world

Troy Davis executed in Georgia amid international outcry

180 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

180 Comments
Login to comment

Terrible outcome. Especially since there have been sincere doubts as to his guilt. Seven out of the nine witnesses have already recanted their testimony and some have said they were coerced by police to testify against him. Seems to me the Supreme Court simply wanted to be rid of this "problem" as soon as possible.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Now that he's been executed they'll probably start investigating and it'll be found he was wrongly convicted. Always after the fact, which is one of the problems with capital punishment.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

There's a good chance he was guilty. But there's also a good chance he was not guilty.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There's a good chance he was guilty. But there's also a good chance he was not guilty.

That's so true. Unfortunately, most Americans support the death penalty and want to see someone punished to the maximum, even though it may possibly be the wrong person.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Also executed today was one of the White Supremist who dragged a Black man down a dirt road in Texas in 1998. Funny how in that case, many of hte same protestors that were for the stay of execution for this guy were enraged at then Gov. Bush and the state of Texas for taking their time in convicting this guy, and saying that there was "No Justice, No Peace" in Jasper Texas and branding the state as a racist haven.

The family of the deceased man in Texas said that the punishment "a step in the right direction," and that "We're making progress, I know he was guilty so I have no qualms about the death penalty."

I guess Sharpton and the rest of the crowd who shouted that there was no justice in Texas decided that they could get better air time with this case. I remember the protests and the claims against then Gov. Bush on his civil rights record, and here we have a member of the KKK executed for killing a Black man (not many have been executed for doing that) and instead they still want to rally for someone who is black but guilty.

I mean if the protestors keep saying that the death penalty is targeted heavily at minorities, they should have been in Texas in droves to finally see justice done.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Disgraceful really. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Given that the only evidence was eye witness, would he have been executed had he been white?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Apparently, "No weapon, DNA evidence or surveillance footage was found to link Davis to the crime". How on earth can somebody end up sentenced to death based on this basically complete lack of evidence?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It really does seem crazy that he was executed with no physical evidence. How can something like this happen?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's Georgia, and the victim was a police officer - that's how it can happen.

AlphaApe, funny you talk about this like it was some kind of media circus and yet I'm willing to bet you didn't even know this guy's name until now - the very day of his execution. The media has largely ignored this story, just as they largely ignored the brutal murder of a black man by some drunken white supremicists about a month ago, just as the media is largely ignoring that Rick Perry executed a man who was proven innocent and then attempted to cover it up.

If there is any media bias at all, it's to the right.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

They need to execute these people faster. Decades in prison wasting taxpayer money on appeals and he still ends up getting executed.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Also executed today was one of the White Supremist who dragged a Black man down a dirt road in Texas in 1998. Funny how in that case, many of hte same protestors that were for the stay of execution for this guy were enraged at then Gov. Bush and the state of Texas for taking their time in convicting this guy, and saying that there was "No Justice, No Peace" in Jasper Texas and branding the state as a racist haven.

You forget to mention that in that case, the blood and DNA of the dead man was found on the person of the men convicted and there was no doubt of guilt. In this case, there was no DNA evidence.

It's shameful enough having the death penalty in the first place, but using it on people who just may be guilty is way, way beyond the pale.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

One of the eye witnesses was shot by him in the face and another eyewitness was pistol whipped by him before he killed Mr. MacPhail who was trying to stop this man.

Justice has been served. Details omitted in the article from CNN:

Davis was at a pool party in Savannah when he shot a man, Michael Cooper, wounding him in the face. He then went to a nearby convenience store, where he pistol-whipped a homeless man, Larry Young, who'd just bought a beer, according to accounts of the case.

Prosecutors said MacPhail rushed to the scene to help, but wound up being shot three times by Davis. They said Davis shot the officer once in the face as he stood over him.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Cleo, you watch too much CSI. Absence of DNA evidence does not equate innocence. I suppose you thought Casey Anthony was innocent, too.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Absence of DNA evidence does not equate innocence.

True, but having it would help to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, in this case, there has been a lot of doubt.

