecutor and I spent twelve years specifically answering post-conviction appeals. These appeals are of the type at issue here, as they are brought years after conviction by defendants who allege grounds for relief such as newly-discovered evidence, failure of trial counsel to effectively investigate and represent at trial, potential new scientific technologies that might be used to examine the physical evidence, and recanting witnesses. This last claim--witnesses now coming forward to take back their testimony at trial/statements to police--is especially common and is especially suspect.
So I was eager to learn what specifically has been alleged by the defense in this case that may call Marcellus Williams' guilt into question. However, I learned nothing from this article.
I'd have to read the transcripts from the trial (and any subsequent evidentiary hearings) and all of the subsequent prosecutor and defense briefs plus the opinions issued by the courts who heard all of the numerous subsequent appeals to have a fully-considered analysis. Nothing that I have been able to read so far strikes me as establishing a miscarriage of justice or actual innocence.
We need facts not opinions. Thank you Michael for posting the link below. The court has ruled, and while it may seem the new Governor is not open to clemency, I haven't seen anything even approaching a fact that would overturn the conviction.
This case is a textbook example of my strong, innate bias against historical revision. The people who lived through the original events are far more likely to have gotten it right than some navel-gazing revisionists with agendas who didn't begin to think about the event until decades after it happened.
This is irresponsible reporting. There is no evidence to suggest that the man did not do the crime and ample evidence to suggest that he did (blood stained shirt, possessing the victim's belongings, admitting committing the crime to others, etc.). There is no evidence of some other alternative suspect who committed the crime. The lack of DNA evidence is irrelevant because it was not used and collected as a regular practice in the '90s. The best evidence, including the verdict of a jury of his peers, is that he did it.
There is a separate and fair argument to be made that this man should have been put to death, but that he should have been given life in prison. The anti-death penalty position is legitimate and has arguments in its favor. But it is journalistic malpractice to call this man innocent (and putting the word 'innocent' in quotes does not diminish the wrongdoing here).
I am not convinced, for I agree with Len Metters that to convince me there is something of interest here requires review of the facts of the original case and a history of appeals. Instead, this is atypical of TFP (in lack of facts) and more like the empty-shell talk we get from leftist propagandists (hoping for an emotional hook to set in our mouths). Some felons should be executed, because some contribute to making prison an inhumane experience for other prisoners, and because incarcerating some of them is useless for the public.
I agree. The arguments being made here are defense arguments, not stunning revelations of previously unknown facts. Many, many competent people have reviewed all of this and haven't felt compelled to challenge the jury's decision.
The hypocrisy of alleged “pro life” anti-abortionists is breathtaking. Save a fetus, but execute inmates wrongly convicted? What type of twisted mind conceives of this? And one wonders why the USA is in the mess it’s in?
It is not hypocritical to say that people who commit heinous crimes should be put to death, while also saying that innocent babies should not be aborted. This position is consistent, not hypocritical, and certainly not the product of a "twisted mind." In contrast, the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty conjunction is a less consistent position to hold. If it is OK to kill innocent babies, why is it not OK to kill convicted murders? Now, I am not saying it is an inconsistent position because one who holds it would probably say that the murderer is a human being whereas the unborn is just a fetus and not yet a human being. I don't buy that argument, but I know people make it and, if you hold that view, the positions are not inconsistent with each other. At any rate, neither position is hypocritical or inconsistent. The real questions are what is a human being? And when, if ever, is it permissible to kill a human being? These are interesting questions and people come to different conclusions. It is important to recognize that neither side is hypocritical because they come to conclusions we don't share.
The link below citing facts of the original prosecution should be weighed up front, rather than just discussing critiques of Governor Parson's actions and the statement that "Almost everyone agrees that Glossip, like Williams, is probably not guilty." When only one set of facts is provided in a contentious matter, it's obvious that one agrees with the perspective allowed to offer its framing of the issue. Wesley Bell is St. Louis County's prosecutor, not the city prosecutor. He has a history of exceedly biased actions in his office, so his opinion must be examined in light of his political history (but at least he isn't former city prosecutor Kim Gardner, or the soon to be replaced by him Cori Bush).
