• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White supremacist executed for dragging death

Forgive me again for not having read the entire thread. This is one death penalty case of which I completely approve. The physical evidence was overwhelming. The victims blood and tissue found on the rope, and in the truck, and IIRC on the clothing and shoes of the individuals. The crime was one of the most shocking and heinous I can remember. The men who did this both deserve to die.

This type of crime, with this kind of overwhelming physical evidence, is what the death penalty was created for... not the Troy Davis case.

But I am sure there are still people that were against this man dying just like inthe other case.

The other case had 10 eye witnesses. Yes one or two eye witnesses are flimsy but 10 saying the same thing is not flimsy.
 
But I am sure there are still people that were against this man dying just like inthe other case.

The other case had 10 eye witnesses. Yes one or two eye witnesses are flimsy but 10 saying the same thing is not flimsy.

History has repeatedly proven that eye witness testimony uncorroborated by any other physical evidence is basically worthless. People's memories are seriously impaired during moments of trauma, and the slightest hint that one individual may be a suspect (like seeing him arrested on tv) makes witnesses believe that was the person they saw, even if it wasn't.

Ask any of the uncountable convicted rapists and killers who were eventually freed when dna evidence contradicted the eye witness accounts.
 
History has repeatedly proven that eye witness testimony uncorroborated by any other physical evidence is basically worthless. People's memories are seriously impaired during moments of trauma, and the slightest hint that one individual may be a suspect (like seeing him arrested on tv) makes witnesses believe that was the person they saw, even if it wasn't.

Ask any of the uncountable convicted rapists and killers who were eventually freed when dna evidence contradicted the eye witness accounts.

If you are talking about 1 or 2 witnesses, I agree, but 10 people that saw the same thing?
 
But I am sure there are still people that were against this man dying just like inthe other case.

The other case had 10 eye witnesses. Yes one or two eye witnesses are flimsy but 10 saying the same thing is not flimsy.

In the Troy Davis nearly all of the eye witnesses recanted their stories, some said they were coerced by the police into their testimony.
 
In the Troy Davis nearly all of the eye witnesses recanted their stories, some said they were coerced by the police into their testimony.

So were they lying then or are they lying now? You find it credible that 7 people were coerced to lie under oath in tha case? 7 people. And it took 20 years to come out. It cost these people nothing to recant so I am sure the defense went to them saying, you have nothing to lose, please help us save his life. With nothing to lose, maybe they did, but if they lied back then, don't put too much weight on what they say now.
 
If you are talking about 1 or 2 witnesses, I agree, but 10 people that saw the same thing?

I don't care if it's 500 eye witnesses. Without corroboration and physical evidence, the facial recognition of 500 people who will all give completely different versions of what they saw and descriptions of who they saw (ask any police officer) but suddenly come together when faced by a line up is suspect and should never be enough to convict a person, let alone execute him.

There are myriad subtle ways to let potential witnesses know "who" the suspect is. For example, if the suspect has been described as tall, average build, putting him in a line up with a bunch of short, stocky individuals guarantees an I.D. from a shell-shocked witness. We're talking dead police officer here. I'm not the least bit confident that everything leading to the conviction of Troy Davis without a hint of physical evidence was completely without leading and/or coercing their identification, as most of the witnesses have already conceded over the years.
 
I don't care if it's 500 eye witnesses. Without corroboration and physical evidence, the facial recognition of 500 people who will all give completely different versions of what they saw and descriptions of who they saw (ask any police officer) but suddenly come together when faced by a line up is suspect and should never be enough to convict a person, let alone execute him.

There are myriad subtle ways to let potential witnesses know "who" the suspect is. For example, if the suspect has been described as tall, average build, putting him in a line up with a bunch of short, stocky individuals guarantees an I.D. from a shell-shocked witness. We're talking dead police officer here. I'm not the least bit confident that everything leading to the conviction of Troy Davis without a hint of physical evidence was completely without leading and/or coercing their identification, as most of the witnesses have already conceded over the years.

Is that what is being alleged in his case?
 
So were they lying then or are they lying now? You find it credible that 7 people were coerced to lie under oath in tha case? 7 people. And it took 20 years to come out. It cost these people nothing to recant so I am sure the defense went to them saying, you have nothing to lose, please help us save his life. With nothing to lose, maybe they did, but if they lied back then, don't put too much weight on what they say now.

