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

[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.

 

[NeoDevin]

Back to the original topic...

From Wikipedia:

Harriet Murray, a witness who recanted in 2002, refused to wait for a notary to witness her signed statement, making it legally inadmissible in court.

So, legally, there are only six valid recantations, not the seven that sympathetic parties are claiming. (Someone recants a testimony, but refuses to have in notarized? Seem suspicious to anyone else?)

On August 3, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court voted four to three to hear a discretionary appeal of Davis's 1991 conviction. On March 17, 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court denied the appeal.

On Tuesday, October 14, 2008 the US Supreme Court declined to intervene in this appeal from Troy Davis. They gave no explanation for the decision. The execution has been rescheduled for October 27.

So he has already had two appeals since the recantations. If the Georgia Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court both so no reason to overturn the sentence, why should anyone else (aside from those opposed to the death penalty in general)?

I'm Canadian, so not incredibly familiar with the US justice system, but given that the state and federal Supreme courts have already heard the appeal, and denied it, who is left who has the authority to grant a new trial (who hasn't already declined to do so)?

I can't help but notice that Troy Davis's sympathizers never seem to mention the two appeals he has already received.

 

[Art]

I can't help but notice that Troy Davis's sympathizers never seem to mention the two appeals he has already received.

Perhaps you should inform yourself on what an appeal actually consists of before jumping to any conclusions.

An appeal court does not retry a case. It rules on whether you are the victim of a legal error (eg The judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury) or the victim of serious professional misconduct (eg Prosecutors withheld evidence from your lawyer). It makes no attempt to revisit evidence and specifically precludes the introduction of new evidence and so for Davis to have his appeals turned down says absolutely nothing about the original guilty verdict other than that he received a legally valid trial.

In a few exceptional cases an appeal court may allow new evidence to be heard and may, on consideration of that, order a retrial or declare a miscarriage of justice but this would be the extremely rare exception.

In this most recent attempt for a hearing, because of the strict rules governing what constitutes permissible grounds for appeal, Davis' lawyers had no choice but to try and get their new evidence presented in a circuitous manner i.e. by claiming it was a breach of Davis' constitutional rights to be executed for a crime he was innocent of. As grounds such as these, if admitted, would open the flood gates for a zillion appeals, the court not surprisingly denied it. Again though this denial says zilch about how safe his original guilty verdict was as that wasn't the issue under consideration.

 

[Count Iblis]

The justice system is deeply flawed. Just take your time to read these artcles:

Possibility Of Guilt Replaces Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

Damn the DNA

http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/EXECUTION_NEWS_ARTICLES/Hiding%20the%20ball%20Don%20Valeska%20and%20the%20rules%20of%20justice.html


Alan Beaman convicted in 1995, even though he could not have committed the murder

 

[Count Iblis]

Study Suspects Thousands of False Convictions

 

[mathwonk]

The idea that innocent people should not be executed or serve lengthy sentences seems radical in parts of the US. We have hundreds of people now I believe, who were adjudged guilty and sentenced, who have been completely exonerated by DNA evidence.

Some no doubt were also executed, and there has even been resistance to finding this out, for the embarrassment that would result from determining this fact.

In Troy Davis case, there has never been any evidence strong enough to warrant executing him, and even the Head of the EU has recently weighed in.

This case, and this discussion, has become Kafkaesque, with people arguing that even with so much question and doubt and no hard evidence at all, ever, we should still execute this man. It makes it clear why there is so much injustice in the world.

 

[NeoDevin]

What is your point? (Not trying to be rude, I'm just not completely sure where you're coming from)

Are you opposed to the death penalty in general?
Did he receive an unfair trial, according to US law?
Is the problem with the Judicial system in general?

As near as I can tell, he was given a fair trial, was found guilty, had his appeals, and was denied. I'm not going to argue whether he is guilty or not, as I don't have all the details. Due process has been followed, and there is no legal reason for a stay of execution. It seems to me that the only argument left is that there are flaws in the judicial system. If this is the point you're making, could you please specify what changes you want to see?

 

[Count Iblis]

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.

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.

Most judicial systems in the Western world allow convictions to be overturned on the basis of legally non admissible real world facts. In Britain, there is a Criminal Reviews Commisions which operates outside the legal system. They do factfinding investigations in cases were doubt has been raised. They give an advice to the appeals court on wheter or not to squash the conviction on the grounds that it was unsafe. In all such cases the appeals court have ruled according to te advice they got.

 

[mathwonk]

I'll try not to be rude as well neodevin, although your question seems rather blunt. The point is that you seem more concerned with whether a man has received procedural consideration, as opposed to whether he has received justice, or even whether he is guilty, before he is executed. is that clear enough?

 

[NeoDevin]

I was asking a few questions, trying to clarify where you were coming from (I'm sorry if I came off as blunt, tact is not always my strong point). Nowhere in my post did I mention if I think he should be executed or not. I was pointing out that everything had been done `by the book'.

I am in general opposed to the death penalty, for just this reason. I am also, however, in favor of a strictly followed legal process, but one with a sufficient `appeal' process. I don't know what the grounds required in the states are for a retrial (anyone care to enlighten me). I would not be supportive of a `special case' retrial for Troy Davis, simply because his case has received so much publicity (and probably every source out there is biased one way or another by now). I would support a rewrite of the procedures, which would allow anyone in this or a similar situation to have a retrial.

If what you're asking for is to treat this as a special case, then I can't support that, there should be no `on the fly' created special cases in a legal system (or it's not a coherent legal system, and no one can know, in advance, how they will be treated).

Hopefully it makes a little more sense now why I'm concerned about whether or not he received a fair trial.

Edit: While I am opposed to the death penalty, I do believe that if you commit a crime somewhere that has the death penalty, it should be used.

 

[LowlyPion]

Execution stayed by court of appeals.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/10/24/D940VICO3_georgia_execution/index.html