Save Troy Davis's Life - Act Now to Stop Execution in Georgia

[russ_watters]

I think people might be appalled by the fact that you outspokenly are OK with the execution of innocent people.

That's a little misleading the way you put it. I would do everying reasonable to prevent the execution of innocent people, while accepting the inevitability of unavoidable mistakes.

I rather suspect people would use exactly the same logic to justify to themselves, as you would put it, being "OK with the imprisonment of innocent people."

Why do you draw a distinction between the two?

Guys, show me some logic, not just a knee-jerk reaction to something that sounds offensive to you. Actually analyze the logic for what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

This argument doesn't make sense to me. Even if people do die in prison, you are not condemning them to death when you put them there.

You are if it is a life sentence with no possibility of parole. Whether someone dies in prison after 40 years of their sentence or during at the end of the average of 20 years on Death Row, how has the justice system not given them the same penalty?

There is always the chance of new evidence coming out, resulting in a new trial and the possibility of the sentence being overthrown.

Certainly, but that fact does not mean that:
A. People are in prison who are innocent (and people are 'OK with it')
B. Innocent people die in prison, death sentence or not.

Perhaps the question could be turned around, Russ: why do you support the death penalty?

It is a necessary punishment for the worst offenders and an important deterrent to potential criminals.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ:

I believe the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "shadow of a doubt"; however, the case fails in both instances. The recanting of testimony by 77.78% of the witnesses against Mr. Davis will make this a glaring miscarriage/denial of justice if he is executed.

Evidence is not weighed by such a formula.

If there is the slightest reason to believe that "one" of those self same witnesses is the true killer with the fact that there were that many recants, as well as police coercion stated by these same recanting witnesses then an appeals court is obligated (My opinion since I'm not a lawyer) to re-try the case.

"The slightest reason" is a standard above reasonable doubt and juries are not entitled to use it.

 

[russ_watters]

There was a case some time ago where these two teenage boys from a wealthy family premeditated and then murdered a younger boy simply for the hell of it , with Clarence Darrow as their lawyer they managed to get the alternative to the death penalty ... the judge in fact cried in response to Darrow's speech.

One of them eventually managed to be integrated into society again. The other apparently got himself killed by making sexual advances to the inmate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

This is perhaps why there is the penalty.

I'm not clear on what point you were trying to make. Your last sentence is too non-specific.

 

[russ_watters]

Your point is that if we don't execute a person, and instead sentence them to life in prison, then, since they will eventually die anyway, we might as well just execute them?

Is this correct?

No, it isn't. I said the end result is the same, not that we should just execute everyone who is serving a life sentence.

And, since it takes so long for a death sentence to be carried out, a death sentence is almost the same as life in prison, so there is no reason to eliminate the death penalty?

If that is the case, then it seems that you just made a case for life in prison. The obvious question becomes: Why bother with the death penalty?

That's a good point. Also (not sure ethically this should matter), it is actually cheaper to have them serve a life sentence than be put to death due to the mandatory appeals, etc.*. It hadn't come up before, but I am, in fact, in favor of streamlining the process.

* Hmm... actually, the rigor in the process, automatic appeals and such, probably makes errors less likely in a death sentence than in other sentences. That's just some logic, though - I don't know what the actual stats are.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, the collateral-damage-type argument, "you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet," is pretty difficult to justify doing willfully and intentionally.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but theh way you wrote it does not sound right. Someone who is pro death penalty is not intentionally killing innocent people. Like I said, I am in favor of doing whatever is reasonable to prevent such things.

To pull a Godwin, why not vivisect humans or do tests on them for the sake of advancing medical science like the Nazis did? If you selected people at random instead of just picking Jews it would be all fair. Think how easily we could clear out those FDA-imposed delays for introducing new drugs! I'm sure that rich people would work out some way to avoid the lottery just like they manage to make sure they're not the innocent one who gets executed for the sake of ridding society of all the genuine undesireables.

