[HN Gopher] Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri des...
___________________________________________________________________
Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence
of innocence
Author : bjourne
Score : 176 points
Date : 2024-09-25 12:05 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (innocenceproject.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (innocenceproject.org)
| rdtsc wrote:
| > 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.
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| Grief is a powerful thing.
| kergonath wrote:
| Unfortunately the victims or their relatives are not really the
| best suited to determine the appropriate punishment. These
| things are too subjective.
| rdtsc wrote:
| I am assuming there is still some kind of logic behind the
| statement. How they interpret it for themselves.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| Presumably they still think he's (probably) guilty.
|
| Victims and their family's can and often do oppose capital
| punishment on moral grounds, same as anybody else.
|
| They want him punished but believe that killing him is a moral
| wrong, or they're more comfortable with the risk that he's
| innocent if he's in prison with the possibility of being
| exonerated rather than killed.
| alistairSH wrote:
| They who? About the only people who wanted the death penalty
| were politicians up for re-election.
| shusaku wrote:
| 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.
| rob74 wrote:
| If you read the article, the "evidence of guilt" is equally
| flimsy. And if we take "innocent until proven guilty"
| seriously, that means he not only should not have been
| executed, but should never have gone to jail in the first
| place...
| sparrish wrote:
| A jury of his peers thought there was enough evidence to
| convict him and they did. At that point, he's "guilty until
| proven innocent".
| formerly_proven wrote:
| This seems like an exceedingly bad hill to die on. Curtis
| Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death six times
| for the same murder by juries of his peers, yet he's a
| free man today.
| krisoft wrote:
| > the "evidence of innocence" is very flimsy
|
| "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?
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| The problem is there are two different standards of proof
| at different points of the legal process.
|
| Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- all
| the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you
| indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable
| evidence was used without which this standard likely would
| not have been met.
|
| Once you've been convicted (in this case on shoddy
| evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you're
| actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer
| sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that
| disproves the already decided "fact" that you committed the
| crime.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If
| someone is convicted based on evidence that is later
| shown to be totally insufficient to support that
| conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn
| the conviction?
| soerxpso wrote:
| Can you elaborate on what you mean by "later shown to be
| totally insufficient to support that conviction"? The
| sufficience of evidence doesn't randomly change. If you
| mean that they were convicted based on evidence that
| shouldn't have been shown to the jury, you can win an
| appeal on that.
|
| The standard before your convicted is that the jury must
| find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard
| after you've been convicted is that you must have found
| substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the
| verdict, or you must show that the original trial was
| mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not
| a valid appeal.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| A lot of rights (like your right to remain silent, your
| right to a speedy trial, your right to bear arms, your
| right to vote, your rights to be free from search without
| reason) have been interpreted only apply up to the point
| of conviction. So yes, things get MUCH tougher once
| convicted as many rights no longer apply to you or are
| stripped from you.
|
| In this case, up until conviction you are presumed
| innocent and guilt must be proven. Post conviction most
| of the appeals process is bared if not filed within 14
| days of conviction (it used to be forever but then the US
| Justice system decided woohhh there that's too long and
| burdensome on the Justice system so 14 days was deemed a
| reasonable change to the previous 'forever'. A totally
| reasonable happy middle). After 14 days from conviction
| really the only relief available is to prove actual
| innocence, a much higher and more difficult standard to
| meet.
| throw_evidence wrote:
| Posting as a throwaway for obvious reasons...
|
| "evidence of innocence"...
|
| I was once accused of a financial crime, around taking money
| from an account. I was, admittedly, guilty, however, the
| amount claimed was nearly triple the amount that I had taken
| (there were multiple shenanigans happening).
|
| When my attorney and I said "Actually, we think the amount is
| $X, not $3X, because x y and z", we had an _extraordinarily
| difficult_ time with the Prosecutor, who wanted US to justify
| why we thought the amount was only $X.
|
| Apropos of any plea or deal or whatever, no... the onus is on
| the Prosecution to verifiably demonstrate the loss. Not for
| me to justify why I think the amount is different.
| Ironically, the justification we _did_ provide came from the
| Prosecution. "You said the loss was $Z, including $Y in
| checks which were diverted. Witness statements and other
| testimony showed that these checks were NOT diverted, by
| their _own words_. Ergo, the loss is $Z-$Y. "
|
| Prosecutor was still "you need to show me the math for what
| that equates to". "No, that amounts to incriminating self,
| and is, bluntly, not my responsibility. You need to assert
| how you came to the number you are claiming in the charge."
| alistairSH wrote:
| Our justice system isn't supposed to require evidence of
| innocence.
| knodi123 wrote:
| There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and
| a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen
| disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony
| convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's
| murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2),
| burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and
| unlawful use of a weapon.
|
| Now, as to whether this evidence is solid enough for a death
| penalty conviction, that's tougher to say. But there's plenty
| of evidence.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > _There 's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his
| girlfriend, and a cellmate._
|
| Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people
| _claim_ that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more
| context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he
| confessed" part:
|
| > _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.
| Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior
| statements, with each other's accounts, and with the crime
| scene evidence, and none of the information they provided
| could be independently verified._
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Someone who is incarcerated snitching on someone who's in
| there with them just screams "give me your cupcake or I'm
| gonna tell the cops you confessed to me". Williams was also
| a person who was black and Muslim so prejudice alone could
| have been a motivation
| kergonath wrote:
| People say stupid things all the time as well. It's not
| inconceivable to brag about something that's not true
| either as an act of defiance or for social reasons such
| as to get some respect, look important, or to be left
| alone.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Right, these types of hearsay are only useful if they can
| lead investigators to more evidence that is actually
| supported by a solid source/chain-of-legitimacy. So it
| can be valuable but probably shouldn't be submersible to
| court or at least the defense should really be able to
| lay into and tell the jury it is -highly- suspect.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > Both of these individuals were known fabricators
|
| Careful- it we're considering their history, then Mr
| Williams has a history of over a dozen counts of armed
| violence, burglary, robbery, and assault.
|
| > this is hearsay and not evidence
|
| Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified
| information that had not been publicized. And Asano refused
| a cash reward for relaying the confessions she had heard.
| Regardless,
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501
|
| > Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission
| in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by
| any person _to any other person_ without interrogation by
| anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave
| such confession was not under arrest or other detention
| atmavatar wrote:
| I would think the far more compelling detail is the one
| you overlooked:
|
| > Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior
| statements, with each other's accounts, and with the
| crime scene evidence, and none of the information they
| provided could be independently verified.
|
| Not only were the two known liars, but their accounts
| could not be verified, and they conflict with each other
| as well as the existing evidence. That seems enough
| reason to me to call their testimony into question.
|
| Also, I'm a little curious about your assertion:
|
| > Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified
| information that had not been publicized
|
| When TFA specifically included the following:
|
| > neither revealed any information that was not either
| included in media accounts about the case or already
| known to the police.
|
| That, coupled with the fact that apparently none of the
| evidence at the scene was linked to Marcellus Williams
| makes me wonder how he was ever convicted in the first
| place. If we can take TFA at its word, the whole thing
| smells wrong.
| knodi123 wrote:
| TFA is published by The Innocence Project, which
| obviously only presents one side of the story.
|
| I was also using a statement from the governor,
|
| https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-
| carry-o...
|
| who makes some assertions which contradict the innocence
| project's.
| randallsquared wrote:
| The quote
|
| > neither revealed any information that was not either
| included in media accounts about the case or already
| known to the police.
|
| from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to
| imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while
| still leaving open that they provided information that
| the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Careful- it we're considering their history, then Mr
| Williams has a history of over a dozen counts of armed
| violence, burglary, robbery, and assault.
|
| This is all superfluous to the question of the
| credibility of the two witnesses. It isn't about being
| "fair" and treating Williams and the two witnesses the
| same -- one is on trial, the others are not.
| soerxpso wrote:
| > Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence.
|
| You're mistaken. There are many exceptions to the
| evidentiary rules against hearsay in the US, and one of the
| more common exceptions is a statement made by the opposing
| party (i.e. while the prosecution is questioning a witness,
| a statement made by the defendant to that witness) (Rule
| 801(d)(2)). It's evidence.
|
| Your issues with the credibility of those witnesses are
| valid, and the defense had the opportunity to bring those
| issues up at trial (that's why we have jury trials and why
| you have a right to defend yourself at your jury trial).
| They certainly weren't the only pieces of evidence against
| him (there's _a lot_ ), and I'm sure the jury considered
| that.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| There was also a $10,000 reward for information which
| easily could have incentivized them to provide false
| testimony
| knodi123 wrote:
| According to the governor,
|
| > The girlfriend never requested the reward for
| information about Ms. Gayle's murder, despite claims that
| she was only interested in money.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It's not hearsay to go to the witness stand and say the
| defendant told you something. That defendant is there in
| court and is able to defend themselves.
| klyrs wrote:
| That's literally the definition of hearsay.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
| jkhdigital wrote:
| ...did you read the link you just posted? If the person
| whose words are being presented as evidence is _available
| for cross-examination_ then (legally) it's not hearsay.
| The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so
| any statement they make out of court is never hearsay.
| lazy_moderator1 wrote:
| from the article :)
|
| > if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the
| answer is hearsay
| TZubiri wrote:
| >Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence.
|
| I think you are out of your element. To my understanding
| hearsay refers to a claim made by someone not in court. In
| this case the girlfriend and jailmate were called as
| witnesses and gave testimony in court.
|
| Witnesses are evidence and they are one of the oldest forms
| of evidence, your view that evidence is only material is a
| gross misunderstanding of trial procedures.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| As stated in the article written by the legal scholars at the
| Innocence Project:
|
| > "There is no reliable evidence proving that Marcellus
| Williams committed the crime for which he is scheduled to be
| executed on Sept. 24. 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."
|
| DNA evidence is based on proven science, and the DNA evidence
| that was not destroyed by the state is _exculpatory_.
| makomk wrote:
| As far as I can tell, this isn't actually true: "the DNA
| evidence that was not destroyed by the state is
| exculpatory". The Innocence Project are being very careful
| with their wording here. Initially, they relied on trace
| DNA on the knife that didn't match the accused murderer,
| but that ended up being from someone in the prosecutor's
| office handling it _after_ it had been processed for
| forensic evidence. Then they tried to argue that this
| showed the state had destroyed evidence which would 've
| proved his innocence, but the courts didn't buy it because
| all available evidence suggests the killer's DNA was simply
| never on the knife. (Which isn't that surprising - DNA
| evidence isn't perfect and gloves exist.) The other
| "forensic crime scene evidence" seems to be hothingburgers
| like a few non-matching hairs in a house that'd had a large
| number of people going in and out in the recent past.
