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

[mathwonk]

Here in Georgia we are awaiting action by authorities to execute a young black man, Troy Davis for murder to which he has never been linked by any hard evidence of any kind.
Although 9 eyewitnesses once implicated him, 7 of them now say otherwise, some say they were pressured by police to lie, and others say they heard or saw one of the last two holdout witnesses actually admit the murder.

Indeed the man who first implicated Mr Davis may well be the guilty party.

The US supreme court has just declined to even hear the case, without comment, but the execution could still be halted by the Georgia board of pardons.

Letters of petition are being solicited by Amnesty International on their website:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/page.do?id=1011005




I have just sent this letter:

To whom it may concern,


I ask out of simple justice for either a permanent stay of the execution of Mr Troy Davis,

or a new trial. In light of what everyone in the world knows now about this case, it

is inconceivable to conclude that he has been convincingly proved to be guilty.

The best that can be said, given the witnesses' two versions of the event,

is that we are not sure who did it.

In this situation to actually execute someone is a particularly barbarous act,

recalling the old days of injustice toward all people of color in Georgia in the

1960's and before.




Please join me and many other people of conscience. It seems difficult, but we might save a man's life of whose guilt there is little or no evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Will do, mathwonk. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, I no longer support the death penalty. Given the number of convictions that have been reversed based on DNA evidence, it is evident that many innocent people have been murdered in the name of justice.

I also now believe that no Government should ever have the power to execute its citizens.

Beyond that, if you say there is reasonable doubt, then all the more reason to take a few minutes and fire off a letter.

 

[mathwonk]

ladies and gentlemen, is it possible you have not heard about this case? even desmond tutu is on board here. we are not talking about arguing over which analysis book is best for beginning students, but about an execution. "the force" will be diminished by an irretrievable amount if that occurs. and not only people in georgia will be culpable. please read up on this.

this is your chance to join the struggle that occurred when you were in your infancy and those of us now in our dotage were marching and changing america.

 

[mathwonk]

the math here is disturbing: 100 times as many people per day care about the economy as care about saving a man's life?

The same thing happened in the 60's: most people did not demonstrate or put anything on the line. And i was surprised then too.

 

[mathwonk]

Troy Davis's execution has already been rescheduled for October 27. This is a case that even that paragon of tenderness Pope Benedict, has apparently, questioned, along with Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, and Amnesty International.


If you want to get involved, you have about 9 days left.

I cannot say he is innocent, but when 7 out of 9 witnesses recant, some claiming police pressure to convict, and others assert that one of the two remaining condemning witnesses, the one who first accused Mr Davis, is himself the killer, and that he actually confessed the crime, it seems only fair to have another hearing.

Is that asking too much in a death sentence case?

Recall, this is a case with NO physical evidence, NO DNA evidence, and NO confession (except reportedly by one of the remaining witnesses).

The conviction was obtained entirely on the basis of witness testimony, 7/9 of which has been recanted. Are we still living in the 1950's?

If you don't believe there is still strong entrenched bias against minorities, see the related article about the head of a republican women's organization in CA who distributed a caricature of Obama next to a bucket of fried chicken and a watermelon.

Georgia is not demonstrably friendlier to minorities than California.

 

[russ_watters]

ladies and gentlemen, is it possible you have not heard about this case?

I hadn't. Now that I have and have read the GASC ruling denying the extrordinary motion for a new hearing, I don't see this to be a compelling case that calls for my action. I can't be certain that he's guilty, but the GASC's reasoning for not allowing a new trial at such a late hour sounds pretty reasonable. It's not the clear-cut case of an innocent man about to be executed that many are presenting it to be.

http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1758.pdf

this is your chance to join the struggle that occurred when you were in your infancy and those of us now in our dotage were marching and changing america.

What basis is there for your assertion that race is a factor here?

 

[jaap de vries]

I can't be certain that he's guilty

Dear Russ,
if you think this country should execute those of whom we CAN'T be certain of their guilt, what if any would be a good reason for postponing an execution?

Remember that the request here is for postponement not necessarily releasing this man from prison.

You linked a 27 page report, could you specify what reason given by the GASC you specifically are in agreement with. It would also be refreshing sometimes if you would let you own conscience speak instead of robotically agreeing with the ruling of the Georgian supreme court.

