Troy Davis case

[hibsbollah]

Due to be executed tomorrow despite mounting evidence that the conviction was unsafe. Interesting viewing when considering the pros and cons of the death penalty.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11458

[steakbake]

A terrible situation. Basically a justice system based hell bent on vengeance with little regard for the truth, reconciliation or rectifying mistakes.

[--------]

Due to be executed tomorrow despite mounting evidence that the conviction was unsafe. Interesting viewing when considering the pros and cons of the death penalty.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11458


They do like executing black men down Georgia, don't they?

I suppose it should be considered an improvement that they're not dressing up in their pointy hoods, stringing the guy up from the branch of a tree and setting fire to him...

I was watching a documentary last night about the case of a San Diego 14-year-old who was interrogated for 40 hours by police regarding the murder of his 12-year-old sister. The tape of the interrogation was appalling - no lawyer present, the police lying to the kid about the evidence they were supposed to have found, threats and inducements of all sorts - and if it hadn't been for a very committed public defender and a county sheriff with an open mind and a lot of guts re-examining the case, the case would still be open and the real murderer (who was known to the police at the time but entirely ignored) would still be free and the brother would still have charges hanging over him.

If, that is, he wasn't on Death Row already.

This is why no judiciary is fit to be entrusted with the death penalty.

[Sir David Gray]

He has lost his final appeal and will now be executed at 7pm local time today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14991755

I am completely opposed to the use of capital punishment, even when a person's guilt is beyond any doubt. However there does seem to be a lot of uncertainty regarding this case and I think that sending someone to their death, who is possibly innocent of any crime, is just unacceptable.

We are a soft touch when it comes to how we treat criminals in this country but this is just going far too much in the other direction. Anyone convicted of murder should be handed a life sentence without the possibility of parole. However, if any evidence comes up, a few years down the line that puts their conviction in doubt then they can be immediately released and allowed to get on with the rest of their life. It might not be ideal to have been in prison for so many years for a crime you didn't commit but at least you can get out. That is not possible with capital punishment.

And to be on death row for 20 years is just ridiculous as well.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

If you have the time and the 4 part doc moved you sufficiently you can email the georgia parole board from this AI link. Its worked before.

[khib70]

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

If you have the time and the 4 part doc moved you sufficiently you can email the georgia parole board from this AI link. Its worked before.
It certainly moved me, and I have sent my email. Although I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty in any circumstances, this case is a particularly glaring example of a miscarriage of justice. It's quite extrordinary how the burden of proof is placed squarely on a man fighting for his life in this case.

As Doddie wisely says, there is no judiciary in the USA or anyone else in the world which can be trusted with the power of life and death.

[hibsbollah]

Good for you khibs.

As you say, the most shocking thing about this case is the knowledge that once he was convicted, and even though new evidence came to light that destroyed the prosecution case, there was NO REALISTIC POSSIBILITY of ever being able to overturn the verdict.

Even supporters of the death penalty must agree that the burden of proof in Georgia (and elsewhere, who knows?) needs to be changed.

Whatever, its almost certain an innocent bystander at a murder scene will be filled up with a cocktail of chemicals later tonight and murdered by his state government.

[khib70]

Good for you khibs.

As you say, the most shocking thing about this case is the knowledge that once he was convicted, and even though new evidence came to light that destroyed the prosecution case, there was NO REALISTIC POSSIBILITY of ever being able to overturn the verdict.

Even supporters of the death penalty must agree that the burden of proof in Georgia (and elsewhere, who knows?) needs to be changed.

Whatever, its almost certain an innocent bystander at a murder scene will be filled up with a cocktail of chemicals later tonight and murdered by his state government.
:agree:

It's incredible that all that seems to have been achieved in certain American states in fifty years is that lynchings are now carried out by the State.

[(((Fergus)))]

Not only is there the enormous risk of wrongful conviction, the death penalty a) violates the sanctity of human life (outwith self defence), a corruption that seeps into other areas (abortion, "mercy" killings) and b) removes the possibility for repentance and reconciliation, i.e. all the good that could have come from a crime that cannot otherwise be undone. Revenge is not a good alternative.

Anyway I see they are now blocking e mails. Hopefully something can still be done and hopefully one day America will end this barbaric practice.

[--------]

Not only is there the enormous risk of wrongful conviction, the death penalty a) violates the sanctity of human life (outwith self defence), a corruption that seeps into other areas (abortion, "mercy" killings) and b) removes the possibility for repentance and reconciliation, i.e. all the good that could have come from a crime that cannot otherwise be undone. Revenge is not a good alternative.

Anyway I see they are now blocking e mails. Hopefully something can still be done and hopefully one day America will end this barbaric practice.


Two other addresses from AI:

[email protected] (http://uk.mc867.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]) and [email protected] (http://uk.mc867.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected])

[--------]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting unofficially that there was a hold on the execution pending the US Supreme Court ruling on Davis' last-minute filing. Heard nothing since.

[hibsbollah]

He's dead.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

The problem with getting involved with Amnesty campaigns is it usually ends with a depressing, kick-in-the-baws kind of feeling. The world definitely feels like a worse place this morning.

[steakbake]

Terrible. The prevailing attitude seems to be that someone had to pay and this guy was 'it'. The victim's family had felt this had 'gone on long enough - time to end it'.

Then we read today that Iran is to publicly execute a 17y.o. today and had a mass execution of 22 drug addicts on Monday.

Capital punishment is not justice: it's just barbaric.

[Don Giovanni]

At best this was an unsafe conviction and at worst it is state murder following an awful miscarriage of justice.

Hopefully one day the American nation will grow up and realise that justice and vengeance are not one and the same.

[CFC]

Strikes me that the real benificiaries in instances like this are the lawyers. I shudder to think how much they have made from this case and subsequent appeals, especially given the protracted nature of death penalty cases. Really rather sick and twisted when you consider an innocent man may have been put to death whilst men in suits rake in thousands if not millions from the circus.

[RyeSloan]

Strikes me that the real benificiaries in instances like this are the lawyers. I shudder to think how much they have made from this case and subsequent appeals, especially given the protracted nature of death penalty cases. Really rather sick and twisted when you consider an innocent man may have been put to death whilst men in suits rake in thousands if not millions from the circus.

Surely the lawyers are only operating within the system of law the state has constructed. :confused:

You seem to be suggesting the lawyers are the main drivers behind this system and they are the ones ensuring it's continued existance....while I have no doubt the 20 years on death row and numerous appeals has been at great expense I think what is really sick and twisted is the state law itself which allows the state to kill it's own citizens.

[Jack]

Personally I don’t think the death penalty is a bad thing.

Personally I think this particular case reeks of institutional bias. It’s the system that seems to be wrong here.

All too often there seems not to be uniformity between the states in how cases are dealt with. Maybe in the likes of the States its time for the final say to be taken from the individual states i.e. the state courts refer death sentences to a higher court for the final say and decide on appeals.

[CFC]

Surely the lawyers are only operating within the system of law the state has constructed. :confused:You seem to be suggesting the lawyers are the main drivers behind this system and they are the ones ensuring it's continued existance....Who constructs that "system of law", I would hazard that a large percentage of US (Federal or state) legislators/ lawmakers are lawyers or at least come from a legal background, have a degree in it etc. Its a gravy train/racket. This fellas life and those of the victims family have been left in limbo for 20 years at not inconsiderable public expense whilst lawyers cash in, so whose needs have been prioritised in the whole process?

[CFC]

Simar sorry cant post links (im on my mobile) but google "to execute or not a question of cost" it should come up with an msnbc article that explains how inefficient and expensive it is to execute a prisoner. All the money goes on appeals in this court and that court that merely serve to enrich lawyers. Its why some states are commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment (its cheaper)

[RyeSloan]

Simar sorry cant post links (im on my mobile) but google "to execute or not a question of cost" it should come up with an msnbc article that explains how inefficient and expensive it is to execute a prisoner. All the money goes on appeals in this court and that court that merely serve to enrich lawyers. Its why some states are commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment (its cheaper)

As I said I have no doubt about the costs of all of this however the answer is simple; abolish the death penalty. Plenty of states already have..I just don't buy the fact that it is lawyers who are stopping the remaining states from following the rest, gravy train or not.

[--------]

Strikes me that the real benificiaries in instances like this are the lawyers. I shudder to think how much they have made from this case and subsequent appeals, especially given the protracted nature of death penalty cases. Really rather sick and twisted when you consider an innocent man may have been put to death whilst men in suits rake in thousands if not millions from the circus.


I have no stats, but my understanding is that death-penalty cases are often dealt with on a pro bono basis - no fees, in other words.