| rysertio wrote:
| DNA evidence is where it's hard to get a false negative
| then false positive.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| It's sad to me that the Innocence Project, instead of being
| a neutral third party investigating and then pushing back
| against wrongful convictions, have just become an all out
| 'stop the death penalty' advocacy group.
|
| Ultimately I think this undermines their cause and hurts
| their ability to save truly innocent people.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _But there 's plenty of evidence._
|
| Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case.
|
| But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly
| _not_ evidence.
|
| Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the
| broader argument you are trying to make here.
| virissimo wrote:
| Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because
| they provide information that could update one's belief
| about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a
| crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many
| jurisdictions).
| sam1r wrote:
| >>> He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to
| offenses
|
| I wish this would be the top snippet on the comments. After
| reading this, there is no more left for me to read on this
| topic.
|
| Thank you.
| olivermuty wrote:
| It doesn't say in the article, but he was executed last night :(
| yapyap wrote:
| Thank you, was looking for this info since they did mention the
| 24th but hadn't said if they really went through with it or
| not.
|
| Sad shit, just as sad is the fact that it seems like nothing
| will change.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Why the frowny face? He very likely did it.
|
| The question isn't that.
|
| It's "ok, so he likely did it according to the evidence and
| testimony, but the state doesn't have quite the level evidence
| to prove it to the degree we should require for the death
| penalty".
|
| No one serious that is familiar with the facts was talking
| about letting him out of jail.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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/S135917891...
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Murder as part of a burglary or other monetary crime seems
| more likely to be linked to sociopathy than the entire range
| of reasons people murder.
| tokai wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Thanks for posting this, the quoted text smelled like
| something pulled out of... the air.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| blcknight wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US
| Supreme Court decision that supports it.
| kergonath wrote:
| I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence,
| but both courts are highly suspect these days.
| nemo44x wrote:
| 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.
| sophacles wrote:
| > and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be
| clearly apparent
|
| Not really - the legal discovery rules require full
| disclosure of all evidence, yet you regularly hear about
| how prosecutors don't disclose evidence. Sometimes the
| appeals process will grant a new trial, sometimes they
| overturn, but often the judges will just say "we're not
| going to bother worrying about the lack of a fair trial".
| It happens often enough that prosecutors are willing to
| take the gamble on it, otherwise it wouldn't continue to
| be a common news story.
| jmclnx wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| IIRC, they declined to hear the case.
|
| https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/09/supreme-court-allows-
| marc...
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| If prosecutors are going to be biased either way, I'd prefer
| a choice in those biases.
| sofixa wrote:
| I'd prefer them to not have biases, to be criticised when
| they do, and not to be incentivised (reelection) to proudly
| show them.
| nyeah wrote:
| "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.
| dbrans wrote:
| Marcellus Williams was executed yesterday, Tuesday.
| https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-will...
| frontalier wrote:
| don't you mean murdered?
| knodi123 wrote:
| an unlawful killing? well that's an uphill battle, but I'll
| be intrigued to see how far you can get with your claim.
| Palpatineli wrote:
| No because he was lawfully trialed and convicted. The title
| article is lying.
| pirate787 wrote:
| The governor's statement: https://governor.mo.gov/press-
| releases/archive/state-carry-o...
| spacechild1 wrote:
| There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!
| louwrentius wrote:
| To me the definition of a 'civilized society' is an absence of
| the death penalty.
|
| Many people are also very confused about the justice system in
| America. It isn't about determining the truth. It's about
| trying to get you convicted, to advance the career of the
| prosecutor.
|
| In that sense, the 'justice department' is anything but. The
| 'innocence project[0]' has shown time and time again that truth
| finding isn't the goal.
|
| In the mean time, study after study shows that the death
| penalty doesn't deter people from crime and it's much more
| expensive than long prison sentences.
|
| However, a strong reason not to execute people, is
| acknowledging that the 'justice system' is made of people who
| can make mistakes and that we can never be _that_ certain.
|
| Instating the death penalty shows a lack of humility and shows
| that it's absolutism is mostly for political gain. It scores
| with more authoritarian inclined voters who like 'simple
| solutions' and ignore all the complicated context.
|
| [0]: https://innocenceproject.org
| nomilk wrote:
| <thought experiment> 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.
| atoav wrote:
| You assume that the laws are flawless. They are not. It is
| hard to un-kill a person if you realize a law was bogus.
|
| The first law I would introduce would be that the death
| sentance only applies to people who demanded it publically
| before.
| StockHuman wrote:
| In such a world (which is, by any means likely ever to be
| available, impossible), we'd still run against the issue that
| the state has the authority to kill people. This world would
| also have to be free of political corruption, and be so
| politically stable that what constitutes a crime worthy of
| the death penalty could never change.
| rwmj wrote:
| If I could fly by flapping my arms, I wouldn't need
| airplanes.
| aqme28 wrote:
| What's the point of this analogy? We can't know 100% so it
| doesn't matter.
| tempfile wrote:
| The point is to distinguish between an act that is immoral
| in and of itself and one that is immoral because we aren't
| sufficiently smart/honorable/efficient. This informs the
| argument - in the latter case killing could be permissible
| if only we become more advanced - in the former case it
| would never be permissible.