I suppose you thought Casey Anthony was innocent, too. By the same token, then I guess you believe that Larry Griffin was guilty too. Larry Griffin by the way, was executed in 1995, even though there were no hard evidence linking him to his crime. There were no fingerprints at the crime site and weapon. Even the witness who said he saw a black man shoot the victim with his right hand (Larry Griffin was lefthanded) was not credible. It was only after he was executed that he was proven to be innocent. Too late, if you ask me.

Too many cases where executed people have been proven innocent later (or where there were serious doubts) prove that capital punishment does not work.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So what else is news. "Jimmy Carter sells peanuts, also friends", said a placard in Taipei, when he discarded Taiwan to embrace China. Jimmy Carter sells peanuts, also victims?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

"Racism and hipocrasy [sic]...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A."

They have been eradicated everywhere else?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

Not really,

August 28, 1991: The jury, composed of seven blacks and five whites, finds Davis guilty after less than two hours of deliberation.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Sailwind,

Davis was at a pool party in Savannah when he shot a man, Michael Cooper, wounding him in the face. He then went to a nearby convenience store, where he pistol-whipped a homeless man, Larry Young, who'd just bought a beer, according to accounts of the case.

Michael Cooper stated that it couldn't have been Davis who shot him in the face. Larry Young said he was forced to testify against Davis because of strong armed police tactics.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

lordmanji, I've never watched CSI. Absence of DNA evidence does not equate innocence, but absence of evidence plus retracted witness statements does equate reasonable doubt. Conversely, presence of DNA evidence is a pretty strong indicator of involvement if not guilt.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I hate these difficult questions in life and death. I do hope this guy was not innocent, so then we can all sleep better at night, but if he was innocent, that really sucks! May all involved one day RIP.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the death penalty must be applied at all, it should be for cases in which there are no ambiguities in the charges, and that it can be proved, through the past criminal record of the accused and psychiatric testimony, that he or she is an incorrigible sociopath, incapable of feeling remorse and with no hope of reform. The state may be justified in taking a life if it prevents the killing of innocents. I use "may be" here because I lean toward incarceration for life with no hope of parole. In any case, the objective should be protection of society, not revenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thundercat,

Michael Cooper stated that it couldn't have been Davis who shot him in the face. Larry Young said he was forced to testify against Davis because of strong armed police tactics.

Just my common sense speaking here. Don't you think these two Gentlemen would have been more interested in getting the guy that "really did it" to them then seeing an innocent man get convicted and going so far as to testify that he was the one that did it to them in a court of law (he was convicted of assaulting Young and shooting Davis on lesser counts by the jury). I would have been screaming from the top of my lungs that the Police had the wrong guy from the very start and would have been demanding they get the one that actually shot me in the face or beat the heck out of me with a pistol.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

AlphaApe: " Funny how in that case, many of hte same protestors that were for the stay of execution for this guy were enraged at then Gov. Bush and the state of Texas for taking their time in convicting this guy, and saying that there was "No Justice, No Peace" in Jasper Texas and branding the state as a racist haven."

You seem to be saying this as though it were some sort of hypocrisy, when it's quite different: the guy who dragged the black man by motorbike was guilty, whereas Davis was convicted quickly and executed today (over there) despite most 'witnesses' recanting their statement and there being ample proof he was misidentified. Not quite the same thing, is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets see, the Supreme Court Justices refused to stay the execution so are they racists, too? And are all the posters here that are against the death penalty and truly believe in the innocence of Troy Davis intimately more knowledgeable of the factual aspects of this case and the legality of capital punishment? Think not. They are just swimming in their own self-righteous ether...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just my common sense speaking here.

sailwind: Common sense is not good evidence to convict someone of a crime. The fact that there wasn't sufficient evidence to eliminate any doubt should have been enough to stay Mr. Davis' execution. Even Michael Cooper himself testified that he was inebriated at the time he was arguing with Davis and "other men" and thus could not be completely sure who shot at him. Why didn't prosecutors do more to pursue the fact that another man, Red Coles, was also spotted arguing with Larry Young, who was pistol-whipped? Red Coles even confessed that he owned a .38 caliber gun, but (conveniently) gave it to someone else earlier that night. Even a ballistics expert couldn't be sure if the .38 caliber bullet from the MacPhail shooting was the same as the one which wounded Cooper. Add that to the fact that no murder weapon was ever found and no fingerprints left by Mr. Davis at the crime scene, and you have a very shaky case for the prosecution, based on a couple of iffy eyewitness accounts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has anyone read or heard anything that makes them think beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty of this particular crime? I have not seen or heard any so far. This should be quite a concern, I would think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has anyone read or heard anything that makes them think beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty of this particular crime?

