• 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

And I notice you are still ducking this. If you are going to call people out for ducking your posts, you might not want to be ducking theirs.

Talking to yourself? :D

Presuming this was actually meant for me, I'm not ducking it, I'm just a victim of adult onset ADHD. I'll have a reply shortly.
 
Well, I'm not really a "death penalty opponent" (although I may be on my way to becoming because my views have changed somewhat recently), but the problem most people have with the death penalty isn't that it kills guilty people, it's that it kills innocent people as well...

The death penalty needs overhauled. It shouldn't be as easy as it currently is for the government to kill people. In some cases, I have no problem with it and never did. I see it as practical, but it's mostly handled like an instrument of politics today which is the problem. Conservatives are especially afraid of pardoning somebody for fear of appearing soft on the death penalty. But, putting to death serial killers, sadists, admitted thrill killers, and socipathic killers is practical. They show no remorse, and they basically thrive on hurting others. They will hurt people if they are released or escape, they think about hurting people, some of them even get off on fantasies of hurting/killing/torturing other people, and they write letters to people outside of prison to cause more fear and pain. Many serial killers have even achieved cult status fame and followers and cash in on their crimes. There is some kind of ebay site where they can literally sell letters and murder memorabilia.

I have no problem putting certain people to death, never did, but I don't think every single person should be condemned to die for a crime just to make a political statement... and that's all the death penalty is IMO
 
This is exactly why people should note the phrase government inefficiency. If you believe the government isn't the solution, and smaller is better, then don't give it the authority to kill it's own people. It's common sense. This defies the principles of small government Conservativism as far as I see it, and this also shows how devastatingly ineffective the government is run.
It's a wonder to me that people don't think government is reliable enough to do anything from determine tax rates to implement social programs, but they're totally cool with letting it determine who lives and dies.
 
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).

And the testimony/evidence that proved him "guilty" was later thrown into doubt. That's the essence of the problem.
 
The fact that Brewer was a mean, nasty, and guilty son of a bitch is not, at all, uncommon for people on death row.



If the objection is that the government shouldn't be carrying out executions, then the guilt/innocence shouldn't matter. This is why I could never become anti death penalty. Guilt and the actions of the killer do matter to me.

Guilt and innocence does matter... it always matters. I have heard pro death penalty supporters constantly argue that nobody innocent gets executed today. It's an argument both sides use. Nobody is comfortable with the government killing innocent people. And earlier this year, Damien Echols was released from prison... and he was sitting on death row. He was another whose case was badly and poorly handled. Going to prison and enduring what he went through is completely ****ed up.... being wrongly put to death and being innocent is a massive atrocity, and it shouldn't happen in a country like America. In a country were we think we stand for human rights and others do not. Our government needs to act more responsibly than it has concerning the death penalty.
 
FAR too often these cases involve LE and prosecutors who ride the convictions to advancement in their careers.

THATS why they defend them so stridently.

I hope everyone who supports this the way it went down enjoys the same justice as Troy Davis.

And his family and friends.

How in the **** did they get a death penalty conviction with NO physical evidence in the first place?

It would be nice if our legal system had prosecutors who sought justice instead of convictions. But that's not the case. Their actual JOB is to convict people, to prosecute. Its not in their job description to make sure only the guilty go to prison. Notches in the belt.

Id love to know where the prosecution in this case is today. LE involved too. Just their current jobs and some indication how much this case propelled their careers.

So maybe THEIR kids are better off, so some good came of this.

And don't bother trying to brand me as soft.

I think the surely guilty of heinous crimes should sit alone in a cell with nothing but a picture of their victims to look at. Until they die in gibbering madness.

The death penalty is far too clean a death for some.

But if you're on death row and there is DNA evidence available that could prove innocence, anyone who opposes running what is now a simple test is an ASSHOLE of the highest order. Frees the innocent and shuts the guilty the **** up.

But we don't do this, because it could damage the responsible prosecutions political career. "Vote for Bob! He didn't send an innocent man to his death".

If the guy is innocent, I pray to God his name will finally be cleared.

I agree with most of your post.... and I definitely agree that the government needs to review it's legal system and how it handles the death penalty especially before it puts anybody else to death.