| gizajob wrote:
| 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.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| In that case, would a civilised country have a military?
| Any military operations is state sanctioned killings.
| bbor wrote:
| I love the moral direction, but this sadly doesn't hold up
| to philosophical scrutiny. Is it murder to
|
| 1. Kill someone who's about to kill someone?
|
| 2. Kill someone in a defensive war to defend your freedoms?
|
| 3. Kill someone by prioritizing things other than their
| medical care, eg in hospice?
|
| 4. Kill someone by letting them smoke/drink/overeat?
|
| 5. Kill someone by letting them starve?
|
| If you want to say that no country is civilized yet then
| hey I'm with ya. Otherwise, it's not quite so simple. The
| death penalty is a tragic injustice, I agree, but just
| saying "it's murder" is not a serious engagement with the
| issue IMO.
| tempfile wrote:
| No. Murder is not the same as killing, just like not all
| taking is stealing. Even the most civilised society
| imaginable admits that killing is sometimes acceptable (in
| self defense, for example). Killing done by the state is
| trivially not murder by definition, and less trivially
| there are justifications you can argue about. But you have
| to argue about it, your "simple logic" is unfortunately too
| simple.
| gizajob wrote:
| You're right that it is too simple, but it's an easy rule
| of thumb with which to think about and frame the problem.
|
| If it's illegal to kill a human being, then it's illegal.
| The existence of a death penalty where the state is able
| to do it in certain cases, as in the main case where
| someone themselves has broken the rule and murdered, for
| me, still does not justify any kind of legalistic
| justification for sanctioning they be killed. While "the
| state" is this abstract entity formed by all of us, the
| state has to act through people, who then have to be
| involved in taking a life. The state's premeditation of
| the killing of the murderer is even more premeditated and
| drawn out form of murder. It's easy to be blinded by the
| language used around this towards what is happening. I
| believe even further that if the state is allowed to do
| it, it opens a loophole in thought that could actually
| cause more murders to happen, because if the state can do
| it, then maybe I'll do it too...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| This goes much further into philosophy, politics, and
| legality than I'm comfortable with but there's lawful and
| unlawful killing, the difference being... well, one is
| allowed and the other isn't, as per the law (be it national
| or e.g. international / warfare laws).
|
| I can't even make a statement whether killing is always
| morally injustifiable or not.
| sparrish wrote:
| By this logic, holding someone against their will is
| illegal too. When a state does it, we call it
| incarceration. Is it wrong for the state to sanction
| incarcerating someone?
| colinb wrote:
| 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.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Hanging? Why not shoot on sight, like the second amendment
| absolutionists/extremists think is the way to go?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Plus what of the potential profit? The guilty person could
| be a teenager making a silly mistake who could grow up to
| become the next Einstein. Insert Bill Gates' mugshot here,
| who is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs and
| bringing billions into the US / worldwide economy.
|
| But he was guilty and it would probably have been better to
| execute him because what if he did something else wrong?
| sparrish wrote:
| They don't give the death penalty to teenagers making
| 'silly mistake's. It's a sentence not handed out without
| weighty thought and only to those who knowingly and
| intentionally take life.
|
| I'm so tired of the "next Einstein" pithy replies. These
| are adults who have done heinous crimes against innocent
| people. Justice requires severe consequences.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > Curious to know if your views would change?
|
| It wouldn't. There are cases where we do know someone's guilt
| with 100% confidence, but in my country we still don't
| execute them.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Guilt or innocence is irrellevant to the discussion about
| whether the death penalty is justified though, for several
| reasons; it's binary thinking (there's a right and a wrong,
| there's good and bad people); it's dehumanizing (a bad person
| is forever bad and will forever be a burden to society); it's
| reductionist (a prisoner unit costs X per year at no benefit
| to society), etc. I don't know enough philosophy to list
| everything wrong with this premise.
|
| 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)?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| > Think hard about why someone commits a crime. What is
| their background, their circustances, and what would have
| prevented it from happenign.
|
| I think that the kind of crimes which lead to a death
| sentence happen because the perpetrator is a bad person who
| likes to hurt others. There's no "background" or
| "circumstances" that would make you break into a woman's
| house and stab her to death - to do such a thing, you have
| to either not know or not care that it's wrong.
|
| That doesn't by itself prove that the death penalty is
| right, or even that people who commit these kind of murders
| can never be rehabilitated. But it's really disturbing to
| me how often people whitewash the specific crimes death row
| inmates are accused of, as though we're all a couple missed
| paychecks away from randomly murdering people.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| Suppose we could see everything that happened in the past,
| perfectly, and see in to the minds of everyone. We could save
| dollars!
| ctxc wrote:
| I believe there are heinous crimes that do. Both fitting the
| crime and as a deterrent.
| bmicraft wrote:
| > as a deterrent
|
| Do you have any sources supporting the claim that does
| actually deter anybody?
| tristan957 wrote:
| The US has more violent crime than other Western countries,
| so as a deterrent, it does not work. Perhaps instead of
| wasting money on death penalty appeals and killing innocent
| people, we should think about how we as a country can
| overhaul the prison system and our societal structures.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| That logic doesn't follow, because it could be the case
| that America would be even more violent if we didn't
| execute people. Having said that, I find the deterrence
| angle suspect. Very few people would consider spending the
| rest of their life in jail acceptable, but being put to
| death unacceptable.
