Missouri executes a man for the 1998 killing of a woman despite her family’s calls to spare his life

[Stevicus]

Missouri executes a man for the 1998 killing of a woman despite her family’s calls to spare his life

A Missouri man has been executed for the 1998 fatal stabbing of a woman despite calls by her family and the prosecutor’s office that put him on death row to let him serve out the rest of his life in prison.

apnews.com

The victim's family even wanted him to live. There's a chance he could have been innocent.

Williams was put to death despite questions his attorneys raised over jury selection at his trial and the handling of evidence in the case. His clemency petition focused heavily on how Gayle’s relatives wanted Williams’ sentence commuted to life without the possibility of parole.

“The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.”

The Department of Corrections released a brief statement that Williams had written ahead of time, saying: “All Praise Be to Allah In Every Situation!!!”

Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said he hoped the execution brings finality to a case that “languished for decades, revictimizing Ms. Gayle’s family over and over again.”

“No juror nor judge has ever found Williams’ innocence claim to be credible,” Parson said in a statement.

The NAACP had been among those urging Parson to cancel the execution.

“Tonight, Missouri lynched another innocent Black man,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement.

The Innocence Project also had page on this, with information as to why they believe he might be innocent: Man Faces Execution on Sept. 24 Despite Evidence of Innocence

- A crime scene covered with forensic evidence contained no link to Mr. Williams.

- The prosecution’s case against Mr. Williams was based entirely on the unreliable testimony of two incentivized witnesses.

- Mr. Williams has repeatedly faced imminent execution as he has tried to prove his innocence.

- Although the victim’s family opposes Mr. Williams’ execution, the Missouri Attorney General has continued to fight to execute him.

- Incentivized informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

- Racial bias contributed to Mr. Williams’ wrongful conviction.

- Mr. Williams is devoutly religious and an accomplished poet.

There was a deal which had been made between the prosecutor and Williams' attorneys, and the victim's family also gave their blessing to it, but Missouri's State Attorney General appealed to the State Supreme Court which struck it down.

The original case was based on the testimony of two witnesses, the defendant's girlfriend and a former cellmate, both of whom seem unreliable.

Authorities said Williams stole a jacket to conceal blood on his shirt. His girlfriend asked him why he would wear a jacket on a hot day. She said she later saw the purse and laptop in his car and that Williams sold the computer a day or two later.

Prosecutors also cited testimony from Henry Cole, who shared a cell with Williams in 1999 while Williams was jailed on unrelated charges. Cole told prosecutors that Williams confessed to the killing and provided details about it.

Williams’ attorneys responded that the girlfriend and Cole were both convicted of felonies and wanted a $10,000 reward. They said that fingerprints, a bloody shoeprint, hair and other evidence at the crime scene didn’t match Williams’.

Without DNA evidence pointing to any alternative suspect, Midwest Innocence Project attorneys reached a compromise with the prosecutor’s office: Williams would enter a new, no-contest plea to first-degree murder in exchange for a new sentence of life in prison without parole. A no-contest plea isn’t an admission of guilt but is treated as such for the purpose of sentencing.

Judge Bruce Hilton signed off, as did Gayle’s family. But Bailey appealed, and the state Supreme Court blocked the agreement and ordered Hilton to proceed with an evidentiary hearing, which took place last month.

Hilton ruled on Sept. 12 that the first-degree murder conviction and death sentence would stand, noting that Williams’ arguments all had been previously rejected. That decision was upheld Monday by the state Supreme Court.

That's what makes no sense. If the physical evidence was tainted and didn't even match the defendant, then it seems they're basing the conviction solely on the testimony of two flaky incentivized witnesses. The Innocence Project notes incentivized jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions:

In capital cases, false testimony from incentivized witnesses is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, with informant testimony present in 49.5% of wrongful convictions since the mid-1970s, according to the Center on Wrongful Convictions.

It was also reported that there was only one black juror in the trial, and six of seven potential black jurors were struck by the prosecutor. There are also allegations of racial bias in this case.

So, now he's dead, and I guess we'll never know if he ever was innocent or guilty.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Another case on a long list of examples as to why the death penalty is both unnecessary and an affront to human decency.

 

[anomaly]

Life in prison is a harsh enough punishment in my opinion.

 

[anotherneil]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for any crime that doesn't involve directly and intentionally killing someone.

I'm not completely opposed to the death penalty, because there's an irrefutable way to avoid being executed, which is by simply not committing a capital crime.

 

[anna.]

I'm not completely opposed to the death penalty, because there's an irrefutable way to avoid being executed, which is by simply not committing a capital crime.

And what if Marcellus Williams didn't commit a capital crime?

 

[Revoltingest]

Another case on a long list of examples as to why the death penalty is both unnecessary and an affront to human decency.

I don't see it as an affront to decency.
Just a sentence that can't be reversed or compensated for after it's executed.
The system is too error prone & corrupt for such irreversibility.
And the death penalty offers no tangible benefit...& it's expensive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't see it as an affront to decency.
Just a sentence that can't be reversed or compensated for after it's executed.
The system is too error prone & corrupt for such irreversibility.