⚛​

Again, you misunderstand the idea of intent here. A person wrongly convicted is accidentally executed (unless there is intentional misconduct - but there are checks and consequences for that). A person chosen in a lottery to be executed is intentionally executed. This is a pretty clear point of logic.

 

[russ_watters]

Do one better, and vivisect the undesireables for the sake of advancing medical science!

Now you guys are really going off the deep end. Cruel and unusual punishment still applies. These suggestions you are making in no way resemble the logic behind the death penalty.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a problem with the judicial system in general. A person should only be in jail if any hypothesis that the person is innocent must necessaily make unreasonable assumptions given all the evidence presented.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is exactly the type of logic that the things people were saying implied to me. Thank you for finally saying it.

This represents a much, much weaker burden of proof than is currently used. It would result in a very large fractional change in conviction rates. Do you agree with my assessment?

In the trial, a jury decides on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, if later on new facts emerge that make guilt no longer to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the person should be released or at least granted a new trial. The fact that no procedural errors were made in the original trial should be irrelevant. Because then one is pretending that the system is perfect as long as one sticks to the procedures, but that can't be the case as one is dealing with complicated real world events.

That would be procedurally impossible. New evidence needs to be assessed for relevants and quality, otherwise, you'd swamp the legal system with appeals every time (as in the case at hand), someone who didn't want to testify in the first place recants.

Procedures are critical to ensuring that the system can function at all.

 

[cristo]

You are if it is a life sentence with no possibility of parole. Whether someone dies in prison after 40 years of their sentence or during at the end of the average of 20 years on Death Row, how has the justice system not given them the same penalty?

Well, in this case isn't it quite clear? In the former case, they have been imprisoned for 40 years before dying, in the latter, they have been imprisoned for 20 years and then executed. If new DNA (say) evidence were to come out 25 years after they were found guilty proving their innocence, in the former case they could be released, whereas in the latter they couldn't. This point doesn't just hold for the 40 vs. 20 years put forward here, but for any such argument.

It is a necessary punishment for the worst offenders and an important deterrent to potential criminals.

I would argue that the first part here is not an answer, it's just a restatement of the question. As for whether the death sentence acts as a suitably good deterrent (taking into account the fact that innocents will be murdered) I'm not so sure. After all, most of the people who commit the worst crimes are not sane anyway, so what's to say that they fear their own death?

 

[Count Iblis]

This condition seems perfectly reasonable to me. If this condition were not here, then lack of diligence could be used as a tactic to achieve indefinite stay of execution. Lawyers conveniently `overlook' a piece of evidence, which, while not enough to vindicate a suspect, is enough to force a retrial, thus delaying execution.

The second condition seems a little strict, but still reasonable. In all, I commend the US legal system on this turn of events.

Conveniently overlooking something may be a problem, but setting the bar so high that you must show that no matter how hard you looked, you could not have found the evidence, is unreasonable, because it ignores how the US justice system functions in practice.

You have expensive lawyers defending rich clients and poor defendants having to do with lawyers who are appointed by the court who are not paid well.

So, this is yet another reason why the entire justice system in the US should be abolished and replaced by a better one.

 

[russ_watters]

We don't need legal procedures to sort out trivial matters that children in Kindergarten can figure out.

I'm not a big fan of lawyers, but you do them a vast disrespect with your assessment of how they and the legal system works. It is unfair and wrong.

As things stand now executing an innocent person is not a violation of the constitution.

THAT IS JUST PLAIN NOT TRUE!

Again, you are playing games with intentions. Everyone who has been executed has had the benefit of all the legal protections we are capable of giving them to prevent execution of innocent people. In cases where mistakes or misconduct are found (in executions or otherwise), there are consequences for violating the rights of the convicted.

This is presumably the case because if you make it a violation of the constitution, there would be legal consequences if it is found that an innocent person has been executed, regardless of any precautions taken to preven that.

There are legal consequences for errors, etc. in the case of wrongful imprisonment or death. What you are claiming is clearly and straightforwardly wrong.

