Another innocent executed

[elte]

Another likely wrong person executed. Having experienced egregious social injustice, I regret this happened to Troy Davis.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/new...0110921georgia-troy-davis-execution-case.html

 

[adoucette]

Why do you think it's LIKELY the wrong person?

You weren't there and the witnesses that were and the physical evidence say otherwise:

MacPhail was shot to death Aug. 19, 1989, after coming to the aid of Larry Young, who was pistol-whipped in a Burger King parking lot. Prosecutors say Davis was with another man who was demanding that Young give him a beer when Davis pulled out a handgun and bashed Young with it. When MacPhail arrived to help, they say Davis had a smirk on his face as he shot the officer to death.

Witnesses placed Davis at the crime scene and identified him as the shooter. Shell casings were linked to an earlier shooting that Davis was convicted of.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Davis a hearing to prove his innocence, the first time it had done so for a death row inmate in at least 50 years.


http://www.azcentral.com/12news/new...-troy-davis-execution-case.html#ixzz1YgGemLIS

 

[chimpkin]

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Another case demonstrating mistaken identity is the case of Ronald Cotton. In 1984 Jennifer Thompson was raped. During the attack she studied the attacker's face, determined to identify him if she survived the attack. When presented with a photo lineup, she identified Cotton as her attacker. Twice she testified against him, even after seeing Bobby Poole, the man who boasted to fellow inmates that he had committed the crimes Cotton was convicted of. After Cotton's serving 10.5 years of his sentence, DNA testing conclusively proved that Poole was indeed the rapist.

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

The witnesses seemed to have gone back and forth on the matter of Mr Davis being the shooter, as well.

But in his case, there was at least one piece of physical evidence-the bullet...although the competence of the ballistics expert was questioned.

I do worry about such things-especially when a cop's been killed? they seem to want to kill someone in retaliation.
What good would a polygraph be anyway? they are notoriously inaccurate, such that I would not take a poly, even if innocent of what I was being charged of.

I honestly would prefer capital cases to be extremely clear-cut, there being an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that some particular person did it. Actually, I'd prefer not to have it at all.
Both for the same reason: getting it wrong. You can free a wrongly convicted person, but dead is dead.

 

[cosmictraveler]

But in his case, there was at least one piece of physical evidence-the bullet...although the competence of the ballistics expert was questioned.

There was more evidence than just that but you seem not to want to find out about ALL of the evidence but only what you want to say. This is the biggest problem that everyone seems to have about all cases that the MEDIA brings to our attention. We are only supplied with what they want us to know , stressing only what makes us emotionally charged up. The MEDIA wants to generate as much attention to things that they won't provide us with ALL of the facts about. This is why we should all take a step back when the MEDIA is telling us its"facts" about the cases but refuses to release all of the pertinent details that were included about each case.

I have tried to attain the actual transcript of this case and as yet I cannot get it so how can anyone come to any conclusions about this case if the transcript isn't being released? The only thing we have is what we are told and that isn't good enough , to me, to give any opinions without knowing ALL of the facts. So I'd still like to see the transcripts and still am looking so if anyone else can find them on line then please link me up to them, thanks. I'm talking about the original court transcripts not the ones that the MEDIA are showing us, which do not contain ALL of the facts.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Could someone change the title of this thread to include the name Troy Davis.
I was just about to post a new thread.

I believe that the best example of the injustice of the death sentence, is the non execution of OJ Simpson.
At least the people who actually did it should be executed.

 

[nietzschefan]

huh OJ wasn't even found guilty...

Never give a government the power to kill citizens.

 

[cosmictraveler]

huh OJ wasn't even found guilty...

Never give a government the power to kill citizens.

Yes and then give that power to the drug cartels, mafia, vigilantes, people who are jealous, people who don't like others and on and on. If the government isn't legally the ones to execute we wouldn't have a very good society in which to be living.

 

[Asguard]

Yes and then give that power to the drug cartels, mafia, vigilantes, people who are jealous, people who don't like others and on and on. If the government isn't legally the ones to execute we wouldn't have a very good society in which to be living.

So you think the best sociaties are Malaysia, indoneasia, china, russia, iran, iraq, Saudia Arabia and North Koria and the US?

As far as i know ALL commonwealth countries and all but 1 of eroupe have abolished the Death penelty and guess what, its GREAT living in a Death Penelty free country

 

[cosmictraveler]

So you think the best sociaties are Malaysia, indoneasia, china, russia, iran, iraq, Saudia Arabia and North Koria and the US?

