I've spent a little time in prosecutors offices. That isn't really true. Just like defense attorneys don't always think their client is innocent. But prosecutors are certainly more likely to think a person is guilty incorrectly than a defense attorney. But when the prosecutor doesn't think the person is guilty, most of the time (in a good office) you'll never even see the case. So if you see a case at all, someone thinks they're guilty.
@@angelsenvy2282 Good point. But there is a nuance: I believe the way it works in those states is that many many real criminals never get charged in the first place, BUT if a normally law abiding citizen with a decent job is suspected of a crime, the prosecutor goes after them with a vengeance. Why does it work that way? I don't know; maybe because a person with a job stands out, or maybe it is because the prosecutor doesn't want to appear to be biased against people who are disadvantaged, or maybe it is simply because a person with a job is able to pay fines.
@@thatsreality5184 It is... The judge is the judicial branch. The prosecutor is the executive branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers...
I heard of a case years ago where a guy was convicted of murder but then later, they found the actual perpetrator. The perpetrator was then found guilty of the murder but the judge refused to vacate the original conviction. So there were two guys in prison for the same crime and it took years to get the innocent one out. Apparently common sense doesn't come into it. Once someone is found guilty, they can't get their sentence quashed simply because someone else has now been found to be the perpetrator.
I don't understand this. I know they want to make sure. They don't want to allow someone to purchase convictions and if a jury was able to convict someone then what did the defense screw up to not win? More, what did the court let in or not let in to convict an innocent person? The court failed and fails. The problem is that it is theater. The justice system needs people to believe that it is neutral, free, and fair when it is none of those things. As long as enough people believe that the Justice system works then the people will allow them to continue functioning. We don't know how faulty the system is because we have no idea how many legitimate innocent people were convicted. Just like we don't know how many guilty people walk free. We depend on the courts for this information and we depend on organizations that fight for innocence to provide a counter to what the courts tell us. That an innocent person can be found guilty is a tragedy. However, people are able to sleep soundly based on this fiction. The fiction that their government keeps them safe.
I've heard of a similar story where DNA evidence apparently would have proved that someone convicted a crime didn't do it, but the because their incompetent defense attorney didn't ask for the DNA to be tested during the trial the appeals court refused to let them test it later because it was already available during the original trial. There was a RUclips video by someone else about it titled something like "the innocent man who can't be freed from jail".
They won't vacate a conviction because it would set precedent and they would have to allow thousands of appeals on new DNA evidence. They care more about keeping the case load down than they care about setting an innocent man free
And "better" yet that arrest for murder will always be on your record! Great huh? Oh and your arrest would be page 1 in the paper, your exoneration is page 126... So basically no one will know your innocent.
Where did you hear that? Or read that? I would like to read it for myself because if true, Mike Parsons is going to get strongly worded letters from many people. I would like to read that. Thank you
I'm not sure if this true of any other state, but in Missouri a prisoner is required to serve out their sentence even after being exonerated unless you are granted a stay or pardon from the governor. Once inside the penal system, there is little hope for justice.
@@kcmsmith31 Google it. I just did and Parsons dissolved the inquiry panel that was looking into this case and has refused to stay the execution. He is a blood thirsty sociopath.
Presumably not the same prosecutor that gained the conviction in the first place given the time gap. However, if new evidence came up about the innocence of a man that went on to be executed and the new "prosecutor" knowingly ignored it, then they could find themselves in a great deal of trouble if/when that came to light. So there is some incentive for a a prosecutor, who was not involved in the original trial, to move to have the conviction set aside.
Its worth ptin out that Marcellus Williams has been sat on death row for the past SEVEN YRS whilst they had ample evidence to suggest that the DNA evidence wud exonerate him He got a temporary stay of execution initially but the govt took so long on actually investigatin this that said stay ran out; and instd of just havin the governor exonerate him... Theyve all remained silent as his execution date draws nearer This is very much a case of them only now doin too little, and maybe even too late.
Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty men go than to persecute 1 innocent man. Actual practice in modern times is the opposite. It's often a game to the prosecution where conviction rate is more important to them than truth and certainty. The fact courts actively work against jury nullification is bona fide proof they want juries to just rubber stamp the paperwork, and not actually judge the guilt of someone based on all relevant facts, not just what the law tells them to do. It's a breath of fresh air that this prosecutor's morals are larger than their ego.
Based on all of the innocent people who are set free in recent times. I would say that the past is much, much worse. I am starting to think that the Justice system neither cared nor was concerned whether a person was guilty, only with punishing someone, anyone for a crime. As always, we know about stories where it worked out. The problem was that so many cases were determined based on eye witness testimony and we now know eye witnesses aren't worth Jack all. There was also the story of some cop harassing a black man when the person he was looking for was a woman and white. The cop also got the height wrong but that is less humorous than failing on both sex and skin color. For all we know, the reason so many people in jail and prison say they are innocent is because they were in fact innocent.
@@JacobSantosDev scapegoats are an ancient tradition. also the witch hunts never stopped, and the real witches were never found. "pharm" words (pharmakos, pharmakon, pharmacy) relate to witchcraft and poison.
@@kevinerbs2778 They aren't. And in a lot of cases, admitting to the fact that you know it exists, will get you put on a permanent blacklist so you're never put up for jury duty again.
I remember a case in the 90s where an inmate had compelling evidence of innocence and a federal judge being interviewed stated that if all the procedures had been correctly followed even unquestionable proof of innocence was not a reason to postpone an execution. That was chilling. Perhaps worse, studies of jurors have shown a tendency for them to believe errors will be corrected on appeal so it's OK if they return a guilty verdict even if they still have doubts.
I think Justice Thomas (of the Supreme Court) made a statement like that in one of his judgments - that all the Constitution guarantees is "due process" of the law, and as long as the correct process has been followed, it doesn't matter whether you are actually innocent or not. Don't ask me for a cite; it is just something I appear to remember from what I have read somewhere.
@@manojbhaskaran1997 I think he did, too. I want to say the one I'm thinking of was Scalia. But it was.25 years ago. The case that elicited it was Texas's first execution of a woman in a long time, though I think it was directed at appeals in general not the specifics of the case.
Don't be silly. The judge is there to ensure a guilty verdict, so that for-profit prisons get a steady flow of workers and politicians get to say they're tough on crime.
It is the judge's job to ensure that the law is properly applied to the case and that the attorneys behave legally. It is the jury's job to find guilt, unless the case is deemed to be decided by the judge and there is no jury empaneled.
when i lived in FL back in the 90s there was a man that was paying child support and his son had died 10 years ago(at 6 years old) and with death certificate as proof Florida still would not cancel the child support and he was not behind on payments .
Probably because many localities actually profit from child support (enforcement fees, etc.) They'll actively DISCOURAGE amicable parents from creating a support agreement without government intrusion, I mean, involvement. I've heard (but cannot confirm) that the fees are often used for retirement programs for judges in some jurisdictions.