| dawnerd wrote:
| For profit prisons are not helping anything. They have zero
| interest in rehab and reformation - and unfortunately a lot
| of people in the states and beyond believe once you're a
| criminal you're tarnished forever.
| n1b0m wrote:
| There was another execution in South Carolina on Friday despite
| new evidence of innocence
|
| https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-caroli...
| ruph123 wrote:
| That case is even worse as it rested fully on the testimony of
| the other robber, which he made to get a lesser sentence and
| later rescinded:
|
| > Prosecutors had no forensic evidence connecting Allah to the
| shooting. Surveillance footage at the store showed two masked
| men with guns, but they were not identifiable. The state's case
| rested on testimony from Allah's friend and co-defendant,
| Steven Golden, who was also charged in the robbery and murder.
| As their joint trial was beginning, Golden pleaded guilty to
| murder, armed robbery and criminal conspiracy and agreed to
| testify against Allah. Golden, who was 18 at the time of the
| robbery, said Allah shot Graves.
| jmyeet wrote:
| If you're wondering if the Missouri governor Mike Parson
| sparingly uses his clemency and pardon power, you'd be mistaken
| [1]:
|
| > Parson, a former sheriff, has now granted clemency to more than
| 760 people since 2020 -- more than any Missouri governor since
| the 1940s
|
| including those who waved guns at BLM protestors [2] and the son
| of the KC Chiefs coach who caused grave bodiy injuries to someone
| in a DUI.
|
| Available data shows a pretty clear trend [3]:
|
| > An analysis of available demographic data conducted by the
| Missouri News Network indicates that almost 90% of those who have
| been granted clemency by the governor are white.
|
| If you're wondering where the US Supreme Court stands on this,
| consider this quote from then-Justice Antonin Scalia [4]:
|
| > [t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the
| execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair
| trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is
| 'actually' innocent.
|
| Also, consider this racial bias demonstrated in the exoneration
| for those sentence to death [5]:
|
| > Since 1973, at least 189 people wrongly convicted and sentenced
| to death have been exonerated. 100 of the death row exonerees are
| Black.
|
| Lastly, even if you want to ignore the immorality of the death
| setnence, look at it from the lens of cost [6]. Death penalty
| cases are substantially more expensive to litigate and death row
| inmates are substantially more expensive to incarcerate. A life-
| without-parole would be substantially cheaper.
|
| Also, you can release someone from prison wrongly convicted. You
| cannot bring them back to life and there are multiple cases of
| people who were executed and later exonerated. Williams is sadly
| added to that list.
|
| [1]: https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-britt-reid-
| com...
|
| [2]: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024446351/missouris-
| governor...
|
| [3]:
| https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/governors...
|
| [4]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/associate-justice-
| anton...
|
| [5]: https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/death-row-usa/
|
| [6]: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-
| penalt...
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > "The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to
| live," the petition stated. "Marcellus' execution is not
| necessary."
|
| Imagine we lived in that world.
| BostonFern wrote:
| From CNN:
|
| "Other evidence that helped convict Williams 'remains intact,'
| the attorney general said.
|
| 'The victim's personal items were found in Williams's car after
| the murder. A witness testified that Williams had sold the
| victim's laptop to him. Williams confessed to his girlfriend and
| an inmate in the St. Louis City Jail, and William's girlfriend
| saw him dispose of the bloody clothes worn during the murder,'
| the attorney general's office said."
|
| https://lite.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedu...
| TrackerFF wrote:
| 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 reasonable doubt in the
| picture.
|
| (FWIW, I completely oppose the death penalty - on the grounds
| that innocent people have been executed. One is one too many)
| voisin wrote:
| The argument is that the girlfriend and jailhouse snitch both
| were looking to get the $10k reward money for his conviction.
| And that's the only way the third point (had the items in the
| car) was known (from the girlfriend).
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| No, they knew the items were in the car because they searched
| his car and found the items. He has not, as far as I know,
| offered any alternative explanation of how he came into
| possession of a murder victim's random personal items.
| EasyMark wrote:
| This is exactly what I would focus on as a juror. How did
| he come by the items, surely if someone sold them to him he
| would say immediately who that was or offer some other way
| of getting it other than "I murdered her"
| slibhb wrote:
| That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| For a civil case, probably. But for a criminal case, the
| threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plenty of reasonable
| doubt in there.
| ImJamal wrote:
| How is there doubt unless he could provide an explanation
| of how he had the victim's property? Items don't just
| magically appear in your possession.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything.
| The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of
| property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial
| evidence. He might have come across the property, he
| might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand
| what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?
| alistairSH wrote:
| That's not the way our justice system is supposed to
| work. We don't require proof of innocence. We require (or
| are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt
| of guilt.
|
| Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a
| reasonable doubt of murder.
| sparrish wrote:
| I agree. In possession of the stolen items and 2 witnesses
| that he confessed to the robbery and murder would be enough
| for me as a juror. Apparently it was enough for the 12 jurors
| on his trial as well. Lawfully convicted and sentenced.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| Sentencing a man to death when there is reasonable doubt of
| his guilt is a miscarriage of justice.
