PDA

View Full Version : Troy Davis denied pardon from US Supreme Court


Livewire
September 22nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44630819/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#.Tnv8AtRQgZI

Death Row Inmate Troy Davis was executed yesterday by Lethal injection after the Supreme Court refused his last-ditch appeal, despite the massive call for clemency following the revelation that several eye-witnesses recanted their testimony and changed thier stories.

Basically, a man was executed of a crime in which there was no found murder weapon, no DNA evidence, as well as shoddy, if not false testimony, as well as allegations of police coercion.

Thoughts? And what of the Death Penalty? Could this case be the catalyst for a possible repeal of Capital punishment? Discuss.

Alli
September 22nd, 2011, 07:47 PM
YAY AMERICA. The only place guilty people get to get away with what they do and go home to watch the news and see innocent people get the death penalty! ^___^ I don't like the death penalty in general though. What does it solve? Okay you killed someone. Let's kill you too because that makes everything better. Whatever. Who feels better in the end?

Alley Cat
September 22nd, 2011, 07:58 PM
What Sydian said is pretty much right. The legal system of the USA sucks, it gives them control over the citizens. What with they can imprison someone as long as they want if they are a suspected terrorist, they can tap into phonecalls etc. But on top of that, they execute innocent people. What an incompetent system. Honestly, a lot of people who do bad things wouldn't even mind the death penalty, because they kill themselves before they get arrested you know. If you really want to "get revenge" then let them rot in a cell, it'll be much more effective, js.

Now, they had no evidence, no dna, no weapon, and bad witness most of which recanted/changed their statements. SMH. Yet they still arrested him, AND found him guilty. That's actually happened in my life, to my brother's dad. He was on trial, and the main thing putting him away was the statement of the lady who's house the crime had occurred in. Yet, she took back her statement, said he wasn't involved. Still though, they went and tried. He "shot a guy" and even the guy he "shot" said it wasn't him. But they still arrested him. So, even with all that evidence towards his innocence, they still arrested him. Because they could. Because our legal system is just screwed.

This should not just be allowed to happen. He should have been let free. But now he can't. They need to make amends, in the best way possible. Nothing they can do though, could actually make up for taking the life of an innocent. But they need to be challenged, need to know that people aren't gonna handle this stuff.

FreakyLocz14
September 22nd, 2011, 09:10 PM
The Constitution guarantees us due process of law. It does not guarantee that the verdict will always be 100% correct. The question is not whether he was innocent or guilty, but whether or not he was given adequate due process.

Alley Cat
September 22nd, 2011, 09:18 PM
Which apparently he wasn't if they had murder weapon, no dna, and no real witnesses.

FreakyLocz14
September 22nd, 2011, 09:23 PM
Which apparently he wasn't if they had murder weapon, no dna, and no real witnesses.

That doesn't equate to a denial of due process. The Court held time and time again that a conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence is not necessarily wrong.

Look at the Scott Peterson case. There was no murder weapon, no eyewitnesses, and forensic evidence, and they never even determined a cause of death. Yet, the large majority of people are convinced that he is guilty.

Alley Cat
September 22nd, 2011, 09:46 PM
Which is where the due process of law exists. It doesn't matter how much you think or know, you shouldn't be able to convict someone without some kind of substantial proof. You say it's not a matter of whether he is innocent or not, but I think that it is. You can't just go around killing people who don't deserve it.

Would you not be emotional if say, this was your mom or dad or someone else very close to you, and you knew/highly thought they were innocent, how would you feel? Would you just be: Oh, that's fine, he got his constitutional rights granted to him. I highly doubt it.

Lalapizzame
September 22nd, 2011, 09:50 PM
Sentimental arguments are a slippery slope and bound to be incendiary, not least of all regarding legal cases and the death penalty. Let's avoid using them.

He should have been pardoned if the grounds for execution were on such shaky evidence.

FreakyLocz14
September 22nd, 2011, 09:53 PM
Sentimental arguments are a slippery slope and bound to be incendiary, not least of all regarding legal cases and the death penalty. Let's avoid using them.

He should have been pardoned if the grounds for execution were on such shaky evidence.

Evidence being "shaky" is not enough to warrant complete exoneration. I feel that he probably should have been given a new trial, though. There were serious legal errors that warranted a reversal.

Lalapizzame
September 22nd, 2011, 09:54 PM
Yes. A second trial was the least that could have been done in this scenario, considering all the wrong indicators going off.

Livewire
September 23rd, 2011, 08:44 AM
The Constitution guarantees us due process of law. It does not guarantee that the verdict will always be 100% correct. The question is not whether he was innocent or guilty, but whether or not he was given adequate due process.

"Due Process" meaning that all his rights were not infringed upon. A fair and speedy trial obviously wasn't among them.


The question isn't whether he was innocent and guilty? Isn't that the entire point of a trial in the first place? All the more proof that the current Roberts Court is heavily biased and incredibly wrong.

Esper
September 23rd, 2011, 08:47 AM
The Constitution guarantees us due process of law. It does not guarantee that the verdict will always be 100% correct.
... which is precisely why we shouldn't even have the death penalty. We make mistakes. Maybe not many, but better to be safe than execute an innocent person.