But the question whether or not a person can be executed if he can prove his innocence is a no brainer. If this question needs to be addressed via lengthy legal procedures in this day and age, then I don't think the legal system can be trusted to tackle more complicated issues.

The lack of logic in the position aside, there is a recourse for situations where an obvious error has been made that the legal system is incapable of dealing with: pardon. I'm not a big fan of pardons, but that's the check/balance you are looking for.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, in this case isn't it quite clear? In the former case, they have been imprisoned for 40 years before dying, in the latter, they have been imprisoned for 20 years and then executed. If new DNA (say) evidence were to come out 25 years after they were found guilty proving their innocence, in the former case they could be released, whereas in the latter they couldn't. This point doesn't just hold for the 40 vs. 20 years put forward here, but for any such argument.

Agreed. So what if the new evidence comes out 41 years after they are imprisoned?

What we've shown is that the only difference is in timescale.

 

[cristo]

Agreed. So what if the new evidence comes out 41 years after they are imprisoned?

Well, then they're just unlucky. But, we've not done anything to actually reduce the lifetime of the party, thus still leaving the maximum possible timespan for appeal, should new evidence arise. By ending their life, we are reducing such a timespan.

 

[NeoDevin]

Now you guys are really going off the deep end. Cruel and unusual punishment still applies. These suggestions you are making in no way resemble the logic behind the death penalty.

Sorry if I wasn't clear there, I was joking.

 

[NeoDevin]

Well, then they're just unlucky. But, we've not done anything to actually reduce the lifetime of the party, thus still leaving the maximum possible timespan for appeal, should new evidence arise. By ending their life, we are reducing such a timespan.

I think (though I don't have any statistics to back it up) that life expectancy would be lower in prison than otherwise. If that is actually the case, then we are in fact reducing it.

I'll try to find statistics one way or another.

Edit:
From Finland, no actual numbers though... http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/25234.htm

The life expectancy of persons having served prison sentences is considerably shorter than the one of the rest of the population.

 

[mathwonk]

thanks to all who wrote in and urged reconsideration of davis's case. that was the purpose of this thread, although the lengthy philosophical arguments have also been interesting. (I realize I precipitated them by naively asking how anyone could possibly not support davis's appeal.) but the goal here was to help save a life, not win an argument.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't see any reason not to continue the discussion though.

 

[Count Iblis]

Now we're getting somewhere. This is exactly the type of logic that the things people were saying implied to me. Thank you for finally saying it.

This represents a much, much weaker burden of proof than is currently used. It would result in a very large fractional change in conviction rates. Do you agree with my assessment?

I don't think so. Marcha Clark told on CNN that if Michael Jackson had not been a famous person, the jury would have convicted him. So, this means that in many cases juries vote to convict even if there exists reasonable possibilities for the defendant to be innocent.

That would be procedurally impossible. New evidence needs to be assessed for relevants and quality, otherwise, you'd swamp the legal system with appeals every time (as in the case at hand), someone who didn't want to testify in the first place recants.

Procedures are critical to ensuring that the system can function at all.

If you had a new trial in this case, the witnesses could have been heard, the matter would have been settled. Now what is happenening is that there are endless deliberations about procedures. An appeals judge should perhaps rule on whether the new evidence is relevant from a far more pragmatic point of view.

 

[Art]

I'm not a big fan of lawyers, but you do them a vast disrespect with your assessment of how they and the legal system works. It is unfair and wrong.

The evidence says otherwise. Since Georgia started funding defence lawyers in capital cases not one of the 46 prisoners they have represented to date have been sentenced to death.

The average time innocent people spend in prison before their innocence is realized and they are released is 9 years. Far better for someone to lose 9 years of their life than be executed after which the wrong cannot be righted.

 

[vanesch]

Agreed. So what if the new evidence comes out 41 years after they are imprisoned?

What we've shown is that the only difference is in timescale.

