Another innocent executed

[adoucette]

The main witness, Harriet Murry however has not, and the many judges who have heard the actual testimony (not the blurbs in the media) and the changed testimony have not been convinced at all.

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/DavisMcPhail/1991/08241991DAVISSMILED.pdf

Which is why I challenged the term that was originally used, that it was LIKELY that he wasn't the shooter.

Arthur

 

[quadraphonics]

Which is why I challenged the term that was originally used, that it was LIKELY that he wasn't the shooter.

That's a distraction - the question is whether you're okay with the government killing someone on the basis of a single witnesses' say-so. "LIKELY" is not the standard used in our legal system - it's "beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[cosmictraveler]

Randwolf
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?

This is mainly due to the amount of people awaiting their turn at the appellet court levels. There are not many circut courts of appeals to handle all of those cases that are being persued. Many people today want to appeal their convictions unlike years ago where they just took their sentences and did their time.

I'd like to see more appellate courts established to help reduce the case loads that are now in the system and again say that any murder cases be put on the fast track through the appellate courts. Many cases today are frivolous in nature and only clog the system down.

 

[cosmictraveler]

That's a distraction - the question is whether you're okay with the government killing someone on the basis of a single witnesses' say-so. "LIKELY" is not the standard used in our legal system - it's "beyond reasonable doubt."

It isn't "killing " someone as you want us to think but instead it is having justice done to those people who have murdered or done some other horrific crime to an innocent victim. Not once do I see anyone say anything about the victims but instead only focus their attention on those who are convicted. I wonder why this is?

20-year-old man who was tortured and partially-burned before his killer(s) decapitated him.

WARNING! The following image shows a decapitated body. Click at your own risk.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/uploadedimages/1/1/0/4/4/114787.thumb?d=1261796903

 

[quadraphonics]

It isn't "killing " someone as you want us to think

? This event we're talking about: it starts with a live human being, and produces a dead one, no? That's not "killing?"

 

[cosmictraveler]

? This event we're talking about: it starts with a live human being, and produces a dead one, no? That's not "killing?"

We start with a human CONVICTED of a crime that meets the death sentence. We call this a way of serving JUSTICE not going out and killing someone as you so want us to believe. There's a big difference between the two and if you cannot understand that difference then I guess you better try to learn more about what justice means.

 

[Randwolf]

We start with a human CONVICTED of a crime that meets the death sentence. We call this a way of serving JUSTICE not going out and killing someone as you so want us to believe. There's a big difference between the two and if you cannot understand that difference then I guess you better try to learn more about what justice means.

But cosmic, why? Why do it that way, regardless of the inherent justice (which may or may not be present) if it provides no additional deterrent and is less efficient / economical than life in prison?

Especially if you factor in the potential (realized many times over now) for mistakes?

I used to favor capital punishment also, but that was before the intuitive notion of deterrence was questioned and apparently disproven.

 

[adoucette]

That's a distraction - the question is whether you're okay with the government killing someone on the basis of a single witnesses' say-so. "LIKELY" is not the standard used in our legal system - it's "beyond reasonable doubt."

No it's not.
The original poster seemed to claim that there was evidence that indicated it was LIKELY that he didn't do it.

I wanted to know what the basis was for that claim.

No such evidence was forthcoming.

People who said back then that they said they saw him do it, and then 20 years later say they weren't sure it was him, does not indicate that he didn't do it since other people who saw it and testified that he was the shooter haven't changed their position.

The system that convicted him used the convention of beyond a reasonable doubt and that conviction was then reviewed by higher courts, indeed, all the way to the Supreme Court (something not done in 50 years) and none of the higher courts that heard the actual evidence felt that the conviction and sentence should not stand.

Arthur

 

[chimpkin]

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

That's setting the bar pretty low!:bugeye:
@ Cosmic: note that I don't know whether he did it or not. I've not been given enough info.
I just think in a capital case the evidence ought to be utterly overwhelming. It does not seem that overwhelming here.
Dark, confused scene, recanting witnesses, and a ballistics expert who may or may not have been incompetent.

Randwolf:
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.

That, and cases proved to be convictions of innocents:

There have been 273 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic science, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system.
Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

 

[spidergoat]

This guy may have been innocent or not, but you have to ask yourself, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill (in cold blood) in order to keep the death penalty. I also think people guilty of horrible crimes should be killed, but I can't trust the justice system to be perfect, and there is no appealing death.

 

[spidergoat]

...Not once do I see anyone say anything about the victims but instead only focus their attention on those who are convicted. I wonder why this is?...

Because justice is not revenge.

 

[Cifo]

It has been proven that eye witness testimony can be some of the most creditable evidence — as well as some of the least creditable evidence — in a trial. Such testimony can be waterproof when the person is known to the witness ("I saw my brother run out the front door ..."), but it can be extremely unreliable when the person is not known to the witness. This is especially true regarding someone without distinguishing features, and Troy Davis has very plain and unremarkable features.

Additionally, a very serious case, such as this one involving the murder of a police officer, pressures witnesses to agree with the contentions of authority figures, much akin to children falsely testifying to being sexually abused during our infamous period of day care sex abuse hysteria. Unfortunately, it is such extreme cases that warrant the death penalty.

Furthermore, the facial expressions by both people during a violent crime — both the victim and the perpetrator — tend to be unnatural, whether due to anger, fear and/or excitement. So, trying to identify the perpetrator afterwards from a lineup or mugshots is prone to error.

 

[nietzschefan]

Because justice is not revenge.