It's also well known that the wealthiest people can get out of murder.... OJ, the Kennedy's, on and on. The poor and the racial minorities are going to be executed more than the wealthy. It's a matter of affording the best and top attorneys.
 
The fact that Brewer was a mean, nasty, and guilty son of a bitch is not, at all, uncommon for people on death row.



If the objection is that the government shouldn't be carrying out executions, then the guilt/innocence shouldn't matter. This is why I could never become anti death penalty. Guilt and the actions of the killer do matter to me.



I don't know Redress. When I hear the facts of certain types of cases, I just cannot imagine sympathy for the victim translating easily to some lesser punishment. Also, if your wish is to spare the killer, there'd need to be some sympathy for the killer (though I'm not saying, at all, it necessarily outweighs sympathy for the victim).

No criminal justice system is perfect, and no criminal justice system can be 100 accurate in determining every defendant's guilt or innocence. While I too believe that people should get what's coming to them, the criminal justice system is simply too fallible to make the right call 100 percent of the time. Many people who are against the death penalty believe that as long as there is the chance of any innocent individual being put to death, then it's simply not worth it. Better to err on the side of letting a killer be locked up for life, than to put an innocent man to death.

And more people are waking up to this, as juries throughout the past few decades have been increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty. One of the main reasons, as SheWolf pointed out, is that people read and hear about the people who are on death row and are later exonerated due to DNA evidence. The chance of an innocent individual being put to death is simply too great for some people to support the existence of the death penalty.
 
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.

You are completely missing the point. The point is that the CJS cannot avoid making life and death decisions. There is no way around this. When it exonerates a defendant who looked pretty danm guilty during a death penalty trial, or allows him to plea bargain to something like manslaughter, and then releases him back into society and he kills again, or even kills while he is incarcerated, the CJS has blood on its hands no differently than it would for wrongfully convicting a defendant of a capital offense.

Therefore, the argument against capital punishment on the grounds of human fallibility or the fallibility of the CJS is bunk.

Troy Davis may have been guilty, or he may not have been guilty. It does not matter as far as a sentence of death is concerned because no matter which disposition the CJS hands down--even life without parole--it is still running the risk of fatally persecuting the innocent.
 
Cover Your Ass.

Plain and simple.

The cops and prosecution in this case will see irreparable damage to their careers if it comes out that they almost killed an innocent man (which lets the ACTUAL perpetrator off scott free, in case you guys were conveniently forgetting that in your bloodlust).

So they circle the wagons and put their heads down and play code of silence, instead of owning up and facing JUSTICE. Which is why its DISGUSTING when it happens. Because JUSTICE is supposed to be their JOB, remember?

Sorry, this just pisses me off. Imagine lying strapped to a table with needles in your arm, KNOWING, you didn't do what you are about to be killed for. Makes me want to slap the **** out of everybody who pulled a "too bad, so sad. C-ya wouldn't want to be ya" attitude about this. But I don't have the time or energy to slap that many people, so this'll have to do.

Yeah, the government doesn't really care about the people or give a **** about the people. It's kind of odd that they pretend to care about enforcing justice. It's definitely not for the benefit of the citizenry. The government seems to be more preoccupied with sending people to their deaths with wars and executions than with trying to improve things for the living.
 
You are completely missing the point. The point is that the CJS cannot avoid making life and death decisions. There is no way around this.

It can, if all cases that previously would have involved the death penalty were simply replaced by the sentence of life without parole.

When it exonerates a defendant who looked pretty danm guilty during a death penalty trial, or allows him to plea bargain to something like manslaughter, and then releases him back into society and he kills again, or even kills while he is incarcerated, the CJS has blood on its hands no differently than it would for wrongfully convicting a defendant of a capital offense.

Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is implemented, why would a defendant who "looks pretty damn guilty" be exonerated in the first place? Why would he be released back into society in the first place?

Therefore, the argument against capital punishment on the grounds of human fallibility or the fallibility of the CJS is bunk.

I really don't understand your reasoning on this.