Let me also take this moment to regurgitate something I read on the news yesterday. There were other executions this week, even one on the same night, and hardly anyone tried to stop those because the people in those instances were without doubt guilty. And that's the problem. We only get fired up when there is a ton of doubt, never when there is a tiny amount of doubt or the possibility of doubt somewhere down the road. We pick and choose which people we oppose the death penalty for. That's not good enough. That's why we have to stop all executions even for those people who probably don't deserve our compassion because, as we saw, even when there is substantial doubt we still go ahead and kill people because even with the large protest again Troy Davis's execution we still give off the message that the death penalty is okay sometimes.

Ryoutarou
September 23rd, 2011, 09:24 AM
I don't see the death penalty ever being completely eradicated if only for the simple fact that a lot of people don't want their tax dollars going towards feeding, sheltering, and providing health care to the worst criminals this country has to offer so they can live out the rest of their lives with everything taken care of for them. Granted, a lot of these people are in solitary confinement, but it's an argument for the death penalty that comes up often enough.

Personally speaking, I do think there needs to be a sizable overhaul in what can be considered proper evidence. I find it baffling that a man, who professed his innocence up to his final moments, can be put to death based on witness testimony alone. (especially when more than half of those witnesses go on to recant and some even claim the investigating officers lead them to make those early claims) It's pretty disgraceful that a man could be put to death when the biggest factors that lead to the initial guilty conviction have come into serious question.

Patchisou Yutohru
September 23rd, 2011, 09:26 AM
Freaky, you are ridiculous sometimes with your blind eye and totalitarianism-esque reasoning in a clear flaw in our justice system. Things like this make me ashamed to be an American. Like Alley Cat said, the justice system here sucks. And to sentence a man to death just because people think that he may be guilty based on little solid proof? Mr. Davis is now dead, yet people like Casey Anthony walk free for the same reasons. There clearly is a flaw in our system.

Alli
September 23rd, 2011, 09:42 AM
Freaky, you are ridiculous sometimes with your blind eye and totalitarianism-esque reasoning in a clear flaw in our justice system. Things like this make me ashamed to be an American. Like Alley Cat said, the justice system here sucks. And to sentence a man to death just because people think that he may be guilty based on little solid proof? Mr. Davis is now dead, yet people like Casey Anthony walk free for the same reasons. There clearly is a flaw in our system.

There was reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter though. There was no evidence that Troy Davis killed that officer. Hmm. Yes. Okay America. Makes sense. I agree. It's just...stupid.

"Due Process" meaning that all his rights were not infringed upon. A fair and speedy trial obviously wasn't among them.

Yeah, didn't what he "did" happen in like 1989? That's 21-22 years ago. America is clearly Speedy Gonzalez.

Patchisou Yutohru
September 23rd, 2011, 09:51 AM
There was reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter though. There was no evidence that Troy Davis killed that officer. Hmm. Yes. Okay America. Makes sense. I agree. It's just...stupid.
Exactly. And then she gets off with just misdemeanor counts for lying, and yet there was clearly a case of neglect. The prosecution may not have tried for that, but that was clearly the case and there wasn't any doubt in anyone's head of it and yet nothing happened. Just because prosecution didn't try for it. That's really disgraceful in Caylee's memory. How can a man who had no evidence be convicted and killed of killing an officer while a woman walks free when the evidence is there to try her for something as serious as child neglect? It's just so unjust.

The American justice system is supposed to hold the standard "innocent until proven guilty," but in 9/10th of the cases I know of, it's usually "guilty until proven innocent."

Oryx
September 23rd, 2011, 09:54 AM
... which is precisely why we shouldn't even have the death penalty. We make mistakes. Maybe not many, but better to be safe than execute an innocent person.

This, a million times. I would rather be known as the country that gives life sentences instead of death sentences over the country that kills innocent people. I can't stand the death penalty.

I don't see the death penalty ever being completely eradicated if only for the simple fact that a lot of people don't want their tax dollars going towards feeding, sheltering, and providing health care to the worst criminals this country has to offer so they can live out the rest of their lives with everything taken care of for them. Granted, a lot of these people are in solitary confinement, but it's an argument for the death penalty that comes up often enough.

This is where I would like to know exactly what prison life is like for most prisoners, because I doubt prisoners are exactly living the high life (especially not ones in higher security prisons). For the people, the option shouldn't be "either pay for them or kill them". Killing them should never be an option. Their option should be "either pay for them or let them go free", which is an obvious choice. They pay tax dollars to keep them behind bars because otherwise they go free and hurt them, the people. The people pay taxes for jails so that they are kept safe. Our taxes also go to people who get Medicaid. Why don't we kill off all of the low-income sick people so we pay less taxes?