One possible appeal after sentencing is on the grounds of 'inadequate defence'; many poor white and black defendants can't afford legal counsel and are defended by court-appointed counsel who MAY be very good, but can also be lazy, incompetent, and just not bothered. Being a public defender isn't at the high-end of the legal profession in the States, but you get what you pay for...

The Davis case is high-visibility, and his lawyers and supporters were right in the spotlight, but there are lots of cases that pass without comment.

There are lawyers who do little or nothing but Death Row cases. It's emotionally-draining but someone has to represent the people through what's basically a legal obstacle-course of appeals, counter-appeals, media hype and usually (like last night) eventual failure.

Texas executed a white guy last night for a racially-motivated hate murder. The victim's close family's reaction is interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/1-texas-executes-man-race-motivated-dragging-death-004337811.html

I (http://news.yahoo.com/1-texas-executes-man-race-motivated-dragging-death-004337811.html) know that this is a horrible case and the guy's guilt is unquestioned, but Texas killing Lawrence Brewer like a rat in a cage doesn't seem to me to be any better or more justifiable than Georgia killing Troy Davis in the face of what certainly seems to have been more than reasonable doubt.

Brewer puts me in mind of John Grisham's "The Chamber".

[khib70]

Terrible. The prevailing attitude seems to be that someone had to pay and this guy was 'it'. The victim's family had felt this had 'gone on long enough - time to end it'.

Then we read today that Iran is to publicly execute a 17y.o. today and had a mass execution of 22 drug addicts on Monday.

Capital punishment is not justice: it's just barbaric.

17 year old apparently has been executed in Iran.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/iran-executes-teenager-accused-killing-%E2%80%9Ciran%E2%80%99s-strongest-man%E2%80%9D-2011-09-21

As you say, revenge and justice are seldom the same thing.

[CFC]

As I said I have no doubt about the costs of all of this however the answer is simple; abolish the death penalty. Agree entirely. Its morally wrong, inhumane, is not proven to deter crime, expensive, time consuming and inefficient. There are no good reasons to use the death penalty where life imprisonment will suffice.

[Leicester Fan]

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, personally I'm against it but did anyone here actually attend the various trials and appeals that lead to the conviction of this man?

How can anyone on here know that this man is innocent going the selective reports of a pressure group?

I don't know if he is guilty or not and can't see how anyone on here can either.

[Hibs Class]

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, personally I'm against it but did anyone here actually attend the various trials and appeals that lead to the conviction of this man?

How can anyone on here know that this man is innocent going the selective reports of a pressure group?

I don't know if he is guilty or not and can't see how anyone on here can either.

I agree. I don't know either if he was guilty or not. I heard an interview on the radio last night with someone from Georgia, I didn't catch if they were a journalist or a lawyer, but the gist of their comments was that the case had dragged on so long it now had the appearance of doubt but he still felt there was no actual doubt as to the safety of the conviction.

[hibsbollah]

I don't know if he is guilty or not and can't see how anyone on here can either.

Thats exactly the point. If there is doubt, you don't kill him.

[hibsbollah]

I agree. I don't know either if he was guilty or not. I heard an interview on the radio last night with someone from Georgia, I didn't catch if they were a journalist or a lawyer, but the gist of their comments was that the case had dragged on so long it now had the appearance of doubt but he still felt there was no actual doubt as to the safety of the conviction.

That sounds like it would be someone from the prosectors' office. For them to say anything else would be stupid. Unfortunately, you would have to be seriously partial to think the conviction was safe. Thats theinescapable conclusion looking at the facts.

[steakbake]

Heard someone say today that Americans are, very generally of course, very pro-life until you are actually born.

[--------]

That sounds like it would be someone from the prosectors' office. For them to say anything else would be stupid. Unfortunately, you would have to be seriously partial to think the conviction was safe. Thats theinescapable conclusion looking at the facts.


IIRC it was the DA who prosecuted Davis. The standard of proof in criminal cases is usually considered "beyond reasonable doubt".

We can judge for ourselves. I didn't hear anyone saying he should be released unconditionally. Just that Georgia shouldn't kill him, and that there was good reason to grant him a retrial. But it was a policeman who was shot, and someone had to die.

Just got this e-mail from AI:

In the early hours of this morning, after a torturous delay of more than 4 hours, the state of Georgia executed Troy Anthony Davis by lethal injection. Despite the serious doubts about his guilt. Despite millions calling on Georgia to reconsider.

Like you, I am not only sad but outraged that this has happened. I was there last night with hundreds of others at a vigil outside the US embassy. We continued to hope, right up until the last moment, that those with the power to do so would wake up and prevent this injustice.
Today, Georgia didn't just kill Troy Davis, they killed the faith and confidence of Georgians, Americans and Troy Davis supporters worldwide in the US criminal justice system.

My colleague, Wende at AIUSA met with Troy yesterday to convey the support that he has had from all of you. He asked us to deliver this message back to you: "The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I'm in good spirits and I'm prayerful and at peace." Troy Davis

Soon we will channel all the outrage we’re feeling into redoubling our efforts for all the other Troy Davises. But today, we simply stand in solidarity with Troy’s family on this darkest of days. You must know that your support has been a huge comfort to Troy and his family. Thank you for everything you have done. I am Troy Davis. You are Troy Davis. We will not stop fighting for justice.

Kate Allen, Amnesty UK Director

[RyeSloan]

IIRC it was the DA who prosecuted Davis. The standard of proof in criminal cases is usually considered "beyond reasonable doubt".

We can judge for ourselves. I didn't hear anyone saying he should be released unconditionally. Just that Georgia shouldn't kill him, and that there was good reason to grant him a retrial. But it was a policeman who was shot, and someone had to die.

Just got this e-mail from AI:

In the early hours of this morning, after a torturous delay of more than 4 hours, the state of Georgia executed Troy Anthony Davis by lethal injection. Despite the serious doubts about his guilt. Despite millions calling on Georgia to reconsider.

Like you, I am not only sad but outraged that this has happened. I was there last night with hundreds of others at a vigil outside the US embassy. We continued to hope, right up until the last moment, that those with the power to do so would wake up and prevent this injustice.
Today, Georgia didn't just kill Troy Davis, they killed the faith and confidence of Georgians, Americans and Troy Davis supporters worldwide in the US criminal justice system.

My colleague, Wende at AIUSA met with Troy yesterday to convey the support that he has had from all of you. He asked us to deliver this message back to you: "The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I'm in good spirits and I'm prayerful and at peace." Troy Davis

Soon we will channel all the outrage we’re feeling into redoubling our efforts for all the other Troy Davises. But today, we simply stand in solidarity with Troy’s family on this darkest of days. You must know that your support has been a huge comfort to Troy and his family. Thank you for everything you have done. I am Troy Davis. You are Troy Davis. We will not stop fighting for justice.

Kate Allen, Amnesty UK Director

Troy's statement above and his last words before he died were those of a man of dignity, shame the people that killed him couldn't have shown the same qualities.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, personally I'm against it but did anyone here actually attend the various trials and appeals that lead to the conviction of this man?
How can anyone on here know that this man is innocent going the selective reports of a pressure group?

I don't know if he is guilty or not and can't see how anyone on here can either.

What a completely fatuous statement. Of course no-one did, and by that argument unless you are intimately involved in the the minute detail of something your opinion is invalid?

People can read, research, review and listen. People can think and balance arguments themselves if they have a mind to. Like you - and indeed pretty much everyone except Troy Davis - I dont know if he was guilty. Its a question of balance of evidence and levels of doubt, which even the most cursory read of the background of the case suggests are high.

[--------]

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, personally I'm against it but did anyone here actually attend the various trials and appeals that lead to the conviction of this man?

How can anyone on here know that this man is innocent going the selective reports of a pressure group?

I don't know if he is guilty or not and can't see how anyone on here can either.


I can speak for no one but myself, but the fundamental question here for me wasn't whether Troy Davis was guilty or not. Lawrence Brewer was guilty of an atrocious murder - it still doesn't make the death penalty right in principle.

Any judiciary which has the death penalty available for murder will inevitably end up executing innocent people. No court process is infallible - you have witnesses who lie, police who misinterpret or misrepresent evidence, lazy or incompetent lawyers, judges who misdirect juries or juries who are prejudiced or who simply take a dislike to the accused - and miscarriages of justice WILL occur.

Life sentences which ARE life sentences - not "eight years and then if you're a good boy/girl we'll let you out to get on with the life you took from your victim" like in this country - allow the accused's lawyers to follow up every avenue of appeal without putting the community at risk and without closing off the process by killing their client. And there's a lot of evidence to show that they're a genuine deterrent - more of a deterrent than the death penalty, since juries find it easier to arrive at a 'guilty' verdict when that verdict isn't going to end someone's life.

