Missouri's Attorney General and their Supreme Court has found themselves embroiled in a civil rights case taking place on death row. And Phoebe Rose is here to fill us in. On Moore, what do you got for it?
Is?
Phoebe have the case the case of innocence that won't keep on with the times. The Attorney General of Missouri is determined to try to execute a man where DNA evidence has found this man to be probably an innocent man, not a not guilty finding, but probably an innocent man. And he is continuously trying his very best to block an innocence hearing for this gentleman. The innocence projects are involved, and he is absolutely determined carte blanche, no matter what,
to stick that needle in this poor man's arm. The man has been on death row for a large chunk of his life, and a large chunk of the job of the Missouri Attorney General seems to be trying to kill this man. This article is from the Death Penalty Information Center on the twenty second of July twenty twenty four. And Jonathan, if you were the Missouri Attorney General, would you be spending a large chunk of your job trying to kill this poor man.
No, as a matter of fact, I would think that the entire thing never should have gotten through court to begin with. The judge in the trial apparently refused to allow DNA testing. I don't know what precedent that was set on, but that sounds completely a bunch of mouthfeasance to me, and I know it's just another case of people who are not wealthy getting a second tier justice in the justice system, and people who are even lower than that by situation or otherwise are given the not
given the benefit of the doubt in court. They're just assumed that the people who were bringing the charges or who were arresting the person are right and everybody else is wrong, though there's evidence to prove this man is not just not guilty, but innocent and wasn't even involved in it at all. So the fact that the attorney general is doing this is no surprise because in Missouri, attorneys general for decades have been fighting all innocence court
actions just like this. It seems to be a policy that they never allow innocence things to go forward without a major fight, and they're hoping I think that the people involved will run out of funds before it gets to the Supreme Court. But you know, it's like even within the state, the Supreme court of the state. So it's like, this judge figures that if he lets the clock run out and the guy is killed, the whole
case is moot. So it's like, why do we need to accept sculpatory evidence in this case when by the time any of this gets done, we'll already be done with this guy, the case will be and whoever really did do this will be free. And I would be interested to know of who they think actually did it or if they have any clue.
But anyway, Kelly, Yeah, there was a quote that in this article that really jumped out at me this time. The Missouri Attorney General's Office has previously said in the past that innocence is not enough to prevent an execution. I'm going to repeat that innocence is not enough to prevent an execution. The Missouri Attorney General's Office has no problem executing an innocent man when they know that that man is innocent. So I'm trying to decide to myself, wordoff,
fuck is Missouri? At are they still stuck in the middle of the dark ages? What is going on down there when the Justice Department, which is supposed to be for exactly that justice, isn't doing its job this, you know, killing somebody, executing somebody with knowing that they're innocent is definitely not justice. Phoebeu has something you.
Want to say, Murder murder. The premeditated killing of an individual without lawful justification is murder.
State sponsered murder.
If you know an individual is innocent, and you, the state official, acting as the arm of the law of the state, go ahead and kill that person and do everything in your power to kill that person. You are engaged in murder of that person. It doesn't matter that they're in a building called to prison or a jail. It doesn't matter that they're in the custody of the state. This person has civil rights, whether you like them or not. Jeffrey Dahmer had civil rights, and he eight people, he
openedly admit to people. Yet he is still afforded more civil rights than this person is by the Missouri Attorney General. That is the level of lunacy and round the absolute nonsense mongering that is going on here. The Missouri Attorney General is not fit to be an attorney if he is directing his office to proceed with something that he knows is going to result in the death and killing
by the state of an innocent individual. And this is why I will always and forever stand against the death penalty. It's not a deterrent in any way, shape or form, because America's had the death penalty in every state but Michigan forever. Michigan is the only state that has a constitutional block in its state constitution against the death Fentain is the only state that has never executed somebody since
it gained statehood. The other forty nine states have all killed people in the name of their citizens, and they killed innocent people. And you can't undo death. And because you can't undo death, you kill one innocent person, you can't bring a back to life when you know they are innocent. And that is why I will forever no matter what arguments you give me about justice, it's not justice.
It's retribution. It's revenge. It's making you feel good when you see the person that you think killed your loved one killed themselves. We are not the Biblical life for an eye cramp in the twenty first century. We don't go around killing people. We move beyond that, and when you kill an innocent person because you believe zealously that they deserve it, because you believe they are guilty, you
are part of the problem. You cannot kill an innocent man, and the states will kill innocent people because the justice system is not perfect. The death penalty system is flawed, and it is irreversible. So I will never ever stand in support of killing anybody by the state or any death sentence, no matter who the individual is.
Well. Fortunately, the courts do not see it the way the AG sees it. And one of the things that's interesting about this is when the prosecutor who put them on death row finds new evidence he missed or excluded a trial that proves they are not guilty and applies to have his own case vacated, which has happened in this case. Don't you think that should be listened to?
You know, I mean, I agree with you. The death penalty is not is absolutely wrong in any case, because you never know what the future brings as far as new evidence or new situations to light, especially especially when you're the attorney general, you should be open minded and a little bit more less. I've got to be a strong politically a strong age, or else they might you know,
have a public might have a problem with me. But you know, again, this might even be a case of historically ags who succumbed to innocence projects didn't get re elected or some stupid shit like that. But you know, I just or there is some historic unwritten rule or even written in their non public rules that you always oppose these cases, or what fighting innocence claims goes far far before the current AG. But it's just so, what
is really behind this irrational stance? Political capital ass kissing a governor who wants to be seen as cracking down on crime looking to run for higher office? Or is it even more insidious? Is it because the man is a person of color? He's a black man? So we can close this case by accusing an innocent man of this and railroading him to the death chair. There and that way we can close this case, and whoever did this can get away with it, and even if we
don't know who that is. That is, if you want to solve a case, solve the case and get rid of by exclusion those who could not have done it. You know, that's not how you investigate something. You know, it's not how you The original judge excluded DNA events, refused to allow DNA evidence to be gotten in the first place, because there was DNA evidence from the investigation.