I agree with you that I don't see a racially motivated ruling here.

 

[mathwonk]

do you see any racial motivation behind the fact that the emmett till case has never been successfully prosecuted in over 50 years in spite of the main suspects confessing to the crime? do you think it is accidental that race is apparently still a good predictor of which defendants will receive death sentences in the south?

 

[russ_watters]

Dear Russ,
if you think this country should execute those of whom we CAN'T be certain of their guilt, what if any would be a good reason for postponing an execution?

I said I. I wasn't on the jury. I don't know everything they knew. Also, there is no "certain" in this anyway.

Remember that the request here is for postponement not necessarily releasing this man from prison.

It isn't like this is his first appeal. How many postponements should he get?

You linked a 27 page report, could you specify what reason given by the GASC you specifically are in agreement with.

It went through the evidence, witnesses, and recantings one by one. However, there are probably two main points:

-Recanting testimony does not automatically make the testimony invalid.
-The actual testimony was compelling, meaning that there were a lot of pieces to the puzzle that fit together into the bigger picture. The recantings were non-specific and unhelpful. They didn't offer new evidence, just took back what was said.

It would also be refreshing sometimes if you would let you own conscience speak instead of robotically agreeing with the ruling of the Georgian supreme court.

I read the ruling and you didn't and you're saying I'm robotically agreeing with someone?? C'mon!

 

[russ_watters]

do you see any racial motivation behind the fact that the emmett till case has never been successfully prosecuted in over 50 years in spite of the main suspects confessing to the crime?

Misleading the way you put that, since double-jepoardy applies, but perhaps there was. So what? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

do you think it is accidental that race is apparently still a good predictor of which defendants will receive death sentences in the south?

No. Again, what does that have to do with the case at hand?

 

[jaap de vries]

I said I.

-Recanting testimony does not automatically make the testimony invalid.
-The actual testimony was compelling, meaning that there were a lot of pieces to the puzzle that fit together into the bigger picture. The recantings were non-specific and unhelpful. They didn't offer new evidence, just took back what was said.

OK, fair enough at least this makes it more clear.

I read the ruling and you didn't and you're saying I'm robotically agreeing with someone?? C'mon!

It just sounds strange that you are doubting the guilt of this man, but at the same time ( rather poorly supported) are convinced that the GASC ruling should be upheld. I for one would argue that those two statements do not seem in agreement.

 

[jaap de vries]

I said I. I wasn't on the jury. I don't know everything they knew. Also, there is no "certain" in this anyway. It isn't like this is his first appeal. How many postponements should he get?

As many as necessary to prevent even the slightest change of executing an innocent man!

 

[russ_watters]

It just sounds strange that you are doubting the guilt of this man, but at the same time ( rather poorly supported) are convinced that the GASC ruling should be upheld. I for one would argue that those two statements do not seem in agreement.

You are misunderstanding the criteria by which those two statements are arrived. They are not at all incompatible.

I included that line because if I didn't, I knew I'd get a 'but how can you be completely sure...?' in response. Whether intentional or because of a misunderstanding of the issue, people play games with the standard of proof (see your next post!). Heck, even if I was on the jury, I wouldn't be allowed to use a standard of absolute certainty to convict.

 

[russ_watters]

As many as necessary to prevent even the slightest change of executing an innocent man!

Well, since that is clearly a physical impossibility, why don't you say what you really mean: that there should be no death penalty.

 

[Andre]

Just sent the e-mail too.

The Netherlands does not have a death penalty which is very fortunate. In the last couple of years, two major errs of the state's justice system were reversed. It pertained a brutal rape and kill, of which two guys were convicted (Puttense moordzaak). However when the DNA method became common, the case was re-examined and the two proved to be innocent beyond any doubt. With the death penalty it would have been too late to right the wrong.

in another case it pertained a nurse in a care taking centre. The unusual number of deaths of patients always happened whe she was on duty. That was just about all the evidence, which got her convicted. lateron it was proven that this was not statistically as unlikely as it has been assumed. So there was no case at all. Just coincidence.

 

[Art]

Just sent the e-mail too.