@@saltwaterrook4638 Austria, Germany, France, Swiss have no qualified immunity. It is seen one of the things what make no sense in the USA outside to protect people breaking the law.
Did you watch the video? This is happening specifically because the court ISN'T allowed to make the decision, they are bound by the laws of Missouri which prevent them from doing anything.
My fav story, also out of Missouri. Man was convicted of said crime. ("I forget what it was he had done." ) Courts sent him home, told him get his stuff in order and the police be there 1,2 days to take him to jail... This is all from his lawyer. 3,4 days go by....... no one came. he CALLS his lawyer, informs him. Ok np, they will come when they can i guess. just dont leave town. Weeks go by....... months... No one comes, no one calls. lol he finally goes gets job. still living with his parents. years go by. He gets married, has kids, does charity work, coaching his kids in school. so 10-15 years go by at this point. Time to let him out of prison. they run the paper work, go to the cell he to be in. and ofc not there. lol. someone had fed up the paperwork. So they then finally come to take him to jail...... but now he a changed man...... wife, family, kids, loving father, part of the community that people all love. They took it to the judge, and the people he knew, school etc all fought for this mans freedom. in the end he served like at most 1 month. i think was less. before the courts set him free. seeing that it was ofc their mistake not his. the guy NEVER left town, worked, lived there whole time. he did as he was asked.. and he made the best he could with his 2nd chance in life and took full advantage of that.... yes its true. maybe was this channel that told the story i dont remember
There's also stories of the opposite. Someone causes the death of someone as a teenager. They decide to stay on the teaifht and narrow, build a life, but the guilt gets to them. 20 years later they find Jesus, and turn themselves in.
@@granatmofSometimes old DNA is tested and they arrest someone who killed only once in his life and apparently never again and thirty years later they're in jail
I think every local has made that observation, yes. Many of us have quite a sense of humor when it comes to local names. For example - On route 66, we have The Fudge Factory. In the town of Uranus. The exit you need is Dixon. Dixon Uranus. Yes. Really.
@ColonelSandersLite thank you so much for the laugh. We are near I75 Michigan exit 69 Big Beaver Road. We are descendants of Missouri sharecroppers, we still have a bunch of family there.
@@ROADIEZ824 The court isn't wrong, they have to follow the law. They are not allowed to pick and choose, as that would violate the equal protection clause.
This seems weird, though, because courts have the customary power of injunction and stay - it doesn't ordinarily need a law to issue an injunction or stay one of its own (or a lower court's) orders - it needs a law saying it can't do that.
It's said that the prosecutor must prove you're guilty; you don't have to prove you're innocent. That is false. You have to prove you're innocent by proving the prosecutor is wrong. Many tiimes it fails. Juries believe that since you were arrested and charged, you must be guilty.
@@alli3219 Not even that - most jurors make up their mind based on superficial characteristics of the case or the defendant, before the arguments have even started. Is the defendant a type of person I don't like? Guilty. Is the alleged crime a crime I'm sensitive about? Guilty. Is the litigant putting on a good show of being upset to garner sympathy? Guilty. Do I believe the defendant is innocent but everyone else thinks guilty and I want to go home? Guilty.
@@GraemePayne1967Marine I remember when I was a kid seeing on TV this one guy that had spent like 15 years locked up in jail for a crime he had not committed, and finally modern DNA tests were used to prove his innocence... I remember thinking that was messed up at the time. Oh how times have changed, to the point where a person who is already known to be innocent is still going to be executed anyway. You know, I thought we would move forward and progress somehow, but nope, turns out we're going backwards... it's good to know that the """justice""" system will always be there to end the life of innocent people, while they keep the criminals on the streets. Cool.
My former neighbor was a death penalty attorney here in Chicago, until it was repealed in Illinois. His wife is actually a judge now. He came from a family of Irish cops on the south side. When he moved in, he hit it off with my dad, who was a paramedic and comes from a family of Irish firemen on the north side. (I’m neither btw, I’m a musician) So, he became a cop, like everyone else in his family, but was ambitious and went to law school at night. When he passed the bar, he got a job as a prosecutor. What he saw during his time with the District Attorney’s office made him so disgusted that he quit and made a full 180 to became a defense attorney. His family saw this as a betrayal. He joined the enemy as far as they were concerned, but he had to do what he felt was right. I imagine that over time he explained to them that he had to follow his conscience, but I can’t say for sure. I like telling his story because it shows that with everyone being so ideologically divided these days, and the police being as out off control as they currently are, it’s possible and never too late to make the decision to turn around and do what you know in your heart is right and righteous.
Sadly, it saves from nothing these days. A friend's brother is in for 100+ years for rape (multiple accusers, he worked for the government).. Some of the women have recanted, and for the others a different man was later also convicted of the crimes. The single DNA swab taken (no control swabs) was from clothing the arresting officer handled with bare hands (with video proof of this). The lab analyst was later fired for mishandling DNA in multiple cases, then destroying evidence to cover it up. It also turns out she was the lead investigator's MIL. Besides the single contaminated DNA swab, there was zero physical evidence that these crimes even took place, much less that he did it, and plenty of evidence that he wasn't even there. One of his accusers described him as a "short, dark-skinned black man, shorter than (5'11") me." He is actually a 6'2" white-skinned Japanese man, and when the prosecuter put her on the stand, she said point blank that she had never seen him before. And STILL he has been refused a new trial.
And since this is America, Missouri, he could get nixed, because the court obviously cant give even an inch. Best they can do is to carve an apology in his headstone, “Soz, our bad, time ran out”.
Convicting an innocent man of a crime is not a mistake. Once detectives get their minds made up about a certain person thats it he is guilty and they will do whatever it takes to put him in prison or to death
Noooo, it is the jury who decides if a person is innocent or guilty. All the detectives do is investigate the crime and arrest the person who they think might be guilty of committing it.
Wow, RUclips out here showing their true colors. Two of my comments condemning the conduct of the state, and calling into question the legitimacy of the penalty were removed,404d.
Go read the actual story and not the biased version someone sent to Steve. In 2017, the previous gov issued a stay because of possible new DNA evidence. The case was then sent to a 5 person inquiry of retired judges who sat on it for 6 years. In 2023, the current gov disbanded the inquiry and ordered a date reissued. Essentially, the current gov is forcing this to be resolved.
You're talking about a guy who, when asked to expand vote-by-mail during the height of Covid, said people who had concerns about in-person voting just shouldn't vote. So, yeah, not a deep well of compassion there. More like a puddle.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't present anything to the Governor of Missouri, since he is completely inept. Remember, he wanted to prosecute that journalist for finding that issue with teachers on that one website. The Governor called him a hacker, what a moron!