And it's like, then another judge on an appeal of that overturn that and when they got the results, guess what this is seventeen years this man spent in prison and he didn't do it. Get over your fucking ego about I can't have something overturned on my watch and just let it go. And that's the kind of thing that it torques my chain to the point of where I'm getting really really angry at this.
This isn't Missouri the show me state exactly, you know, And here a right and here are these people trying to show this DNA evidence and they're turning a blind eye to it. I think that's kind of ironic in and of itself. And I think you make a pretty good case for some of the motivations behind what's going on here, Phoebe. You made a pretty pretty good case against the death penalty as a whole. But do you have any criticisms about the way the AG is handling
this particular case. Do you think the prosecutor is just on like a scorched earth type policy when it comes to executions.
It's not the prosecutor. It's not a scorched earth policy. Here. The prosecutor in this case has applied to have the conviction by case.
You know what, I'm sorry. That was my bad. I should have said the age that the state ag. You know, the Attorney General.
The Attorney General has every turn tried to block court cases. The execution is still penciled in for next month, still
penciled into tape place in September. Let's not forget this man is still at the time of recording, and probably if you're watching this in August twenty twenty four, at time of watching this on death row, when there is evidence that this man is innocent, the prosecutor who prosecuted him has said, I want to vacate this conviction, and the Attorney General is still determined to press ahead with
killing this man. I don't understand it. I do not, as a human being, understand that in a humanity fashion. I cannot get my head into the mentality of the Attorney General who is so resolute in trying to push this forwards. I can't get my head into that at all. I just cannot, in any way, shape or form, get my head around that. I don't know what's going on in his office. I don't know what his politics are. I don't know what his posses are. Frankly, I couldn't
give a ratzas about his politics or his policies. Couldn't give a toss. What I give a toss about is the law itself. The law itself here says he's entitled to an innocence here. The law itself here says that when the motion of a Kate is there, it should be heard. The law itself says the evidence of innocence should be looked into in these cases. There's an Australian television show that somebody said, I do not give a toss about what you think justice is. The only thing
I give a toss about is the law itself. Because everybody has their own different understandings and ideas of justice. It's a nebulous nonsense justice. What is justice? At the end of the day, The three of us have different definitions of it. The producer of this show will have a different definition of it. The people who find the articles for this show will have a different definition of it.
Every talking head on other shows that the atheist community producers will have a different definition of it, and every viewer will have a different definition. The law itself here is clear. The man is entitled to an innocence hearing. The Supreme Court has said so. So why is his death still on the books for a date in September?
Because as innocence is in an excuse to call off an execution, we already know that that's not the law, mister Attorney General. It's just it's unbelievable. Like I said, you know, these are the people that you are expecting to uphold the law, and it's just they're just acting like they don't need to, like they're above it. It blows me away that a state justice department can get away with something like this.
I always say this to anybody listening to this show that is gung hope. When you are saying that criminals have too many rights, the accused have too many death row inmates have too many rights, I ask you this question and think, honestly, if you were haul in front of a judge, what would you want for you in your own selfish self preservation of you? Because I'm pretty
sure you'd want access to an attorney. I'm pretty sure you'd want a fair and speedy trial, and I'm pretty sure you'd want to know all the evidence and charges before you. And I'm pretty sure that you'd want to be able to argue your innocence and to be found not guilty of the crime. And I'm pretty sure that you would not want to be executed for somebody else's crime. And if you are not one of those people, then I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to know you.
And I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to meet you because I don't think you actually have any humanity in there at all. Because it's just wrong. This is just wrong. You can't sugarcoat this. When someone's life is on the line. It is wrong to try and do everything in your power to kill them when you know that killing them could be as a result of evidence that is cramp wrong, buncum, irrelevant when they actually didn't
do it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying the evidence says he didn't do it.
John made a good point too. I mean, if they're going to be punishing this innocent man, we have somebody guilty running around free, And I think that's kind of a frightening idea of thought in itself, you know, So, why you would think that the Justice Department had spent instead of spending its energy to make sure that money's pardon, yeah, and money to make sure this execution goes through, they would be spending that time, energy and money on finding
who it actually was who committed this crime.
To start searching that to find who it is. They have a fingerprint of this guy, the DNA of this guy who did it, Go find him? Right? Yeah?
Why aren't they going after they're looking for familial DNA?
I say this, and I ask you to this question in an honest manner. When you are arrested, and you are and you cannot afford for an attorney, would you expect the state to be able to or be required to provide you with an attorney? So, say you had limited funds, would you expect to be given a public defender?
Yes, because as part of the law, it's the law that says that you will be provided with an attorney.
Forty seven states, they will send you a bill, it will make you pay for a public defender. If they determine that you can afford it. And that is the base level problem with the system that manifests in what we are discussing now, because it gives off this impression of Coppa Gander up the wazoo. The criminal justice system can do no wrong. If you've been arrested, you're presumed to be guilty, and to hell with you.
Yeah, that's no argument.
It's yeah, no argument from me either. I think we're all pretty much in agreement on this story. So uh, I think we'll just wrap it up, and I just want to remind our audience that we do have a lot of really cool merch at the ACA, and you can check it out at tiny dot c c slash ACA Merch