Ditto

 

[Art]

You are misunderstanding the criteria by which those two statements are arrived. They are not at all incompatible.

I included that line because if I didn't, I knew I'd get a 'but how can you be completely sure...?' in response. Whether intentional or because of a misunderstanding of the issue, people play games with the standard of proof (see your next post!). Heck, even if I was on the jury, I wouldn't be allowed to use a standard of absolute certainty to convict.

Are you saying you support the death penalty even if it results from time to time in an innocent person being executed?

 

[Astronuc]

I sent an email through Amnesty International.

I oppose the death penalty.

 

[hypatia]

Given the lack of physical evidence, they should not be in such a hurry to put this man to death. My letter is sent.

 

[LURCH]

I have sent mine, too. Just a question; have all the letters sent so far contained refferences to race (like the comment about justice and "persons of color" in the OP)?

 

[hypatia]

Mine had no reference to race in it at all.

 

[Astronuc]

Mine had no reference to race in it at all.

Mine either. I did edit the form letter pointing out the uncertainty and reasonable doubt, and my concern.

I also pointed out that I do oppose the death penalty.

 

[mathwonk]

from:
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/seven_of_nine_witnesses_against_troy_davis_have_recanted_their_testimony_/Content?oid=580468


Below are excerpts from the affidavits of four of the seven witnesses who recanted their trial testimony against Troy Davis. For more of the recantations — as well as affidavits from newly discovered witnesses who say someone else confessed to the crime — check out Amnesty International’s Troy Davis report. (Scroll down to where it says: “The witnesses — recanted and new testimony.”)

Dorothy Ferrell was staying in a hotel across the street from the crime scene and was on parole at the time. She was questioned by police shortly after the murder and later testified at Davis' trial.
“I was scared that if I didn't do what the police wanted me to do, then they would try to lock me up again. … From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer, like the other witness [sic] had. ... I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn't see who shot the officer. … I had four children at that time, and I was taking care of them myself. I couldn't go back to jail. I felt like I didn't have any choice but to get up there and testify to what I said in my earlier statements.”

On the day of the murder, more than a dozen officers showed up at Darrell Collins’ house, according to his affidavit. They took him down to police headquarters for questioning, and he later testified against Davis. He was 16 at the time of the crime.
“I told them that ... I didn't see Troy do nothing. They got real mad when I said this and started getting in my face. They were telling me that I was an accessory to murder and that I would pay like Troy was going to pay if I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. They told me … I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a police officer got killed. … After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told them what they wanted to hear. … I am not proud for lying at Troy's trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that's all I could do or else I would go to jail.”

Larry Young was a homeless man who was being beat up near a bus station minutes before the murder. Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail was rushing to Young’s defense when Young’s attacker fatally shot the officer. Young was questioned by police that night.
“They kept asking me what had happened at the bus station, and I kept telling them that I didn't know. Everything happened so fast down there. I couldn't honestly remember what anyone looked like. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn't tell who did what. The cops didn't want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren't leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear.”

Antoine Williams had just driven into the parking lot at the time the shooting occurred.
"I couldn't really tell what was going on because I had the darkest shades of tint you could possibly have on my windows of my car. As soon as I heard the shot and saw the officer go down, I ducked down under the dash of my car. ... Later that night, some cops … asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like. … I kept telling them that I didn't know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. … After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read. … At Troy Davis' trial, I identified him as the person who shot the officer. … I felt pressured to point at him because he was the one who was sitting in the courtroom. I have no idea what the person who shot the officer looks like."

 

[mathwonk]

there is indeed no evidence that troy davis has been convicted because of his race. the evidence in georgia is that the death penalty is racially biased, but the bias depends on the race of the victim. An extensive survey by the paper AJC revealed that the death penalty results more than twice as often when the victim is white. when it is a white police officer, it may be even more often, but i do not know this.

 

[mathwonk]

more affidavits: (from amnesty international website)

AFFIDAVITS CONTAINING EVIDENCE IMPLICATING ANOTHER SUSPECT IN THE TROY DAVIS CASE

Joseph Washington
I saw Sylvester Coles – I know him by the name Red – shoot the police officer. I am positive that it was Red who shot the police officer ...