As far as i know ALL commonwealth countries and all but 1 of eroupe have abolished the Death penelty and guess what, its GREAT living in a Death Penelty free country

Eliminating the governments ability to the death sentence would only allow for others to murder anyone they want to without repudiations. I'd think that by having the appeals courts to insure that everyone gets a very long time to be certain that the laws are carried out the way the citizens want them to be are fine with me. Those appeals courts are the safety valve that citizens believe are capable of overseeing what was done through the lower courts were correct and lawful.

 

[Asguard]

Eliminating the governments ability to the death sentence would only allow for others to murder anyone they want to without repudiations. I'd think that by having the appeals courts to insure that everyone gets a very long time to be certain that the laws are carried out the way the citizens want them to be are fine with me. Those appeals courts are the safety valve that citizens believe are capable of overseeing what was done through the lower courts were correct and lawful.

thats bunkum, we have senatences of life without the possibility of parol so there ARE repudiations. Also as far as others committing murders:

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.

Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.

In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

Compared to the US

HomicideThe US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 murders in the United States in 2010[30] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[31] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest among major U.S. cities[32][33] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark.[34][35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

Ie YOUR murder rate is MASSIVILY higher even though you have the death penelty than ours. The UKs (also no DP) was 1.4 in 2000

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes and then give that power to the drug cartels, mafia, vigilantes, people who are jealous, people who don't like others and on and on. If the government isn't legally the ones to execute we wouldn't have a very good society in which to be living.

Yeah. Thank goodness America has a very good society in which to be living!

 

[Cifo]

Seems to me that the "last statements" made by inmates under the sentence of death falls under the First Amendment right to make those "last statements" via a polygraph test —— not for the purpose of staying an execution or for any other legal redress of grievances, but as feedback to the death penalty process and/or a reassurance of the inmates' innocence or guilt to the inmates' and victims' families and friends and society.

Why would prosecutors disagree with such "last statements", except to preserve their god-like right to end a life that they find intolerable. Why does America continue to cling to this barbarism, while the vast majority of the civilized world has abandoned it?

Had Troy Davis's last statements been thus performed, and looking back at his execution, did they kill an guilty man or not? In the face of all this conflicting evidence and testimony, we will never truly know.

 

[Randwolf]

Yes and then give that power to the drug cartels, mafia, vigilantes, people who are jealous, people who don't like others and on and on. If the government isn't legally the ones to execute we wouldn't have a very good society in which to be living.

Why do you think we should retain capital punishment? I have changed my position from pro to con over the decades, based on what I think are fairly sound reasons.

The first is easy and straightforward - the cost to the state (and thereby to me) is much greater when seeking the death penalty vs. life imprisonment:

California is spending an estimated $137 million per year on the death penalty and has not had an execution in three and a half years. Florida is spending approximately $51 million per year on the death penalty, amounting to a cost of $24 million for each execution it carries out. A recent study in Maryland found that the bill for the death penalty over a twenty-year period that produced five executions will be $186 million. Other states like New York and New Jersey spent well over $100 million on a system that produced no executions. Both recently abandoned the practice. This kind of wasteful expenditure makes little sense. The death penalty may serve some politicians as a rhetorical scare tactic, but it is not a wise use of scarce criminal justice funding.

In 2009, eleven state legislatures considered bills to end capital punishment and its high costs were part of these debates. New Mexico abolished the death penalty and the Connecticut legislature passed an abolition bill before the governor vetoed it. One house of the legislatures in Montana and Colorado voted to end the death penalty, and the Colorado bill would have directed the cost savings to solving cold cases. As the economic crisis continues, the trend of states reexamining the death penalty in light of its costs is expected to continue.

And here:

According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. This figure does not count the millions more spent on court costs to prosecute capital cases. The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's 11 executions, and that it costs $90,000 more a year to house one inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in general prison population. This additional cost per prisoner adds up to $57.5 million in annual spending.

Of course, cost reasons alone are not enough to justify repositioning your stance (at least for me).

The big question has always been the deterrence factor. Capital punishment quite obviously brings recidivism to zero, but does it have a deterrent effect on the rest of the population?

The latest research seems to say “Not so much as we like to think”. (If at all)

A large number of studies are examined to determine the deterrent effects of variations in sentence severity, and discern trends over time, providing insights into the stability of results. The majority of these reviews do not support the claim that harsher sanctions deter. The studies that have found support for the notion that harsher sentences deter are relatively few in number. They also suffer from one or more serious methodological, statistical, or conceptual problems that render their findings problematic. The null hypothesis that variation in sentence severity does not cause variation in crime rates should be conditionally accepted. Deterrence-based sentencing makes false promises to the community. As long as the public believes that crime can be deterred through harsh sentences, there is no need to consider other approaches to crime reduction. Sentencing systems that do not subscribe to general deterrence already exist in several nations such as Finland and Canada. 5 tables, 70 references

And here:

The literature on the effects of sentence severity on crime levels has been reviewed numerous times in the past twenty-five years. Most reviews conclude that there is little or no consistent evidence that harsher sanctions reduce crime rates in Western populations. Nevertheless, most reviewers have been reluctant to conclude that variation in the severity of sentence does not have differential deterrent impacts. A reasonable assessment of the research to date – with a particular focus on studies conducted in the past decade – is that sentence severity has no effect on the level of crime in society. It is time to accept the null hypothesis.