Well, when a human life is taken based on a wrong conviction, I think that amounts to murder, which I think is an affront to decency. Even for confirmed convictions, the death penalty seems to me an overreach in that it gives authorities the ability to take someone's life. That's too much power to give anyone except in absolute self-defense, which doesn't apply when there's evidence that the death penalty is far less effective as a deterrent than rehabilitation and imprisonment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, when a human life is taken based on a wrong conviction, I think that amounts to murder, which I think is an affront to decency.

I agree.
But fundamentally, executing the worst criminals
when there's no error doesn't bother me.

 

[Pogo]

And what if Marcellus Williams didn't commit a capital crime?

OOPs, so much for that logic.

 

[PureX]

Missouri executes a man for the 1998 killing of a woman despite her family’s calls to spare his life

A Missouri man has been executed for the 1998 fatal stabbing of a woman despite calls by her family and the prosecutor’s office that put him on death row to let him serve out the rest of his life in prison.

apnews.com

The victim's family even wanted him to live. There's a chance he could have been innocent.





The Innocence Project also had page on this, with information as to why they believe he might be innocent: Man Faces Execution on Sept. 24 Despite Evidence of Innocence



There was a deal which had been made between the prosecutor and Williams' attorneys, and the victim's family also gave their blessing to it, but Missouri's State Attorney General appealed to the State Supreme Court which struck it down.

The original case was based on the testimony of two witnesses, the defendant's girlfriend and a former cellmate, both of whom seem unreliable.







That's what makes no sense. If the physical evidence was tainted and didn't even match the defendant, then it seems they're basing the conviction solely on the testimony of two flaky incentivized witnesses. The Innocence Project notes incentivized jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions:



It was also reported that there was only one black juror in the trial, and six of seven potential black jurors were struck by the prosecutor. There are also allegations of racial bias in this case.

So, now he's dead, and I guess we'll never know if he ever was innocent or guilty.

No forgiveness on the Bible Belt.

 

[anna.]

I agree.
But fundamentally, executing the worst criminals
when there's no error doesn't bother me.

The system is fundamentally flawed.

Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death, is racially biased, and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.

Evidence Does Not Support the Use of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment must come to an end. It does not deter crime, is not humane and has no moral or medical basis

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[anna.]

No forgiveness on the Bible Belt.

Biblical orthodoxy without compassion is surely the ugliest thing in the world.
--Francis Schaeffer

 

[Stonetree]

I don't see it as an affront to decency.
Just a sentence that can't be reversed or compensated for after it's executed.
The system is too error prone & corrupt for such irreversibility.
And the death penalty offers no tangible benefit...& it's expensive.

If an assailant is subdued by a citizen, the citizen has no right to use deadly force. The state should respect the same restriction.

 

[Balthazzar]

I can't recall ever supporting capital punishment. That's one side of my personality, at least when it comes to our judiciary and penal systems. The other side demands accountability and understands the extraordinary emotional disturbance necessitating some sort of wrath or vengeance. It's difficult to see past our "bars of rage" sometimes. I think this is simply a fact of life and I think for most everyone. The issue I have with capital punishment is I feel as if it's a blot on our character as a nation who allows it. The flip side, is those holding the grudges who would be far less merciful. I must accept it. I don't like it, but I do understand it - to some extent. I hope to never know the full measure of that understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

If an assailant is subdued by a citizen, the citizen has no right to use deadly force.

Not so here.
Deadly force is allowed in self defense.
But not once an assailant is subdued.

 

[Stevicus]

Another case on a long list of examples as to why the death penalty is both unnecessary and an affront to human decency.

There were definite trends against the death penalty in the U.S. for quite a number of years, and numerous states still prohibit the death penalty. For a few years in the 1970s, it seemed as if the death penalty was a thing of the past, but then it got reinstated and expanded.

Crime was pretty high back in those years, and I've known more than a few people who wanted to bring back public hanging. Unfortunately, there are too many people who seem to be rather bloodthirsty. They'll say that it's all about "justice" and that the guilty must suffer. They've also been led to believe that our system is nearly foolproof, that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Kids learn this stuff in school even before they stop believing in Santa Claus. So, it's permanently imprinted on people's consciousness that if a person is convicted in a court of law, they therefore must be considered proven guilty and subject to punishment, as if it's some kind of commandment from God.

Well, sure, if a lawyer or judge says it, then we know it must be true.

 

[Stonetree]

Not so here.
Deadly force is allowed in self defense.
But not once an assailant is subdued.

I am stating the same. After the attacker has been subdued, deadly force becomes execution. The word, "irreversible", is very important to my way of thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am stating the same. After the attacker has been subdued, deadly force becomes execution. The word, "irreversible", is very important to my way of thinking.

OK.

 

[Balthazzar]

There were definite trends against the death penalty in the U.S. for quite a number of years, and numerous states still prohibit the death penalty. For a few years in the 1970s, it seemed as if the death penalty was a thing of the past, but then it got reinstated and expanded.