Unless you're a rich person. Then justice delayed is just more time to flee, get rid of evidence, lobby lawmakers, etc. Of course WE would say that's also justice denied, but for them, a court system that takes years to process you is a blessing, since they'll await trial at home. A slow justice system is specially appealing for politicians. If it takes longer than your term to prosecute your corruption, you'll have time to be re-elected before you're accused of your crimes. And we know how short attention span is, if we're always judging the politicians from two generations ago, it won't affect the opinions of the current ones even if they're doing the same thing (and we should be able to realise the pattern, yet we don't since the crimes we know about are so old)
@@mikyl-fo8rhA court of law is not infallible. When evidence comes to light that was not presented or allowed to be presented during trial that exonerates the person then they are innocent despite the ruling of the court. This is especially true if the state is using the death penalty on an innocent person and they find the real perp. Hopefully nothing like this happens to you and your family where they are convicted of a crime they didn't do because it happens.
Its the polices job to investigate. The prosecutors take the facts to the jury. If the facts dont indicate a crime prosecutors arent supposed to file charges but many do.
Missouri prosecutors haven't even been allowed to ask the courts to vacate convictions until a few years ago. Interestingly, if this man is actually exonerated, he falls into the small category of people entitled to compensation for a wrongful conviction under MO law (Missouri only compensates you if you are exonerated by DNA evidence).
It's Missouri. Enough said. I visit my mother there every couple of years and I'm ridiculously careful when I'm there. I want NOTHING to do with the Missouri legal system.
@@Ir0nFrog this. Did you know IL removed the death penalty bc we couldn’t confirm that every person being executed was guilty. The first woman in chicago on death row was framed but could not speak english, they, couldn’t find a person who spoke her specific dialect of italian, and thus she was hanged. The da (i believe) was trying to gain clout at getting the first woman to be hanged, because he was running for governor. Amazing how politicians will use the life of the small folk in their own games. No government should have the power to decide life or death.
Missouri? Unfortunately, all too often such miscarriages of justice are not corrected. There is an individual in prison who was later deemed to be found innocent, still in jail. Happens way too often here.
You got a lot of concerning videos about government corruption in Missouri. Seems to be their.... MO! But no seriously. Montana, Arizona, Utah are looking better and better; as living options.
Remember when you are in court, even for a ticket. Everyone there is being paid to be there, except you. So wouldn’t it be in their best interests to keep you going back there?
Only prisons are paid per prisoner. Judges are not paid by case, they are paid a yearly salary by the government. And lawyers have enough business that they wouldn’t need repeat offenders to live comfortably
Sure, they get paid to be there. But the judge still gets paid if they just dismissed every single case and let everybody go home. In fact that would be way less work for them and they still get the same pay as the other judge. And the clerks and guards don't decide anything, they only do the paperwork and stop people if they get violent. If you aren't part time you are working in court for at least 40 hours a week or more as a judge. Nobody is gonna do that for free. And an unpaid judge who just wants to rush things because they need to get back to their "real job" to pay rent and put food on the table doesn't sound great either. And that's IF they stay honest and don't pull a Clarence Thomas.
We just went through this with the Baldwin trial. The prosecutorial misconduct was so bad that the other lead prosecutor resigned before the Brady hearing. The Young Thug trial Judge was just removed from the case because of misconduct. I think it is not very often this is caught and even less often that it is remediated in any way. We desperately need to change things. Even if it is just perception that the justice system is flawed that perception means people have no confidence in the system.
@@DanBeech-ht7sw I don't know what job you can get and say I don't want to do my job because I get in trouble for screwing up. You just do your job and not screw up and if you screw up you take accountability for it, fix it and don't do it again.
@@DanBeech-ht7sw By that logic, why would anyone want to drive a car if they can be personally liable for an accident they are involved with??? When there's no consequences for being wrong, there is no incentive to do a good job. *And isn't it a little bit hypocritical for the prosecutor to have a lower standard of accountability than the average citizen???*
We can safely assume that if the person is demonstrated not to have committed the crime, they will be released. But what strikes me is that this individual has been sitting in an 8 x 12 foot box looking at his toilet for over a quarter of a century. I know justice is supposed to be blind, but…..
Does Missouri pay for wrongful imprisonment? The damages awarded shall be $179 per day for each day of imprisonment but no more than $65,000 per fiscal year.
It's not the full story. The last gov issued a stay in 2017 because of said DNA. Last year, the current gov disbanded the inquiry because they sat on this case for 6 years. So, the gov is forcing the judicial system to resolve this case.
The question is why does the state’s attorney general have a habit of fighting against innocent people? He was convicted on witnesses, not forensic evidence.
In the event his conviction is overturned, the AG will probably tell the DOC to carry out the execution anyway, given that he has ordered the DOC to not release two people who have had their convictions overturned. In the second case, he managed to get the release stayed as the exonerated was minutes from leaving the prison.
It was designed for ancient times . Even when it was found to be massively flawed they still risened and repeated the same stupid ,to many people enjoyed playing God.
I had only recently started watching this this channel, so I was astonished when you said you helped write Drawn to Injustice. That was one of my book studies I did for my Criminal Procedure class back when it came out.
I've known some prosecutors who were more interested in justice than securing a conviction, though most I've met were more interested in their conviction rate than anything else
@thehellyousay wow, what a low standard of judgment. Hardly anybody uses punctuation properly anymore. Calling someone a bot, just because they punctuated wrong? 😂😂low class
Innocent until proven guilty is non-existent in the modern judicial system. It's also quickly becoming impossible to get a fair trial with how public some cases become. Yet here we are sticking to this flawed system. Wrongfully convicted, the best case scenario is you have a record, but it can come down to life in prison or even sentenced to death. There has to be a better way.
COMMON SENSE: BAD LAWS SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED! These days there appear to be many "bad laws" on the books for various political reasons, but never for JUSTICE! This involved prosecutor is a rare gem, who is less concerned about his/her "WIN" record, than for what's morally RIGHT!
I fear a small percentage of the justice system is corrupted, but that’s far too much. Most (not all) of the failures are at lower levels… over-aggressive officers or prosecutors, but some judges are too self-important to re-examine their own thoughts.
I respect the integrity it takes to be willing to admit one was once pro-death penalty, but changed their minds; it is much more difficult to make that change than it is to change from anti-death penalty to pro (such as through personal family being a victim, etc). It's a very charged issue to change one's mind on, ending a life. Your honesty is appreciated (i have hearing issues so i used the captions, apologies if i am misinterpreting them). The death penalty stands out for its permanence; not a single innocent should be put to the blade, and there is no way to truly guarantee that other than to retire the blade. I hope the man prevails in escaping execution. Peace be upon you, fellow traveler. Thank you for offering your support to the downtrodden
Missouri has a Governor. Governors can offer pardons. What the legislature messed up, and the Judiciary was hamstrung, by, can be fixed by the Executive.
Prosecutors strongly believe everyone is guilty. If a prosecutor says someone is innocent... holy crap!