[Leicester Fan]

What a completely fatuous statement. Of course no-one did, and by that argument unless you are intimately involved in the the minute detail of something your opinion is invalid?

People can read, research, review and listen. People can think and balance arguments themselves if they have a mind to. Like you - and indeed pretty much everyone except Troy Davis - I dont know if he was guilty. Its a question of balance of evidence and levels of doubt, which even the most cursory read of the background of the case suggests are high.

How can a few articles in a newspaper compare with evidence in court under oath, in front of a judge and jury. It's fashionable to pretend that all Americans, especially in the south, are racist hillbillies with no brains but in reality we all know that they are not. In his trial and 22 years of appeals his lawyers have not been able to disprove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's rather arrogant to think here ,6000 miles away, that we know better.

[Leicester Fan]

I can speak for no one but myself, but the fundamental question here for me wasn't whether Troy Davis was guilty or not. Lawrence Brewer was guilty of an atrocious murder - it still doesn't make the death penalty right in principle.

Any judiciary which has the death penalty available for murder will inevitably end up executing innocent people. No court process is infallible - you have witnesses who lie, police who misinterpret or misrepresent evidence, lazy or incompetent lawyers, judges who misdirect juries or juries who are prejudiced or who simply take a dislike to the accused - and miscarriages of justice WILL occur.

Life sentences which ARE life sentences - not "eight years and then if you're a good boy/girl we'll let you out to get on with the life you took from your victim" like in this country - allow the accused's lawyers to follow up every avenue of appeal without putting the community at risk and without closing off the process by killing their client. And there's a lot of evidence to show that they're a genuine deterrent - more of a deterrent than the death penalty, since juries find it easier to arrive at a 'guilty' verdict when that verdict isn't going to end someone's life.

I agree, but that's not the argument.

[--------]

I agree, but that's not the argument.


It IS the argument.

The argument is that it's wrong for the state - any state - to kill its citizens.

Not that it's wrong to execute one guy, but OK to execute someone else.

[Twa Cairpets]

How can a few articles in a newspaper compare with evidence in court under oath, in front of a judge and jury. It's fashionable to pretend that all Americans, especially in the south, are racist hillbillies with no brains but in reality we all know that they are not. In his trial and 22 years of appeals his lawyers have not been able to disprove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's rather arrogant to think here ,6000 miles away, that we know better.

Utter tosh.

The burden of evidence is on the establishment of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not the proof of innocence. As evidence mounts to challenge that - as it quite clearly did in this case - then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution again before the decision os made to legally murder them. Remember, once you're dead you're dead.

Its nothing to do with thinking the south is populated by rednecks, its nothing to do with "a few articles", its being able to read reports, follow links and take a view on the evidence presented. However, it would not be the first time that southern state went ahead with the death penalty against evidence. Republican candidate Rick Perry from Texas, a real devotee of state-sponsored killing, has had his share of highly questionable executions. Cameron Todd Willingham (http://theweek.com/article/index/216692/rick-perrys-death-penalty-disgrace-a-2012-dealbreaker) for one.

And to echo Doddie, the wider isssue transcends his personal guilt and this case. Its the willingness of a supposedly civilised society to kill someone.

[steakbake]

I supported the Amnesty cause because state sponsored murder is no way for a civilized society to conduct itself.

[Leicester Fan]

It IS the argument.

The argument is that it's wrong for the state - any state - to kill its citizens.

Not that it's wrong to execute one guy, but OK to execute someone else.

I wasn't saying that the death penalty was right, just that we have no way of knowing the individual's guilt or innocence.


Utter tosh.

The burden of evidence is on the establishment of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not the proof of innocence. As evidence mounts to challenge that - as it quite clearly did in this case - then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution again before the decision os made to legally murder them. Remember, once you're dead you're dead.

Its nothing to do with thinking the south is populated by rednecks, its nothing to do with "a few articles", its being able to read reports, follow links and take a view on the evidence presented. However, it would not be the first time that southern state went ahead with the death penalty against evidence. Republican candidate Rick Perry from Texas, a real devotee of state-sponsored killing, has had his share of highly questionable executions. Cameron Todd Willingham (http://theweek.com/article/index/216692/rick-perrys-death-penalty-disgrace-a-2012-dealbreaker) for one.

And to echo Doddie, the wider isssue transcends his personal guilt and this case. Its the willingness of a supposedly civilised society to kill someone.

Once you have been found guilty in court, it's not the state's duty to prove themselves wrong.The man's defence team has had 22 years to prove his conviction unsafe and they haven't.
You obviously assume that you are cleverer than the judge and jurors who have heard the weeks of evidence presented in this case, but like this man's innocence, there's no proof of that.

[RyeSloan]

I wasn't saying that the death penalty was right, just that we have no way of knowing the individual's guilt or innocence.



Once you have been found guilty in court, it's not the state's duty to prove themselves wrong.The man's defence team has had 22 years to prove his conviction unsafe and they haven't.
You obviously assume that you are cleverer than the judge and jurors who have heard the weeks of evidence presented in this case, but like this man's innocence, there's no proof of that.

What condescending nonsense. Why must I assume I am ‘cleverer’ than any judge or jury in this case? (although you may be interested to know at least one of the jurors has stated that if he knew then what he knows now about the case he would never have returned a guilty verdict).

I can read the detail available to the public on the case. I can read the fact that there is no DNA evidence to link the man to the killing. I can read that his conviction was based almost entirely on eye witness accounts. I can read that the vast majority of these eye witnesses have since rescinded their statements. I can read that the eye witnesses state that at the time they were pressured by the police to name Troy as the killer.

Having read all of that I can come to the conclusion that there is reasonable doubt over the safety of his conviction.

Having concluded that I am more than entitled to believe that the man should not be put to death. Not that he is innocent but that he should not be killed.

NONE of that requires me to think I am smarter, cleverer or anything else than the state prosecutors, judges or jurors but it still leaves me quite clear on the fact that on the evidence that is available in the public domain (which in broad strokes is the evidence used to convict) his sentence of the death penalty would appear to be unsafe and that he should not be put to death when there is such strength of doubt.

[hibsbollah]

I wasn't saying that the death penalty was right, just that we have no way of knowing the individual's guilt or innocence.



Once you have been found guilty in court, it's not the state's duty to prove themselves wrong.The man's defence team has had 22 years to prove his conviction unsafe and they haven't.
You obviously assume that you are cleverer than the judge and jurors who have heard the weeks of evidence presented in this case, but like this man's innocence, there's no proof of that.

'The 22 years to prove his case' line youve used twice, and its nonsense. He was found guilty once on the basis of 11 witness statements that were since retracted by the witnesses involved. He was finally given a hearing in 2007 where, as has been discussed again and again, the burden of proof made it impossible for the case to be overturned. These are the facts. Its nothing to do with anyone saying theyre cleverer than the judge, its saying that the system is skewed to make new evidence that comes forward after the event, almost irrelevant. Its not as if hes had appeal after appeal for 22 years as you seem to be implying.
And are you seriously saying that you need to be there at the time to have a valid opinion about something? In that case wed never be ever to have a view on almost any world event. Crazy.


I dont think youve read the details of the case. Try again and see if it makes sense.

[Leicester Fan]

NONE of that requires me to think I am smarter, cleverer or anything else than the state prosecutors, judges or jurors but it still leaves me quite clear on the fact that on the evidence that is available in the public domain (which in broad strokes is the evidence used to convict) his sentence of the death penalty would appear to be unsafe and that he should not be put to death when there is such strength of doubt.
What you are saying is, even though the judge and jurors sat through evidence under oath, whereas I've only read a few not impartial articles, I'm right and they're wrong. You tell me what that means.


'The 22 years to prove his case' line youve used twice, and its nonsense. He was found guilty once on the basis of 11 witness statements that were since retracted by the witnesses involved. He was finally given a hearing in 2007 where, as has been discussed again and again, the burden of proof made it impossible for the case to be overturned. These are the facts. Its nothing to do with anyone saying theyre cleverer than the judge, its saying that the system is skewed to make new evidence that comes forward after the event, almost irrelevant. Its not as if hes had appeal after appeal for 22 years as you seem to be implying.
And are you seriously saying that you need to be there at the time to have a valid opinion about something? In that case wed never be ever to have a view on almost any world event. Crazy.

I dont think youve read the details of the case. Try again and see if it makes sense.

Maybe coverage since the trial or maybe pressure from campaigners has lead the witnesses to change their mind.

