• 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!

Troy Davis execution: Georgia pardons board denies plea for clemency

Something should be done. This is entirely ****ed up. Most people like to argue that they are for the death penalty because with dna evidence and all that, nobody innocent will ever die... yeah right. They are refusing to make sure that they aren't killing an innocent man. This is entirely insane and disgusting. The supreme court obviously needs to get involved and make sure this **** doesn't happen.

Witness testimony is horrible evidence to boot. My sister used to work for the county and had her undergrad in psychology. She later decided to change her career and become a lawyer after talking to numerous people who were wrongly put away based on faulty witness testimony.

I wouldn't worry about it. The body count of innocents will always be much, much higher on the side where the CJS f*cks up and either wrongfully exonerates a guilty man or underprosecutes him, and he subsequently kills again.

To be sure, the CJS has a lot more blood on its hands for wrongful exonerations and underprosecutions, than it ever will for wrongful convictions in death penalty cases. If we are to argue against capital punishment on the grounds of human fallibility, then we should also argue against the Great Writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds. After all, would it not be more prudent to retain custody of a defendant who is acqutted by a jury in a death penalty case wherein considerable danming evidence is presented during trial? What if he really is guilty and kills another innocent person subsequent to his release?

In the end, the law must choose in the face of objective uncertainty, even in matters of life and death. There is no way around this. The CJS could just as easily have acquitted Davis and released him back into society, only to have him shoot yet another police officer to death, or the CJS could have commuted his sentence to 'life without parole', only to have him murder an inmate or C.O. soon after being released into prison general population. In both instances, the CJS would have the blood of the innocent on its hands, no differently than they would for executing Davis after wrongfully convicting him (if that is even the case here).
 
Plainly stated, I don't know. I also don't know how you all are so certain that he didn't.

Nobody (at least nobody I know) is saying that they're certain he didn't. What most people are saying is that there isn't enough certainty that he did in order for him to be put to death. Simple as that.
 
Nobody (at least nobody I know) is saying that they're certain he didn't. What most people are saying is that there isn't enough certainty that he did in order for him to be put to death. Simple as that.

So, what would you say about the CJS if Davis had not been convicted, or had even been allowed to plea bargain to manslaughter, was released back into society, and killed yet another police officer?
 
(ORDER LIST: 564 U.S.)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 - ORDER IN PENDING CASE - 11A317 DAVIS, ANTHONY TROY V. HUMPHREY, WARDEN

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092111.zr.pdf

23 words. that's it.


you might have killed the wrong guy.


Troy Davis is one reason why i will never support the Death Penalty.
 
Maybe this case will lead to some major change in legislature. I'm definitely pro-cap-pun, but in this case? Nuh uh.
 
Plainly stated, I don't know. I also don't know how you all are so certain that he didn't.

Yea, that inconvenient aspect, known as reasonable doubt, can be a bitch, can't it?
 
So, what would you say about the CJS if Davis had not been convicted, or had even been allowed to plea bargain to manslaughter, was released back into society, and killed yet another police officer?

I would say that such a scenario is irrelevant to the death penalty discussion. If he had not been convicted and had been released or had been allowed to plea bargain and ended up killing another police officer, it would have happened regardless of whether or not the death penalty were in place. If he had been convicted, he could have gotten life without parole or something similar had the death penalty not been in place.

With regard to your particular scenario, if that's what ended happening, then that's what happens. You convict someone and lock him up if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime he is alleged to have committed. You don't get to jail anyone you want just because you think he might potentially kill someone in the future. That's a very slippery slope. I mean, we can play "what if" games all day, but no one hypothetical anecdote is good enough of an argument in favor of or against the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
I find it a tad ironic that someone like Casey Anthony can go free, and this guy couldn't even get a stay of execution, let alone another trial. I know many like to think that the American justice system is infallible, but if this doesn't prove that wrong, i don't know what does.
 
I find it a tad ironic that someone like Casey Anthony can go free, and this guy couldn't even get a stay of execution, let alone another trial.

The jury in the Casey Anthony case made the right decision, that's all I have to say about that.