Let me correct, "Statutory Law", or legal proceedings
*terms and conditions apply
I've spent a little time in prosecutors offices. That isn't really true. Just like defense attorneys don't always think their client is innocent. But prosecutors are certainly more likely to think a person is guilty incorrectly than a defense attorney. But when the prosecutor doesn't think the person is guilty, most of the time (in a good office) you'll never even see the case. So if you see a case at all, someone thinks they're guilty.
@@angelsenvy2282 Good point. But there is a nuance: I believe the way it works in those states is that many many real criminals never get charged in the first place, BUT if a normally law abiding citizen with a decent job is suspected of a crime, the prosecutor goes after them with a vengeance. Why does it work that way? I don't know; maybe because a person with a job stands out, or maybe it is because the prosecutor doesn't want to appear to be biased against people who are disadvantaged, or maybe it is simply because a person with a job is able to pay fines.
@@Sam_on_RUclips Unfortunately, nuance is not commonplace on the internet.
IF they go through with the execution, and he is found INNOCENT, can they charge the court with Murder??
"We investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent"
Qualified immunity :(
Correction: Judicial/Absolute immunity :(
@@MCNarret sadly, you're probably right.
@@MCNarret I believe for them, it's called something like "absolute immunity"
Sovereign Immunity @@MCNarret
When the prosecution is fighting for you maybe the court should stop the execution.
Then you loom at the DA and realize it is all a political stunt
No then from what's happens is the courts like to declare that the prosecution is a completely separate part of the judicial system.
We ALL make mistakes. It takes a strong person to admit it.
@@thatsreality5184 It is... The judge is the judicial branch. The prosecutor is the executive branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers...
IT is a George Soros funded DA trying to be soft on crime....
I heard of a case years ago where a guy was convicted of murder but then later, they found the actual perpetrator. The perpetrator was then found guilty of the murder but the judge refused to vacate the original conviction. So there were two guys in prison for the same crime and it took years to get the innocent one out.
Apparently common sense doesn't come into it. Once someone is found guilty, they can't get their sentence quashed simply because someone else has now been found to be the perpetrator.
I don't understand this. I know they want to make sure. They don't want to allow someone to purchase convictions and if a jury was able to convict someone then what did the defense screw up to not win? More, what did the court let in or not let in to convict an innocent person?
The court failed and fails. The problem is that it is theater. The justice system needs people to believe that it is neutral, free, and fair when it is none of those things. As long as enough people believe that the Justice system works then the people will allow them to continue functioning.
We don't know how faulty the system is because we have no idea how many legitimate innocent people were convicted. Just like we don't know how many guilty people walk free. We depend on the courts for this information and we depend on organizations that fight for innocence to provide a counter to what the courts tell us.
That an innocent person can be found guilty is a tragedy. However, people are able to sleep soundly based on this fiction. The fiction that their government keeps them safe.
I've heard of a similar story where DNA evidence apparently would have proved that someone convicted a crime didn't do it, but the because their incompetent defense attorney didn't ask for the DNA to be tested during the trial the appeals court refused to let them test it later because it was already available during the original trial. There was a RUclips video by someone else about it titled something like "the innocent man who can't be freed from jail".
Was this a case in Louisiana
They won't vacate a conviction because it would set precedent and they would have to allow thousands of appeals on new DNA evidence. They care more about keeping the case load down than they care about setting an innocent man free
And "better" yet that arrest for murder will always be on your record! Great huh? Oh and your arrest would be page 1 in the paper, your exoneration is page 126... So basically no one will know your innocent.
The governor has already refused to delay an execution when the prosecutor stated the person did not commit the crime. This is Missouri.
The "Show Me" state. Hmmm...
sociopaths
Where did you hear that? Or read that? I would like to read it for myself because if true, Mike Parsons is going to get strongly worded letters from many people. I would like to read that. Thank you
I'm not sure if this true of any other state, but in Missouri a prisoner is required to serve out their sentence even after being exonerated unless you are granted a stay or pardon from the governor. Once inside the penal system, there is little hope for justice.
@@kcmsmith31 Google it. I just did and Parsons dissolved the inquiry panel that was looking into this case and has refused to stay the execution. He is a blood thirsty sociopath.
This system tortures a person till the very end. Then says, oops sorry your free to go. How sick is that?.
@@irysh9… are you serious bro?
@@DunkleSnunkle I think it was mocking the hysterical bullshit levels in the post they were responding to.
@@irysh9I am glad you have your priorities straight and know what is most important. Get a life please.
@@wasspj What exactly is "hysterical bullshit" in what the original post said?
@@wasspj
Being locked in prison not knowing if you will be executed or not with proof that you didn't commit the crime isn't mental torture?!?!?
The thought of going to jail for something I didn't do is a terrifying thought.
Your odds of that happening are higher in the US than anywhere else in the world.
America is high but no. Lol look up Japan. They have the world's highest conviction rate. They have been known to throw innocent people in jail.
If you haven't heard the story of Rubin Hurricane Carter...
happens far more often than you think. being black in america jacks those odds.
75,000 innocent people are in prison. In a lot of those cases, the State knows they're innocent.
An honest prosecutor. What a surprise.
Another bad judge though. lol
Probably not the same prosecutor that put the guy on death row.
@@BlackJesus8463 The judge has done nothing wrong. Judges should abide by the law.
Presumably not the same prosecutor that gained the conviction in the first place given the time gap. However, if new evidence came up about the innocence of a man that went on to be executed and the new "prosecutor" knowingly ignored it, then they could find themselves in a great deal of trouble if/when that came to light.
So there is some incentive for a a prosecutor, who was not involved in the original trial, to move to have the conviction set aside.
Its worth ptin out that Marcellus Williams has been sat on death row for the past SEVEN YRS whilst they had ample evidence to suggest that the DNA evidence wud exonerate him
He got a temporary stay of execution initially but the govt took so long on actually investigatin this that said stay ran out; and instd of just havin the governor exonerate him... Theyve all remained silent as his execution date draws nearer
This is very much a case of them only now doin too little, and maybe even too late.
Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty men go than to persecute 1 innocent man. Actual practice in modern times is the opposite. It's often a game to the prosecution where conviction rate is more important to them than truth and certainty. The fact courts actively work against jury nullification is bona fide proof they want juries to just rubber stamp the paperwork, and not actually judge the guilt of someone based on all relevant facts, not just what the law tells them to do.
It's a breath of fresh air that this prosecutor's morals are larger than their ego.
They probably weren’t the prosecutor
Based on all of the innocent people who are set free in recent times. I would say that the past is much, much worse. I am starting to think that the Justice system neither cared nor was concerned whether a person was guilty, only with punishing someone, anyone for a crime. As always, we know about stories where it worked out. The problem was that so many cases were determined based on eye witness testimony and we now know eye witnesses aren't worth Jack all.