We're all allowed a valid opinion on the death penalty, politics, the economy and broad subjects like that. You're allowed an opinion on this particular case but it's not necessarily valid. It's like deciding how good a film is by looking at the poster.

[RyeSloan]

What you are saying is, even though the judge and jurors sat through evidence under oath, whereas I've only read a few not impartial articles, I'm right and they're wrong. You tell me what that means.



Maybe coverage since the trial or maybe pressure from campaigners has lead the witnesses to change their mind.

We're all allowed a valid opinion on the death penalty, politics, the economy and broad subjects like that. You're allowed an opinion on this particular case but it's not necessarily valid. It's like deciding how good a film is by looking at the poster.

Eh? "A few not impartial articles"...are you saying everything written on this case is deliberately written to mislead the reader into believing Troy's conviction is unsafe?

So coverage of the case may have made the witnesses change their mind OR pressure by the police at the time may have made them make false statements under oath....and there is the point, the very people that gave the evidence that convicted Troy in the first place have now stated that that evidence was unsafe.

As for the last point about the poster...hardly. I think you are just trying to fish for a reaction by spouting nonsense like that.
You somehow seem to believe that because it was said in a court under oath and a judge sentenced him that mere mortals outside of that process can't examine the facts as available...I think you are well wide of the mark and that there is more than enough information in the public domain for people to make their own judgement on whether Troy's conviction was safe enough to warrant being put to death. Thanks goodness not everyone thinks like you or we would all be totally beholden to 'Justice' American style.

[hibsbollah]

What you are saying is, even though the judge and jurors sat through evidence under oath, whereas I've only read a few not impartial articles, I'm right and they're wrong. You tell me what that means.



Maybe coverage since the trial or maybe pressure from campaigners has lead the witnesses to change their mind.

We're all allowed a valid opinion on the death penalty, politics, the economy and broad subjects like that. You're allowed an opinion on this particular case but it's not necessarily valid. It's like deciding how good a film is by looking at the poster.

in the absence of a 'banging my head against a desk' smiley, i'll try again.

1. Regarding your response to simar's point; you've missed it by a mile. The judge wasnt too stupid to see the miscarriage of justice, because of the burden of proof under the Georgia system it was never in his remit to do so. Do you understand the difference?

2. The witnesses have recanted and said in interview that this was because either a) they were afraid of identifying the real (alleged) perpetrator, who is a convicted gang leader or b) they were threatened or intimidated by the investigating officers.

And finally, going back to your initial objection, it would indeed be daft to say he is 100% definitely innocent. (the balance of the evidence suggests to me that he is, but since ive not been physically in the courtroom i suppose im not allowed an opinion on the matter in your world). But, again, that should never, ever form the rationale for killing someone. Even supporters of the death penalty agree with that.

[Dashing Bob S]

What you are saying is, even though the judge and jurors sat through evidence under oath, whereas I've only read a few not impartial articles, I'm right and they're wrong. You tell me what that means.



Maybe coverage since the trial or maybe pressure from campaigners has lead the witnesses to change their mind.

We're all allowed a valid opinion on the death penalty, politics, the economy and broad subjects like that. You're allowed an opinion on this particular case but it's not necessarily valid. It's like deciding how good a film is by looking at the poster.

The phrase 'if you're in a hole stop digging' springs to mind. What on earth do these bland platitudes have to do with the Troy Davis case? Utter nonsense.

[Twa Cairpets]

Once you have been found guilty in court, it's not the state's duty to prove themselves wrong.The man's defence team has had 22 years to prove his conviction unsafe and they haven't.
You obviously assume that you are cleverer than the judge and jurors who have heard the weeks of evidence presented in this case, but like this man's innocence, there's no proof of that.

SiMar, Hibsbollah and Dashing Bob have all detailed why this is a ludicrous post, so I won't explain it again. I would add that it should be the States duty to impartially ensure that a miscarriage of justice has not happened. All the evidence would suggest that procedual restrictions have caused that not to happen. Death by bureaucracy.

What strikes me as bizarre however is that you seem to hold a view which precludes opinion from an external point if view. In pretty much every situation where there is credible evidence presented that affects the conclusions reached - be it scientific, economic or criminal - then that evidence must be considered impartially and fully. This would appear not to be the case here. Campaigners have looked at that evidence and fought for him not to be executed, whereas you are coming at it from almost a "ho-hum, s**t happens" position.

[Leicester Fan]

I'm not in favour of the death penalty and I don't claim to know whether this man is guilty or not. I was just questioning everybody's certainty.

I don't believe that Americans are anymore evil or stupid than any other set of people in the world. If they believed this man was innocent or there was some doubt to his guilt then I'm sure they wouldn't have executed him. Of course miscarriages do happen I just don't know how you lot can all be sure that this is the case here.

Why are you all getting so worked up anyway? There wouldn't have been any debate if it wasn't for me.

[Geo_1875]

Not trying to cause an argument but do we ignore the eye witnesses who didn't change their minds about what they saw?

[Leicester Fan]

What strikes me as bizarre however is that you seem to hold a view which precludes opinion from an external point if view. In pretty much every situation where there is credible evidence presented that affects the conclusions reached - be it scientific, economic or criminal - then that evidence must be considered impartially and fully. This would appear not to be the case here. Campaigners have looked at that evidence and fought for him not to be executed, whereas you are coming at it from almost a "ho-hum, s**t happens" position.

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter if someone is convicted in court, if somebody not connected to the case says he's innocent then he should be acquitted?

[Dashing Bob S]

I'm not in favour of the death penalty and I don't claim to know whether this man is guilty or not. I was just questioning everybody's certainty.

I don't believe that Americans are anymore evil or stupid than any other set of people in the world. If they believed this man was innocent or there was some doubt to his guilt then I'm sure they wouldn't have executed him. Of course miscarriages do happen I just don't know how you lot can all be sure that this is the case here.

Why are you all getting so worked up anyway? There wouldn't have been any debate if it wasn't for me.

I really hope that you haven't bothered to read the posts above, because if you have read them and simply haven't understood them, then maybe no point in continuing this...

[Leicester Fan]

I really hope that you haven't bothered to read the posts above, because if you have read them and simply haven't understood them, then maybe no point in continuing this...

The point is, our doubts and opinions are irrelevant, we're not the appeal judges. Whether we agree with the sentence or not, as long as the judges have made an honest judgement, in accordance with the law or that state. If they have followed due process then they are entitled to carry out that sentence.

America and the state of Georgia are both democracies, the legislators and the judges are elected by the people. They have the system that the the majority want. Who are we to tell them they're wrong?

[steakbake]

The basis of my objection is that capital punishment is a horrific system of justice. Where there is a hint of doubt about a conviction, it takes a particular type of ignorance and bureaucratic thinking to steam ahead anyway.

It may be the kind of system the majority want, but sometimes we need protected from the majority.

[RyeSloan]

Not trying to cause an argument but do we ignore the eye witnesses who didn't change their minds about what they saw?

I don't think anyone is although if I think I am right in saying there was only 2 witnesses that didn't recant their statements, so the vast majority have now said they don’t believe it was Troy..seems fair enough to then take the position that this changes the weight of evidence against the man

Anyway I think one of those who have stayed with their story would have been prime suspect is Troy had been pardoned so I don't think he will be changing his mind anytime soon!!

There is also the fact that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable...to base a case almost entirely on eye witness statements would, in my mind at least, make the conviction unsafe to start with and that's before any of them change their mind or alter what they say they saw!!

[Dashing Bob S]

The point is, our doubts and opinions are irrelevant, we're not the appeal judges. Whether we agree with the sentence or not, as long as the judges have made an honest judgement, in accordance with the law or that state. If they have followed due process then they are entitled to carry out that sentence.

America and the state of Georgia are both democracies, the legislators and the judges are elected by the people. They have the system that the the majority want. Who are we to tell them they're wrong?

Perhaps try free, informed citizens in a democracy. Isn't that what it's about?

If our opinions are irrelevant then why are you posting on this subject? Just to tell everyone else that they shouldn't be?

If you believe that miscarriages of justice do exist, as you seem to from previous posts, are we not entitled to bring them to the attention of those in power, discuss and debate them, and protest about them?

[Leicester Fan]

Perhaps try free, informed citizens in a democracy. Isn't that what it's about?

If our opinions are irrelevant then why are you posting on this subject? Just to tell everyone else that they shouldn't be?

If you believe that miscarriages of justice do exist, as you seem to from previous posts, are we not entitled to bring them to the attention of those in power, discuss and debate them, and protest about them?

But none of us knows(thinks maybe but not know) if this is a miscarriage of justice and my point throughout this thread is that none of us are qualified to judge.

