The Moral Algorithm vs. Missouri’s Governor: A Moral Analysis of Parson’s Actions

Parsons Moral Algorithm Justice in Missouri

0:00

/756.52

1×

This analysis will examine Governor Parson's decisions through the lens of John Adams' 'Moral Algorithm,' the philosophical model of the 'Veil of Ignorance,' and Aristotle's ethical principles to provide a non-biased evaluation.

Governor Mike Parson of Missouri announced the release of former Kansas City police detective Eric DeValkenaere from prison but has refused to grant a pardon or clemency to Marcellus Williams, a man convicted of murder who has maintained his innocence and whose case has raised significant concerns about wrongful conviction. Here’s a breakdown of the facts and reasoning behind both decisions.

Case 1: Eric DeValkenaere

Facts:

• Eric DeValkenaere, a former Kansas City police detective, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in 2021 for the 2019 shooting of Cameron Lamb, a Black man.
• Lamb was backing into his garage when DeValkenaere and another officer, without a warrant, entered the property and shot him.
• A judge sentenced DeValkenaere to six years in prison in 2021.
• He was the first Kansas City police officer convicted for an on-duty killing.
• DeValkenaere and his supporters, including Missouri’s Attorney General and law enforcement groups, argued that his conviction was unfair and that he was acting within his duties.
• Governor Parson commuted DeValkenaere’s sentence after he had served less than a year in prison, allowing his immediate release.

Parson’s Reasoning for Commuting DeValkenaere’s Sentence:

1. Law Enforcement Support:
   • Parson, a former sheriff, has consistently sided with law enforcement, viewing the prosecution of DeValkenaere as unjustified.
   • His decision aligns with conservative law-and-order principles that prioritize police discretion in the use of force.
2. Republican Ideology on Criminal Justice:
   • Many conservative officials argue that holding police accountable for on-duty shootings could make them hesitant to act in dangerous situations.
3. Political Alliances:
   • Missouri’s Attorney General and other law enforcement groups lobbied for DeValkenaere’s release.
   • The Republican Party generally supports police immunity in such cases.

Case 2: Marcellus Williams

Facts:

• Williams was convicted of the 1998 murder of Felicia Gayle, a former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter.
• He was sentenced to death, and no physical evidence linked him to the crime.
• DNA evidence, which surfaced later, excluded Williams from the murder weapon, yet he remains on death row.
• His conviction was largely based on testimony from jailhouse informants, a common source of wrongful convictions.
• In 2017, then-Governor Eric Greitens halted Williams’ execution and convened a Board of Inquiry to examine the DNA evidence.
• Governor Parson disbanded the Board in 2023 and refused to grant clemency, effectively allowing Williams’ execution to proceed.

Parson’s Reasoning for Denying Clemency to Williams:

1. Deference to the Jury Verdict:
   • Parson has stated that Williams was convicted by a jury and that his appeals have been reviewed by the courts.
   • This reasoning implies that Parson believes the legal process was followed correctly and does not see a need for intervention.
2. Political Risk of Overruling a Death Sentence:
   • Republicans, particularly in states like Missouri, generally support capital punishment and avoid actions that might be seen as “soft on crime.”
   • Overruling a jury’s decision in a death penalty case, especially for a Black defendant, could alienate conservative voters.
3. Disbanding the Board of Inquiry:
   • By eliminating the review board, Parson effectively removed a mechanism that could have led to Williams' exoneration.
   • This suggests a deliberate effort to prevent further scrutiny of the case.

Comparison and Analysis

Logical and Political Analysis

• Double Standard in Justice:
  • DeValkenaere’s conviction was overturned despite clear evidence of misconduct (warrantless entry, deadly force).
  • Williams remains on death row despite exonerating DNA evidence.
  • The key distinction is that DeValkenaere is a white police officer, while Williams is a Black man convicted on questionable evidence.
• Selective Clemency:
  • Parson's decisions reflect a broader trend in Republican-led states: strong backing for law enforcement, but little willingness to reconsider wrongful convictions.
  • The Governor's approach suggests more concern for protecting police than ensuring justice for potentially innocent defendants.
• Political Influence:
  • Releasing DeValkenaere plays well with law enforcement groups and right-wing voters.
  • Pardoning Williams could be seen as an admission that the system failed—a politically costly move for Parson.