|
| "A crime scene covered with forensic evidence contained no
| link to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams has been seeking to
| prove his innocence throughout the 23 years he has spent on
| Missouri's death row. On August 11, 1998, Felicia Gayle, a
| former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was found
| stabbed to death in her home. The perpetrator left behind
| considerable forensic evidence, including fingerprints,
| footprints, hair, and trace DNA on the murder weapon, a
| knife from Ms. Gayle's kitchen. _None_ of this forensic
| evidence matches Mr. Williams."
|
| https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-marcellus-williams-
| man-f...
| slibhb wrote:
| It's pure speculation that the partial DNA profile
| recovered years after the murder came from the murderer.
|
| The police recovered the murdered woman's property from
| his car. How did it get there? Either it was an elaborate
| frame-up or a career criminal murdered a woman and stole
| her property.
|
| You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA
| must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. But
| is it the case that DNA will always be found? I doubt it.
| To me, the detailed testimony of Williams' girlfriend
| combined with the dead woman's property in his car puts
| Williams' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm
| disappointed in The Innocence Project -- seems like a lot
| of spin in that link.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It seems strong enough to keep someone in jail, potentially
| forever.
|
| Executing him requires there's absolutely no room for a
| reversal, and from that point of view the evidence isn't that
| strong.
| nemothekid wrote:
| It's unfortunate that a lot of the messaging has shifted to
| he's innocent, where I believe the right message (and far
| less viral message), is the government has not shown enough
| evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is
| warranted. I don't believe in the death penalty because I
| don't think the state should have the authority to execute
| citizens and even moreso when a very high bar of culpability
| hasn't been reached.
|
| In this quest for vengeance I think people forget these rules
| are in place for the State to not abuse it's powers. I'm not
| against the death penalty because I'm a hippy vegan. I'm
| against it because I don't think it's a power the state
| should be able to wield.
| slibhb wrote:
| > I believe the right message (and far less viral message),
| is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a
| reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted.
|
| The jury makes that determination after being locked in a
| room and forced to hear both sides and all the evidence.
| How much of the evidence are you aware of? What The
| Innocence Project posted?
|
| This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty
| who don't think some guy should be executed. That's hardly
| a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence
| presented by the state.
| Eumenes wrote:
| I'm more annoyed that it took 25+ years to finish the job. How
| about fast and speedy trials? The dude murdered a poor woman in
| 1998 and the useless government paid for his
| food/healthcare/lodging for almost an entire working class
| persons career. We need to study Roman efficiency:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription
| kergonath wrote:
| I am... not sure that the successive versions of the ancient
| Roman society are a thing to emulate. Though I can see how a
| society in a state of constant warfare for centuries and
| utterly dominated by an oligarchy completely divorced from
| reality could be appealing to some. Do you support political
| oponents being eaten by lions as well?
| Eumenes wrote:
| > Do you support political oponents being eaten by lions as
| well?
|
| No, leave the lions alone. What the Romans did to animals for
| entertainment was very cruel. And also expensive.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| Does anyone find it deeply disturbing that the justice system
| will just sit on its own hands when presented with new evidence?
| It seems like prosecutors are more interested in maintaining a hi
| conviction rate rather than seeking justice. Judges seem totally
| apathetic.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > when presented with new evidence?
|
| They weren't, for the record.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| In this case the prosecutor actively pushed against the
| execution, arguing that his guilt was no longer beyond a
| reasonable doubt.
|
| The blame for this lies squarely on the Missouri Supreme Court
| and Gov. Parson (who has never once granted clemency in a
| capital case).
| EasyMark wrote:
| As well as the US Supreme Court
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| For which the blame lays on former President Trump, who
| appointed 3 right-wing Justices. (And a little blame on RBG
| for not retiring under Obama)
|
| If I remember right, all Justices appointed by Democrat
| Presidents wanted to postpone execution.
|
| For which the blame lays in turn on the electoral college
| and voters:
|
| - "I don't like Hilary"
|
| - "Both sides are bad"
|
| - "I live in a swing state but don't feel like voting"
|
| - "None of this affects me so why bother voting"
|
| I'm on a bit of a tangent, but we lost Roe v. Wade because
| of Trump.
|
| https://www.vote.org/
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to
| instate abortion access in national law and declined to
| ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are
| true but downstream of that.
| snapcaster wrote:
| No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so
| useless at representing our interests they failed to ever
| pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans
| didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like
| democrats they followed a systematic approach to
| overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing
| except ask me for more money and continue to take L after
| L
| JohnMakin wrote:
| > Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for
| more money and continue to take L after L
|
| I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious -
| they used the _threat_ of things like roe v wade being
| overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to
| drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing
| themselves to never actually deal with that looming
| problem.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I
| don't agree with their positions on basically anything,
| the republican party appears to do a good job furthering
| the interests of their voters. I know they're less
| diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The filibuster makes this basically impossible to do
| without some degree of Republican support. Overturning
| the filibuster is problematic because Democrats either
| haven't had the votes to do so or it would have required
| the votes of moderates who want to use it for cover. The
| senate is so constructed that the senators voting can
| represent 2/3 of the population and not even have 50% of
| the votes in the senate.
|
| In the last 24 years the Democrats have had more than a
| bare majority in both house and senate while holding the
| presidency exactly 2 years between 2009-2011. The
| backlash for daring to do anything at all not lost them
| both and they haven't had this since.