Troy Davis may have been guilty, or he may not have been guilty. It does not matter as far as a sentence of death is concerned because no matter which disposition the CJS hands down--even life without parole--it is still running the risk of fatally persecuting the innocent.

how so?
 
Don't know if this is been posted yet but this is the decision from the Aug 2010 Federal District Court, Judge Moore was presiding over the hearing. Breaks down the recantations towards the end (pg 128 to the end) and includes the judge's summary

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf

I didn't know much about this case but after reading the breakdown of the recantations during the hearing, the guy was guilty.
 
That's quite the rant...

I suspect you don't understand what I was saying


I think the games they play with condemned are evil
 
I am not sure how what you said here addresses what I said, so I will try and make my point better. *If you oppose the death penalty, the most likely reasons are you consider it immoral to kill under those circumstances(ie a defenseless person), or you are concerned about the finality of the death penalty(ie if more evidence comes out, it's too late, and mistakes can and do happen), or some combination of both. *Those are not the only possible reasons, but I think that encompasses the reasons most oppose the death penalty.
Ok, I'd agree with this. *On the flip side, supporting the death penalty doesn't mean we're doing it out of fear as you have suggested before. Sure, public safety is one important issue. Generally, punishment has a 3 fold purpose; retribution (I know, nobody likes that term but it means a just punishment IE the punishment is commensurate with the crime), deterrence and rehabilitation. Obviously, imposing the DP means that rehabilitation is not a consideration for that person and retribution is the the biggest factor in capital punishment. Regarding deterrence; there are actually 2 kinds, general and specific. General meaning the threat of DP deters others from committing crimes and specific meaning it deters the particular person from committing more crimes. There is some argument about whether the DP is effective as a general deterrent but there's no doubt that, if carried out, it is 100% effective as a specific deterrent.*

In the case of the first, the victim is irrelevant to the reason for opposing the death penalty. *The concept is that the government simply should not be killing people outside of war, that it is morally wrong. *If it is morally wrong, then justice, which should be the goal of a judicial system, is not served by killing some one. *While you can feel for the victim of the crime, you cannot undo the crime by killing any one. *As far as the criminal, it has nothing to do with sympathy for them. *If for example it is wrong to steal, then it is still wrong to steal from a mean, nasty person. *If it is wrong for the government to sanction killing in the name of justice, then this is true whether the person is nice or nasty. *Morality does not depend on who you are acting towards, but on how you act.
All this pretty much comes down to something I've said already, to oppose the death penalty means that the victim is irrelevant and the actual guilt/innocence of the criminal is also irrelevant. Both are things that, personally, are extremely relevant to me. I think CP pointed out earlier that the time it takes from conviction to actual execution makes it easier to feel for the guy who's still around (the killer) and in the news or the cause du jour, and forget the person who has been dead for a decade (or more) already.

In the second case, the goal is to not dispense injustice. *The person holds to the concept that it is to not execute a guilty person than to execute an innocent man. *Again, there is no sympathy for the guilty, only concern for the innocent. *In both cases, it is easy to justify that society is protected equally well by life in prison as by execution, as is the victim.
Actually, the victim is dead and beyond protection at this point. I just don't think that means he/she should be beyond consideration.

I used the torture example in my earlier post, and I think that helps make it clear. *If you feel that torture is morally or legally wrong, then this is true even if the person in question is totally vile. *I do not care about his well being, I care about doing what is right, even when that is not easy. *I feel no sympathy whatsoever for those we waterboarded. *Hell, I hope it hurt like hell and made their life hell. *I still do not think we should have done it as it is morally wrong to torture.
And, of course, what is "right" is the crux of the disagreement. Often it's said that the DP devalues life. I don't believe that to be the case. It actually shows a respect for life by exacting the highest possible price for taking another life in the worst way (remember that not all murders are capital murders. Capital murders are only those with the most aggravating factors; killing a cop, killing a child, serial and mass killings, etc.)

See why this took me awhile?
 
This is exactly why people should note the phrase government inefficiency. If you believe the government isn't the solution, and smaller is better, then don't give it the authority to kill it's own people. It's common sense. This defies the principles of small government Conservativism as far as I see it, and this also shows how devastatingly ineffective the government is run.
The interesting thing is, the underlying problem of this case, which is that the courts simply refused to consider the new evidence/arguments, is a product of policy designed to make the judicial system more "efficient." In our obsessive desire to cut corners, we are cutting safeguards and justice as well. What does the Constitution have to say about that?