Kind of a nothing burger of an article. I expected to learn about the case, both pro and con. Aside from a few snippets about the case, it's just a rehash of the usual sides debating the death penalty.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.
I can’t believe The Free Press would publish an article like this. This is the level of “reporting” I’d expect from The Guardian, not a newsletter striving to provide old school, fact based, investigative journalism.
I'm very disappointed. The Front Page said this would be a "full analysis," which I very much wanted. Knowing that Bell is anti-death penalty and won on a platform of ending "mass incarceration," for instance, might give a different gloss on the fact that the prosecutor's office supported reversing the conviction. No information is provided about why Williams was convicted, aside from the claim that the witnesses were untrustworthy. The current governor's decision not to pardon him is questioned because he's a former sheriff, an ad hominem attack that I wouldn't expect here.
Try again, please. A charge of executing an innocent man is a serious one, and deserves careful attention. As it happens, my son is preparing for a debate in his homeschool class on whether to abolish the death penalty; I'd love for him to have some fresh evidence to work with.
Wow! What a skewed/misleading article - something I would expect from the mainstream media - which is the biggest insult possible for this site. Here is the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say...
https://notthebee.com/article/marcellus-williams-was-just-executed-by-the-state-of-missouri-activists-claim-he-was-innocent-but-the-media-isnt-giving-you-the-whole-story
I hope Peter (and Bari) carefully read the comments. Readers have overwhelmingly weighed in with a simple and obvious conclusion: the article is totally devoid of any factual evidence to support the argument being made. Above all, I am disappointed at the editors at FP for allowing this slipshod and irresponsibly written article through the editorial process. Shame....
The death penalty serves a useful purpose. If life in prison is the maximum sentence, what do we do with prisoners serving a life sentence who murder a fellow inmate or guard? What other than death is a fair and just punishment for a serial killer or mass murderer? Dr. Thomas Sowell does not believe the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and that it's used so seldom or after such long delays it's hard to tell. As for the argument that pro-life folks should oppose the death penalty, there is a difference between killing an unborn child and killing a person who has been proven guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, and whose conviction has withstood an appeal, which I believe is mandatory in most if not all states.
From a substantive justice perspective ("Is an eye for an eye good policy?") I think you are right. From a procedural justice perspective ("Can we trust the state to administer an irreversible punishment?") I must respectfully disagree. Police and prosecutorial misconduct occur all the time. Juries made up of good, honest people are misled by feckless prosecutors and unable to see evidence that has been suppressed. What should happen when new evidence comes to light after the jury has already spoken? These are massive problems with HOW America does capital punishment. Check out innocenceproject.org.
There's actually a very pro-life argument for capital punishment: if life is so valuable, then death is a just punishment for murder.
That said, I have many concerns with how criminal trials work in the US, and I'm leaning towards opposing or at least reforming when we apply capital punishment, in the interest of saving innocent people.
Where is the argument? “And I don’t think that the government should have a monopoly on violence.” Perkins is an idiot. I don't know what you are, Peter; but a long way from a journalist of any description.
This is a terrible article; it's just an opinion piece and a poorly-argued one at that.
I am a career prosecutor and I spent twelve years specifically answering post-conviction appeals. These appeals are of the type at issue here, as they are brought years after conviction by defendants who allege grounds for relief such as newly-discovered evidence, failure of trial counsel to effectively investigate and represent at trial, potential new scientific technologies that might be used to examine the physical evidence, and recanting witnesses. This last claim--witnesses now coming forward to take back their testimony at trial/statements to police--is especially common and is especially suspect.
So I was eager to learn what specifically has been alleged by the defense in this case that may call Marcellus Williams' guilt into question. However, I learned nothing from this article.