Ryoutarou
September 23rd, 2011, 10:16 AM
This is where I would like to know exactly what prison life is like for most prisoners, because I doubt prisoners are exactly living the high life (especially not ones in higher security prisons). For the people, the option shouldn't be "either pay for them or kill them". Killing them should never be an option. Their option should be "either pay for them or let them go free", which is an obvious choice. They pay tax dollars to keep them behind bars because otherwise they go free and hurt them, the people. A lot of people do feel that killing is an option, though, and since it's their tax dollars, they feel they have a right to say what happens with it. Death is not an option in your eyes, but that's not how many people see it and imposing a view like that can lead to some inflammatory situations. Of course there's never going to be a general consensus on it, that's just the way things work, but many people would rather have the worst offenders put to death.

As for prison life, it depends on where you are, but for the worst of the worst that are kept away from society and other prisoners, it can be argued that their lives aren't as bad as those that typically have to interact with others out on the yard. (and for those that aren't prepared to deal with that solitary confinement for life, it can be a lifelong psychological torture) And this brings up another point, prisons can be incredibly understaffed in regards to having a competent team of guards to protect the prisoners from themselves and from doing anything too extreme such as trying to escape.

Hypothetical question, if prison life was truly as bad everywhere as it is in the yard does that mean that despite having issues with the death penalty, you would have no qualms with dangerous prisoners being allowed to interact with each other, cause prison riots that in many cases lead to the deaths of multiple prisoners? That's a dangerous situation for everyone involved and if the amount of people on death row ever becomes great enough to be a truly sizable number, I doubt our prison systems are prepared to handle them.

There are far too many variables to simply focus on one aspect as the deciding factor. Heck, that's the major reason I've never quite been able to come to a decision myself on whether I support it or not. (as much as it seems like I'm arguing for the death penalty, I could argue just as much against it, which is why I typically try to stay out of discussions like this, I find it hard to have a solid stance, but this was an interesting story I've been following for some time now and was pretty bummed to see how it ended)

The people pay taxes for jails so that they are kept safe. Our taxes also go to people who get Medicaid. Why don't we kill off all of the low-income sick people so we pay less taxes?Even as an analogy, this makes no sense. Medicaid pays for the less fortunate, many of whom could become contributing members to society.

Esper
September 23rd, 2011, 10:19 AM
I think I've also read that the costs of appeals for people on death row add up to quite a bit of money when you consider all the time it takes, all the lawyers and others involved. Some arguments I've heard say it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to pay for all the hearings and everything else involved in the state trying to hold up its death sentence convictions.

Ryoutarou
September 23rd, 2011, 10:38 AM
I think I've also read that the costs of appeals for people on death row add up to quite a bit of money when you consider all the time it takes, all the lawyers and others involved. Some arguments I've heard say it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than to pay for all the hearings and everything else involved in the state trying to hold up its death sentence convictions.This depends on how you're looking at the sentence. On a year-by-year case, I believe it's in the area of $25,000, the typical life sentence is said to cost upwards of one and a half million dollars. I've read that on average, a death sentence that's appealed as far as possible ends up costing around seven hundred thousand between what the state has to pay and between the legal fees of the accused.

Mr. X
September 23rd, 2011, 10:26 PM
Yeah, didn't what he "did" happen in like 1989? That's 21-22 years ago. America is clearly Speedy Gonzalez.

Mah, get thine facts straight. Due process, speedy trial.

Guess when he was convicted? 1991. Correct me if im wrong, but by my math thats... 2 years? If you want something more precise, about a year and ten months from inditement to receiving his sentence.

Due process. Speedy trial. With all the exceptions to due process, his trial was technically a speedy one.

Carrying out his sentence, however, wasn't. Technically, that was his own doing though since he sent numerous appeals through which stalled his sentence.

aruchan
September 24th, 2011, 06:25 PM
I am all for the death penalty in particularly disturbing and evil situations (like for serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy), especially as a form of revenge, but the Troy Davis case in my opinion did not warrant it. First of all, he only killed one man (there is even reasonable doubt on that). Many people have killed another person and received only life in prison, so I don't see why he deserved the death penalty for it.
Secondly, there was enough doubt that he didn't do it, as many of the witnesses were unreliable and they never found the weapon on him. I think killing him when there is enough doubt to have potentially exculpated him was a mockery and failing of our justice system.

Mr. X
September 26th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Not really a failure of the system.

The system works, its the human element that failed.

Gothitelle.
September 27th, 2011, 06:32 PM
I've always despised the death penalty. I don't understand why people would support it let alone be part of someone's execution. That's wrong, to me that is.

I understand closure and yada yada, but killing someone is not going to bring your loved one back. Convicting them solves their mystery but I don't... I just can't.

Alli
September 27th, 2011, 06:41 PM
I've always despised the death penalty. I don't understand why people would support it let alone be part of someone's execution. That's wrong, to me that is.

I understand closure and yada yada, but killing someone is not going to bring your loved one back. Convicting them solves their mystery but I don't... I just can't.

I think the closure in the death penalty for those who lost a loved one to the criminal is that the criminal can no longer hurt other families/friends. But at the same time, more often than not, the criminal also has a family. And it's even worse in cases like this one where someone is given the death penalty when there wasn't spot on proof they even committed the crime. tl;dr I disagree with the death penalty, as I've already stated.