Last I checked, it was that the government owes us process, not fast results and convenience.
 
The interesting thing is, the underlying problem of this case, which is that the courts simply refused to consider the new evidence/arguments, is a product of policy designed to make the judicial system more "efficient."

Thats actually not true. During the Federal District Court hearing, they considered every bit of the new evidence. Most of which was dismissed due to credibility problems or not sufficient to overturn or contradict the evidence in the original trial.
 
It can, if all cases that previously would have involved the death penalty were simply replaced by the sentence of life without parole.

????????????????

If everyone that is on death row were to suddenly be resentenced to life without parole, and integrated into the mainstream prison population, there would more than likely be a number of inmates and C.O.s murdered.

Your idea makes no sense whatsoever, unless your only concern is for the inmates on death row, most of whom are pathologically violent, extremely dangerous individuals who will undoubtedly put the lives of a great many other inmates--most of whom were not convicted of first degree murder and do not deserve to be killed by someone who was--in very serious danger.


Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is implemented, why would a defendant who "looks pretty damn guilty" be exonerated in the first place?

Ahhhh... For all the same reasons that an an innocent defendant might be wrongfully convicted?

Believe it or not, the guilty are often exonerated or allowed to plea bargain to a much lesser charge. And just so you know, the guilty go free a lot more often than the innocent are convicted.

Ever heard of O.J. Simpson?

How about Arthur Bomar?

Man Paroled from a life sentence kills college student

Why would he be released back into society in the first place?

Because the CJS makes mistakes on both sides the scales of guilt and innocence.
 
Last edited:
????????????????

If everyone that is on death row were to suddenly be resentenced to life without parole, and integrated into the mainstream prison population, there would more than likely be a number of inmates and C.O.s murdered.

Your idea makes no sense whatsoever, unless your only concern is for the inmates on death row, most of whom are pathologically violent, extremely dangerous individuals who will undoubtedly put the lives of a great many other inmates--most of whom were not convicted of first degree murder and do not deserve to be killed by someone who has--in very serious danger.




Ahhhh... For all the same reasons that an an innocent defendant might be wrongfully convicted?

Believe it or not, the guilty are often exonerated or allowed to plea bargain to a much lesser charge. And just so you know, the guilty go free a lot more often than the innocent are convicted.

Ever heard of O.J. Simpson?

How about Arthur Bomar?

Man Paroled from a life sentence kills college student



Because the CJS makes mistakes on both sides the scales of guilt and innocence.

I think someone may have posted this quote earlier but here goes...

"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." - Thomas Jefferson
 
I think someone may have posted this quote earlier but here goes...

Wonderful, but what has it to do with the issue at hand?
 
Wonderful, but what has it to do with the issue at hand?

well you posted:

Man Paroled from a life sentence kills college student

and I posted:

"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." - Thomas Jefferson

Kind of seemed to be pertinent. if not... meh. My bad.
 
Don't know if this is been posted yet but this is the decision from the Aug 2010 Federal District Court, Judge Moore was presiding over the hearing. Breaks down the recantations towards the end (pg 128 to the end) and includes the judge's summary

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf

I didn't know much about this case but after reading the breakdown of the recantations during the hearing, the guy was guilty.

I don't think anybody here cares about the facts of this case.

They want to use it to argue their side for or against the death penalty.

The law says if he was there, even if he didn't pull the trigger, he is just as guilty as the man who did pull the trigger.

You want to argue if he pulled the trigger or not, if he was there, he was guilty.

You have to look at why somebody would recant their story after 20 years. They had nothing to lose, no consequence for them. They can say anything the defense wants them to say. If you believe they recanted their stories, that makes 7 of those witnesses liars.

I don't believe that the cops could coerce 7 witnesses to lie. Maybe one or two scumbags had something hanging over their heads, but 7?

What about the other three? Why didn't they change their story?
 