If you want to protest against the death penalty great but I get the impression that people are assuming this man's innocence just to prove a point.

[Dashing Bob S]

But none of us knows(thinks maybe but not know) if this is a miscarriage of justice and my point throughout this thread is that none of us are qualified to judge.

If you want to protest against the death penalty great but I get the impression that people are assuming this man's innocence just to prove a point.

One more time...nobody is assuming the man's innocence. Was that not clear from the earlier posts?

[Leicester Fan]

One more time...nobody is assuming the man's innocence. Was that not clear from the earlier posts?

Okay not innocent but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court however has decided that he is and I don't know how any of us can claim to know better.

[da-robster]

Okay not innocent but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court however has decided that he is and I don't know how any of us can claim to know better.

Yes, because courts never ever make mistakes.

[Leicester Fan]

Yes, because courts never ever make mistakes.

Are you saying we should never convict anyone just in case?

[Twa Cairpets]

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter if someone is convicted in court, if somebody not connected to the case says he's innocent then he should be acquitted?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No-one is even remotely suggesting this. However, if post-conviction evidence comes to light that makes that conviction unsound, as would seem to be the case in this isntance, then to proceed with the death sentence is an obscenity.

Birmingham 6? Guildford 4? Stefan Kiszko?

These people were all convicted weren't they. Then all were acquited in the light of new evidence and people campaigning on their behalf.

[Sir David Gray]

I can speak for no one but myself, but the fundamental question here for me wasn't whether Troy Davis was guilty or not. Lawrence Brewer was guilty of an atrocious murder - it still doesn't make the death penalty right in principle.

Any judiciary which has the death penalty available for murder will inevitably end up executing innocent people. No court process is infallible - you have witnesses who lie, police who misinterpret or misrepresent evidence, lazy or incompetent lawyers, judges who misdirect juries or juries who are prejudiced or who simply take a dislike to the accused - and miscarriages of justice WILL occur.

Life sentences which ARE life sentences - not "eight years and then if you're a good boy/girl we'll let you out to get on with the life you took from your victim" like in this country - allow the accused's lawyers to follow up every avenue of appeal without putting the community at risk and without closing off the process by killing their client. And there's a lot of evidence to show that they're a genuine deterrent - more of a deterrent than the death penalty, since juries find it easier to arrive at a 'guilty' verdict when that verdict isn't going to end someone's life.

:agree: Completely agree with this.

I have no idea if Troy Davis was guilty or not, only Troy Davis, himself, will have known that. To be honest, I find the question of whether he was guilty or not entirely irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, there have been numerous people I have read about who have been executed for some of the most horrific crimes imaginable and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them, however I still cannot agree that it's right for their life to be ended. As you have alluded to already, Troy Davis wasn't the only person to be executed in the US the other day. Lawrence Brewer was also given a lethal injection in Texas on the same night. Unlike in the Davis case, there was absolutely no question surrounding the safety of Brewer's conviction and the crime that he committed was one of the most depraved that you'll ever read about.

But yet, I still do not think it was right that the state of Texas executed him.

The way I see it is, no-one has the right to kill another human being. Not you, not me, not Troy Davis and not the states of Georgia or Texas.

As I've said already, someone convicted of murder should be jailed for life. Unlike in this country, when a life sentence can mean that you are eligible for parole after something like six years, if you are found guilty of murder, you should spend the rest of your life in prison, until you die of natural causes.

[NYHibby]

Avoiding the moral debate here, the characterization of Troy Davis as being clearly innocent is highly misleading. People have been trying to turn him into the new Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Davis himself admitted that he was there and involved in assaulting Larry Young that night.
It is nearly universally accepted that the person who started the argument with Young was in the yellow shirt
Coles and Davis both agree that Coles started the argument
It is nearly universally accepted that the person in the white shirt shot MacPhail.
It is nearly universally accepted that Davis was the one wearing the white shirt, including by those who later changed their stories.
While Darrell Collins, the third of the trio, contradicted many different parts of his story over time, he did not recanted that Davis was wearing the white shirt
Davis did not deny wearing the white shirt or claim to be wearing the yellow shirt
Shorts, which generally match the description that the white shirt person was wearing, were found at Davis's mother house with some blood on them.

Even if you believe the police pressured witnesses, the testimony given before the police knew of either Davis or Cole, and thus could not try to influence testimony towards one or other, all points towards the white shirt being the shooter.

A number of the arguably more creditable witnesses identified Davis personally as the shooter on more than just the colour of his shirt and did not recant their testimony.

Davis, with access to the highest quality legal advice, had twenty years to make his case. He was not denied due process.

[NYHibby]

I'd also like to point out that a number of posters on page 2 either don't understand the fundamental difference between the trial court and the appeals courts in the US or they disagree with concept of the finality of the jury.

Just for info, there were 34 witnesses for the State. 7 of those "recanted". However, some of those were either not really recantations or still incriminated Davis. Only 2 of the 7 were actually potentially damaging to the State's case. Davis's lawyers refused to call them as witnesses despite being warned by the court they were undermining their case. We are left to wonder why they were not called.

[GhostofBolivar]

Once you have been found guilty in court, it's not the state's duty to prove themselves wrong.The man's defence team has had 22 years to prove his conviction unsafe and they haven't.
You obviously assume that you are cleverer than the judge and jurors who have heard the weeks of evidence presented in this case, but like this man's innocence, there's no proof of that.

Typically in the USA, the appeals process concerns itself with due process rather than new evidence. They're far more interested in whether or not the defendent was given adequate representation; whether or not there was prejudice shown by the judge or jury; and whether or not courtroom procedures were followed correctly.

Some of the time, the prosecution and appeals court judges don't really care whether old evidence can be discredited by new evidence. A lot of the time, they're elected officials who need to keep the fact that most of the electorate are in favour of the death penalty in their minds while they consider appeals.

For example:

"Even though this new evidence may establish Mr. Richey's innocence, the Ohio and United States Constitutions nonetheless allow him to be executed because the prosecution did not know that the scientific testimony offered at trial was false and unreliable."
-Prosecutor Dan Gershutz, speaking about the Kenny Richey case.

[GhostofBolivar]

:agree: Completely agree with this.

I have no idea if Troy Davis was guilty or not, only Troy Davis, himself, will have known that. To be honest, I find the question of whether he was guilty or not entirely irrelevant.


Don't get me wrong, there have been numerous people I have read about who have been executed for some of the most horrific crimes imaginable and I find it difficult to feel sorry for them, however I still cannot agree that it's right for their life to be ended. As you have alluded to already, Troy Davis wasn't the only person to be executed in the US the other day. Lawrence Brewer was also given a lethal injection in Texas on the same night. Unlike in the Davis case, there was absolutely no question surrounding the safety of Brewer's conviction and the crime that he committed was one of the most depraved that you'll ever read about.

But yet, I still do not think it was right that the state of Texas executed him.

The way I see it is, no-one has the right to kill another human being. Not you, not me, not Troy Davis and not the states of Georgia or Texas.

As I've said already, someone convicted of murder should be jailed for life. Unlike in this country, when a life sentence can mean that you are eligible for parole after something like six years, if you are found guilty of murder, you should spend the rest of your life in prison, until you die of natural causes.

Actually, that happens a lot of the time in the USA as well.

Often, the chain of events goes something like:

1. Drug dealer A shoots drug dealer B in the head.
2. Homicide detective busts his balls for a month and a half turning up nebulous leads and insubstantial evidence.
3. Eventually Homicide detective tricks, lies and cajoles drug dealer A into confessing the deed.
4. Homicide detective charges drug dealer A with 1st degree homicide.
5. DA looks at the case file and sees no eyewitness testimony, no forensic evidence and no apparent motive for the crime.
6. DA decides there is no way on God's green earth he's trying that in open court and convinces drug dealer A to take a plea bargain.
7. Drug dealer A pleads guilty to manslaughter, is sentenced to 10 years, gets out in 7 minus what he's already served in lock up.
8. Everyone goes home happy. Chalk one up for the good guys.

[hibsbollah]

Avoiding the moral debate here, the characterization of Troy Davis as being clearly innocent is highly misleading. People have been trying to turn him into the new Mumia Abu-Jamal.


What total nonsense. Theres a clear understanding that there isnt the evidence to say Troy Davis is 100% innocent. I thought we'd nailed this a few thousand posts ago.



Davis himself admitted that he was there and involved in assaulting Larry Young that night.
It is nearly universally accepted that the person who started the argument with Young was in the yellow shirt
Coles and Davis both agree that Coles started the argument
It is nearly universally accepted that the person in the white shirt shot MacPhail.
It is nearly universally accepted that Davis was the one wearing the white shirt, including by those who later changed their stories.
While Darrell Collins, the third of the trio, contradicted many different parts of his story over time, he did not recanted that Davis was wearing the white shirt
Davis did not deny wearing the white shirt or claim to be wearing the yellow shirt
Shorts, which generally match the description that the white shirt person was wearing, were found at Davis's mother house with some blood on them.