In a nutshell, researchers are finding a much, much stronger correlation between the likelihood of getting caught and crime deterrence than they are between punishment severity and deterrence. Maybe we should consider dedicating more of the available resources (money, manpower, etc.) to the prevention of crime rather than spending them on building a capital case.


While the death penalty seems intuitively sensible, the available scientifically based research contradicts a favorable view of its effectiveness.

Hence I am interested in other’s reasons for advocating retention of this somewhat anachronistic practice…

 

[cosmictraveler]

Yeah. Thank goodness America has a very good society in which to be living!

Better than one which, like North Korea, just kills anyone that says anything against the government there.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Why do you think we should retain capital punishment? I have changed my position from pro to con over the decades, based on what I think are fairly sound reasons.


Hence I am interested in other’s reasons for advocating retention of this somewhat anachronistic practice…

There are a few reasons.

1. That when someone is given a "life sentence" they could be eligable for parole in 25 years or less in some states. That would mean they would be freed to live their lives but those they murdered aren't, that's an injusctice and it happens.

2. That when someone tortures and murders more than one person over and over committing a heinous act, they aren't going to change much in prison and could kill others there very easily. They have no conscience at all.

Do you know how much it cost to give a convicted murderer a heart transplant that could have been used with a law abiding citizen? Medical care alone for prison inmates exceeds anything that you show that would make it seem otherwise. If a person is found guilty it usually takes over 10 years to go through the appeals process and that's why it costs so much. I'd like to give any murderer a very quick appeals process rather than take 10 years and cost so much. So I would like them to cut costs by reducing the time given in appealing but still have an appeal given to be certain no one is convicted wrongly.

Here's a survey that was conducted today on MSNBC for their readers but not a scientific one:

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes
65 % Yes
129,323 votes

25 % No
49,132 votes

10 % I'm not sure
20,858 votes

 

[Randwolf]

There are a few reasons.

OK

1. That when someone is given a "life sentence" they could be eligable for parole in 25 years or less in some states. That would mean they would be freed to live their lives but those they murdered aren't, that's an injusctice and it happens.

This might seem a little disingenuous to some. It looks like you are saying you are for the death penalty because a life sentence isn't actually a life sentence. Or is this really what you did mean to say? If so, perhaps we could just correct the underlying systemic problem and make the assigned sentence / penalty translate to reality. Would you still favor capital punishment if life meant life?

2. That when someone tortures and murders more than one person over and over committing a heinous act, they aren't going to change much in prison and could kill others there very easily. They have no conscience at all.

So your concern is recidivism while in prison? As I mentioned, effective and efficient use of the death penalty certainly lowers criminals' ability to reoffend. However, I think this is the point where you have to start the balancing act with the possibility of judicial mistakes - as someone else said "Dead is dead" - perhaps we would err on the side of caution whilst simultaneously doing everything we can to prevent repeat offenses - this has to be done anyway as the average time spent on death row is getting longer and longer:

The time prisoners spend on death row has nearly doubled during the past two decades. Legal experts predict it will rise further as states review execution procedures and prisoners pursue lengthy appeals.
Waits rose from seven years in 1986 to 12 years in 2006, the latest Justice Department statistics show. In all five states with the most prisoners on death row — California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Alabama — offenders spend more time in prison than they did four years ago, a USA TODAY survey of state records through 2007 found.

In California, wait times average nearly 20 years, a state commission report in June says. It costs about $90,000 more per year to house a death row inmate than other inmates.

Do you know how much it cost to give a convicted murderer a heart transplant that could have been used with a law abiding citizen? Medical care alone for prison inmates exceeds anything that you show that would make it seem otherwise.

Hmmm... Not sure what you mean by this, the costs I quoted are purported to be the sum total of all associated expenses involved in bringing a convict through life sentence vs. capital cases. Furthermore, you still have to provide medical care to death row inmates - after all, they have to be completely healthy before you can execute them. (Oh, and don't forget to sterilize the needle)

If a person is found guilty it usually takes over 10 years to go through the appeals process and that's why it costs so much. I'd like to give any murderer a very quick appeals process rather than take 10 years and cost so much. So I would like them to cut costs by reducing the time given in appealing but still have an appeal given to be certain no one is convicted wrongly.