No, there's a difference in the amount of desperation. Where there's life, there's hope. So as long as an innocent lives, he can have the hope of one day prove his innocence. If he dies earlier, nevertheless, until his last breath, he had that hope and he could try, and if it didn't work out, he could try again and again. If you are on death row, that's not the case.

 

[mheslep]

Well, then they're just unlucky. But, we've not done anything to actually reduce the lifetime of the party, thus still leaving the maximum possible timespan for appeal, should new evidence arise. By ending their life, we are reducing such a timespan.

Yes, but prison none the less takes years of the person's life, and that also is not correctable, ever. New evidence and reversal just stops further harm.

 

[mheslep]

To my mind the best arguments both for and against the death penalty:

Against:
Justice Blackman's conclusion that the death penalty as enacted by the American people is at its bottom 'retributive', his word. Retribution for its own sake is not justified under the precepts of our legal system, nor should we seek to permit it to be so.

For:
Dr Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, author of "The Killing of Bonnie Garland", and sometime guest on Fred Friendly's "The Constitution: A Delicate Balance" TV series in the 80's. Gaylin's argument is that society must show and express moral outrage, that the system of justice must in its action show abhorrence in the assessed punishment that is commensurate with the crime. This is necessary as a substitute for individual vengeance. That is, the punishment must show that the system works, and thus I am not entitled to grab a shotgun and go after someone who took a hammer to [Bonnie's] head. Capital punishment is not required under this argument, but it is permitted if so determined by the people's representatives.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm against capital punishment for the reasons presented here in this thread - that we do not seem to be able to construct a system competent to mete out a form of punishment with this degree of finality.

Now, if we did have a system that we could put confidence into not execute innocent people, I could entertain deterrence as a justification for capital punishment - but "moral outrage"? We need a system that is sober and unyielding and unrelenting, but not one that is squawking and righteous and out to trumpet contempt of the convicted. Let the tabloids trumpet the contempt, they're not liable when the system gets it wrong, as it so often does. Charging the justice system with expressing moral outrage would get us the squawking and righteous kind of justice system.

I'm an atheist but something from the Christian New Testament that I think has wisdom is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In our society the judicial branch of our government is the group whom we charge with deciding who is guilty and meting out punishment, but we don't consider them to be without sin.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

For:
Dr Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, author of "The Killing of Bonnie Garland", and sometime guest on Fred Friendly's "The Constitution: A Delicate Balance" TV series in the 80's. Gaylin's argument is that society must show and express moral outrage, that the system of justice must in its action show abhorrence in the assessed punishment that is commensurate with the crime. This is necessary as a substitute for individual vengeance. That is, the punishment must show that the system works, and thus I am not entitled to grab a shotgun and go after someone who took a hammer to [Bonnie's] head. Capital punishment is not required under this argument, but it is permitted if so determined by the people's representatives.

If that's the reason, then I'd be more of an advocate for physical torture. That's much more of a vengeance, and much more of a proof of abhorrence and testimony of moral outrage. It is also much more flexible in the possibility of commensuration with crime.

What would you prefer ? 5 years of "at least 2 hours of wet electrical shocks a day and one 3rd degree burn using a hot metal object on at least 10 cm^2 of skin every second week" or death penalty ? We could also allow torture visits by the victim or the victim's family to deal with their sense of vengeance if they want to. Hell, we could even let them do some torture sessions themselves.

And if the crime is worse, then we can turn this into 3 hours of shocking a day, 8 years of this treatment etc... Very flexible.

 

[mheslep]

If that's the reason, then I'd be more of an advocate for physical torture. That's much more of a vengeance, and much more of a proof of abhorrence and testimony of moral outrage. ...

I think that confuses the two - vengeance and moral objection. They are very much different things. Vengeance is much more about self indulgence and blaming the individual, moral outrage is about the behaviour, or should be. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think that confuses the two - vengeance and moral objection. They are very much different things. Vengeance is much more about self indulgence and blaming the individual, moral outrage is about the behaviour, or should be. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Moral outrage that leads to a specific preference for executing the sinner seems rather more like hating the sinner than hating the sin.

⚛​