Death-row inmate Troy Davis Denied Clemency

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Djarums
 





This is a tough one. Yes, humans have flaws, humans can be misled and tricked, and humans can also allow their own biases to affect their decisions. However, the Constitution does guarantee the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. The alternatives are not better. At least with a jury it takes more than a single person's biases to affect the outcome. In other systems where there is no jury the defendant's fate can lie in the hands of a single jurist or leader.

people believe what they want. in reality a member of a jury is in most cases going to have preconceived ideas and prejudices.
if people think something is right then they will convince themselves of this even if evidence says otherwise.
as was stated with the lawyer issue, people can be mislead with jargon, emotion and lawyers focusing on irrelevant issues.
i think we expect the jury to act as a emotionless computer in a sense, i dont think its a job fit for must humans today because we are far from that.




It's hard to say whether the laws and the rules regarding trials and evidence are intentionally misleading or just antiquated. However, I think most people would agree that the current system is anything but straightforward. As Lincoln said (I'm paraphrasing) anyone who defends himself has an idiot for a client. It's sad, but it's true. Our system is far too convoluted for a "regular" person to make sense of it.

the system is a labyrinth of loopholes and confusion.
a lot of the time it comes down to your socio economic status.
i think that they are intentionally misleading in some cases, particularly cases that affect minorities or poorer people.
theres no doubt in my mind that the system is designed to keep a large section of the population down in the dirt.
why else would we have laws that make victimless crimes illegal




The finality of the death penalty would indicate that it should not be imposed unless there is absolute certainty. You can't go back and release the guy afterwards, right? Perhaps I would support the death penalty if our legal system hadn't devolved into such a circus.

well you would think but we have seen many a time that evidence is not always the key issue in many cases.

i know what you mean, there are some cases that would bring the death penalty into question but even then rehabilitation and education should be tried.
but i really think that having proper and correct systems in place is dependant on having a just and compassionate society.




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Personally I see subjecting someone to a lifetime of imprisonment to be a far worse sentence than simply killing them and putting them out of their misery.

That, and when somebody gets jailed here in Australia - if they DO happen to be innocent then reparations can be made and the person set free - whereas if you kill them (in this case on flimsy evidence) you cannot exactly dig them up and give them the breathe of life and then say "woops sorry" to them now can you?

All execution does is satisfy blood lust, nothing more. It is barbaric, disgusting and upheld only by like-minded psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain and misery to satisfy their despicable urges. These people are no better than the murderers themselves.
edit on 20/9/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I didn't know squat about this case so I went a looking. Came up with this little tidbit.


Legal experts argued that a major obstacle to granting Davis a new trial was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, passed after the Oklahoma City bombing, which restrained federal courts from overturning death penalty convictions, and ordering new trials. Legal authorities have criticized the restricting effect of the 1996 Act on the ability of wrongfully convicted persons to prove their innocence.


Troy Davis Wiki

So this guy can't get a fair trial because of ridiculous anti-terrorism laws? What the hell did this guy do that involved a terror attack on the US? So why the hell is this law being used against him? 7 of 9 witnesses either recanted or changed their stories and this guy can't get a real trial? Are you frakking kidding me?

It's really quite sickening. I'd love to use these anti-terror bills against the frakkers that passed them, they are the real terrorists.

How am I supposed to be "patriotic", "love my country", "support the troops" as they are fighting for "freedom", and all that BS, when I live in a fascist country that has no desire to ensure my rights as enumerated by the bloody CONSTITUTION!!!!! I'm pissed at my country, at the people being so stupid and letting things get so bad, at the people running it who are clearly psychopaths, at the MSM media machine that repeatedly lies to us, at our government which does the same, all to keep us in a state of fear about some imaginary foe thousands of miles from here that cannot hurt us at all, yet is used against us(not the imaginary foe, but us) to keep us enslaved.

Troy Davis is going to get murdered by the state unless he can get a fair trial, which may result in the same fate, except this time it wouldn't be done with tarnished testimony. It's pretty obvious, even to me who just heard of this case, that there was a lot of hinkyness with the first trial(police coercion, anyone?). This is a travesty, to our justice system, to our way of life, to Troy Davis, to the dead cop who deserves, at least, to have the right guy put behind bars for his death.

What a sad country we live in. Land of the free, home of the brave? Who's free nowadays? Who's brave enough to fight the entire corrupt system?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

To be honest, I kind of half expected the victim's family to come forward and support the clemency request, albeit regrettably.


The fact that they haven't, despite evidence suggesting the man is innocent or the trial was flawed, strongly suggests them having put on blinders and simply want SOMEBODY executed to make them feel better about it.

I'm not trying to detract from their pain, but clearly they don't want to know about anything that might jeopardise somebody being executed, rightly or wrongly.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


We agree that lengthy prison sentences are wrong. That is a start. So, the next step is identifying what deserves a prison sentence and what doesn't. What is reformable and what is not. What are the risks to the public and what are not.

A 1-time murder where someone is avenging a death of a loved one, they aren't really a threat to society any more are they? Perhaps some counseling, and reform and then release.

A drug crime, or prostitution, or tax evasion, poses no threat to anyone, no prison.

A property crime like grand theft, done without violence, should get someone some mandatory restitution time, maybe a stint in the military, maybe the checks garnished like child support. Maybe even a short stint in prison, no long term prison sentence.

A major crime like violent serial rape, or massive and brutal assault, or murder of a stranger with no extenuating circumestances. They pose a threat, they are a predator, they are not likely to reform, there is no reason to waste a lot of time, lets put them down early and focus our attention on the ones we can reform.

