The case of James Williams III is one that I prosecuted 20-plus years ago as an assistant district attorney in Hinds County. Frankly, it was something of a shock to learn that he’s being paroled this early — or at all.
The facts were grisly, as accurately outlined in your editorial of May 18, but what you didn’t see was his lack of emotion, concern and/or remorse at the time of trial. Although only 17 or 18 at the time, Williams sported the look and demeanor of a cold-blooded killer.
Some believe he has shown progress while incarcerated, including developing something of a ministry. That’s terrific, if true, but it doesn’t excuse or mitigate the heinous acts that put him there.
In fact, prison would have been a good place for him to teach salvation; goodness knows there are people there who could benefit from exposure to the scriptures.
The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of sentencing juvenile defendants to life without parole, and it has not banned the practice; it merely limits the circumstances under which it can be imposed. Williams’ case certainly meets the criteria.
Those who see rehabilitation as one of the goals of imprisonment are right in cases in which a life has not been taken. But in murder cases, there is no true justice anyway because that would require that no one have been killed in the first place.
All the system can do in such situations is seek to bring closure for society and the victims’ loved ones; the perpetrator has already brought permanent closure to the victims themselves.
Government only has two basic functions from which all of its actions should derive: protection of the public and the provision of necessary services. Releasing James Williams III to return to the sort of life of which he deprived his parents serves neither of those.
Philip Scott Weinberg, Meridian