Yes, the twelve people that served on his jury.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

Has anyone read or heard anything that makes them think beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty of this particular crime?

Yes, the twelve people that served on his jury.

If that is the case, why have 130 death row inmates have been found innocent since 1973?

How many others have been released because of police corruption or the wrong DNA?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A terrible outcome.

The person who conducted the execution is now a murderer...but that is ok because it is 'justified'

I do not think I will ever understand the death penalty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, the twelve people that served on his jury.

Wise guy. Now, have you actually heard the evidence that is assumed to convinced them?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

@Tahoochi: If this was true, then the two KKK men who killed the Black man in Texas, one of whom was executed also today and the other is up next would be free and not be on death row.

AlphaApe, funny you talk about this like it was some kind of media circus and yet I'm willing to bet you didn't even know this guy's name until now - the very day of his execution. The media has largely ignored this story, just as they largely ignored the brutal murder of a black man by some drunken white supremicists about a month ago, just as the media is largely ignoring that Rick Perry executed a man who was proven innocent and then attempted to cover it up. If there is any media bias at all, it's to the right.

@HumanTarget: Not true. I know about this guy in GA for a long time. I am Black, and I have many relatives that are on those "support this cause" mails from some of these protest groups and I get them all the time. I also know of the case in Mississippi of which you speak of. If the media is ignoring these stories, it is not because of the right, but the left doesn't want to show that things are not as well as they said they were. You have the Sharpton types now on MSNBC, and they realize if they want to stop the losing of their audience, they need to tone down the rhetoric that those types are used to yelling. Just like the cases of the street mobs running in mass to rob stores in major cities, and the perps happen to be mostly black youth, they don't really show those stories.

Do this, take a look at the story of the cops shooting two bystanders while in a shootout with a perp in North Beach in San Francisco. That story is not being played too well in the media since it would hurt the tourist industry too bad. But, if the same thing would have happened across the bay in Oakland, immediately it would be another case of "No Justice No Peace" and the cops are bad.

I say the media tends to lean to the left. This case is a prime example as compared to the Texas execution. Instead of crying about "justice not being done" in this case, no one is saying "Justice has been done" for the KKK killer. It will not draw any sympathy for a cause.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Absolutely disgusting.

sailwind:

I would have been screaming from the top of my lungs that the Police had the wrong guy from the very start and would have been demanding they get the one that actually shot me in the face or beat the heck out of me with a pistol.

Why must the two crimes be related? Perhaps Davis committed the first shooting but not the second - it's not like the murder weapon was found with fingerprints or anything. Perhaps the eyewitness identification was crap - you can easily find HUNDREDS of cases where eyewitness testimony put a demonstrably innocent man in prison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There was zero physical evidence to tie Davis to the crime. ZERO. None. Nada.

The ballistics evidence which prosecutors said tied Davis to the crime was later completely discredited by the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation). Jurors have said they never would have voted to convict had that evidence been available to them during the trial.

Seven of the nine "eyewitnesses" recanted their testimony. The two that didn't were the person considered by many to be the actual shooter and another person over 100 ft away from the scene.

Over a half-dozen death-row wardens around the country, as well as very many who support the death penalty such as former GA congressman Bob Barr, former FBI director William Sessions, all urged the ultra-conservative GA prison board to not let this execution take place. There was far too much reasonable doubt, in their minds.

What this comes down to is member's of a state's justice system not wanting to accept that they could have made a terrible mistake in their prosecution of Troy Davis. (Their handling of eyewitnesses during the pre-trial investigation would have had the case thrown out of court had it happened today.)

Davis went to his death asserting his innocence to the very end. While I also have deep sympathy for the family of the slain, off-duty police officer, the fact that his real killer is walking free and an innocent man executed in his place his hardly the thing that brings justice.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

you can easily find HUNDREDS of cases where eyewitness testimony put a demonstrably innocent man in prison.