There was also the story of some cop harassing a black man when the person he was looking for was a woman and white. The cop also got the height wrong but that is less humorous than failing on both sex and skin color.
For all we know, the reason so many people in jail and prison say they are innocent is because they were in fact innocent.
@@JacobSantosDev scapegoats are an ancient tradition. also the witch hunts never stopped, and the real witches were never found. "pharm" words (pharmakos, pharmakon, pharmacy) relate to witchcraft and poison.
I have doubts thay the jury's are even told about "jury nullifaction"
@@kevinerbs2778 They aren't. And in a lot of cases, admitting to the fact that you know it exists, will get you put on a permanent blacklist so you're never put up for jury duty again.
I remember a case in the 90s where an inmate had compelling evidence of innocence and a federal judge being interviewed stated that if all the procedures had been correctly followed even unquestionable proof of innocence was not a reason to postpone an execution. That was chilling.
Perhaps worse, studies of jurors have shown a tendency for them to believe errors will be corrected on appeal so it's OK if they return a guilty verdict even if they still have doubts.
Sick
Judges appear to work under the same understanding, relying on the appeals process to catch and correct their errors.
I think Justice Thomas (of the Supreme Court) made a statement like that in one of his judgments - that all the Constitution guarantees is "due process" of the law, and as long as the correct process has been followed, it doesn't matter whether you are actually innocent or not. Don't ask me for a cite; it is just something I appear to remember from what I have read somewhere.
@@manojbhaskaran1997
I think he did, too. I want to say the one I'm thinking of was Scalia. But it was.25 years ago. The case that elicited it was Texas's first execution of a woman in a long time, though I think it was directed at appeals in general not the specifics of the case.
@@williamivey5296 Maybe it was Scalia. Birds of the same feather :)
I thought one of the reasons for having judges was to have a human in the loop who can say "ah!, this rule is inappropriate in this case"..?
You believed what you were told at your government indoctrination center (school).
You and me both
Don't be silly. The judge is there to ensure a guilty verdict, so that for-profit prisons get a steady flow of workers and politicians get to say they're tough on crime.
It is the judge's job to ensure that the law is properly applied to the case and that the attorneys behave legally. It is the jury's job to find guilt, unless the case is deemed to be decided by the judge and there is no jury empaneled.
Courts are really big on upholding the written law until it's in their interest to wield their power to "interpret" it in unjust ways.
when i lived in FL back in the 90s there was a man that was paying child support and his son had died 10 years ago(at 6 years old) and with death certificate as proof Florida still would not cancel the child support and he was not behind on payments .
Probably because many localities actually profit from child support (enforcement fees, etc.) They'll actively DISCOURAGE amicable parents from creating a support agreement without government intrusion, I mean, involvement.
I've heard (but cannot confirm) that the fees are often used for retirement programs for judges in some jurisdictions.
SOUNDS VERY POSSIBLE IN TODAYS COURT SYSTEM YOU PAY NO MATTER THE VIRDICT !...
That sounds like a slam dunk lawsuit against the ex, or the county, as that is unjust enrichment.
@@fomori2 Exactly. That's the sort of case you must appeal and also have your lawyer file a complaint for judicial misconduct.
🤯🙄
The courts would be far less corrupt were qualified immunity taken away from one and all. Judge, prosecutor, officer etc
You should probably educate yourself on 1. What qualified immunity is. 2. How the judicial system works.
@@saltwaterrook4638 first off, family courts operate outside the bounds of the u.s. constitution...
@@saltwaterrook4638 Austria, Germany, France, Swiss have no qualified immunity.
It is seen one of the things what make no sense in the USA outside to protect people breaking the law.
@asokawhite reading comprehension not your thing? Struggle to see between the lines? Your comment has zero relevance to my point. Try again.
@@asokawhite you clearly don't know what qualified immunity is either. Go read a book
When Justice is held hostage to bureaucratic bullshit.
How are these people allowed to make decisions?
Did you watch the video? This is happening specifically because the court ISN'T allowed to make the decision, they are bound by the laws of Missouri which prevent them from doing anything.
@@shivorath Just like you ISN'T allowed to violate anybody's constitutional rights.
@@shivorath Everybody is allowed to make a decision.
No law binds a man, a court, or a system to commit an atrocity or immoral act.
@@CAPSLOCKS0NTell that to Scotus.
Because the 2nd amendment hasn't been fully used in many years that how.
My fav story, also out of Missouri.
Man was convicted of said crime. ("I forget what it was he had done." ) Courts sent him home, told him get his stuff in order and the police be there 1,2 days to take him to jail... This is all from his lawyer. 3,4 days go by....... no one came. he CALLS his lawyer, informs him. Ok np, they will come when they can i guess. just dont leave town.
Weeks go by....... months... No one comes, no one calls. lol he finally goes gets job. still living with his parents.
years go by. He gets married, has kids, does charity work, coaching his kids in school. so 10-15 years go by at this point.
Time to let him out of prison. they run the paper work, go to the cell he to be in. and ofc not there. lol.
someone had fed up the paperwork. So they then finally come to take him to jail...... but now he a changed man...... wife, family, kids, loving father, part of the community that people all love.
They took it to the judge, and the people he knew, school etc all fought for this mans freedom.
in the end he served like at most 1 month. i think was less. before the courts set him free. seeing that it was ofc their mistake not his. the guy NEVER left town, worked, lived there whole time. he did as he was asked.. and he made the best he could with his 2nd chance in life and took full advantage of that....
yes its true. maybe was this channel that told the story i dont remember
I heard that story.
Wow
It sucks what happened to him, but good for him for totally changing his life.
There's also stories of the opposite. Someone causes the death of someone as a teenager. They decide to stay on the teaifht and narrow, build a life, but the guilt gets to them. 20 years later they find Jesus, and turn themselves in.
@@granatmofSometimes old DNA is tested and they arrest someone who killed only once in his life and apparently never again and thirty years later they're in jail
Missouri = misery, apparently
I think every local has made that observation, yes.
Many of us have quite a sense of humor when it comes to local names. For example - On route 66, we have The Fudge Factory. In the town of Uranus. The exit you need is Dixon. Dixon Uranus.
Yes. Really.
@ColonelSandersLite thank you so much for the laugh. We are near I75 Michigan exit 69 Big Beaver Road. We are descendants of Missouri sharecroppers, we still have a bunch of family there.
Missouri= MISERY...That is why my wife and I escaped!
@@ColonelSandersLite dixon uranus is where fudge packing happens?!?!
Who woulda think it
Everyone knows that, no one there was smart enough to spell it.
Why would anyone trust our legal system!?!
Yeah, Sharia is probably more trustworthy.
What about about human history makes deniers think conspiracies are too rare to exist? Society is a cult of sociopaths.
There's no reason to trust the court (legal) system. NONE!
USA doesnt have a legal system it has a criminal system where everyone is making money from the arrest and up
It's a mess 😢
No reason for this... this is just the courts being too inflexible.