| rendang wrote:
| Is there any good-faith argument that the text of the US
| Constitution requires a right to have an abortion? Was
| there any legal scholar alive before say, 1930, who
| argued that abortion restrictions were unconstitutional?
| trod123 wrote:
| Yes very disturbing, but not unexpected.This is the
| foundational nature of government, and why citizen's don't
| generally want big government.
|
| Government jobs inherently suffer from a number of structural
| issues. Both organizationally, as well as psychologically.
| Without a loss function, such as is required in business (where
| people get fired for lack of production and revenue dictates
| hiring), psychology changes in forever jobs.
|
| Social coercion and corruption occur commonly, and this grows
| with time trending towards negative production value and other
| forms of corruption. The nail that sticks out gets hammered
| down, best describes the former. Anyone doing too much work is
| making everyone else look bad and they need to be harassed and
| punished until they fall into line.
|
| The way the interlocking centralized systems operate, anyone
| working in any position backed by government would be
| incentivized to meet a classical definition of evil just to do
| their job, and the psychology tests often done select for
| complementary characteristics towards that.
|
| Sure they manage to catch some real bad guys occasionally, and
| there are rare people who take their job seriously; don't fall
| to corruption and stay on the straight and narrow; but these
| are the exceptions, and the ends don't justify the means when
| the person is innocent.
|
| The mechanics of just doing their job would almost certainly
| enable many acts of evil to be performed by them without them
| ever knowing, and information control makes them blind to it.
| They chose the job and that is part of the job so they
| willfully blinded themselves.
|
| This presents both ethical and moral paradoxes, with little
| penalty when they get it wrong after a certain point. Mistakes
| happen as everyone is fundamentally flawed (and not perfect),
| but when those mistakes aren't fixed because of structural
| issues; they become as they were incentivized to be; and the
| dead cannot be brought back to life.
|
| By Definition, Evil acts are destructive acts, Evil people are
| those who have willfully blinded themselves to the consequences
| of their evil acts (often through repeated acts of self-
| violation, such as falsely justifying the unjustifiable, and
| bearing false witness (storytelling a narrative when the
| evidence doesn't support it), etc.
|
| Regarding judges seeming apathetic, it is almost impossible to
| remove judges in most cases. Only judges can judge other
| judges, and there is a inherent old boys club. Only rarely for
| egregious misconduct do removals happen because if a judge is
| removed, all cases they presided over need to potentially be
| reviewed.
|
| There is incentive to never remove judges due to cost of
| mistakes, and for a similar reason judges rarely favor appeals
| because they would be overturning previous judges rulings.
|
| Needless to say, when innocent people are killed because judges
| didn't do their job, and they remain blind to that consequence
| with no resistance towards repeating it, they'll be in for one
| 'hell' of a surprise when they pass and find no pearly white
| gates waiting for them.
|
| Most truly evil people believe they are good.
|
| This drives home the importance of choosing your profession
| carefully and wisely because you spend the most time at it, and
| it changes you for good or worse.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US
| claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment.
| But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.
| jzackpete wrote:
| What does being Christian have to do with punishing convicted
| murderers
| anonzzzies wrote:
| That according to that fairytale thou shalt not kill, so if
| you believe that, how are you in favour of killing people?
| That is a task only for the lord, not for us humans.
|
| Not to mention often times convicted but actually innocent
| criminals, which must mean straight to hell (although murder
| of guilty also is straight to hell).
| jzackpete wrote:
| I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on
| their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
| anonzzzies wrote:
| I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an
| atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise
| and read in front of the class selected parts from the
| bible every day) and our flavour (which might be
| different from even others in the same branch) definitely
| has no tolerance for justified killing except by the
| lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified
| killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours
| told us.
|
| But point taken and people do and read into things
| whatever fits them.
| mrangle wrote:
| Biblical / religious semantics are most often layered
| with meaning, either via allegory or, in this case, lost
| in translation in terms of explicit definition. Which has
| multiple effects. It protects religious meaning from
| political pressure and corruption due to constant atheist
| and otherwise hostile commentary on a belief system that
| isn't theirs and that they don't understand. Therefore
| allowing it to survive. It causes manipulators and false
| teachers to stand out. In this case, the commandment is
| actually not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty, and
| in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it
| isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no
| actual conflict. The same type of nuance is applied to
| "neighbor", but also the more constrained meaning of that
| term is not hidden in the Bible whatsoever. In spite of
| what people have claimed throughout history due to
| inherited misinformation or to effect agendas.
| kergonath wrote:
| Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your
| neighbours, isn't it?
| edm0nd wrote:
| I dont think so really. The Crusades would have never
| happened if that were true.
| pirate787 wrote:
| The Crusades were a valid strategic response to the rise
| of Islam and the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the
| Christian middle east.
| ImJamal wrote:
| The crusades (at least the earlir ones) were primarily
| about protecting Christians who were being attacked and
| having their land taken by Muslims.
| swat535 wrote:
| Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness
| _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it
| doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you
| have been forgiven.
|
| Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's
| mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the
| definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in
| Christianity).
|
| Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also
| acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| "Your enemies are still your neighbors" is entirely
| consistent with those statements and in fact was how it
| was understood by the consensus mainstream of
| christianity until very recently, and is still how it is
| understood in most variants other than american
| protestantism.