Extremely easy. One can go to a reputable movie download service and watch Errol Morris's 1988 documentary, The Thin Blue Line. The parallels to the Troy Davis case are chilling.

Morris initially set out to make a film about the Texas judge who condemned more men to death than any judge in the country. In the process of making it, he came across one of the cases that this judge heard and decided to dig into it a bit. What was discovered was that the state of Texas condemned an innocent man to death solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony in the case of the killing of a police officer in the line of duty.

All throughout the movie, you can see the police and prosecutors assert time and time again that they were 100% sure they had the right man. (Their egos would not allow them to express any doubts.) And yet Morris's film leaves no doubt whatsoever as to what really happened -- and ended up getting the innocent man, Randall Adams -- freed from prison and exonerated -- after spending 12 years on death row.

The Innocence Project came into being in the years after the film was released. As with the Adams case, the Project has freed over 270 innocent men and women wrongly convicted and on death row -- all through DNA evidence. The problem is that DNA evidence is only factor in about 5% of all death penalty convictions. There must be a great many mistakes made, and it's disturbingly clear that Troy Davis is one of them.

By the way, a second egregious example of a justice system gone horribly wrong was the West Memphis Three -- young men who were in prison -- one on death row -- for over a decade for a crime they could not have committed. They were finally freed this year.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, the twelve people that served on his jury.

Many of the jurors have come forward and stated that they never would have voted to convict if they knew the ballistics information was flawed -- as the GBI (GA Bureau of Investigation) later determined.

As with the Randall Adams case in Texas, the primary witness against the accused was the actual shooter. He's walking free while Georgia just executed an innocent man in his place.

Over 270 completely innocent people condemned to death for crimes they didn't commit -- all freed by the Innocence Project. That's a helluva lot of wrong convictions. No civilized society would tolerate such a thing. What really got Davis killed was that he was living in the United States, in a place where people -- as we saw during the Republican debates at the Reagan library -- actually cheer putting people to death. That is no civilized society.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There are about 16 States which have abolished the death penalty.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The death penalty should be abolished. It's just common sense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Over 270 completely innocent people condemned to death for crimes they didn't commit -- all freed by the Innocence Project. That's a helluva lot of wrong convictions. No civilized society would tolerate such a thing.

Excellent points, yabits. Let's not also forget the people who weren't so lucky and were executed. People like Larry Griffin, Leo Jones, and Carlos DeLuna. All were executed and then were found to be possibly innocent. Many cases were found to have contradicting evidence, or witnesses who later retracted their statements due to confessing being coerced by police, or evidence and testimonies of people which could've served as substantial alibis, but never being admitted in court.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yabits,

No physical evidence? His own testimony at the end of the trial said he was there all the time, just that he was not the shooter. How physical did the man have to be at the scene of the crime?

Second thing, since many eyewitnesses have recanted but admit to being there, it would be kinda nice that they tell the real story as to who killed Mr. MacPhail. They seem to be pretty damn fuzzy on who did it on that part after he was sentenced to death. And the most egregious thing in this is that Mr. Davis never ever said a name as to actually did it, he just let his lawyers imply it and let others do the rest to try put a name on who did it, he was there the whole time........pulling the trigger.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's a tough issue, because although sometimes there are mistakes, the death penalty has been proven to be the most effective deterrent against crime.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

the death penalty has been proven to be the most effective deterrent against crime.

The death penalty in Britain was abolished in 1960's and in most European countries too. Even in America, many States have also abolished it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have signed a petition for Troy Davis, but failed to save him. This is an email I got today and want to share this with you.

The state of Georgia killed Troy Davis tonight.

Despite so much doubt about Troy Davis's guilt -- including seven witnesses who changed or recanted their testimony, and three jurors who convicted Troy who later asked that his life be spared -- Georgia's parole board decided he should die. And so tonight at 11:08 Eastern Time, he was killed by lethal injection.

His sister, Kim Davis, wanted to tell you what her brother said before he died:

"When Troy saw that more than 250,000 Change.org members signed a petition that was delivered to the board in his name, he called to tell me he was deeply moved. He told me he knew that he had supporters around the world, but he had no idea that the support was that widespread."

