Now Missouri is pursuing a very similar case, with death row inmate Reggie Clemons. As with the Davis case, there is no physical evidence linking Clemons to the crime for which he was convicted, and his conviction was based solely on witness testimony. One witness had been a former suspect in the case. In other words, here too there appears to be reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt.
This past week, Clemons was given an evidentiary hearing to review evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and police brutality in the case. One bombshell is an allegation that the star prosecution witness in the case had received a payment of $150,000 to settle a dispute with police over physical abuse. Clemons alleges that the police had abused him as well. If they can't get a confession by humane means, I guess they feel they have to beat it out of you. And that kind of "truth" is always suspect at best.
Clemons's hearing will continue to move forward, and anything could happen. But the prosecution still wants blood, claiming that Clemons previously had his chance to clear his name. Never mind the fact that he had been represented in his original trial by an incompetent attorney who failed to mount an adequate defense.
Five of the former jurors in the Williams case are now saying that they would not have voted for the death penalty if they had known about the sexual abuse. Furthermore, some said they voted for execution only because they thought the alternative would be life with the possibility of parole. (In fact, the alternative would have been life without the possibility of parole.) The victim's widow has even called for clemency. The defense continues to fight for a life sentence as the clock keeps on ticking.
But even in cases where guilt is clear and there aren't the kind of mitigating circumstances such as we see in the Williams case, does it really make sense to kill a killer in order to show that killing is wrong?
We as a society should be above that sort of thing.