Yeah some of this people are insane with power
So when the court doesn't follow the law people complain, but when the court is following the law, people also complain?
@@TahgtahvWhen the Court is totally wrong.... YES!
@@ROADIEZ824 The court isn't wrong, they have to follow the law. They are not allowed to pick and choose, as that would violate the equal protection clause.
This seems weird, though, because courts have the customary power of injunction and stay - it doesn't ordinarily need a law to issue an injunction or stay one of its own (or a lower court's) orders - it needs a law saying it can't do that.
It's said that the prosecutor must prove you're guilty; you don't have to prove you're innocent. That is false. You have to prove you're innocent by proving the prosecutor is wrong. Many tiimes it fails. Juries believe that since you were arrested and charged, you must be guilty.
Whoever comes up with the better word salad wins in court...
@@alli3219If you can't win them over with the facts, try confusing them with bullshit.
@@alli3219 Not even that - most jurors make up their mind based on superficial characteristics of the case or the defendant, before the arguments have even started. Is the defendant a type of person I don't like? Guilty. Is the alleged crime a crime I'm sensitive about? Guilty. Is the litigant putting on a good show of being upset to garner sympathy? Guilty. Do I believe the defendant is innocent but everyone else thinks guilty and I want to go home? Guilty.
all any juror must do is use jury nullification. that's how you deal with unjust laws.
"The Law is The Law." Unless there's some personal interest. Then it's "There's an exception to every rule."
Yes when political involvements !...
posthumously declared innocent.. shout out to Missouri!
There's a reason so many people are pronouncing that state as Misery these days.
I believe there ARE cases like that in history ... "So sorry, it turns out he/she actually WAS innocent..."
@@GraemePayne1967Marine I remember when I was a kid seeing on TV this one guy that had spent like 15 years locked up in jail for a crime he had not committed, and finally modern DNA tests were used to prove his innocence... I remember thinking that was messed up at the time. Oh how times have changed, to the point where a person who is already known to be innocent is still going to be executed anyway. You know, I thought we would move forward and progress somehow, but nope, turns out we're going backwards... it's good to know that the """justice""" system will always be there to end the life of innocent people, while they keep the criminals on the streets. Cool.
@@tiranito2834 The injections have best-before dates, you gotta find someone to use them on before they go off or you're not being eco-conscious.
Texas says, "sounds good"
My former neighbor was a death penalty attorney here in Chicago, until it was repealed in Illinois. His wife is actually a judge now. He came from a family of Irish cops on the south side. When he moved in, he hit it off with my dad, who was a paramedic and comes from a family of Irish firemen on the north side. (I’m neither btw, I’m a musician) So, he became a cop, like everyone else in his family, but was ambitious and went to law school at night. When he passed the bar, he got a job as a prosecutor. What he saw during his time with the District Attorney’s office made him so disgusted that he quit and made a full 180 to became a defense attorney. His family saw this as a betrayal. He joined the enemy as far as they were concerned, but he had to do what he felt was right. I imagine that over time he explained to them that he had to follow his conscience, but I can’t say for sure. I like telling his story because it shows that with everyone being so ideologically divided these days, and the police being as out off control as they currently are, it’s possible and never too late to make the decision to turn around and do what you know in your heart is right and righteous.
Goes to show you that people yell for truth and honesty, but when it happens , you are labeled crazy
What? How is this reasonable? Actul innocence is supposed to save you from everything but bureaucracy and paperwork it seems.
Sadly, it saves from nothing these days. A friend's brother is in for 100+ years for rape (multiple accusers, he worked for the government).. Some of the women have recanted, and for the others a different man was later also convicted of the crimes. The single DNA swab taken (no control swabs) was from clothing the arresting officer handled with bare hands (with video proof of this). The lab analyst was later fired for mishandling DNA in multiple cases, then destroying evidence to cover it up. It also turns out she was the lead investigator's MIL. Besides the single contaminated DNA swab, there was zero physical evidence that these crimes even took place, much less that he did it, and plenty of evidence that he wasn't even there. One of his accusers described him as a "short, dark-skinned black man, shorter than (5'11") me." He is actually a 6'2" white-skinned Japanese man, and when the prosecuter put her on the stand, she said point blank that she had never seen him before. And STILL he has been refused a new trial.
And since this is America, Missouri, he could get nixed, because the court obviously cant give even an inch. Best they can do is to carve an apology in his headstone, “Soz, our bad, time ran out”.
Scalia said that Actual Innocence wasn't enough to get a new trial. Seriously he wrote that😢
Evidently that's only true on Perry Mason.
Without bureaucracy, the government might actually have to do their jobs from time to time. AND do it right.
Convicting an innocent man of a crime is not a mistake. Once detectives get their minds made up about a certain person thats it he is guilty and they will do whatever it takes to put him in prison or to death
Yep and they’ll ignore all other leads and evidence…
Noooo, it is the jury who decides if a person is innocent or guilty. All the detectives do is investigate the crime and arrest the person who they think might be guilty of committing it.
My brother did 20 yrs in ohio. From a corrupt judge, cops, and media he lost 20 yrs in prison. Sad Times for America
Wow, RUclips out here showing their true colors.
Two of my comments condemning the conduct of the state, and calling into question the legitimacy of the penalty were removed,404d.
The jist of it is.
You can't support capital judgement and, not support this because you know, innocent people are convicted
Gotta love the election season censorship!
Sorry but, that might just be youtube being weird and flagging the comment randomly, it has happened to me when I just said something silly.
You would think the governor would put a stay in out of an abundance of caution.
Go read the actual story and not the biased version someone sent to Steve.
In 2017, the previous gov issued a stay because of possible new DNA evidence. The case was then sent to a 5 person inquiry of retired judges who sat on it for 6 years. In 2023, the current gov disbanded the inquiry and ordered a date reissued.
Essentially, the current gov is forcing this to be resolved.
You're talking about a guy who, when asked to expand vote-by-mail during the height of Covid, said people who had concerns about in-person voting just shouldn't vote. So, yeah, not a deep well of compassion there. More like a puddle.
@@greg_216 the best democracy is where it’s as hard to vote as possible, apparently.
There already was a stay. The governor removed it.
@@TomJakobW All voting should be done in person with ID. All other ways are opportunities for massive voter fraud.
Talk about a Banana Republic. This is insane.
If you substitute the term "revenge system" for "justice system", what we have in the US becomes easier to understand.
Is it time to stick "Justice system, not revenge system" on a sign?
“Crime industry”
Justice is what the powerful call vengeance.
There are those who can afford good representation and those who can't.
The legal system punishes poverty.
That title just gave me anxiety.
Right?
Unfortunately, I wouldn't present anything to the Governor of Missouri, since he is completely inept. Remember, he wanted to prosecute that journalist for finding that issue with teachers on that one website. The Governor called him a hacker, what a moron!
With teachers on what website? What issue?
