Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jervill]

This was at the "Values Voters summit", which is the furthest right of the religious right in the United States, Santorum's line only scratches the surface of the insanity that went on down there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Alright, here's news:

There is an effort to mitigate the death sentence of Terry Williams.

Basic Story:
-Williams lured a known teen molester to believe they were going to have sex, and then murdered him. Very, very violently. 20 stab wounds and a baseball bat violently. For this he was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 27 years imprisonment.

-Six months after the first murder but before he was found out, Williams murdered Amos Norwood, a chemist and church volunteer. He stabbed and bludgeoned him to death, and then he set his corpse on fire. He proceeded to steal Norwood's credit cards and car and was caught not long after. Here's the kicker: Remember how Norwood was a church volunteer? You guessed it, Norwood molested Williams when he was 13. For this he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The jury was never told about Norwood and Williams' history, but upon finding out later all of them expressed that they would not have sentenced him to die if they had known.

-Williams' defense was found to be negligent by the state, but this does nothing to help him now.

-Williams has been granted a hearing to determine if the prosecution failed to disclose key evidence during his trial.

-A petition has been started to grant him clemency.

-Williams is scheduled to be executed on October 3rd.

[kaijyuu]

I don't feel he should be given any leniency based on his past. Vigilante justice isn't something to be supported or allowed; Batman is fake and for good reason.

However, I'm certainly anti giving him the death penalty, for the exact same reason I'm anti the child molester getting bludgeoned to death. Killing people isn't the way to solve problems.

[Leafsnail]

It's not the vigilante justice so much as it being revenge after years of abuse.  I know you don't understand the concept of mitigating factors but there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.

[darkrider2]

Finally, I can agree with Santorum on something.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/rick-santorum-says-smart-people-will-never-be-on

This reeks of satire 

To be fair, American politics are more absurd than satire. The truth is stranger than fiction.

This is exactly why I've been having trouble discerning satire news sites from real news sites since real politics are becoming suitably ridiculous.

[kaijyuu]

It's not the vigilante justice so much as it being revenge after years of abuse.

Honestly that's worse.

I know you don't understand the concept of mitigating factors but there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.

Fair 'nough.

[darkrider2]

Was Amos prosecuted for the molestation (before his death)?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not that I know of.

[kaijyuu]

Makes me wonder what prevented that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think anyone knew about it until after he was dead. If they did, it was probably because he was involved with the church. They've been protecting child molesters for a long time, as was discovered over the past 20 years.

[palsch]

OK, everyone here knows I oppose the death penalty in all cases, including this one, right?

...there were mitigating factors that the jury were not informed about.

Which may not have been relevant to the jury in this case.

It depends on specific state law, but such mitigation is only rarely relevant to a defence. I only found this cartoon today but it's already useful here.

In general for provocation to be a defence for a murder the murder needs to be committed in the heat of the passion invoked by that provocation, as judged by some hypothetical 'reasonable person' (in reality, a juror trying to pretend they are a rational person). In this case the murder was years after the fact, so a 'heat of the moment' case is hard to make. I'd say that the murder being premeditated, with the planning and execution of the crime taking place long beyond any temporary loss of reason, would destroy such a defence regardless.

A justification defence is even harder to make, and pretty much demands that the harm being prevented is a) immediate, b) only prevented by the actions, and c) to prevent a harm greater than that caused by the actions. Given that the killing of an individual outside of extreme circumstances is always seen as a great harm, it's nearly impossible to justify killing someone under US law, outside immediate self defence or it's sometimes subverted cousins.

I'd actually guess that his being molested in the past would only be relevant in terms of sentencing, not guilt. Again, how this would come into it depends on the state and it may be that even then it isn't sufficient for mitigation. But certainly, given how the molestation was completely irrelevant to the question of his guilt, I would not expect the jury to be informed of it. It's outside their need to know and may colour their ability to accurately judge the relevant points of law.

On the other hand, Wikipedia suggests the jury called for the death penalty, but the cited article is in French. Anyone got another source on that? If that is the case then I'd guess it was the lack of the molestation being brought up that put him on death row, but that's very hard to appeal. Bringing the molestation up during trial shouldn't have changed the finding of his guilt, but may (depending on the jury, I'd say that is would or at least should) have changed his sentence.

I'd say a crystal clear case to commute the sentence, especially given the range of voices calling for such action.

[Leafsnail]

Huh?  I'm not saying he's innocent of murder (all sides agree he is guilty), rather that the people who gave him the sentence (the jury) were not given information vital to deciding whether he should receive that sentence.

I'm pretty sure the jury decides on that matter in Pennsylvania.  At least if articles like this are any indication:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/jury-gives-death-penalty-pa-torture-killing
e: other sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/31/melvin-knight-trial-death-penalty-pennsylvania-man-guilty-torture-killing_n_1846134.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSZFVoYwut4

The practice of juries having to at least recommend a death penalty seems to be standard for America, but I can't find the specific laws pertaining to it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My understanding is that only a jury is capable of sentencing someone to death, not a judge. In death penalty cases, first the jury determines guilt, and if found guilty if they should be executed. Both decisions have to be unanimous. Unfortunately, the law requires that all jurors in death penalty cases legally affirm a willingness to sentence someone to death before they are allowed onto the jury, so getting that unanimous vote isn't very hard.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah that seems like a great way to horribly bias the jury.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's one of the prime reasons that the death penalty is almost certainly on its way out in the US. The courts have tried their hardest to balance and objectify it since it was re-instated, and have failed miserably. Quantifiers and stipulations have been piled onto the death penalty so much that it is an entirely different kind of trial from every other criminal trial now, and it still doesn't get enforced well. I'm sure Truean could tell us much more on that, though I don't think she's ever mentioned defending in a death penalty case. Eventually the courts are just going to start ruling that the system had its chance and demonstrated that it cannot handle the death penalty in a constitutional manner at all.