Personally, I think that Davis should have gotten a re-trial in light of the recantations. Yesterday was actually his fourth execution date, he had previously received stays of execution on three previous occasions. My research of the case gives me the sense that what happened was that the Troy Davis case was in constant legal limbo, and in the end the state decided the only way to end the whole complex affair was to kill him and be done with it. But in the end i think the right and fair thing to do would have been to give him a re-trial.

I know many like to think that the American justice system is infallible, but if this doesn't prove that wrong, i don't know what does.

Very few people think that. The American justice system is administered by human beings. Humans are fallible creatures; we are not God. However, the justice system should try to should do its best to avoid making mistakes, and IMHO this execution was a serious **** up.
 
Yea, that inconvenient aspect, known as reasonable doubt, can be a bitch, can't it?

Apparently a jury did believe his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. True though, I was not on that jury and neither was anyone else here (I'm fairly certain).
 
Apparently a jury did believe his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. True though, I was not on that jury and neither was anyone else here (I'm fairly certain).
Yep, the jury certainly did, based, in large part, on the testimonies of many people who have now taken their words back, so I don't think the jury is really a valid factor in analyzing this case.
 
You're forgetting that Perry is being pasted with an ugly brush for an execution in his state, so I'm betting tomorrow sometime a reporter's going to ask him about the Davis execution.

So this one could have some staying power.
Oh sure...as long as someone can use it for a political edge people will really well and truly CARE about this issue. :roll:
 
Yep, the jury certainly did, based, in large part, on the testimonies of many people who have now taken their words back, so I don't think the jury is really a valid factor in analyzing this case.

If Dana's going to introduce legal concepts such as "reasonable doubt" you cannot blow off the jury. Everyone in this country (and every other) could have "reasonable doubt" but it makes no difference if you're not a juror.
 
Oh sure...as long as someone can use it for a political edge people will really well and truly CARE about this issue. :roll:
You're clearly unaware of how large the anti-death penalty movement is in this country. It's really not a stretch to predict that it will increase after this case.
 
If Dana's going to introduce legal concepts such as "reasonable doubt" you cannot blow off the jury. Everyone in this country (and every other) could have "reasonable doubt" but it makes no difference if you're not a juror.
In light of the new details, there is reasonable doubt. And I'm less "blowing off the jury" then pointing out the fault of judging this case on what the original jury decided. The jury, in this case, made their decision based on the testimony of I think 9? people, 7 of whom recanted.

The fact is NOBODY was a juror with the CURRENT evidence in this case.
 
In light of the new details, there is reasonable doubt. And I'm less "blowing off the jury" then pointing out the fault of judging this case on what the original jury decided. The jury, in this case, made their decision based on the testimony of I think 9? people, 7 of whom recanted.

The fact is NOBODY was a juror with the CURRENT evidence in this case.
And yet everyone is convinced he's innocent based on news reports and things likely to never be admissable at trial. But hey, if you all know better.
 
You're clearly unaware of how large the anti-death penalty movement is in this country. It's really not a stretch to predict that it will increase after this case.
Im ACCUTELY aware of how very often it is ignored on this site by all the very caring and concerned people...until someone is about to be executed. Then...by reading up on a few articles presenting one side of the facts they are suddenly experts and really really really sincerely care...till...say...noon of the next day.

The death penalty opponents would be better served by making their cases built on something like this and staying committed to it on an ongoing basis rather than suddenly giving a **** about a guy who was executed in Texas for raping a 16 year old and then bashing her head in with a rock, or whoever the 'next' guy is that is about to be executed.
 
And yet everyone is convinced he's innocent based on news reports and things likely to never be admissable at trial. But hey, if you all know better.

I'm not going to say he was innocent, but given what we know about the witnesses testimony, I do think the death penalty should have been taken off the table.
 
And yet everyone is convinced he's innocent based on news reports and things likely to never be admissable at trial. But hey, if you all know better.
I've seen you pull this out several times.

Not many, if any, people are convinced he's innocent. We're convinced that 7 out of 9 recanted testimonies, no DNA evidence and no gun is enough for reasonable doubt and no death penalty. People have explained this to you several times. It would be cool if you would stop misrepresenting our argument as being "convinced that he's innocent".
 