Prosecutors want convictions not justice. Which is backwards of their duty.
Once again: prosecutors prosecute and defense attorneys defend. It is the jury who decides what is just.
This is why I really do not have faith in any court system.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
It's not justice if the party is innocent though.
Unless you're a rich person. Then justice delayed is just more time to flee, get rid of evidence, lobby lawmakers, etc. Of course WE would say that's also justice denied, but for them, a court system that takes years to process you is a blessing, since they'll await trial at home.
A slow justice system is specially appealing for politicians. If it takes longer than your term to prosecute your corruption, you'll have time to be re-elected before you're accused of your crimes. And we know how short attention span is, if we're always judging the politicians from two generations ago, it won't affect the opinions of the current ones even if they're doing the same thing (and we should be able to realise the pattern, yet we don't since the crimes we know about are so old)
@@LavitosExodius once a verdict is reached and all appeals have been exhausted, there is no reason to ‘postpone’ anything.
@@LavitosExodius was he not convicted by a court of law?
@@mikyl-fo8rhA court of law is not infallible. When evidence comes to light that was not presented or allowed to be presented during trial that exonerates the person then they are innocent despite the ruling of the court.
This is especially true if the state is using the death penalty on an innocent person and they find the real perp.
Hopefully nothing like this happens to you and your family where they are convicted of a crime they didn't do because it happens.
Excuse my language here but, what the absolute f*** is going on here?
Our state is terrible. Prosecutors usually believe it's their job to PROVE guilt, not investigate to see if it's true. Some sort of game to them.
Its the polices job to investigate. The prosecutors take the facts to the jury. If the facts dont indicate a crime prosecutors arent supposed to file charges but many do.
It's an adversarial system.
@@dwwolf4636what’s that mean in this case? Adversaries to the public?
That is pretty much all the states, and then there is the Federal Government, which is even worse.
The Missouri judicial system is messed up. This isn’t the first time we heard of this. Think Ryan Ferguson.
I did a search on YT for wrongful convictions. There are a lot of them, I'm mean a LOT of them.
Sandra 'Sandy' Hemme
Missouri is known for this crap
Or Byron Case, the state has had a crisis of judicial legitimacy for a long time.
Missouri prosecutors haven't even been allowed to ask the courts to vacate convictions until a few years ago. Interestingly, if this man is actually exonerated, he falls into the small category of people entitled to compensation for a wrongful conviction under MO law (Missouri only compensates you if you are exonerated by DNA evidence).
It's Missouri. Enough said. I visit my mother there every couple of years and I'm ridiculously careful when I'm there. I want NOTHING to do with the Missouri legal system.
Tough on crime does not mean tough on innocence.
tough on crime has always been a dog whistle for “guilty until proven innocent”
@@Ir0nFrog this. Did you know IL removed the death penalty bc we couldn’t confirm that every person being executed was guilty. The first woman in chicago on death row was framed but could not speak english, they, couldn’t find a person who spoke her specific dialect of italian, and thus she was hanged. The da (i believe) was trying to gain clout at getting the first woman to be hanged, because he was running for governor. Amazing how politicians will use the life of the small folk in their own games. No government should have the power to decide life or death.
Mistakes and misdeeds are two entirely different things different things.
Missouri? Unfortunately, all too often such miscarriages of justice are not corrected. There is an individual in prison who was later deemed to be found innocent, still in jail. Happens way too often here.
You got a lot of concerning videos about government corruption in Missouri. Seems to be their.... MO!
But no seriously. Montana, Arizona, Utah are looking better and better; as living options.
You'd better think again about Arizona .
Phoenix cops are off the chain Tempe that state is messed up.
@@howlinwulf Phoenix looks like a fucking nightmare to live in
Remember when you are in court, even for a ticket.
Everyone there is being paid to be there, except you. So wouldn’t it be in their best interests to keep you going back there?
Only prisons are paid per prisoner. Judges are not paid by case, they are paid a yearly salary by the government. And lawyers have enough business that they wouldn’t need repeat offenders to live comfortably
No? Of course court officials are paid to be there, but not by the hour.
Sure, they get paid to be there. But the judge still gets paid if they just dismissed every single case and let everybody go home. In fact that would be way less work for them and they still get the same pay as the other judge. And the clerks and guards don't decide anything, they only do the paperwork and stop people if they get violent.
If you aren't part time you are working in court for at least 40 hours a week or more as a judge. Nobody is gonna do that for free. And an unpaid judge who just wants to rush things because they need to get back to their "real job" to pay rent and put food on the table doesn't sound great either. And that's IF they stay honest and don't pull a Clarence Thomas.
It's supposed to be a justice system, not a law system...
It is not and never was. It is just called "justice" for PR reasons.
Guess again buddy. Lol. It’s never been about justice. The state is the almighty and all knowing. People test it like a god now days.
There's a reason it's more commonly referred to as the "legal system".....
The Justice System is broken.
Agreed. However, it really doesn't surprise me, as this is just another example that highlights how primitive the U.S. justice system really is.
@@Mattipedersen They're bad everywhere. The UK's is horrid.
The media needs to start talking. That pressure the elected officials will start to feel from this will force changes.
It is sad to know that man has come so far in the journey of life but yet still cannot find common sense nor compassion in justice or injustice !
I guess I wasn't having some crazy dream that I lived in Iran and not US. Unbelievable this is a US court !!!!
We just went through this with the Baldwin trial. The prosecutorial misconduct was so bad that the other lead prosecutor resigned before the Brady hearing. The Young Thug trial Judge was just removed from the case because of misconduct. I think it is not very often this is caught and even less often that it is remediated in any way. We desperately need to change things. Even if it is just perception that the justice system is flawed that perception means people have no confidence in the system.
What actual incentive do prosecutors have to avoid convicting innocent people if they are protected by prosecutorial immunity???
None because prosecutors raise to higher levels by conviction rate, not making sure innocent people stay out of jail.
What incentive do they have to prosecute at all if they will be hounded for errors?
@@DanBeech-ht7sw I don't know what job you can get and say I don't want to do my job because I get in trouble for screwing up. You just do your job and not screw up and if you screw up you take accountability for it, fix it and don't do it again.
@@DanBeech-ht7swthat's the same excuse law enforcement makes.
@@DanBeech-ht7sw By that logic, why would anyone want to drive a car if they can be personally liable for an accident they are involved with??? When there's no consequences for being wrong, there is no incentive to do a good job. *And isn't it a little bit hypocritical for the prosecutor to have a lower standard of accountability than the average citizen???*
Its clear to me that we no longer have a JUSTICE System. It terrifies me.
"we no longer have a JUSTICE System"
was there a time we did?
We have a legal system.
Justice is optional.
@@dwwolf4636 "Justice is optional."
Optional for the rich, and not for the poor.
Never did
@@dwwolf4636 not optional. Occasionally coincidental at best.
