Wellons was convicted for raping and murdering a fifteen-year-old in 1989, so no humor there. But Wellons now has a lawyer who is arguing his sentence should be overturned because of a chocolate penis - and that’s comedy gold.
This is not a code word. We’re talking about an actual piece of chocolate candy that was shaped like a penis. It wasn’t evidence at the trial either. But it was there and Wellons’ lawyer says that shows that the trial wasn’t being taken seriously. Plus, it was white chocolate and that’s evidence of racial bias.
To me, the shocking part is that the Supreme Court (yes, they actually got involved in this) felt this was an issue worth considering.
Ludicrous as the reason sounds, when it comes to the death penalty I can’t think of anything that shouldn’t be considered before being absolutely sure the person deserves to die by the law of that jurisdiction. Georgia has a less than stellar history of presiding over the deaths of blacks, judicial and extra-judicial.
(I can’t imagine how the candy store employee weighed ‘inappropriate’ vs ‘too funny’ and decided to include a penis-shaped chocolate they knew was going to a supposedly impartial juror in a rape and murder trial. That’s unbelievably tacky.)
There are arguments that the legal system should throw out the entire idea of a death penalty. But let’s put those aside for a minute and act on the premise that the death penalty is a legitimate part of the legal system.
If such is the case, then you can’t uphold a standard that any appeal on any grounds is sufficient - that’s the same as saying you will never impose a death penalty. Lose an appeal based on poor testimony? File an appeal based on procedure. Lose an appeal based on procedure? File an appeal based on somebody having a chocolate penis. Lose the chocolate penis appeal? File an appeal because somebody in the court room had their shoes untied. Lose the appeal based on untied shoes? File an appeal that the prosecuting attorney sneezed during the trial.
You can always find something to appeal on as long as you don’t require these appeals meet any reasonable standard. You can keep filing appeals for the next hundred years. (In Walloon’s case, he was originally convicted nineteen years ago.)
I would guess the candy store owner was not considering the issue at all. When you decide what pair of socks you’re going to put on in the morning, do you reflect on how it will impact capital punishment? The candy store owner was almost certainly thinking her friend Mary Jo would get a chuckle out a chocolate penis not trying to affect the outcome of a trial.
Well, it does seem a little wrong for a jury to be so friendly with the court that they’re buying gifts to share. While the judge and bailiffs are theoretically neutral, really they’re part of the system that’s putting this guy on trail. So it’s not quite as bad as having an affair with the prosecutor, but it does seem to me to indicate a jury that’s less asking hard questions about the case, and more doing their part to go along with the government.