Even if you believe the police pressured witnesses, the testimony given before the police knew of either Davis or Cole, and thus could not try to influence testimony towards one or other, all points towards the white shirt being the shooter.

A number of the arguably more creditable witnesses identified Davis personally as the shooter on more than just the colour of his shirt and did not recant their testimony.

Davis, with access to the highest quality legal advice, had twenty years to make his case. He was not denied due process.

The white shirt/yellow shirt scenario youve described is the bedrock of the prosecution case. Its highly circumstantial at best (can you really identify the difference between a white and yellow shirt at night from a distance?). Some witnesses said there was a yellow and white shirt, some didnt. Some said one man was wearing one, some didnt. Some say the white shirt was the shooter, some didnt. The multiple, independent witnesses who recanted their evidence cited police pressure and intimidation and Coles being dangerous and violent (the fear factor) as reasons why they gave false testimony. The same fear is clearly a likely reason why other witnesses did not recant their testimony. Recanting a witness statement is extremely unusual, I would have thought. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that some witnesses did not recant is some kind of smoking gun?

The clothing found at Davis' house couldnt be matched to the crime scene. No DNA evidence, no blood match.

The only thing youve posted that doesnt have the 'so what?' element to it is the 'arguably more credible witnesses' line. Do you have a link, a description of who they are and why theyre more credible than the average witness? Even if they are super-credible (say, were wearing night vision goggles at the time); as is universally accepted, eye witness statements are highly unreliable and not usually sufficient on their own to establish guilt, far less justify state killing.

...and as you say, this ignores the argument as to whether the death penalty can ever be justified, in Iran, the USA or wherever.

[Leicester Fan]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No-one is even remotely suggesting this. However, if post-conviction evidence comes to light that makes that conviction unsound, as would seem to be the case in this isntance, then to proceed with the death sentence is an obscenity.

Birmingham 6? Guildford 4? Stefan Kiszko?

These people were all convicted weren't they. Then all were acquited in the light of new evidence and people campaigning on their behalf.

So why did they execute him?Spite? Racism? Bureaucracy gone mad? Come off it, they gave him 22 years to prove his innocence. Why not just top him straight after the trial?

[Dashing Bob S]

So why did they execute him?Spite? Racism? Bureaucracy gone mad? Come off it, they gave him 22 years to prove his innocence. Why not just top him straight after the trial?

That's probably as close to it as you'll get. There's always the potential for collusion to protect elite interests in any system - particularly when there are enough gullible citizens to think its infallible and are disinclined to ask questions, but in the USA the judicial system is particularly vulnerable to this, ironically because of democracy.

All judges, state prosecutors and local law enforcement chiefs have to run for election or re-election. They don't want a stain on their records or something their opponents can use against them, so the pressure to close ranks and uphold an insecure conviction, obtained by a panic arrest or with limited evidence available at the time, is always going to be a strong pull with this personal credibility and careers at stake.

I think they probably would have wanted to 'top' Troy Davis straight after his trial, but they were forced to wait by the appeals process, and also, realistically, wanted to make sure that his innocence couldn't be a hundred per cent proved before they flicked the switch. The fact they waited so long indicates to me that they were more nervous about the outcome, rather than wanting to do the sporting thing of giving him every chance.

Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority.

But I doubt you'd agree with the latter sentiment!

[--------]

That's probably as close to it as you'll get. There's always the potential for collusion to protect elite interests in any system - particularly when there are enough gullible citizens to think its infallible and are disinclined to ask questions, but in the USA the judicial system is particularly vulnerable to this, ironically because of democracy.

All judges, state prosecutors and local law enforcement chiefs have to run for election or re-election. They don't want a stain on their records or something their opponents can use against them, so the pressure to close ranks and uphold an insecure conviction, obtained by a panic arrest or with limited evidence available at the time, is always going to be a strong pull with this personal credibility and careers at stake.

I think they probably would have wanted to 'top' Troy Davis straight after his trial, but they were forced to wait by the appeals process, and also, realistically, wanted to make sure that his innocence couldn't be a hundred per cent proved before they flicked the switch. The fact they waited so long indicates to me that they were more nervous about the outcome, rather than wanting to do the sporting thing of giving him every chance.

Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority.

But I doubt you'd agree with the latter sentiment!


:top marks

[hibsbollah]

That's probably as close to it as you'll get. There's always the potential for collusion to protect elite interests in any system - particularly when there are enough gullible citizens to think its infallible and are disinclined to ask questions, but in the USA the judicial system is particularly vulnerable to this, ironically because of democracy.

All judges, state prosecutors and local law enforcement chiefs have to run for election or re-election. They don't want a stain on their records or something their opponents can use against them, so the pressure to close ranks and uphold an insecure conviction, obtained by a panic arrest or with limited evidence available at the time, is always going to be a strong pull with this personal credibility and careers at stake.

I think they probably would have wanted to 'top' Troy Davis straight after his trial, but they were forced to wait by the appeals process, and also, realistically, wanted to make sure that his innocence couldn't be a hundred per cent proved before they flicked the switch. The fact they waited so long indicates to me that they were more nervous about the outcome, rather than wanting to do the sporting thing of giving him every chance.

Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority.

But I doubt you'd agree with the latter sentiment!
:agree:

[Beefster]

I've always found it strange that executions in the US get so much attention from the foreign media and public yet the far more numerous executions in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc generally wash over folk.

[Betty Boop]

I've always found it strange that executions in the US get so much attention from the foreign media and public yet the far more numerous executions in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc generally wash over folk.

Maybe its the fact that the US and Japan are the last democracies to still use capital punishment.

[hibsbollah]

I've always found it strange that executions in the US get so much attention from the foreign media and public yet the far more numerous executions in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc generally wash over folk.

Thats easily explicable by the difficulties in NGOs and the media reporting from China
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10642
Chinas unreported executions probably dwarf all other countries put together. However, i would disagree that there has been a lot of coverage of the Troy case. Ive certainly seen nothing in depth on UK TV.

[Beefster]

Maybe its the fact that the US and Japan are the last democracies to still use capital punishment.

So it's about the political system of the executioners rather than actually being about the executions themselves? "If you live in a totalitarian state, tough luck, we're all about the democracy"

Seems strange to me but each to their own.

[--------]

I've always found it strange that executions in the US get so much attention from the foreign media and public yet the far more numerous executions in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China etc generally wash over folk.


Not with Amnesty International they don't.

The film industry helps, of course - it's easier to sell a movie about executions in Louisiana or Mississippi than about Saudi or China. And the fact that US media works in English means that we identify more easily with prisoned on Death Row in the States than elsewhere.

And the fact that the US claims to be a democracy, and a largely Christian one at that, might have something to do with it. I've always found it strange that adherents of a faith founded by a man who was executed by crucifixion for for crimes of which he was entirely innocent can support the death penalty so vociferously...

[Leicester Fan]

That's probably as close to it as you'll get. There's always the potential for collusion to protect elite interests in any system - particularly when there are enough gullible citizens to think its infallible and are disinclined to ask questions, but in the USA the judicial system is particularly vulnerable to this, ironically because of democracy.

All judges, state prosecutors and local law enforcement chiefs have to run for election or re-election. They don't want a stain on their records or something their opponents can use against them, so the pressure to close ranks and uphold an insecure conviction, obtained by a panic arrest or with limited evidence available at the time, is always going to be a strong pull with this personal credibility and careers at stake.

I think they probably would have wanted to 'top' Troy Davis straight after his trial, but they were forced to wait by the appeals process, and also, realistically, wanted to make sure that his innocence couldn't be a hundred per cent proved before they flicked the switch. The fact they waited so long indicates to me that they were more nervous about the outcome, rather than wanting to do the sporting thing of giving him every chance.

Personally I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor. I think they probably executed him because they thought he was guilty.




Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority.

But I doubt you'd agree with the latter sentiment!

It's not our democracy though is it, it's America's, so if the populace of that country want the death penalty presumably you support their right to demand it. Surely you must also support the gun lobby, the pro lifers and the tea party who also refuse to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner?

[hibsbollah]

So it's about the political system of the executioners rather than actually being about the executions themselves? "If you live in a totalitarian state, tough luck, we're all about the democracy"

Seems strange to me but each to their own.