Tonya Johnson
Red then took both guns next door to an empty house and put them inside the screen door and shut the door ... he threatened me after this happened. He told me that he wanted to make sure that I did not tell the police about the guns he hid in the screen door that morning. This is why I did not testify about the guns at Troy's trial because I was afraid of what Red would do to me if I did. I have not told anyone about this until now because I was still scared ...But I have decided that I must tell the truth.

Anthony Hargrove
I know a guy named Red, from Savannah. His real name is Sylvester Coles. I've known Red for years and we used to hang out together. Red once told me that he shot a police officer and that a guy named Davis took the fall for it. He told me this about a year or so after the officer was killed ...

Gary Hargrove
I am sure that Red was facing in the officer's direction when I heard the shooting. ...I was never talked to by the police or any attorneys or investigators representing Troy Davis before his trial. I didn't go up to talk to the police that night because I was on parole at the time and was out past my curfew so I didn't want my parole officer to find out about that.

Shirley Riley
People on the streets were talking about Sylvester Coles being involved with killing the police officer so one day I asked him if he was involved ... Sylvester told me he did shoot the officer ...

Darold Taylor
I remember reading in the paper once about how a guy named Troy Davis got sentenced to the electric chair... One day when I was in the parking lot of Yamacraw drinking beers with Red. I told him about how I'd heard that he was the one who killed the officer. Red told me to stay out of his business. I asked him again if he killed the officer and Red admitted to me that he was the one who killed the officer, but then Red told me again to stay out of his business.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying you support the death penalty even if it results from time to time in an innocent person being executed?

I am pro death penalty and I recognize that it may mean that from time to time an innocent person is put to death, yes.

 

[mathwonk]

no comment.

 

[lisab]

I am pro death penalty and I recognize that it may mean that from time to time an innocent person is put to death, yes.

ugh...

 

[jaap de vries]

Just sent the e-mail too.

The Netherlands does not have a death penalty which is very fortunate. In the last couple of years, two major errs of the state's justice system were reversed. It pertained a brutal rape and kill, of which two guys were convicted (Puttense moordzaak). However when the DNA method became common, the case was re-examined and the two proved to be innocent beyond any doubt. With the death penalty it would have been too late to right the wrong.

in another case it pertained a nurse in a care taking centre. The unusual number of deaths of patients always happened whe she was on duty. That was just about all the evidence, which got her convicted. lateron it was proven that this was not statistically as unlikely as it has been assumed. So there was no case at all. Just coincidence.

Hey Andre, being from Holland too I definitely agree with your first example. I am not so sure about the second.

 

[jaap de vries]

why don't you say what you really mean: that there should be no death penalty.

I am perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusions thank you very much. These Bill O'Reilly-esque tactics are PF unworthy.

 

[jaap de vries]

I am pro death penalty and I recognize that it may mean that from time to time an innocent person is put to death, yes.

You are recalcitrant Russ I'll give you that.

 

[russ_watters]

I am perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusions thank you very much. These Bill O'Reilly-esque tactics are PF unworthy.

Well if you are pro-death penalty, then your position is logically flawed (you cannot be pro death penalty but require a potentially infinite string of appeals). So which is it? You are the one forcing me to read into your opinion by being coy. You are the one playing games here, not me.

You are recalcitrant Russ I'll give you that.

Recalcitrant? I say exactly what I mean, answer questions directly, and I don't get caught in logical inconsistencies because I don't subscribe to any. How is that recalcitrant? Again, you are the one being difficult, not me. I answer questions directly and say exactly what I mean. You put forth a position that is a logical impossibility (a potentially infinite string of appeals).

I'm not a racist, jaap: the people most worthy of execution are serial killers. And by a wide margin, they are young white males.

 

[russ_watters]

ugh...

If you have a point to make, make it.

C'mon guys, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Make a logical argument and think it through. A pretty decent fraction of the population is pro death penalty. I guess you all must think they are all illogical/immoral/unthinking. Did it ever occur to you guys to consider that there could be a logic behind the opposing position? Did it ever occur to you that the logic behind your position might be able to be extended? Ie, did it occur to you that the logical flaw you see in the death penalty might also apply to jail time in general? Consider:

If there is no death penalty, then it is theoretically possible for an innocent person to have their conviction overturned at any time. But does anyone ever die in jail? How can we ever be sure that enough time passed to ensure with absolute certainty that everyone who has ever died in jail was guilty of the crime that put them there? Given the length of time it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, the difference in degree between that and the death penalty is quite small.