Crime was pretty high back in those years, and I've known more than a few people who wanted to bring back public hanging. Unfortunately, there are too many people who seem to be rather bloodthirsty. They'll say that it's all about "justice" and that the guilty must suffer. They've also been led to believe that our system is nearly foolproof, that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Kids learn this stuff in school even before they stop believing in Santa Claus. So, it's permanently imprinted on people's consciousness that if a person is convicted in a court of law, they therefore must be considered proven guilty and subject to punishment, as if it's some kind of commandment from God.

Well, sure, if a lawyer or judge says it, then we know it must be true.

The fact that jailtime is mandated before the proven guilty plays out, alludes to a very different reality than what is given to us as a conditioning premise. It's the Salem witch trials revisited, or maybe they never ended, and we haven't found a better way to tackle the issues of law and order, justice and accountability. Hearsay is just that until proven true, but hearsay is able to enrage a non-knower to wrathful action, so we end up with some convoluted justification for the imprisonment before proven guilty plays out. It's insinuated, people aren't so quick to let it go until it it's proven. We need accountability and some sort of penance, even after the time already served by both guilty and/or innocent alike. Those proven innocent get punished anyway, but is this ever truly applied to the guilty as adequate penalty? Our solution? More severe penalty for the crime an innocent person would be forced to endure for being viewed guilty and punished before being proven innocent and released from part of the penalty itself. Compensation for the innocent for damage done? Here, have some money.

It would be better to decrease crime rates, so I would expect people to deal with their own people effectively enough to keep crime at a minimum. In a perfect world, eh? Not really, but people can be extremely stubborn, and life can be extremely difficult, and help isn't always granted when needed. Greed? Ooooh, some people are greedy selfish ******** and sometimes discipline is mandated by the powers that be. It's the hard way, but sometimes necessary. I still can't get on board with capital punishment and be ok with it in my heart. I understand it. I just don't like it. I don't like my vengeful side. I love my protective side, yet shudder at the thought of ever being required to apply it to this type of extreme.

Capital punishment was demanded with Jesus also, even after Pilate declared him innocent. Jesus was put through it anyway, counted among the dead, and placed in a cave where he emerged from his penalty a few days later. Some people aren't so graced, if a scenario like this can be counted as grace at all, given the severity of the penalty endured by him itself.

Answer? Grow a heart and love your neighbors. Easier said than done it seems, unfortunately.

This video speaks to me. Sometimes temperance is required to train our conduct.

 

[anotherneil]

And what if Marcellus Williams didn't commit a capital crime?

Well, he was convicted for a capital crime, but I was assuming that government isn't flawed and doesn't make mistakes.

As you are correctly pointing out, which is what I think you're trying to do, there's a possibility that he actually didn't commit the capital crime that he was arrested for, charged with, convicted of, and executed for; if this is the case, then it would mean that government is flawed and does make mistakes, making my assumption false.

In reality, government can be flawed and can make mistakes, and if Marcellus Williams actually didn't commit the capital crime that he was convicted of & executed for, then this means that the life of an innocent person was taken and cannot be brought back; yes, this would indeed be a problem, but we don't know for a fact that he actually didn't commit the capital crime.

Ideally, no one who's innocent would be convicted and executed for a capital crime, but since we don't live in an ideal world, we have to seriously consider suspending executions for capital crimes in order to avoid taking 2 innocent lives (i.e., the murder victim, and the individual who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to be executed).

I'm basically not opposed to suspending executions for the sake of avoiding taking 2 innocent lives, but in principle I'm not in favor of outright banning executions, either.

It's not just a matter of government being flawed and making mistakes at a basic level, it's also about the possibility of racial bias, as the article mentions.

BTW George Floyd's death is essentially another example of government being flawed and making mistakes, and possibly as a result of racial bias (hence the BLM protests); I consider George Floyd's death at the hands of police to be an infringement of his 5th Amendment right to not be deprived of life, without due process of law.

I think law enforcement infringes on this 5th Amendment constitutional right whenever they kill anyone, especially by using lethal force (e.g. shooting at them), and this is also an example of government being flawed and/or making mistakes.

At least in George Floyd's case, he, his family, and society received justice for his death at the hands of law enforcement.

When law enforcement takes the life of someone, and law enforcement doesn't face any consequences for that by being charged for murder or manslaughter, not only is it an infringement on the victim's 5th Amendment constitutional right not to be deprived of life without due process of law, it's also an injustice.

The fact that government is flawed and can make such mistakes is problematic and seems unsolvable, which means that there isn't a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that there aren't ways to mitigate it. We can't simply do away with government since it's necessary, but it's not necessary to make government bigger, and stronger, so we can mitigate the problem by keeping it as small and weak as possible, meaning without being nonexistent or too small and too weak.

This means that we're not going to mitigate this problematic situation if we don't put in the effort to vote for smaller government and encourage others to do the same, but being opposed to bigger and stronger government is not something I can make a case for to anyone who agrees (with the statement) that not committing a capital crime is an irrefutable way to avoid being executed, because they think that government isn't flawed and doesn't make mistakes.