Amnesty has campaigned against state murder of individuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, China andmany other countries recently. Most of their activity is around encouraging members to petition these governments by letter writing campaigns. The fact they occasionally highlight abuses of power in the UK, the USA and other parliamentary democracies as well is something to be appauded i would have thought?

[--------]

Personally I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor. I think they probably executed him because they thought he was guilty.

You're misusing Occam's Razor. Occam didn't use that argument to justify naive or simplistic acceptance of 'the obvious'.

Occam's Razor states that when ALL the evidence is in, and ALL the evidence has been examined, the simplest and most obvious explanation is the most likely. "If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras", in other words. But if the animals galloping past the window look like horses covered in black and white stripes - Occam would concede that yup, they're zebras.

In this case there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the execution went ahead for all sorts of reasons other than the conviction of the man's guilt.

It's not about whether they 'thought' he was guilty. The burden of proof in any criminal case is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. When a man's life is at stake - in other words, when the punishment to be inflicted is one that can't be reversed in the light of possible new evidence - that burden of proof should be higher. Once the state has killed someone, it can't 'un-kill' them if it turns out they were innocent. Ask Timothy Evans - oops, sorry, we can't, he was hanged on John Christie's evidence for a murder committed by Christie himself. Ask Derek Bentley - oops, he was hanged as well, in the face all sorts of reasons for mercy being shown.

The law shouldn't be about revenge, or about giving the family of the victim 'closure' - whatever that means. It should be about justice, tempered by the restraint exercised by a civilised society concerned not to heap further injustice and outrage on top of the injustice and outrage of the original crime. A society should be seen to be more morally responsible than its criminals. Read Helen Prejean's "Dead Man Walking" - the book's much better than the film - and maybe you won't be so naive about the way judiciaries work.



It's not our democracy though is it, it's America's, so if the populace of that country want the death penalty presumably you support their right to demand it. Surely you must also support the gun lobby, the pro lifers and the tea party who also refuse to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner?

Who mentioned the gun lobby, the pro-life movement or the Tea Party? Right-wingers, all of them. I suspect that you'd find very few in their ranks who disagreed with the death penalty


You know you're wrong on the actual subject of the thread, so you're throwing out accusations at random to muddy the waters?

[Leicester Fan]

It's not about whether they 'thought' he was guilty. The burden of proof in any criminal case is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. When a man's life is at stake - in other words, when the punishment to be inflicted is one that can't be reversed in the light of possible new evidence -
If you are saying that we shouldn't have the death penalty because there's a chance we might hang the wrong man then I'd agree with you. My argument throughout this thread has been with the people who say "I know there is not enough evidence in this case".Well the judges who have heard all evidence and are legally trained to do so think different and they're in a better position to judge than anyone on here. Why is this is such a controversial thing to say?





Who mentioned the gun lobby, the pro-life movement or the Tea Party? Right-wingers, all of them. I suspect that you'd find very few in their ranks who disagreed with the death penalty


You know you're wrong on the actual subject of the thread, so you're throwing out accusations at random to muddy the waters?

I find that people who say we should take a stance on something usually only mean it when it's something they believe in. When people take a stance on something they disagree with they're usually ******s or fascists. I was just pointing out the double standards.

DBS said people shouldn't have a cowed submissive populace who want to doff their cap to authority, but the people of Georgia vote in pro death penalty candidates in the face of the establishment, so surely he should applaud their fortitude?

[--------]

"If you are saying that we shouldn't have the death penalty because there's a chance we might hang the wrong man then I'd agree with you. My argument throughout this thread has been with the people who say "I know there is not enough evidence in this case".Well the judges who have heard all evidence and are legally trained to do so think different and they're in a better position to judge than anyone on here. Why is this is such a controversial thing to say?"

Well, Amnesty have spent a long time pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence here; witnesses have retracted their original evidence identifying Davis and have alleged police coercion;and once the case had been through the initial process and Davis arrived on Death Row, many of the appeals weren't about the evidence at all - they were procedural, concerning the way his defence had been presented, whether his attorneys had presented the right appeal at the right time three months previously.

I don't know whether the guy is guilty or innocent. I'm just saying that where there's the slightest doubt - either about the facts or the adequacy of the process - the death penalty should not be an option. I'm not singling out the US system as especially inadequate - British courts hanged a lot of people unjustly before abolition.

When judges, District and States Attorneys and police chiefs are dependent on winning elections to keep their jobs, and when clemency ultimately rests with a Governor who's also dependent on votes and money contributions from people he has to keep sweet, the system has to be questionable.



"I find that people who say we should take a stance on something usually only mean it when it's something they believe in. When people take a stance on something they disagree with they're usually ******s or fascists. I was just pointing out the double standards.

DBS said people shouldn't have a cowed submissive populace who want to doff their cap to authority, but the people of Georgia vote in pro death penalty candidates in the face of the establishment, so surely he should applaud their fortitude?"


I think you'll find that in Georgia the establishment is PRO-death-penalty.

[Beefster]

Amnesty has campaigned against state murder of individuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, China andmany other countries recently. Most of their activity is around encouraging members to petition these governments by letter writing campaigns. The fact they occasionally highlight abuses of power in the UK, the USA and other parliamentary democracies as well is something to be appauded i would have thought?

I wasn't really referring to Amnesty. I was more referring to the fact that it's really only the US executions that get the public's/media's attention.

[GhostofBolivar]

Maybe its the fact that the US and Japan are the last democracies to still use capital punishment.

Er, no.

Here's a list of retentionist countries:

Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Here's a list of countries who still have the death penalty on the statute, but who are considered by Amnesty to be abolitionist in practice:

Algeria, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo (Republic of), Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Kenya, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Tunisia, Zambia.

And here's a list of countries who retain the death penalty for exceptional crimes (those commited under military law, treason, etc.):

Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Fiji, Israel, Kazakstan, Latvia, Peru.

[GhostofBolivar]

I wasn't really referring to Amnesty. I was more referring to the fact that it's really only the US executions that get the public's/media's attention.

Not at all. This woman's case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakineh_Mohammadi_Ashtiani) has received a great deal of international attention.

[Twa Cairpets]

If you are saying that we shouldn't have the death penalty because there's a chance we might hang the wrong man then I'd agree with you. My argument throughout this thread has been with the people who say "I know there is not enough evidence in this case".Well the judges who have heard all evidence and are legally trained to do so think different and they're in a better position to judge than anyone on here. Why is this is such a controversial thing to say?


You're railing against a straw-man here - I dont htink anyone is stating this categorically - I think the general view is that their is reasonable doubt surrounding the conviction, especially when the sanction for guilt is death.


I find that people who say we should take a stance on something usually only mean it when it's something they believe in. When people take a stance on something they disagree with they're usually ******s or fascists. I was just pointing out the double standards.

DBS said people shouldn't have a cowed submissive populace who want to doff their cap to authority, but the people of Georgia vote in pro death penalty candidates in the face of the establishment, so surely he should applaud their fortitude?

What DBS said was "Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority."

Which is pretty much the diametric opposite of your post.

[da-robster]

Are you saying we should never convict anyone just in case?

I pretty clearly didn't say that anywhere in my post, but my position is we shouldn't take anything a court says as gospel just because it was said by a court, and there should never, ever kill anyone (I consider capital punishment wrong anyway) with even a 0.001% chance of being innocent. Having blind faith in courts ability leads to complacency, miscarriages of and with the death penalty innocent people dieing, that doesn't mean we don't convict anyone but that we have a strong appeals system and we don't take what a particular group of people at a particular point in time with particular bits of evidence as completely true for the rest of time.

[Leicester Fan]

What DBS said was "Ultimately, we get the kind of democracy we deserve. If we have a cowed, submissive populace who want to doff their caps to authority in a servile manner, believing that only those in power should have a voice, then this sort of abuse is commonplace. That's why we need an informed citizenry asking questions and speaking the truth to power, rather than indulging, defending and a*rse-licking it. Ultimately, that's what secures democracy, not systems, procedures and processes, which can be manipulated, abused and circumnavigated by those in authority."

Which is pretty much the diametric opposite of your post.

No it's not. I'm the only one in this thread who is asking any questions at all. People have had an opinion handed to them (about a person they'd never heard of until last week) on a plate and have swallowed it whole. I'm the only one who's asked why the authorities would want to execute an innocent man?I'm the only one who's asked why after 22 years, if it's so obvious, he's not been able to prove his innocence?I'm the only one to ask why a court with a legal obligation to be impartial and speak the truth is less believable than a pressure group with an axe to grind who has no obligation to impartiality or truth?

I've never once tried to justify the death penalty. I've never once said this is definitely what happened.I've made no claims as too innocence or guilt. I've been polite throughout and I've been answered with bluster, accusations and bizarre conspiracy theories.