 

[jaap de vries]

Well if you are pro-death penalty, then your position is logically flawed (you cannot be pro death penalty but require a potentially infinite string of appeals). So which is it? You are the one forcing me to read into your opinion by being coy. You are the one playing games here, not me. Recalcitrant? I say exactly what I mean, answer questions directly, and I don't get caught in logical inconsistencies because I don't subscribe to any. How is that recalcitrant? Again, you are the one being difficult, not me. I answer questions directly and say exactly what I mean. You put forth a position that is a logical impossibility (a potentially infinite string of appeals).

And I don't do personal attacks like you did in that post. I'm better than that.

I'm not a racist, jaap: the people most worthy of execution are serial killers. And by a wide margin, they are young white males.

My point was not that you are a racist but rather that when you start a phrase with: "Why don't you just say what you really think...(FILL IN THE BLANK)" Is a very poor way of arguing used allot by people like O'Reilly and Hanity. In short, IT PISSES ME OFF!

 

[jaap de vries]

If you have a point to make, make it.

C'mon guys, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Make a logical argument and think it through. A pretty decent fraction of the population is pro death penalty. I guess you all must think they are all illogical/immoral/unthinking. Did it ever occur to you guys to consider that there could be a logic behind the opposing position? Did it ever occur to you that the logic behind your position might be able to be extended? Ie, did it occur to you that the logical flaw you see in the death penalty might also apply to jail time in general? Consider:

If there is no death penalty, then it is theoretically possible for an innocent person to have their conviction overturned at any time. But does anyone ever die in jail? How can we ever be sure that enough time passed to ensure with absolute certainty that everyone who has ever died in jail was guilty of the crime that put them there? Given the length of time it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, the difference in degree between that and the death penalty is quite small.

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

 

[cristo]

If there is no death penalty, then it is theoretically possible for an innocent person to have their conviction overturned at any time. But does anyone ever die in jail? How can we ever be sure that enough time passed to ensure with absolute certainty that everyone who has ever died in jail was guilty of the crime that put them there? Given the length of time it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, the difference in degree between that and the death penalty is quite small.

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. There is always the chance of new evidence coming out, resulting in a new trial and the possibility of the sentence being overthrown. I don't agree with the death penalty for the simple reason that human error does occur. A jury is only human, and cannot be 100% right all of the time.

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

 

[vanesch]

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

This is in fact the main reason why I am against the death penalty. The other one is the danger to political leverage. I do recon that there are crimes so terrible and inhumane that their authors "don't deserve to live". But what if you have the wrong person ? Put yourself 5 minutes in the mind of an innocent man or woman who is convicted to death on the basis of a horrible crime he didn't commit ? Is there anything worse ? If you go to jail on that basis, you can still talk, you can still write, you can still try to build your case, and you still have the hope that one day that nightmare will be over. Maybe you won't reach your goal and die in prison, but until the last day, you had the hope of overturning the injustice that was done to you. You are still there to bring in new elements. Certain people convicted to life sentence have been set free after 15 years. True, they lost 15 years of their life, but finally, it paid off.

The other reason why I am against the death penalty is that it is politically dangerous. A man in jail can still talk. He can still write. He can still say many things he knows about. A dead man is silent. That can be politically more convenient. The crime can be to just know certain things that are unbearable to the powers in place. Ok, they can still *murder* you, but then they are themselves on the wrong side of the legal fence. If they *execute* you, and even if they have to recognize later that this was an "error", then there's nothing wrong.

Again, I don't mind, in principle, that a terrible criminal who did horrible things to others, well knowing what he did and without regrets at that moment, is executed. But when I put that "little pleasure of vengence" in the balance with the potential price to pay (an innocent executed, or political misuse), the balance flips over without any hesitation to "against".