I think it provides enough reasonable doubt to take the death penalty off the table. Especially combined with the lack of physical evidence.
 
Is that what is being alleged in his case?

Yes, it is. The fact that there is not one iota of physical evidence... not one drop of blood, no murder weapon, no hair, no fiber, nothing... has never been disputed.
 
I don't care if it's 500 eye witnesses. Without corroboration and physical evidence, the facial recognition of 500 people who will all give completely different versions of what they saw and descriptions of who they saw (ask any police officer) but suddenly come together when faced by a line up is suspect and should never be enough to convict a person, let alone execute him.

There are myriad subtle ways to let potential witnesses know "who" the suspect is. For example, if the suspect has been described as tall, average build, putting him in a line up with a bunch of short, stocky individuals guarantees an I.D. from a shell-shocked witness. We're talking dead police officer here. I'm not the least bit confident that everything leading to the conviction of Troy Davis without a hint of physical evidence was completely without leading and/or coercing their identification, as most of the witnesses have already conceded over the years.

I agree with alot of what you've said DiAnna...and yes multiple eyewitness' see different things in a different ways and sometimes totally opposite.

Years ago Detectives had to rely on eye witness' and whatever physical evidence was available...there was no DNA....The investigators gathered everything they could and handed it to the Prosecutors Office and then they were done with it...were mistakes made..absolutely.....fast forward to today.
Dna and technology has changed investigations and has made it possible to prove guilt or innocent with alot more scientific accuracy

I dislike the death penalty, ...but I do believe there are some humans that are not worth salvaging and dont deserve to live 40 yrs on the taxpayers dime.
Ted Bundy....Jeffrey Dahmer....and yes I believe there needs to be firm proof of guilt.
 
I agree with alot of what you've said DiAnna...and yes multiple eyewitness' see different things in a different ways and sometimes totally opposite.

Years ago Detectives had to rely on eye witness' and whatever physical evidence was available...there was no DNA....The investigators gathered everything they could and handed it to the Prosecutors Office and then they were done with it...were mistakes made..absolutely.....fast forward to today.
Dna and technology has changed investigations and has made it possible to prove guilt or innocent with alot more scientific accuracy

I dislike the death penalty, ...but I do believe there are some humans that are not worth salvaging and dont deserve to live 40 yrs on the taxpayers dime.
Ted Bundy....Jeffrey Dahmer....and yes I believe there needs to be firm proof of guilt.

We totally agree. In fact I have said in other threads on this forum today that I shed no tears for the execution of the cold-blooded murderer who dragged Mr. Byrd to death, nor for any of the heinous crimes committed when there is overwhelming physical evidence connecting them to the crimes. In this case, I'm not certain I could have even convicted without any coroborating evidence... I certainly would never send someone to be executed without it. I do not feel good about Troy Davis' execution. :(
 
The US had 46 in 2010, 52 in 2009, and 37 in 2008, assuming around a 20 year average from murder to execution, that leaves about 60,000 murders for '88, '89, and '90 that still had some doubt in them somewhere. I realize that's a pretty broad brush with statistics, and I realize it's still possible to make a mistakes. Crime has come down since the '80's and '90's, too. But, does anyone really think that putting 46 people to death in the US for crimes they were committed of after having full trial and multiple appeals compared to 2.5million deaths annually in the US is really a huge concern? The normal population of the US has about 800 deaths per 100,000 a year. In prison, the death rate is about 250 deaths per 100,000 a year. If you're just considering adults, 250/year is about 20% lower than regular people. Meaning, you're 20% less likely to die in prison than you are out of prison. Now, apply that to the people we're discussing - typically violent men with past felonies. They probably only lasted the 20 or so years until they were executed because they were in prison. The death penalty is a major factor in plea-bargaining. It should not come off the table.
 
The death penalty is appropriate for heinous crimes proven beyond doubt.

It's not appropriate for ordinary murder proven by shady police practices and lazy judicial review.
 
If you're referring to the Troy Davis execution, are you saying that multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, were lazy in their reviews?
 
If you're referring to the Troy Davis execution, are you saying that multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, were lazy in their reviews?