| subsaharancoder wrote:
| I love my children and I forgive them when they do wrong,
| but there's always consequences for actions.
| tristan957 wrote:
| Nobody here is saying there shouldn't be consequences.
| Instead we are saying that every single person should
| have the right to seek forgiveness from their creator(s).
| If you execute someone before they have have made things
| right (or not), you are playing the role of God.
| subsaharancoder wrote:
| Everyone does have the right to seek forgiveness from
| God, and He does forgive "If we confess our sins, he is
| faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
| us from all unrighteousness"
| https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+John+1%3A9, but in the
| same breath human beings are subject to government and
| the rules that go with it because God has given that
| authority "Every person is to be in subjection to the
| governing authorities. For there is no authority except
| from God, and those which exist are established by God."
| https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Romans+13%3A1 If one
| willingly takes the life of an innocent human being with
| full knowledge that by that action they forfeit the right
| to live then it's a fitting consequence.
|
| "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be
| shed,For in the image of God He made man."
| https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Genesis+9%3A6
| zemo wrote:
| Christian is an umbrella term that describes many differing
| sets of beliefs. This is an oversimplification but
| Protestants for example believe in Sola Fide, the believe
| that salvation comes from faith alone
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide), whereas
| Catholics believe that salvation requires "good works", the
| sort of thing you're likely thinking of. So ... different
| groups hold differing sets of beliefs with regards to what
| loving your neighbor means and what is expected behavior.
| This is a huge oversimplification, the "Salvation in
| Christianity"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity)
| and "Good Works" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_works)
| pages can help orient (or disorient) you.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why did Jesus go into the temple and blow their shit up?
| Shouldn't he have forgiven the money changers and dove
| sellers?
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Lot's of people calling themselves Christian support Trump.
|
| I don't think you can deduce much about someone's character
| just because they go to church or call themselves
| religious.
| sophacles wrote:
| There was that time Jesus stepped in an prevented a
| completely legal death sentence from being carried out.
| drewrv wrote:
| Because their prophet was murdered by the state. It seems
| weird that a religion would be pro-execution when their
| founding was, in part, "innocent man was executed".
|
| I'm sure believers have jumped through the hoops required to
| justify it but from the outside, one would expect a country
| that is majority christian to oppose executions.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| A large part of the organized activism _against_ the death
| penalty is also run by christians, especially catholics and
| orthodox who are a lot more consistent on this.
|
| It's not the christianity per se that makes them bloodthirsty.
| Contemporary american evangelical christianity is a novel
| social-political-religious movement and in some theologically
| significant ways has broken with near-universal christian
| tradition. Trying to understand it purely as a religion is too
| incomplete.
| o11c wrote:
| As a serious Christian and a dabbling linguist, I really hate
| that they've ruined a word meaning "gospel" (the English
| calque).
|
| We really should call them "dysangelical" when they bring
| death like this (as opposed to _warning_ of death, which is
| in scope of euangel when there 's also a way to avoid it).
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Also, it's often the same people who claim to be "pro life".
| ImJamal wrote:
| It is pro innconcent life, not pro murderer life? Pro life
| and pro choice are just marketing terms. People who are pro-
| choice aren't pro not wearing a seat belt (well some may be,
| but it has nothing to do with the topic). It has to do with
| abortion and only abortion.
| kkfx wrote:
| To my European eye I'm curious why those who have ordered and
| those who have executed the wrongfully convicted prisoner,
| despite the evidence, are not arrested for aggravated murder...
| It's simple: they have choose, they are responsible for an
| homicide PERIOD.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in the USA, many
| innocent Americans have been executed by the state. There is a
| considerable literature of scholarly research documenting this
| issue. For those interested in learning more, I highly recommend
| the following books:
|
| 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...
| mykowebhn wrote:
| Why is this submission not on the front page if it has so many
| upvotes in the past hour, and the number of upvotes exceeds the
| number of comments?
| kergonath wrote:
| Probably too many comments. Too much activity compared to the
| number of votes is interpreted as a sign of flame wars and
| heated and unproductive discussions, and sink stories. This
| kind of topics don't stay on the front page for long, usually.
| shadowtree wrote:
| The hard, uncomfortable truth being of course that if society
| executed anyone committing violent crimes, the crime rate would
| massively go down.
|
| A tiny fraction of people commit most crimes.
|
| Prevention, rehabilitation are nice thoughts, that's all. But
| that feeling of guilt and being potentially seen as a bad person,
| prevents liberal societies dealing with crime (SF as ground zero
| for this)
|
| Math example 1: https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/irish-
| crime/decrease-in-le...
|
| Math example 2: https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/opinion/how-bail-
| reform-drove-...
| moomin wrote:
| Yes, if you make it legal to commit crimes like murder, the
| murder rate will hugely go down.
| nevercomingback wrote:
| I made this acount soley to say I'm never revisting this site due
| to the comments here. Is everyon here a deluded bleeding heart
| liberal? This guy is guilty as sin.
| CollinEMac wrote:
| Update: it's too late...
|
| > Marcellus Williams, whose murder conviction was questioned by a
| prosecutor, died by lethal injection Tuesday evening in Missouri
| after the US Supreme Court denied a stay.
|
| > The 55-year-old was put to death around 6 p.m. CT at the state
| prison in Bonne Terre.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedul...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-25 23:01 UTC)