Conclusion

Governor Parson’s decisions highlight systemic biases in clemency and criminal justice. DeValkenaere’s release was politically convenient, aligning with conservative law-and-order priorities. In contrast, Williams’ case challenges the integrity of Missouri’s judicial system, and addressing it would require confronting uncomfortable truths about racial bias and wrongful convictions.

Parson’s actions reflect a clear prioritization of police over accountability, reinforcing the racial and institutional biases that pervade the justice system.

Applying The Moral Algorithm as defined by John Adams to Governor Parson’s actions in the cases of Eric DeValkenaere and Marcellus Williams would demand a fundamentally different approach—one rooted in justice, fairness, and the common good, rather than political expediency or selective favoritism. Let’s break this down by applying the four key principles from the Adamsian framework to these cases.

1. Government Must Act for the Common Good, Not for Private or Class Interests

John Adams' Principle:
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people."

Application to Parson’s Decisions:

• DeValkenaere's Release:
  • Parson’s decision to commute DeValkenaere’s sentence primarily served the private interest of law enforcement rather than the common good.
  • Protecting a police officer from the consequences of wrongful conduct undermines public trust in the justice system.
  • By prioritizing law enforcement over the rights of citizens (especially marginalized ones), the government fails to ensure equal protection under the law.
• Williams' Denial of Clemency:
  • The refusal to pardon Williams, despite DNA evidence excluding him, serves the honor of the judicial system, prioritizing its reputation over the life of a potentially innocent man.
  • If the goal of government is to protect the safety and prosperity of all people, then preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system by preventing wrongful executions should be paramount.
  • The common good would be best served by ensuring that only the guilty are punished—Williams’ execution would only serve the private interest of the prosecutors and political elites unwilling to admit a mistake.

✅ A Just and Ethical Outcome Under The Moral Algorithm:

• A system that prioritizes truth and fairness over political loyalty would mandate a full review of Williams’ case, ensuring that justice is served for all—not just those with power.
• Parson’s decision to release DeValkenaere would be subject to the same rigorous standard of justice as Williams’ case, ensuring that public servants are held accountable when they violate citizens’ rights.

2. Justice Should Not Be Subject to the Profit, Honor, or Private Interest of One Class of Men

John Adams' Principle:
"Not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."

Application to Parson’s Decisions:

• DeValkenaere’s Commutation:
  • The decision overwhelmingly benefits law enforcement as a privileged class, reinforcing the idea that police officers should be treated differently from ordinary citizens.
  • Instead of upholding justice equally, this decision protects a single class of individuals from accountability, which contradicts the Adamsian vision of fair governance.
• Williams’ Execution Moving Forward:
  • The death penalty disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities, with wrongful convictions often linked to faulty forensic science, biased policing, and unreliable informant testimony—all of which played a role in Williams' case.
  • By refusing to intervene, Parson allows the justice system to prioritize its own reputation over truth, benefiting the class of prosecutors, judges, and political elites rather than the people.

✅ A Just and Ethical Outcome Under The Moral Algorithm:

• Williams’ clemency would be reviewed based on actual innocence, rather than political pressure or the prestige of prosecutors.
• DeValkenaere would not receive preferential treatment; instead, his conviction would be weighed against the harm his actions caused the public.

3. Government Must Reform, Alter, or Change When the People’s Protection, Safety, and Happiness Require It

John Adams' Principle:
"To reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it."

Application to Parson’s Decisions:

• Failure to Reform Police Accountability:
  • A truly just government would recognize that law enforcement accountability is essential to maintaining public trust and safety.
  • By immediately commuting DeValkenaere’s sentence, Parson sent the message that police officers should not be held to the same legal standard as civilians—undermining public faith in justice.
• Failure to Reform the Death Penalty System:
  • The presence of exculpatory DNA evidence in Williams’ case signals a deeply flawed conviction process that needs reform.
  • Rather than reviewing this evidence with a commitment to fairness and truth, Parson chose to protect the "honor" of the legal system at the expense of justice.
  • A government that truly acts for the common good would halt the execution and thoroughly reexamine how wrongful convictions occur.