You are right...troy davis went through the entire process..from start to finish and over many years...if there were any blatant police law breaking or a lack of evidence it would have certainly came out...all the hyperbole your reading now is Liberal Media and Activist created.
I do not like the death penalty at all..and I absolutely agree that it should be adminstered rarely and for the unsalvageable like Ted Bundys
 
I can't even go that far, but I accept that our society disagrees with me.
 
law is nothing more or less than a formalized public moral system - your beliefs, your morals, your emotions, they are going to be part of it. we punish child rape more harshly than adult rape because we feel a special revulsion at the evil of the crime.

no tears for this guy. my main problem is the length of time it took from trial to burial - the hoops and steps and length of our death penalty serves to disconnect it in the public mind from the crime, and severely degrades it's deterrent impact. this guy should have been hung publicly, and it should have been done years ago.

I agree with the 1st paragraph, but take serious issue with the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Most studies on the subject suggest there is little to no deterrent aspect to the death penalty. In fact, some studies on the subject have gone so far to suggest the very existence of a death penalty actually promotes murder, for many of the reasons you outlined in paragraph 1. The very existence of a violent punishment is reflective a society that sanctions violence; and deems it appropriate to solve problems with violence.

BTW... clothes are hung and people are hanged.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf

http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm
 
Last edited:
If you're referring to the Troy Davis execution, are you saying that multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, were lazy in their reviews?

To some extent that is likely true, but the bigger issue is the review process for death penalty cases likely needs a better standard.

Once a man (woman) is convicted, the basic presumption rightfully shifts to a presumption of guilty. To be exonerated after the fact, one must prove their innocence or at least prove the damning evidence was unlawfully obtained or used. That is probably a good standard for most cases, but in the case of an execution, where the person gets no second chance at this, they should likely have a lower standard that, at least, sets aside the execution. The standard to move forward with an execution should be higher than "just beyond reasonable doubt" with all types of collaborating evidence... and should anyone move something from this exceptionally lofty standard, the death penalty should be set aside.

As to the laziness of the courts, they tended to follow this standard for a long-time, setting aside a death penalty whenever there was any doubt whatsoever. The courts then started feeling the political pressure of averting too many executions, so they "got lazy" and did it the easy way.
 
If you're referring to the Troy Davis execution, are you saying that multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, were lazy in their reviews?

I won't levy that charge against the courts, but i'll levy is against the Texas Clemency board.... they are some lazy sob's, by design

i'm a fan of the death penalty... but i'm a fan doing everything we can do to get the innocence/guilt thing correct too.
 
law is nothing more or less than a formalized public moral system - your beliefs, your morals, your emotions, they are going to be part of it. we punish child rape more harshly than adult rape because we feel a special revulsion at the evil of the crime.

no tears for this guy. my main problem is the length of time it took from trial to burial - the hoops and steps and length of our death penalty serves to disconnect it in the public mind from the crime, and severely degrades it's deterrent impact. this guy should have been hung publicly, and it should have been done years ago.

Good points.
 
Most studies on the subject suggest there is little to no deterrent aspect to the death penalty.

It is the ultimate deterrent as far the criminal in question is concerned, and that's enough.
 
If you're referring to the Troy Davis execution, are you saying that multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, were lazy in their reviews?
I've worked for federal judges on habeas petitions before. If there are procedural grounds on which to reject them and avoid analyzing the substantive issues, they will, and that is exactly what happened in this case.

For example, from the 11th Circuit, in 2009:

After painstaking review of this case, we conclude that Davis has completely failed to meet the procedural requirements of § 2244(b)(2), and, therefore, we are constrained to reject Davis's application to file a second or successive habeas petition in the district court.

Don't mistake a long judicial process with a fair one.
 
Last edited:
I've worked for federal judges on habeas petitions before. If there are procedural grounds on which to reject them and avoid analyzing the substantive issues, they will, and that is exactly what happened in this case.

For example, from the 11th Circuit, in 2009:



Don't mistake a long judicial process with a fair one.

I'm not. I'm saying that multiple courts deciding against a new trial says something. Please, a dozen courts are lazy, unfair, what-have-you, including the Supreme Court?
 
I'm not. I'm saying that multiple courts deciding against a new trial says something. Please, a dozen courts are lazy, unfair, what-have-you, including the Supreme Court?
Multiple courts deciding against a new trial only means something if each individual judge has the discretion and authority to decide a case any way he wants. Our system doesn't work that way. Under the law as it currently exists, the courts made the right decision. That doesn't make the decisions any more fair or less lazy. If the judges are bound to rule a certain way because of unfair procedural rules that says nothing about the innocence of people like Davis.
 
Back
Top Bottom