Hadn't he used the same gun in a crime earlier that night? Weren't some of those who ID'd him his friends, including his now-deceased girlfriend? Didn't multiple courts refuse to to overturn or give him a new trial, including the Supreme Court?
 
I don't think anybody here cares about the facts of this case.

They want to use it to argue their side for or against the death penalty.

The law says if he was there, even if he didn't pull the trigger, he is just as guilty as the man who did pull the trigger.

You want to argue if he pulled the trigger or not, if he was there, he was guilty.

You have to look at why somebody would recant their story after 20 years. They had nothing to lose, no consequence for them. They can say anything the defense wants them to say. If you believe they recanted their stories, that makes 7 of those witnesses liars.

I don't believe that the cops could coerce 7 witnesses to lie. Maybe one or two scumbags had something hanging over their heads, but 7?

What about the other three? Why didn't they change their story?

Well thats the thing, those claiming an innocent man was put to death cite the recantations as proof of innocence. When clearly, the recantations were tested during the hearing and deemed not credible during cross examination. Funny, the one recantation that would have done the most, Davis refused to allow her to testify at the hearing and solely submitted her affidavit. As the judge clearly states in his decision, an affidavit holds very little evidentiary weight without cross examination to determine credibility.
 
I apologize for posting without reading the thread. I have no problem with the death penality when the crime is especially heinous, and guilt is proven beyond doubt by actual physical evidence, i.e. murder weapon with fingerprints, dna, bodies buried in the backyard, caught in the act, etc. We're talking Bundy, Gacy, Dalhmer kind of evidence.

However, I have misgivings about the Troy Davis case. Not one iota of physical evidence. No weapon, no fingerprints, no hairs or fibers, no dna... nothing but eyewitness accounts, which have been proven to be the flimsiest "evidence" there is. How many "rapists" have spent years in prison based only on identification by their alleged victim, only to dna exhonerate them? Too many to count, that's how many. Davis' alleged victim was a police officer. There was immense pressure to convict someone of this crime. Dispite the lack of physical evidence, that's exactly what was done.

The death penalty is over used, in my opinion, utilized more as a heavy hammer to bang out a plea agreement from a terrified defendent willing to take the advice of an underpaid public defender and plead guilty with life in prison as an option to execution. I'm sure all too many innocents have been executed over the years. That's unacceptable. And I fear Troy Davis might have been one of them.
 
@Sig

Yeah...so the CJS makes mistakes...I think that I've already pointed that out. Again, I would rather err on the side of letting a killer live, than putting an innocent man to death. This isn't an unusual or unreasonable position.

As for guilty who are exonerated - they are, most of the time if not all, exonerated only after new evidence comes to light that exonerates them. And hence they no longer look "pretty damn guilty." And as for plea bargaining to lesser charges and eventually getting released, that happens regardless of whether or not the death penalty is in place. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but plea bargaining doesn't happen AFTER you're sentenced.

I really don't understand what argument you're trying to make here.
 
Last edited:
@Sig

Yeah...so the CJS makes mistakes...I think that I've already pointed that out. Again, I would rather err on the side of letting a killer live, than putting an innocent man to death. This isn't an unusual or unreasonable position.

Again, I will point out that by letting a killer live amongst non-killers in a prison setting, you will have blood on your hands (and gross injustice just the same) should said killer slay one of the non-killers among him, including C.O.s, or other prison staff.

As for guilty who are exonerated - they are, most of the time if not all, exonerated only after new evidence comes to light that exonerates them. And hence they no longer look "pretty damn guilty."

WRONG.

The guilty are exonerated for all sorts of reasons, including high powered defense (ie: OJ), jury tampering (ie: John Gotti), jury nullification (ie: Rodney King and Reginald Denny), to name but a few.

And as for plea bargaining to lesser charges and eventually getting released, that happens regardless of whether or not the death penalty is in place. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but plea bargaining doesn't happen AFTER you're sentenced.

That's realy not the point, is it?

If someone who has committed first degree murder is allowed to plea bargain to manslaughter, for one reason or another, the CJS has failed in its quest for justice.

I really don't understand what argument you're trying to make here.

That much is obvious. Try reading a little slower and thinking a little harder.
 
Back
Top Bottom