Governor could still step in presumably ?
Not all governors have that power, unfortunately.
What about this case? Does the governor of Missouri have the authority to stay the execution?
The governor already stepped in to push forward with this. There WAS a stay in place from the previous governor, Parsons removed it.
@@B_Bodziakyes they do
We can safely assume that if the person is demonstrated not to have committed the crime, they will be released. But what strikes me is that this individual has been sitting in an 8 x 12 foot box looking at his toilet for over a quarter of a century. I know justice is supposed to be blind, but…..
I had to read that 3 times. American justice is terrifying. That heading right there has convinced me I don't need to go there
This is why most civilised countries have done away with the death penalty.
They have to pay him every day he was in jail they don't want that bill only reason this is happening....
Does Missouri pay for wrongful imprisonment?
The damages awarded shall be $179 per day for each day of imprisonment but no more than $65,000 per fiscal year.
So what does the governor of Missouri say??? He can issue a stay!
Not every governor has that power. Some states do, but not all.
Sounds to me like the governor will get some letters and e-mails
Won't be an issue until after the August hearing date.
It's not the full story. The last gov issued a stay in 2017 because of said DNA. Last year, the current gov disbanded the inquiry because they sat on this case for 6 years.
So, the gov is forcing the judicial system to resolve this case.
@@B_Bodziak In Missouri, the governor can...
If the judges don't have that authority, who the hell does???? If they can say it's not their "jurisdiction", shouldn't they also know who does?
A state of Misery.
You are so good at explaining these things in a way that makes sense to the average person! Thank you!!!
Ridiculous!
I'm happy you mentioned your previous view on the death penalty. I used to feel the same way when I was a younger man.
Steve Gosney writes a great book on the topic
The question is why does the state’s attorney general have a habit of fighting against innocent people? He was convicted on witnesses, not forensic evidence.
Contract with private Corp to fill beds in prison?
@@frizzlefry1921 but hes about to be put to death?
This is why I'm happy my country doesn't have the death penalty
Most US states don't have it either. 🙄
What if the hearing gets postponed? It happens all the time.
Steve literally addressed this in the video
If it's uncontested it's very unlikely that would happen
.....I see why they call that state Misery. 🤨
In the event his conviction is overturned, the AG will probably tell the DOC to carry out the execution anyway, given that he has ordered the DOC to not release two people who have had their convictions overturned. In the second case, he managed to get the release stayed as the exonerated was minutes from leaving the prison.
Petty person or persons with a power complex somewhere in that court forgetting that it is about an actual human being. Shame, shame, shame!
"The court" is literally one human judge. What a sadist.
Another fine example of American justice system
The American injustice system
US "Justice" system working as usual.
You are right putting it in inverted commas.
Never call it justice system. It's a "legal system" or a "system of legalities" at best....
A dead man cannot receive compensation.
Our whole judicial system is a complete joke.
It was designed for ancient times . Even when it was found to be massively flawed they still risened and repeated the same stupid ,to many people enjoyed playing God.
whose system is better?
@@thatsreality5184 They weren't ancient times they were racist times- it wasn't that long ago and reality proves they had good reasons.
@@anthonyfoutch3152 El Salvadors is pretty good right now.
“Joke?” Criminal.
We have a legal system, not a justice system. Now you understand.
The legal system if it is not just is unjust, in short, a joke. There is NO excuse for this.
I had only recently started watching this this channel, so I was astonished when you said you helped write Drawn to Injustice.
That was one of my book studies I did for my Criminal Procedure class back when it came out.
In never in my natural born life.Have I ever heard of a court story?Starting with prosecutor seeks to overturn a conviction😮
I've known some prosecutors who were more interested in justice than securing a conviction, though most I've met were more interested in their conviction rate than anything else
@@redjoker365 AI bots consistently fail to use punctuation properly. you're responding to a virtual entity, not an actual person.
@@thehellyousayWtf are you talking about? Go to their channel before making stuff up.
@thehellyousay wow, what a low standard of judgment. Hardly anybody uses punctuation properly anymore. Calling someone a bot, just because they punctuated wrong? 😂😂low class
@@thehellyousay do you even know what ChatGPT is?
Innocent until proven guilty is non-existent in the modern judicial system. It's also quickly becoming impossible to get a fair trial with how public some cases become. Yet here we are sticking to this flawed system. Wrongfully convicted, the best case scenario is you have a record, but it can come down to life in prison or even sentenced to death. There has to be a better way.
The u.s. department of injustice !
An admittedly imperfect judicial system cannot ethically have an absolute penalty.
Process, not justice is important in the justice system.
If ANY of these judges were in any of these types of situations, they’d cry out at the absurdity of it all and demand for change.
Isn't this what injunctions are for?
I can't watch any more
Thanks for sharing 😭😭😇😇😇✌️
COMMON SENSE: BAD LAWS SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED! These days there appear to be many "bad laws" on the books for various political reasons, but never for JUSTICE! This involved prosecutor is a rare gem, who is less concerned about his/her "WIN" record, than for what's morally RIGHT!
Great, informative, intelectual and reasonable information...
Thank you
At least we have an honest prosecutor in this country that is rare
This is the kind of prosecutor we need. Someone who fights for truth and the innocent -- not a win on their record.
Unfourtunately, for Mr. Williams, his appeals, luck, and time ran out. State of MO has executed him this morning.
Please keep us updated on this one!
As of most that is going on. We've lost faith in "the process" and justice in the country. It's all corrupt.
So this would make the USA a terrible country not a great country!
I fear a small percentage of the justice system is corrupted, but that’s far too much. Most (not all) of the failures are at lower levels… over-aggressive officers or prosecutors, but some judges are too self-important to re-examine their own thoughts.
Will be 🙏🏻 for this situation and will also bring before my Bible study.
Please please do a follow up on this story.
Thank you
I bet they won't let him out so he can't sue them for almost 30 years of false imprisonment
I respect the integrity it takes to be willing to admit one was once pro-death penalty, but changed their minds; it is much more difficult to make that change than it is to change from anti-death penalty to pro (such as through personal family being a victim, etc). It's a very charged issue to change one's mind on, ending a life. Your honesty is appreciated (i have hearing issues so i used the captions, apologies if i am misinterpreting them). The death penalty stands out for its permanence; not a single innocent should be put to the blade, and there is no way to truly guarantee that other than to retire the blade. I hope the man prevails in escaping execution. Peace be upon you, fellow traveler. Thank you for offering your support to the downtrodden
Missouri has a Governor. Governors can offer pardons. What the legislature messed up, and the Judiciary was hamstrung, by, can be fixed by the Executive.
Except Missouri has an inept governor who actually lifted the stay that was in place. 😢
Whats wrong with your system?? This is beyond crazy
Ben is lying down in front of the LEMON LAW tag. Steve's RHS
If the prosecutor is now the defendant, who becomes the prosecutor?
Looks like the judges