Talk:Dobie Gillis Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 4/12/2005. The result of the discussion was keep (withdrawn). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Hi,

Despite the AfD, I still don't think this article is worth keeping as is. An article that explains what Prejan found interesting about this case, fine. This article doesn't do that. Not even one sentance. Just the mention that the book exists. Reading the article, it sounds open and shut guilty.

Regards, Ben Aveling 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you the AfD nomination and the withdrawal. As I previously stated, I believe that everyone who has been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of capital punishment is noteworthy enough to have an article on WP. My original source for the information in the article is Williams’ Louisiana Supreme Court opinion from the direct appeal in his case. As his conviction was affirmed by the court, it was an “open and shut” case at the time the opinion was written. As with most capital cases, the appeal process is lengthy and I am sure that at some point potentially exculpatory information was brought out in the case and this is what Sister Helen used in her book. So, I am with you and I would also like to see more added to the article about Williams’ inclusion in Sister Helen’s latest book. Nolamgm 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect I'm a bit of a deletionist. On the one hand, disk space is cheap. On the other, setting a minimum standand forces up the standard for all pages. Have a look at what Extreme Unction is doing on this page - that's the sort of 'voice' that all these articles should use. Looking at the sources, it seems that there's some doubt about the DNA, I guess that should be mentioned. There are lots of hits on google for this guy, but I don't have time to look through them now. Is there anything that summarises the problems with the case? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My guess from experience is that Sister Helen's book would give every problem with the case, both real and imagined. Most of the Google hits are because he was included in the book. I have no intention of reading any of Sister Helen’s books in the near future, so I think it would best for someone other than me to add that POV into the article. I guess I of the opinion that it is better to have an article with too much information in the beginning that others can edit down than not have an article at all. I too believe that EU’s edit are good, and I plan to try to mimic his use of the WP style in future articles. Nolamgm 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged vs. actual

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure "alleged" is only used if a verdict has not been rendered. I cannot publically (in a newspaper article or what-have-you) refer to O.J. Simpson as the "alleged murderer of Nicole Simpson" now that a not guilty verdict has been returned, despite my personal belief that he's the actual perpetrator of the crime, unless I am writing from a pre-verdict point of view. (e.g. If I were writing a book about the trial itself, I could refer to O.J. as the "alleged murderer of Nicole Simpson" if I was writing a passage about O.J. that took place before the verdict was rendered.)

That's my understanding, at least, though I could be wrong. I'll go bug BD2412 about it. He's not involved in criminal legal proceedings, but he may still be able to shed some light on the subject. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how Williams is still an "alleged" murderer. He was tried before a jury. He was convicted. His case was reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court on his direct appeal and at numerous times after during Post Conviction Relief (PCR) proceedings. The United States Supreme at the very least denied cert on his case. The district court judge heard the trial and the PCR proceedings. Federal courts reviewed his habeas petitions. The Pardon and Parole Board reviewed the case. All found adequate evidence to support the finding of the jury that the Williams was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should die for his crime. Sister Helen has a different view. She was a clear agenda she has been forwarding for a number of years – abolition of the death penalty. She is not impartial. The courts cited above that reviewed Williams’ case are impartial. To say that Williams must be labeled an “ ‘alleged’ murderer” because Sister Helen thinks there are problems with the confession in not NPOV. That is the POV of Sister Helen. Now Sister Helen is a notable individual. As I previously stated, there should be an addition to this article to include a gist of the contents of Sister Helen’s book. (Maybe 67.2.9.78 would be willing to make those additions.) But adding, “alleged” to the article is a simplistic solution and not NPOV. I am changing “alleged” to “convicted” and adding a comment to the beginning of the article about Sister Helen. “Convicted” is usually how a defendant is referred to in appellant and PCR briefs. He is no longer “accused” or “alleged” once the jury pronounces guilt. I have some experience in this in my professional life. I also fail to see how this article is out of date. It includes information up to last year. All facts have been cited in the source section. Would it be improper to remove this tag? I am also altering information about the furlough from Camp Beauregard. In the prior much needed Wiikification of my verbose legal writing, it now reads as if Williams was on furlough from the US Army and not prison at the time of the killing. Nolamgm 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't be sued for calling someone a murderer once they've been convicted. You can still be wrong. Whereas we can't be wrong with convicted. So good solution. Thanks. The update tag still belongs IMHO there because the article should incorporate more information from the book - the reader (this reader at any rate) has no idea why Sister Helen holds that POV. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for further info, here's what BD2412 said on his talk page in response to my question:

Alleged is always proper before a conviction; after someone has been convicted, the substance of the conviction is generally deemed fact, but not every fact raised in court is part of that substance. For example, if the state says X stole money from his wife, then argued with her, then stabbed her, and X is convicted of the murder, that does not "prove" the theft or the argument, only the murder itself. Those supporting facts remain allegations. However, where the conviction itself has been questioned in some reasonable way, media outlets will often avoid referring to the crime itself as a fact - the discussion of the murders attributed to Stanley "Tookie" Williams, for example, notes that those are the events "according to the conviction" - which leaves some wiggle room. BD2412 T 15:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I'd forgotten that Nolamgm is also a lawyer. My bad. In any case, there was no impending revert war. Ben seems reasonable, and I labor under the delusion that I am as well. I made a change, Ben reverted that change, we came here to talk about it on the talk page which is how Wikipedia wants things to transpire, and all is well. The change from "Alleged" to "Convicted" is a good one, as BD's comments above show. Haven't checked out the change made to the furlough section, but I've been meaning to change that redlink to "prison furlough" instead of "furlough" for a while, and just keep forgetting about it. So I'm sure the change will ge good as well. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atkins and Disbarment

Hello,

Several facts demand to be included in any article regarding Dobie Gillis Williams which remain absent in Wikipedia's article. One, Dobie Gillis Williams had an IQ of 65. Had this trail occured a year later, after the Atkins decision, he would not have been eligible for the death penalty. Two, his original defense lawyer has been disbarred.

Thank you.

This information can be found through deathpenaltyinfo.org

24.93.188.250 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, (2002) did not come out until 2002, about 18 years after the trial and four after the execution. And unlike the Roper decision which affected the execution of individuals who committed capital crimes before their 18th birthday, the Atkins decision does not give a bright line rule as how to define “retarded.” Despite this lack of a clear rule, many groups have attempted to set one as “an IQ below 70.” In legislation passed in Louisiana after the Atkins decision "mental retardation" was defined as “a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. The onset must occur before the age of eighteen years.” La Code of Criminal Procedure art. 905.5.1. Therefore, a statement such as “Williams would not have been be executed after the Atkins decision because he had a mental IQ of 65,” would be incorrect and not NPOV. As to his lawyer’s disbarment, I question the relevancy to the article. Williams’ trial attorney was disbarred in 2003. In re Bonnette, 840 So.2d 512, (La.,2003). His disbarment had absolutely nothing to do with the Williams case. (I also moved this discussion to the bottom and added the caption in an effort to clean up this page.) Nolamgm 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)