I'm not going to say he was innocent, but given what we know about the witnesses testimony, I do think the death penalty should have been taken off the table.
And HERE is precisely the problem. You suddenly care because of the death sentence. So lets say his sentence was commuted to life. Yay!!! Tremendous victory!!! We freqin ROCK we are so powerful! And then you (the generic you meaning all the suddenly inspired anti-death penalty crowd) go about your happy lives unconcerned that that same guy who you believe doesnt deserve the death sentence because of questionable testimony is going to spend the rest of his LIFE in prison with that same questionable testimony. Its not ABOUT the individual...its about 'the cause'. Thats one of my biggest objections to banning the death penalty...the out of sight out of mind mindset that goes along with a life sentence while we can all run around feeling very superior because we dont execute people.
 
Im ACCUTELY aware of how very often it is ignored on this site by all the very caring and concerned people...until someone is about to be executed. Then...by reading up on a few articles presenting one side of the facts they are suddenly experts and really really really sincerely care...till...say...noon of the next day.

The death penalty opponents would be better served by making their cases built on something like this and staying committed to it on an ongoing basis rather than suddenly giving a **** about a guy who was executed in Texas for raping a 16 year old and then bashing her head in with a rock, or whoever the 'next' guy is that is about to be executed.
There are some people who have a fleeting interest. However, the anti-death penalty movement isn't characterized by those people and they do tend to focus on a certain number of cases and derive their positions from those cases.
 
I've seen you pull this out several times.

Not many, if any, people are convinced he's innocent. We're convinced that 7 out of 9 recanted testimonies, no DNA evidence and no gun is enough for reasonable doubt and no death penalty. People have explained this to you several times. It would be cool if you would stop misrepresenting our argument as being "convinced that he's innocent".

You have a point. To death penalty opponents, guilt or innocence has to be irrelevant. However, for those who are arguing this is a gross miscarriage of justice...well it is that only if he's not guilty.
 
And HERE is precisely the problem. You suddenly care because of the death sentence. So lets say his sentence was commuted to life. Yay!!! Tremendous victory!!! We freqin ROCK we are so powerful! And then you (the generic you meaning all the suddenly inspired anti-death penalty crowd) go about your happy lives unconcerned that that same guy who you believe doesnt deserve the death sentence because of questionable testimony is going to spend the rest of his LIFE in prison with that same questionable testimony. Its not ABOUT the individual...its about 'the cause'. Thats one of my biggest objections to banning the death penalty...the out of sight out of mind mindset that goes along with a life sentence while we can all run around feeling very superior because we dont execute people.

I mean, given what we know now, I do think there is enough reasonable doubt; however he used all his appeals. My point was given the retraction of the eye witness testimony, at the very least the death penalty should have been taken off the table. Then his lawyers should have gone back to the courts and petitioned for a new trial based on the new evidence. I do not know if the second part is possible, but I'd imagine given the new evidence that he would get a new appeal.
 
And HERE is precisely the problem. You suddenly care because of the death sentence. So lets say his sentence was commuted to life. Yay!!! Tremendous victory!!! We freqin ROCK we are so powerful! And then you (the generic you meaning all the suddenly inspired anti-death penalty crowd) go about your happy lives unconcerned that that same guy who you believe doesnt deserve the death sentence because of questionable testimony is going to spend the rest of his LIFE in prison with that same questionable testimony. Its not ABOUT the individual...its about 'the cause'. Thats one of my biggest objections to banning the death penalty...the out of sight out of mind mindset that goes along with a life sentence while we can all run around feeling very superior because we dont execute people.

no, that man who was not executed can continue to petition the governor or succeeding governors. his options aren't exhausted.
 
You have a point. To death penalty opponents, guilt or innocence has to be irrelevant. However, for those who are arguing this is a gross miscarriage of justice...well it is that only if he's not guilty.
Not true. Those who think that this is a gross miscarriage of justice don't think it because they think he's not guilty, they think it because there is so much reasonable doubt. Most people do not have solid opinions on his guilt or innocence - it's about the evidence or lack thereof.
 
Back
Top Bottom