✅ A Just and Ethical Outcome Under The Moral Algorithm:

• Williams’ case would be used as a catalyst for deeper reform, ensuring that wrongful convictions are prevented and corrected.
• The state would acknowledge that law enforcement accountability is necessary for public safety—not a threat to it.

4. A System That Ensures Both Accountability and Protection for All

• The Moral Algorithm dictates that justice must be blind—neither favoring police officers nor punishing individuals for the sake of maintaining the system’s legitimacy.
• Under this framework, the government would ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability for both police officers and wrongly convicted citizens.

✅ A Just and Ethical Outcome:

1. A rigorous, transparent review process for police misconduct cases to ensure that officers who abuse power are held accountable, rather than receiving preferential treatment.
2. A state commitment to preventing wrongful convictions, which includes a requirement to review cases where DNA evidence contradicts the conviction.
3. An independent commission to review controversial clemency and commutation decisions, ensuring that no single politician can make arbitrary or politically motivated choices.
4. A legal framework where the justice system is designed to serve the people—not the interests of a privileged few.

Final Verdict: The Moral Algorithm vs. Parson’s Decisions

Conclusion

By applying The Moral Algorithm, Governor Parson’s actions would have led to a much more just, fair, and ethical outcome. Instead of favoring law enforcement and ignoring exculpatory evidence, a government truly committed to the common good would have:

• Held DeValkenaere accountable for an unjust killing rather than excusing his crime based on political pressure.
• Ensured that Williams received the full benefit of DNA evidence and halted a potential wrongful execution.

Ultimately, justice should not be political—it should be principled. By following John Adams’ vision of government for the people, not for the privileged, Missouri could ensure a system that protects both public safety and individual rights, rather than one that bends to political convenience and institutional self-preservation.

Examining the Eric DeValkenaere and Marcellus Williams Cases Through the Veil of Ignorance

John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance is a thought experiment that asks decision-makers to design laws and policies without knowing their own place in society—whether they will be rich or poor, law enforcement or civilian, Black or white, guilty or innocent. This approach ensures fairness by making decisions as if one could be anyone in the system, with an equal chance of being in the most or least advantaged position.

If we evaluate Governor Parson’s decisions regarding Eric DeValkenaere and Marcellus Williams under the Veil of Ignorance, we strip away biases based on personal identity, power structures, and race to determine what would be just and fair if we didn't know who we would be in this system.

1. Establishing the Just System Under the Veil of Ignorance

To analyze these cases fairly, let’s assume:

• You do not know whether you are a police officer or a civilian.
• You do not know whether you are Black or white.
• You do not know whether you are wrongly convicted or rightfully convicted.
• You do not know whether you are in power (Governor, judge, prosecutor, etc.) or a powerless individual subjected to the system.

A just system must:

1. Apply equal standards of justice to all people, regardless of status, profession, or race.
2. Prioritize truth and fairness over protecting government or institutional reputations.
3. Ensure that punishment is proportional to wrongdoing and actual guilt.
4. Protect all individuals from wrongful harm, including wrongful imprisonment or execution.

Key Question Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• Would I support this system if I didn’t know whether I would be a police officer or an ordinary citizen?
• Would I support this system if I didn’t know whether I would be a person of privilege or someone falsely accused of murder?
• Would I support this system if I didn’t know whether I would be white or Black in America?

2. Applying the Veil of Ignorance to the Cases

Case 1: Eric DeValkenaere – A Police Officer Convicted of Killing a Civilian

Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• If you did not know whether you would be a police officer or an ordinary citizen, would you create a system where police officers can kill without accountability?
• If you did not know whether you would be the officer or the person being shot, would you allow a police officer to enter private property without a warrant and kill someone, knowing that they could later be freed by a governor's intervention?

🔴 Unjust Outcome Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• The decision to free DeValkenaere suggests that police officers should be held to a lower standard than civilians, which most people would reject under the Veil of Ignorance.
• If the system is truly just, a police officer should be subject to the same legal consequences as any civilian who unlawfully enters a property and kills someone.

✅ Just Outcome Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• DeValkenaere would not be released simply because he was a police officer. Instead, his conviction would be reviewed under the same legal standards applied to everyone else.