Don't get so touchy. Challenging opinions is healthy for democracy.

[Twa Cairpets]

No it's not. I'm the only one in this thread who is asking any questions at all. People have had an opinion handed to them (about a person they'd never heard of until last week) on a plate and have swallowed it whole. I'm the only one who's asked why the authorities would want to execute an innocent man?I'm the only one who's asked why after 22 years, if it's so obvious, he's not been able to prove his innocence?I'm the only one to ask why a court with a legal obligation to be impartial and speak the truth is less believable than a pressure group with an axe to grind who has no obligation to impartiality or truth?

I've never once tried to justify the death penalty. I've never once said this is definitely what happened.I've made no claims as too innocence or guilt. I've been polite throughout and I've been answered with bluster, accusations and bizarre conspiracy theories.

Don't get so touchy. Challenging opinions is healthy for democracy.

Even the legal opinions of the judge in a murder case?

I do see where you're coming from by the way - I'm all for being skeptical about assumptions and assertions of fact from people or bodies with an agenda. I just think (from my admittedly limited reading around the topic) that there is enough of a question mark over the conviction for the ultimate sanction of death being unjustified, even in a state which has the death penalty on its statute books. Your skepticism of the opponents of the conviction just seems a bit one sided.

[One Day Soon]

Even the legal opinions of the judge in a murder case?

I do see where you're coming from by the way - I'm all for being skeptical about assumptions and assertions of fact from people or bodies with an agenda. I just think (from my admittedly limited reading around the topic) that there is enough of a question mark over the conviction for the ultimate sanction of death being unjustified, even in a state which has the death penalty on its statute books. Your skepticism of the opponents of the conviction just seems a bit one sided.

It seems one-sided because it IS one-sided. I'm not sure I can recall a previous thread where a single poster has managed to so completely unite the opinions of so many posters normally of widely varying views against them. Doesn't mean he's wrong of course, just means not many people agree with him.

My own view is basically that the state should not take away that which it cannot give back. A wrongly imprisoned person can be released, but an executed person is dead forever. And a lifetime rotting without liberty seems to me a longer and more painful punishment than execution. Never mind the moral, ethical and religious dimensions involved.

I don't want to revisit the Church of Scotland debate by proxy here but, individual cases aside, this is the legal system of a free state with a fully functioning democratic process. If their system does or doesn't work they are the ones who have to decide that is the case. Am I correct in thinking that it is against their law for external parties to seek to affect their laws? Perhaps that only applies to elections.

I have not read the details of the particular case so I do not know whether he was more likely innocent or guilty, but I know this. Wherever else it may be good to be black, their justice system's own statistical evidence for arrest, prosecution and conviction shows that being black before the beak is a pretty bad place to be.

I suspect that Leicester is as irritated by the propensity of people to generally 'adopt a cause' uncritically as much as anything else and perhaps sees this as the latest manifestation of that. But that's putting words in his mouth and it is for him to make his own case (or not) as the case may be.

[Dashing Bob S]

It seems one-sided because it IS one-sided. I'm not sure I can recall a previous thread where a single poster has managed to so completely unite the opinions of so many posters normally of widely varying views against them. Doesn't mean he's wrong of course, just means not many people agree with him.

My own view is basically that the state should not take away that which it cannot give back. A wrongly imprisoned person can be released, but an executed person is dead forever. And a lifetime rotting without liberty seems to me a longer and more painful punishment than execution. Never mind the moral, ethical and religious dimensions involved.

I don't want to revisit the Church of Scotland debate by proxy here but, individual cases aside, this is the legal system of a free state with a fully functioning democratic process. If their system does or doesn't work they are the ones who have to decide that is the case. Am I correct in thinking that it is against their law for external parties to seek to affect their laws? Perhaps that only applies to elections.

I have not read the details of the particular case so I do not know whether he was more likely innocent or guilty, but I know this. Wherever else it may be good to be black, their justice system's own statistical evidence for arrest, prosecution and conviction shows that being black before the beak is a pretty bad place to be.

I suspect that Leicester is as irritated by the propensity of people to generally 'adopt a cause' uncritically as much as anything else and perhaps sees this as the latest manifestation of that. But that's putting words in his mouth and it is for him to make his own case (or not) as the case may be.

I'd hope that to be the case, and it's an understandable sentiment in my view. But defending the authorities right to execute a man in these particular circumstances is a shabby, ill-considered and grossly inappropriate way of trying to address that general issue, especially when it's obvious that most of the posters he's arguing with have taken time to research and consider the case.

[Leicester Fan]

At last, someone gets it.

[khib70]

At last, someone gets it.
And it's obviously not you

[Sir David Gray]

Not with Amnesty International they don't.

The film industry helps, of course - it's easier to sell a movie about executions in Louisiana or Mississippi than about Saudi or China. And the fact that US media works in English means that we identify more easily with prisoned on Death Row in the States than elsewhere.

And the fact that the US claims to be a democracy, and a largely Christian one at that, might have something to do with it. I've always found it strange that adherents of a faith founded by a man who was executed by crucifixion for for crimes of which he was entirely innocent can support the death penalty so vociferously...

:agree: I also find it very odd that the very people who are most probably staunch supporters of capital punishment would describe themselves as "pro-life". One of the reasons I have for being completely opposed to capital punishment is that I am very much pro-life and I like to apply that stance right across the board, in every single issue.

I don't see how someone can describe themselves as pro-life and then think that it's right to end the life of another human being, irrespective of what they've done.

[lapsedhibee]

My own view is basically that the state should not take away that which it cannot give back. A wrongly imprisoned person can be released, but an executed person is dead forever. And a lifetime rotting without liberty seems to me a longer and more painful punishment than execution.

But if the state puts a person in prison for 15 years it can't give him/her back the 15 years. Shirley the state takes things all the time that it can't give back?

[(((Fergus)))]

But if the state puts a person in prison for 15 years it can't give him/her back the 15 years. Shirley the state takes things all the time that it can't give back?

They still have those 15 years, they just spent them in prison, plus they can be compensated financially. There is no compensation for death for the individual involved. The family could be compensated though.

[One Day Soon]

But if the state puts a person in prison for 15 years it can't give him/her back the 15 years. Shirley the state takes things all the time that it can't give back?

Firstly, don't call me Shirley.

Secondly, there is a difference between liberty which can be restored and life which cannot. I find myself wondering what my view is in this context of the chopping off of hands etc. I suppose if the state were to meticulously preserve removed limbs or other offending body parts so that they could later be restored if an unjustice was found to have been done then by my own logic I wouldn't be against that kind of extreme justice. Execpet that I am.

[Leicester Fan]

And it's obviously not you

That makes no sense at all.

[lapsedhibee]

there is a difference between liberty which can be restored and life which cannot

Yes, liberty can be restored. But the time spent deprived of a normal life can't.


I find myself wondering what my view is in this context of the chopping off of hands etc. I suppose if the state were to meticulously preserve removed limbs or other offending body parts so that they could later be restored if an unjustice was found to have been done then by my own logic I wouldn't be against that kind of extreme justice
Are we back on to the subject of beasts again here? :dunno:

[One Day Soon]

Yes, liberty can be restored. But the time spent deprived of a normal life can't.


Are we back on to the subject of beasts again here? :dunno:

Is that an argument for never giving anyone a jail sentence?

I was talking about the removal of hands, ears etc. Do any countries remove genitalia?

[lapsedhibee]

Is that an argument for never giving anyone a jail sentence?

No, it's an argument against the view that state killing is wrong chiefly because mistakes can't be rectified. Life sentences can't properly be rectified either. In any justice system there will be mistakes, and wrongly putting people in jail for life, is in my view, different but not significantly different from wrongly killing them.


Do any countries remove genitalia?
Only to punish people for being female, not for committing crime. But surely it could be brought in for beasts?

[One Day Soon]

No, it's an argument against the view that state killing is wrong chiefly because mistakes can't be rectified. Life sentences can't properly be rectified either. In any justice system there will be mistakes, and wrongly putting people in jail for life, is in my view, different but not significantly different from wrongly killing them


Only to punish people for being female, not for committing crime. But surely it could be brought in for beasts?


There are lots of arguments against the state killing, the inability to give back life is just the most fundamental of these to me. Liberty can be restored, even if the lost time cannot - though of course it can be compensated. Once you're dead, you're dead.

[Hibs Class]

Is that an argument for never giving anyone a jail sentence?

I was talking about the removal of hands, ears etc. Do any countries remove genitalia?

Not directly, as far as I'm aware, but chemical castration is seen as a possible solution in some countries, most recently today in Korea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15100393