See above for what is actually happening though. As we utilize new forensic tools we uncover more and more past mistakes causing us to be evermore hesitant in applying the finality of capital punishment.

I say give it up - let's just do away with the whole death penalty mess entirely - it's sociographically skewed, ethnically biased, inefficient, ineffective at providing a deterrent and has associated costs that are beyond reasonable.

 

[cosmictraveler]

OK

This might seem a little disingenuous to some. It looks like you are saying you are for the death penalty because a life sentence isn't actually a life sentence. Or is this really what you did mean to say?

Yes, that is what I meant.

So your concern is recidivism while in prison?

Yes, I've read where those inmates who don't have anything to lose commit murders against other inmates and even guards sometimes. They become very unruly sometimes and must be segragated away from others which causes more problems in the prison for there aren't that many solitary confinement cells.

I think this is the point where you have to start the balancing act with the possibility of judicial mistakes

That's why I have stated that the appeals process is the best thing for those who think an injustice has been done.

whilst simultaneously doing everything we can to prevent repeat offenses - this has to be done anyway as the average time spent on death row is getting longer and longer:

Again I would want to speed the appeals process up and make any murder case fast tracked for a review to make certain that there was no mistakes made. By fast tracking those awaiting death sentences that would greatly reduce the money and time spent awaiting the execution and that would benifit everyone.

I say give it up - let's just do away with the whole death penalty mess entirely - it's sociographically skewed, ethnically biased, inefficient, ineffective at providing a deterrent and has associated costs that are beyond reasonable

Let's instead speed up the appeals process and confirm nothing wrong was done during those convicted of murder. It is only skewed because that is what reflects what is going on in society today whether you like it or not. There's more murders by black on black than any other type today.

Here's a survey that was conducted today on MSNBC for their readers but not a scientific one:

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes
65 % Yes
129,323 votes

25 % No
49,132 votes

10 % I'm not sure
20,858 votes

 

[Randwolf]

This might seem a little disingenuous to some. It looks like you are saying you are for the death penalty because a life sentence isn't actually a life sentence. Or is this really what you did mean to say?

Yes, that is what I meant.

OK. Why not just fix the underlying problem and make life life?

So your concern is recidivism while in prison?

Yes, I've read where those inmates who don't have anything to lose commit murders against other inmates and even guards sometimes. They become very unruly sometimes and must be segragated away from others which causes more problems in the prison for there aren't that many solitary confinement cells.

Wouldn't this same reasoning apply exponentially to convicts on death row? They probably adopt the most cavalier "nothing to lose" attitude of all, right?

That's why I have stated that the appeals process is the best thing for those who think an injustice has been done.

Again I would want to speed the appeals process up and make any murder case fast tracked for a review to make certain that there was no mistakes made. By fast tracking those awaiting death sentences that would greatly reduce the money and time spent awaiting the execution and that would benifit everyone.

Let's instead speed up the appeals process and confirm nothing wrong was done during those convicted of murder. It is only skewed because that is what reflects what is going on in society today whether you like it or not. There's more murders by black on black than any other type today.

I agree. However, that seems more fantastical wishing than an honest approach to reality. In fact, reality is going the opposite direction - "The time prisoners spend on death row has nearly doubled during the past two decades." Why do you suppose this is?

I believe it is due to precisely what you are advocating - i.e. a proper and thorough appeals process available to most (should be all) capital crime convicts. Remember the old saw: Do you want it done right, done cheaply or done quickly? You can pick two but not all three...

 

[Tiassa]

Thank ye, sir

You weren't there and the witnesses that were and the physical evidence say otherwise:

Given your tendency to demand other people be accurate, I find it odd that you omit the facts that seven of nine eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony, the prosecution has argued that another person's confession to the crime is inadmissible in court, and allegations of investigative irregularity have long plagued the case.

 

[Randwolf]

Here's a survey that was conducted today on MSNBC for their readers but not a scientific one:

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes
65 % Yes
129,323 votes

25 % No
49,132 votes

10 % I'm not sure
20,858 votes

These figures change drastically when you give people some options:Polling Report

If you could choose between the following two approaches, which do you think is the better penalty for murder: the death penalty or life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole?

Options rotated. N=514 (Form B), MoE ± 5.

10/07-10/10
Death Penalty 49%
Life Imprisonment 46%
Unsure 6%

05/05-07/06
Death Penalty 47%
Life Imprisonment 48%
Unsure 5%

Note that this survey pretty much mirrors your data if the question is asked in the same format. Apparently, many share the concern over recidivism but are placated if offered a "life means life" option.