Jury rejects death penalty in Williams murder case

Well, it's an interesting first to have had here...

A federal court jury in Honolulu Friday rejected the death penalty for former Schofield Barracks soldier Naeem J. Williams, choosing instead to sentence him to life in prison for killing his 5-year-old daughter Talia in 2005.

The case was the first capital murder case tried in the state of Hawaii.

I know ATS has people passionately sitting to both sides of the death penalty debate. This one...is one of those tough ones though. This was sustained, long term horrible child abuse termed as outright torture, which eventually lead to the death of the girl.

Talia Williams was 4 years old when she arrived in Hawaii to live with her father and stepmother, Delilah, in December 2004. By the time she died seven months later, she had experienced food deprivation and almost daily beatings -- first with a plastic ruler, then a belt at the hands of her father and stepmother. The beatings continued with her father using his fists.

Delilah Williams, who is serving 20 years for her role in the child's death, testified she also stomped on Talia and lifted her up by the hair, sometimes pulling out clumps of it.

Source

I also think her sentence should have matched his in contributing to the death and months of horrible life for this girl. The article says it's the first Death case decided in Hawaii since they abolished the death penalty in 1957. This was on federal land though, and he was prosecuted under Federal law.

I wonder if it's even fair in serious terms here, to try a Federal Capital Case with Death being sought within a state whose Jury members come from citizens who have chosen to remove that penalty from their own system? It almost seems a conflict on it's surface.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Death would be to easy a punishment for this crime.
I mean he should be tortured.

as horrible as it may sound to some of you, i think the jury decision is fantastic.

the ends never justify the means.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So do you think the Feds should just take the Death penalty out of cases tried inside states who don't have it within their state system?

I try to imagine how this would have worked and at least violated the Hawaiian law in spirit if they'd voted yes to execution? Not technically in legal matters, I know. Certainly in spirit though?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I know I share this in every death penalty thread. But Cameron Todd Willingham....it haunts me still.

I am an empathetic person who is absolutely crazy for my wife. Our youngest is 16 and once he moves out her and i can finally get to taking care of "us". With that mindset, Willingham's case was all it took to turn me away from the death penalty forever.

I have no problem with shooting someone who is in the process of committing the act. And likely would have a less than harsh stance on some vigilantism. But that isn't what Capitol Punishment is. That is just plain murder done under the guise of being "official".

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I know I share this in every death penalty thread. But Cameron Todd Willingham....it haunts me still.

How is that case similar to the one in the OP..? I too think Willingham got the shaft, but that in no way relates to the Williams's case.

Pretty ignorant to compare the two. And you'd have no problem shooting someone caught in the act, which would require an instantaneous judgment (subjective one at that) on your part, but to take their life after due process is a No-Go..?

Weak sauce guy.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
as horrible as it may sound to some of you, i think the jury decision is fantastic.

the ends never justify the means.

I am completely 100% with you on this one.

I used to be pro-death penalty every step of the way, and like you had your catalyst to turn off from it, I did as well. For me it was not a specific case, but a review of my ideals.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I have no problem taking both parents out back and placing a barrel of a gun behind their heads and save the tax payers hundreds of thousands.

When you do something like that, you lose all rights as a human being.

Just my humble opinion.

originally posted by: BestinShow
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I know I share this in every death penalty thread. But Cameron Todd Willingham....it haunts me still.

How is that case similar to the one in the OP..? I too think Willingham got the shaft, but that in no way relates to the Williams's case.

Pretty ignorant to compare the two. And you'd have no problem shooting someone caught in the act, which would require an instantaneous judgment (subjective one at that) on your part, but to take their life after due process is a No-Go..?

Weak sauce guy.

The two are not being compared in my post. Shoe horn that however you will.

"Due process" used to mean something. Until DNA evidence and the Innocence Project showed us how wrong we have always been.

Don't worry about him not getting the death penalty. The prison populations usually take care of child abusers/murderers in their own way. I'm sure him and his wife will be getting their just desserts. I would not be surprised if they are removed from the general population for their own safety.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I just read this from start to finish, and I have no words other than 'disgusting'.

I don't know how to vomit and cry at the same time, but I have a feeling there isn't going to be much of a choice

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I have no problem taking both parents out back and placing a barrel of a gun behind their heads and save the tax payers hundreds of thousands.

When you do something like that, you lose all rights as a human being.

Just my humble opinion.

When I consider capital punishment in the one hand, and the liberality of "cruel and unusual" in the other ... I see balance.

At the very moment you toss in 'me having to pay for their crimes', for which they have been duly tried and convicted I want to shout "Stop the nonsense!!" at the top of my lungs.

Blaming the punishment (to me), is the same as blaming guns for killing people. Except, in this case one would have to focus on the conviction/sentence ... not the death penalty itself.

A death 'sentence' can bring a very critical review to a capital case ... added checks to the balance, so to speak. I see problems with this train of thought too, but they are certainly the lesser of two evils.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The reason I am against the death penalty is I really feel they get off too easily.

We need some type of life in prison where it is so miserable you wish you dead.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just finished reading what you linked (I'm not a TLDR kinda guy). First time I saw it ... and in that light ... you should continue posting it for perspective. TPTB sometimes don't consider us worth the time, money, or effort. Better to not get caught up in their shenanigans.

Can't remember where, but at some point in my life I made a decision to never (seriously) accuse anyone of anything. I'd go as far as pulling the numbers 9 and 1 off my phone if I didn't need them for other calls.

I thank you for your post.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dear bigfatfurrytexan,

I like looking at extreme cases. They tend to paint the problem in the clearest light and point out objections I might not have otherwise seen.

as horrible as it may sound to some of you, i think the jury decision is fantastic. the ends never justify the means.

What do we do with "war?" War is a means of accomplishing something, say, stopping the Germans in World War II. Doesn't the "end" of stopping the Germans, justify the "means," going to war?

Doesn't the possibility that there is some societal "end" that justifies the death penalty means? I'm not going to suggest that end (or ends), that's not my point. Isn't it possible that some such end could exist?

But I may be misunderstanding you.

With respect,
Charles1952

I happen to agree with the sentiment that has been penned so may times throughout history. Benjamin Franklin's interpretation is one that I thought I would share here:

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved ; never, that I know of, contro-verted.

Letter to Benjamin Vaughn

I'm a fan of "an eye for an eye." You take a life, your life should be taken, would be a fitting sentence. Perhaps though, a lifetime in prison would allow him to think hard and long about what he's done to his own offspring.

It's interesting to me that a federal case would still pool a jury from local residents. I would think it would be done differently somehow. Surely local politics would sway the outcome, I mean in Texas, he would have likely been sentenced to death.

a reply to: charles1952

Going to war, as we have typically done it, is wrong. We go to war for financial gain (Imperialism), not justice. Even WWII was more about profits, as it was only our government fighting the Germans. The Corporations were making a fortune off of Germany.

That aside, if you have to fight someone to make them stop acting unjust, then you are acting appropriately. If i walk up an find someone with a knife pulled on you, moving aggressively at you, I would be justified in shooting him when he didn't desist.

But the death penalty is about vengeance. Not Justice. And vengeance, in this case, doesn't belong to the living. It isn't ours to have. The person with a rightful vengeance is dead.