And yes, perhaps the people that carry out these punishments are no better than the criminals themselves, except for the fact that their bloodlust is confined to the guilty parties that deserve it. If I fall in that crowd, I can live with that.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


That's all very well and good until somebody gets executed who was actually innocent. Thank the stars that's never happened.

Oh wait......yes it has......




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by redoubt

To be honest, I kind of half expected the victim's family to come forward and support the clemency request, albeit regrettably.


The fact that they haven't, despite evidence suggesting the man is innocent or the trial was flawed, strongly suggests them having put on blinders and simply want SOMEBODY executed to make them feel better about it.

I'm not trying to detract from their pain, but clearly they don't want to know about anything that might jeopardise somebody being executed, rightly or wrongly.


Personally, I don't see that they could support the execution if they had any doubts. You can't try and turn over a new leaf in life... to carry on after such a loss, if you base it on something that flawed.

Not only that, but as direct surviving family members, they're probably privy to at least some info that doesn't make the media or even the public court record. This kind of stuff generally doesn't make testimony but is there for everyone except the jury and the public. But none of that really has any bearing on the execution.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Not change the course of justice but surely recants should at least halt the death process! Otherwise!!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

Personally, I don't see that they could support the execution if they had any doubts.


Over a million people signed petitions, Amnesty International is involved - how can they not have doubts? 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted and they still believe 100% that he did it?

I find this very hard to believe unless they are wearing blinders and couldn't care less about conflicting evidence - they know in their 'hearts' that he did it therefore he must die.








posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
This man should not be put to death! Alot of you who want him put to death are a problem, to egar to take life. I bet alot of you do not even know the full case.

1. Their was no physical Proof
2. The gun was never found
3. When the new trial was held several former prosecution witnesses recanted their previous testimony and described police coercion.
And there is more.

With all of this known how can they prove he 100% done it? They can't!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


That's all very well and good until somebody gets executed who was actually innocent. Thank the stars that's never happened.

Oh wait......yes it has......



Isn't that an entirely different argument?

So in addition to fixing the penal system, we also need to look at the court system and make sure we aren't convicting innocent people. In my opinion, 20 years in prison for an innocent man is no better or worse than a death penalty. You can't make restitution for kids being grown and parents being dead and hair being gray and youth lost.

Sure, innocent people sometimes go to jail, because we have problems with police, and lawyers, and judges, and prosecutors. We can deal with all of that separately. It is irrelavent to the notion of the death penalty.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Moon
 


Now, now - no need to be going around injecting FACTS into this discussion. We can't have the desire for blood lust interrupted now can we.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
You can't make restitution for kids being grown and parents being dead and hair being gray and youth lost.


I completely agree - but at least this way the person has a CHANCE at getting their life back - if your dead then that's pretty much it, and no amount of chipping the words "woopsies, didn't mean to execute this man" on their gravestone is going to change that.
edit on 20/9/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The final decision is not about the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!! Partuclarly in this case!!

Whos the GOV? SHOULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 
So you believe this officer's life was only worth a 22 year sentence? Would you feel the same way if it were your Father or Brother that was slain?

That's 22 years longer than Officer Mcphail was allowed to live. I see no need to house people at the taxpayers expense who have committed capital offenses. His police record speaks for itself.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Redwing48
 


But surely if witnesses have recanted their statements then this should at the very least prevent death?

What if? What would this dead officer want? If he new that witnesses had recanted wouldnt he say STOP
edit on 20-9-2011 by RoguePhilosopher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
this is the reason i avoid and do anything within my power to stay off jury duty.

now don't get me wrong, i believe that anyone who kills someone with intent to kill, other than defending others or ones self, or any other crime which there is a loss of life where the death penalty can be applied. or rape, kidnapping, or any crime where serious bodily harm has occurred. in these type cases, i believe that evidence should be absolute, and that a standard above "reasonable doubt" should be used.

the taking of someones life is very serious thing, so if your gonna execute, or lock someone up for the better part of their life or life, the evidence should be 100% prove of their guilt and not left to chance, then and only then left up to a jury to decide. better to let a guilty person walk, than to kill or lock up a innocent person.

i don't know about other members here, for me, if i severed on a jury where i had to decided if someone was guilty, and the death penalty was carried out, or had locked someone up for fifty years or more of their life, then only to find out the evidence was flawed or even proof to the contrary. i would be sick in my heart, and that's a burden i do not want to carry. witness testimony can be wrong, it has been proven that ten people can see the same event at the same time and not agree on what they saw.

i could go on and on about this, some would agree and some would disagree. i think it safe to say that this is one subject that will always be debated and no agreement reached as the right way to handle it.







edit on 20-9-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-9-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Another suggestion is to the jury be the ones to go and apply the death sentence themselves... The ones pushing the buttom, applying the injection.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


This is very upsetting news.

There was reasonable doubt in Troy's case, and police manipulation helped aid in his sentence. Given the fact that 7 of 9 witnesses have recanted their statements and that another one of the 9 is the supposed real killer (added with the fact that there is NO DNA evidence linking Mr. Davis to the crime) this is true injustice served up Georgia style.

I wish Troy and his family luck in the coming days. My thoughts will be with him and I hope yours will be to.

Good Luck Brother.



This is the style of justice that the Tea Party loons advocate towards American citizens. Beyond a reasonable doubt be damned, fry the son of a bitch is their motto. Yet, these same people will make excuses for the people that really need to be rounded up and executed.

Instead of leading the world in civility, we are nothing more than a bunch of barbarians that watch reality TV.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by blackcube
 
I think the family of the victim should have the honor of executing the sentence.






top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join