Bingo.

 

[quadraphonics]

We start with a human CONVICTED of a crime that meets the death sentence. We call this a way of serving JUSTICE not going out and killing someone as you so want us to believe. There's a big difference between the two and if you cannot understand that difference then I guess you better try to learn more about what justice means.

What is this "big difference?" I don't see anything in the definition of "killing" that exempts people convicted of capital crimes. "Killing" is when you start with something that is alive, and then convert it into something that is dead. It really is that simple.

If I'd referred to capital punishment as "murder" or something, then you'd have a point. But I avoided such prejudicial terms on purpose, and instead used the term "killing" which does not connote anything more than simple taking a life.

 

[Randwolf]

We start with a human CONVICTED of a crime that meets the death sentence. We call this a way of serving JUSTICE not going out and killing someone as you so want us to believe. There's a big difference between the two and if you cannot understand that difference then I guess you better try to learn more about what justice means.

I don't see a difference that merits a distinction either. At best you're just arguing semantics, but in this case I don't believe that it's even a case of semantics - how would you define the process used to obtain this brand of justice without using the word "kill"? Execute? Pretty equivalent synonyms there..

 

[quadraphonics]

No it's not.
The original poster seemed to claim that there was evidence that indicated it was LIKELY that he didn't do it.

Right, and as I said: that is a distraction. The issue is what standard of evidence is appropriate for capital punishment. Do you want to live in a society where the state can kill you on the say-so of a couple of people?

I wanted to know what the basis was for that claim.

That you had some motivation for contributing to a distracting issue, does not disqualify it as a distraction. It just qualifies you as motivated to pursue a distraction.

People who said back then that they said they saw him do it, and then 20 years later say they weren't sure it was him, does not indicate that he didn't do it since other people who saw it and testified that he was the shooter haven't changed their position.

People said more than that they "weren't sure." They said that they had been coerced into lying by the police (under threat of prosecution or parole violation), and that another of the witnesses had subsequently confessed to the crime to them. One of them recanted during the original trial, under cross-examination.

So, again - is one or two people saying that you did it sufficient basis to convict and execute someone? Especially when such a large percentage of witnesses in the case ended up recanting? Especially when there is evidence that one of the people saying you did it, is himself the culprit? You wouldn't demand some kind of corroborating physical evidence, to feel comfortable killing someone?

The system that convicted him used the convention of beyond a reasonable doubt and that conviction was then reviewed by higher courts, indeed, all the way to the Supreme Court (something not done in 50 years) and none of the higher courts that heard the actual evidence felt that the conviction and sentence should not stand.

There are plenty of authorities who felt otherwise - William S. Sessions (former FBI director and judge), for example.

And I'll note that what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Davis (by 7 to 2), although only on the more procedural question that was actually before them (i.e., that the District Court in question needed to hold a new hearing to examine new evidence).

 

[quadraphonics]

This guy may have been innocent or not, but you have to ask yourself, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill (in cold blood) in order to keep the death penalty.

Moreover, unless a person's answer to that question is "a shitload," then there's no upside to the death penalty. There was a big meta-study of the effects of the death penalty some time back that concluded the deterrent effect of the death penalty depends on it being applied frequently and certainly (and so, killing a lot of innocent people). Meanwhile, just having a death penalty at all produces the downside (brutalization of the populace). There's little point in a death penalty system that strices to perfection - in such a case, you're going to execute so few people (and after so much delay and cost) that there isn't any appreciable deterrent effect.

 

[quadraphonics]

and a ballistics expert who may or may not have been incompetent.

Moreover, let's note that the ballistics didn't have any links to Davis anyway. It was about matching casings a homeless guy later found near the scene of the crime, to the wounds on another guy. And the conclusion was "probably these are the same gun, but maybe I'm wrong." Except the other guy who got shot says it wasn't Davis who shot him, and in any case there was no actual gun to match these to and try to tie to Davis.

 

[cosmictraveler]

@ Cosmic: note that I don't know whether he did it or not. I've not been given enough info.

I just think in a capital case the evidence ought to be utterly overwhelming. It does not seem that overwhelming here.
Dark, confused scene, recanting witnesses, and a ballistics expert who may or may not have been incompetent.

While you might think that only "overwhelming" evidence is needed, to me, a jury must decide upon the evidence that is presented to them. Although I cannot find the actual transcript of this trial I have read that there was one woman who was an eye witness who never recanted her testimony, a bullet case that was traced back to the defendants weapon, no alliby to where he was when the murder took place and other details that the news media just happens to leave out. I find it rather bizarre that shortly after the murder all those witnesses gave testimony as to what they saw but 20 years later they change their stories. Which way would you be thinking better, right after the incident or 20 years later?:shrug:

 

[cosmictraveler]

I don't see a difference that merits a distinction either. At best you're just arguing semantics, but in this case I don't believe that it's even a case of semantics - how would you define the process used to obtain this brand of justice without using the word "kill"? Execute? Pretty equivalent synonyms there..

Execution of the justice systems findings is a good way to put it. Again I don't see you saying much about the victims and their families suffering after their loved ones are murdered, why is that? You do know that this man that was murdered had a wife or didn't you because the media never brought her up or his mother and father either, I wonder why that is? To me we pay way to much attention to the murderers to see that they get fair and just treatment but NOTHING is ever given to the suffering families that will never see their loved ones again. That , to me, is the biggest travesty in any case that the media is bringing up at anytime. All eyes on the defendant but no one looks at the victim or their families or helps them.