Here is a link to a brief written on William's behalf asserting his innocence: https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/MarcellusWilliamsBoardOfInquiryLetter.pdf
Here is a link to the 2003 Opinion issued by the Missouri Supreme Court wherein the trial evidence and defense claims were initially examined and the conviction and death penalty were upheld: https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html
I'd have to read the transcripts from the trial (and any subsequent evidentiary hearings) and all of the subsequent prosecutor and defense briefs plus the opinions issued by the courts who heard all of the numerous subsequent appeals to have a fully-considered analysis. Nothing that I have been able to read so far strikes me as establishing a miscarriage of justice or actual innocence.
We need facts not opinions. Thank you Michael for posting the link below. The court has ruled, and while it may seem the new Governor is not open to clemency, I haven't seen anything even approaching a fact that would overturn the conviction.
This case is a textbook example of my strong, innate bias against historical revision. The people who lived through the original events are far more likely to have gotten it right than some navel-gazing revisionists with agendas who didn't begin to think about the event until decades after it happened.
This is irresponsible reporting. There is no evidence to suggest that the man did not do the crime and ample evidence to suggest that he did (blood stained shirt, possessing the victim's belongings, admitting committing the crime to others, etc.). There is no evidence of some other alternative suspect who committed the crime. The lack of DNA evidence is irrelevant because it was not used and collected as a regular practice in the '90s. The best evidence, including the verdict of a jury of his peers, is that he did it.
There is a separate and fair argument to be made that this man should have been put to death, but that he should have been given life in prison. The anti-death penalty position is legitimate and has arguments in its favor. But it is journalistic malpractice to call this man innocent (and putting the word 'innocent' in quotes does not diminish the wrongdoing here).
Wouldn't there have been a race riot over the murder if a white man was convicted of such a stabbing of a black woman?
I am not convinced, for I agree with Len Metters that to convince me there is something of interest here requires review of the facts of the original case and a history of appeals. Instead, this is atypical of TFP (in lack of facts) and more like the empty-shell talk we get from leftist propagandists (hoping for an emotional hook to set in our mouths). Some felons should be executed, because some contribute to making prison an inhumane experience for other prisoners, and because incarcerating some of them is useless for the public.
I agree. The arguments being made here are defense arguments, not stunning revelations of previously unknown facts. Many, many competent people have reviewed all of this and haven't felt compelled to challenge the jury's decision.
The hypocrisy of alleged “pro life” anti-abortionists is breathtaking. Save a fetus, but execute inmates wrongly convicted? What type of twisted mind conceives of this? And one wonders why the USA is in the mess it’s in?
It is not hypocritical to say that people who commit heinous crimes should be put to death, while also saying that innocent babies should not be aborted. This position is consistent, not hypocritical, and certainly not the product of a "twisted mind." In contrast, the pro-abortion and anti-death penalty conjunction is a less consistent position to hold. If it is OK to kill innocent babies, why is it not OK to kill convicted murders? Now, I am not saying it is an inconsistent position because one who holds it would probably say that the murderer is a human being whereas the unborn is just a fetus and not yet a human being. I don't buy that argument, but I know people make it and, if you hold that view, the positions are not inconsistent with each other. At any rate, neither position is hypocritical or inconsistent. The real questions are what is a human being? And when, if ever, is it permissible to kill a human being? These are interesting questions and people come to different conclusions. It is important to recognize that neither side is hypocritical because they come to conclusions we don't share.
I've never liked this argument, either way.
It begs the question as to whether someone was rightly convicted by an inherently imperfect system.
It also begs the question as to how much personhood/human rights a fetus actually has.
The link below citing facts of the original prosecution should be weighed up front, rather than just discussing critiques of Governor Parson's actions and the statement that "Almost everyone agrees that Glossip, like Williams, is probably not guilty." When only one set of facts is provided in a contentious matter, it's obvious that one agrees with the perspective allowed to offer its framing of the issue. Wesley Bell is St. Louis County's prosecutor, not the city prosecutor. He has a history of exceedly biased actions in his office, so his opinion must be examined in light of his political history (but at least he isn't former city prosecutor Kim Gardner, or the soon to be replaced by him Cori Bush).
Kind of a nothing burger of an article. I expected to learn about the case, both pro and con. Aside from a few snippets about the case, it's just a rehash of the usual sides debating the death penalty.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.
How many appeals did they go through?