Case 2: Marcellus Williams – A Man Sentenced to Death Despite Exculpatory DNA Evidence

Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• If you did not know whether you were wrongly accused or actually guilty, would you create a system that allows executing someone despite DNA evidence contradicting the conviction?
• If you did not know whether you would be a Black man or a white man, would you trust a system that historically has a higher rate of wrongful convictions for Black men?
• If you did not know whether you would be the governor or the person on death row, would you support a system where the governor has unchecked power to deny clemency, even when new evidence emerges?

🔴 Unjust Outcome Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• Allowing Williams to be executed despite DNA evidence suggests that the system values its own reputation more than actual justice.
• This disproportionately harms the most vulnerable—wrongfully convicted individuals, especially those without power or resources.
• No one, under the Veil of Ignorance, would design a system that risks executing an innocent person because they could be that innocent person.

✅ Just Outcome Under the Veil of Ignorance:

• A fair system would guarantee a full, unbiased review of cases where new DNA evidence contradicts a conviction.
• If exonerating evidence is found, the state would halt execution and re-evaluate the case immediately.

3. Comparing the Two Cases Through the Veil of Ignorance

4. The Just and Ethical System Under the Veil of Ignorance

Under a truly fair and impartial system, neither police officers nor the wrongly accused should receive preferential or biased treatment. The justice system should:

1. Ensure equal accountability for all citizens, including police officers.
   • If an officer commits a crime, they should face the same legal process as civilians.
   • DeValkenaere’s release violates this principle by treating law enforcement as a protected class.
2. Prioritize truth and fairness over political interests.
   • If new DNA evidence exonerates a person, the system must prioritize accuracy over maintaining past convictions.
   • Williams' continued imprisonment (and potential execution) violates this principle by upholding an outdated and likely incorrect verdict.
3. Err on the side of protecting the innocent rather than shielding institutions from scrutiny.
   • The state should never execute someone when there is substantial doubt about their guilt.
   • Williams’ case should have resulted in a full exoneration or at least a new trial.
4. Design laws that you would accept regardless of your position in society.
   • If you didn’t know whether you’d be a police officer or an ordinary citizen, would you accept a system where officers could kill with impunity?
   • If you didn’t know whether you’d be innocent or guilty, would you accept a system that allows execution despite DNA evidence proving innocence?

No rational person, under the Veil of Ignorance, would create a system that favors law enforcement over ordinary citizens or allows wrongful executions.

Conclusion

Governor Parson’s decisions fail the test of justice under the Veil of Ignorance. They reinforce systemic biases by:

1. Prioritizing law enforcement protection over public accountability (DeValkenaere’s release).
2. Prioritizing judicial finality over actual innocence (Williams’ potential execution).
3. Creating different legal standards based on status rather than justice.

A truly just system—one that any rational person would agree to before knowing their place in society—would demand equal accountability for police officers and full exoneration for individuals proven innocent.

Examining Governor Parson’s Decisions Through the Lens of Aristotle’s Ethics

Aristotle’s philosophy of virtue ethics provides a framework for evaluating Governor Parson’s decisions regarding Eric DeValkenaere’s commutation and Marcellus Williams’ denied clemency. Aristotle’s ethical system focuses on justice, the golden mean, and the role of a virtuous leader in promoting eudaimonia (human flourishing).

If we analyze Parson’s actions through Aristotle’s lens, we must ask:

• Did Parson act justly in these cases?
• Did his decisions promote the common good and virtue?
• Did he embody the qualities of a just and virtuous leader?

1. Aristotle’s Concept of Justice

Aristotle defined justice as giving each their due, treating equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their moral standing. He distinguished between:

1. Distributive Justice – Fair distribution of goods, honors, and responsibilities in a society.
2. Corrective Justice – Restoring balance when harm has been done, ensuring punishment or remedy is proportionate.

🔴 Applying to Parson’s Decisions:

• In DeValkenaere’s case (a police officer convicted of manslaughter), corrective justice demanded that he serve his full sentence to restore moral order after unlawfully killing Cameron Lamb.
  • By releasing him early, Parson disrupted the balance of justice and created an unjust system where police officers are treated preferentially over ordinary citizens.
  • This violates Aristotle’s notion of corrective justice—justice should correct wrongs, not excuse them based on political bias.
• In Williams’ case (a man sentenced to death despite exonerating DNA evidence), distributive and corrective justice would require re-evaluating the case with fairness.
  • A person should not suffer disproportionately—and execution is the ultimate injustice if the evidence suggests innocence.
  • Parson’s refusal to pardon Williams violates both forms of justice by preserving an unjust legal outcome instead of seeking the truth.