 

[NeoDevin]

Does anyone else find it at all strange that 7 of 9 witnesses were pressured into testifying one way, and then all 7 of them decided to recant? Maybe you have more faith in people than I do, but I can't see 7 out of 9 people willing to risk perjury charges to help someone else out. I think there's more to the story than either side is presenting, but as I don't have access to all the evidence presented in the original trial (anyone have links to transcripts of the original trial, and any appeals, so we can know what the jury heard to reach their decision?) I can't really say anything about it one way or another.

 

[rootX]

I would like to know this/similar ratio

Total number of people who committed serious crime once they were released
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- =?
Total number of people who commited serious crime

I don't mind losing few innocent lives if freeing dangerous people would lead to the loss of more innocent lives.

This is much more like a numbers' problem and we really can't use ethics/opionions to judge what is right.

 

[NeoDevin]

I would like to know this/similar ratio

Total number of people who committed serious crime once they were released
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- =?
Total number of people who commited serious crime

I don't mind losing few innocent lives if freeing dangerous people would lead to the loss of more innocent lives.

This is much more like a numbers' problem and we really can't use ethics/opionions to judge what is right.

A better thing to ask about is this:

Total number of people who committed serious crime once they were released
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- =?
Total number of people who were released

 

[mheslep]

If I may ...

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

I suggest that is temporizing. In both cases, life terms and execution, the state is in control of the convicted at death.

... human error does occur. A jury is only human, and cannot be 100% right all of the time...

Certainly true. The point: If this is the only consideration, the certainty of human error in juries, then one must also oppose life imprisonment, and I suspect most any form of punishment handed out by the justice system.

 

[Amp1]

Russ:

...I wouldn't be allowed to use a standard of absolute certainty to convict.

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.

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.

 

[GCT]

If you have a point to make, make it.

C'mon guys, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Make a logical argument and think it through. A pretty decent fraction of the population is pro death penalty. I guess you all must think they are all illogical/immoral/unthinking. Did it ever occur to you guys to consider that there could be a logic behind the opposing position? Did it ever occur to you that the logic behind your position might be able to be extended? Ie, did it occur to you that the logical flaw you see in the death penalty might also apply to jail time in general? Consider:

If there is no death penalty, then it is theoretically possible for an innocent person to have their conviction overturned at any time. But does anyone ever die in jail? How can we ever be sure that enough time passed to ensure with absolute certainty that everyone who has ever died in jail was guilty of the crime that put them there? Given the length of time it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, the difference in degree between that and the death penalty is quite small.

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.

 

[vanesch]

I don't mind losing few innocent lives if freeing dangerous people would lead to the loss of more innocent lives.

This is much more like a numbers' problem and we really can't use ethics/opionions to judge what is right.

I don't think both are equal. Of course, you can say "dead is dead", but there is IMO a big moral difference in having an accident, be murdered, and be "officially but erroneously killed on purpose by society". The amount of desperation is different.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If there is no death penalty, then it is theoretically possible for an innocent person to have their conviction overturned at any time. But does anyone ever die in jail? How can we ever be sure that enough time passed to ensure with absolute certainty that everyone who has ever died in jail was guilty of the crime that put them there? Given the length of time it takes for a death sentence to be carried out, the difference in degree between that and the death penalty is quite small.

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?

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am pro death penalty and I recognize that it may mean that from time to time an innocent person is put to death, yes.

Amendment XIV; Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due process is best defined in one word--fairness. Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local governments. These standards are known as due process. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

Persons executed by a system known to be fallible are denied their right to appeal, should new evidence be found. This does not meet the standard of "fairness". Beyond any other moral considerations, and from a logical point of view, only an infallible system can claim the moral authority to deny any opportunity for a correction, in the event of error.

Also, I must say, I don't recognize your right to deny life to innocent people. You don't have that right.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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.

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.

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

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.

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

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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

Yeah! Or, food prices are getting high, we can start making soylent green! Or imagine if we could figure out some way to make people into gasoline. "Little Jimmy, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're our least favorite child and we've decided to process your body into biodiesel so that the other kids can make it to their after-school activities."

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

Yeah! Or, food prices are getting high, we can start making soylent green! Or imagine if we could figure out some way to make people into gasoline. "Little Jimmy, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're our least favorite child and we've decided to process your body into biodiesel so that the other kids can make it to their after-school activities."

⚛​

Brilliant, I'm writing up my business plan, I'll be applying for a small business startup loan next week.