✅ Aristotle’s Just Outcome:

• A just leader would have upheld DeValkenaere’s conviction to maintain moral and legal order.
• A just leader would have stopped Williams’ execution and reopened his case, prioritizing fairness over bureaucratic rigidity.

2. The Golden Mean: Avoiding Excess and Deficiency

Aristotle argued that virtue lies in moderation—the golden mean between two extremes. A leader must act with prudence, balancing justice with mercy.

🔴 Applying to Parson’s Decisions:

• In DeValkenaere’s case, Parson erred on the side of leniency to the point of injustice.
  • If justice requires holding everyone accountable, then favoring a police officer is an excessive leniency that undermines justice.
  • Aristotle would say Parson acted with bias, rather than virtue, by favoring a privileged group over the rule of law.
• In Williams’ case, Parson erred on the side of excessive rigidity.
  • When DNA evidence introduces reasonable doubt, the virtuous response would be to seek truth over strict adherence to legal formalities.
  • His refusal to grant clemency represents a deficiency in compassion and wisdom, which Aristotle sees as a failure of virtue.

✅ Aristotle’s Just Outcome:

• The golden mean requires holding police accountable while also ensuring wrongful convictions are corrected.
• A just leader would balance justice with mercy, acting prudently rather than rigidly or politically.

3. The Virtuous Leader and Eudaimonia (Human Flourishing)

For Aristotle, the goal of government is to cultivate virtue in society, leading to eudaimonia—the flourishing of all citizens. A ruler’s job is to promote the moral good and uphold justice, not serve personal or political interests.

🔴 Applying to Parson’s Decisions:

• In DeValkenaere’s case, Parson’s actions undermine virtue by rewarding wrongdoing rather than holding police accountable.
  • This creates moral corruption, where police can act unjustly without fear of consequences.
  • A government that protects certain individuals at the expense of justice does not cultivate a virtuous society.
• In Williams’ case, refusing clemency prevents justice and human flourishing.
  • If a person is wrongly executed, the state has actively committed an irreversible moral failure.
  • True human flourishing requires a justice system that values truth and fairness over bureaucratic self-preservation.

✅ Aristotle’s Just Outcome:

• A virtuous leader would seek truth and justice over personal or political considerations.
• Aristotle would argue that Parson’s decisions do not promote virtue, but instead perpetuate inequality, favoritism, and injustice.

4. Moral Education and Precedent for Society

Aristotle emphasized that leaders educate society through their actions—they set moral precedents that shape future behavior.

🔴 Applying to Parson’s Decisions:

• By pardoning a police officer who killed unlawfully, Parson sends the message that law enforcement is above the law.
  • This encourages future abuses of power.
  • Instead of teaching responsibility, he teaches impunity.
• By denying clemency to a potentially innocent man, Parson teaches that power matters more than truth.
  • This weakens public trust in the justice system and perpetuates fear among vulnerable communities.

✅ Aristotle’s Just Outcome:

• A virtuous leader would set a precedent that upholds justice, not political expediency.
• The government should educate citizens toward justice, fairness, and virtue—not favoritism and inequality.

Conclusion: Aristotle Would Condemn Parson’s Actions

Governor Parson’s decisions fail every major test of Aristotelian ethics. He:

1. Violated justice by favoring a privileged class (police officers) while ignoring exonerating evidence for an ordinary citizen.
2. Acted with extreme bias rather than the golden mean of fairness and prudence.
3. Failed as a leader by undermining virtue and public trust.
4. Set a dangerous precedent that weakens justice rather than strengthening it.

If Missouri were governed by Aristotelian ethics, DeValkenaere would have served his sentence fully, and Williams would have had his case reviewed with fairness and rationality.

Thus, Aristotle would view Parson’s decisions as corrupt, unjust, and detrimental to the moral fabric of society.