Kim has said that she'll keep fighting, for the next Troy Davis and the one after that. And she knows so many of us will join her in this fight.

Troy Davis was not alone when he died. Thank you for standing with him.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So Troy Davis is dead. Did that bring back the slain police officer? No?

Sounds like revenge to me, not justice.

Taka

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm very happy that my home state doesn't have the death penalty.

You can free a wrongly-convicted person and pay them compensation, but there's no bringing a wrongly-executed person back from the dead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't forget Cameron Todd Willingham - executed by Texas and only a fool or a relative of the prosecutors (and Rick Perry) would say he was clearly guilty. Most would say he was clearly NOT guilty.

As I said above, absolutely disgusting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seeing as though an answer has not yet appeared here, let's try it again, shall we? Has anyone here participating in this conversation read or heard anything that makes them think beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty of this particular crime? I'm confused because I was not aware that it was the accused job to prove their innocence. I have been under the, seemingly mistaken, impression that people accused were to be considered innocent until actually proven to be guilty. What I am asking was how exactly was he proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of doubt or even beyond a reasonable doubt?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

People who advocate for a death penalty do not realize the fact it can happen to any one of us without proven guilty with physical evidence..

This is the Amend.8 of Bill of Rights

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS inflicted."

My question of the US Constitution is what else is more unusual punishments if the death penalty is NOT?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Sounds like revenge to me, not justice"

Revenge, penalty, warning, justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No physical evidence? His own testimony at the end of the trial said he was there all the time, just that he was not the shooter. How physical did the man have to be at the scene of the crime?

If he said he was not the shooter, then genuine physical evidence -- such as a gun, blood, or other tangible things -- would have to be produced to prove otherwise. Over 270 people freed from death row were nearly all falsely convicted on eyewitness testimony. Merely being at the scene does not meet the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard needed for applying the death penalty. In civilized societies, that is. But this is Georgia.

I find it ironic that a Tea Party supporter like yourself, who has absolutely no faith in the state taking a few more dollars in taxes from a wealthy man, expressing tremendous faith in that same state when they take away the very life of a poor one.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Merely being at the scene does not meet the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard needed for applying the death penalty. In civilized societies, that is. But this is Georgia.

Absolutely true. Even if you accept that the death penalty is both fair and necessary, shouldn't you only want it applied to those whose crimes they inarguably committed? Those with a mountain of evidence against them? The most heinous of the heinous?

Should such a final punishment ever be meted out if there is any doubt of the accused's innocence? Who can sleep at night and support such barbarism?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't forget Cameron Todd Willingham - executed by Texas and only a fool or a relative of the prosecutors (and Rick Perry) would say he was clearly guilty.

Perry is a cold-blooded murderer. Simple as that.

And so are the people who cheered on all of his executions, not even caring or pausing that it's nearly certain that a number of those executed were, like Willingham, completely innocent. Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, commented recently that her father would have been absolutely horrified and repulsed by the scene of those in the library that bears his name cheering for executions.

These last two Texas governors have been able to spend no more than 10-15 minutes looking over a case before signing the death warrant -- and never losing a minute's sleep afterwards. (Talk about having total faith in the State.)

Point of fact: former Governor Bush did commute the death sentence of just one convict -- Henry Lee Lucas -- one of the worst mass-murderers in U.S. history. Perhaps there was some feeling of affinity involved.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My question of the US Constitution is what else is more unusual punishments if the death penalty is NOT?

This is the country whose former president authorized torture. There was nothing unusual about that.

In his mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I am asking was how exactly was he proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of doubt or even beyond a reasonable doubt?

People who advocate for a death penalty do not realize the fact it can happen to any one of us without proven guilty with physical evidence..

I find it ironic that a Tea Party supporter like yourself, who has absolutely no faith in the state taking a few more dollars in taxes from a wealthy man, expressing tremendous faith in that same state when they take away the very life of a poor one.

In the link,

http://tiny.cc/k0xeo

That last 15 pages are the most interesting on this whole case.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I believe in the principle of the death penalty.

However, I am finding it harder and harder to justify its implementation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

Thank you for you link. I think it is quite helpful to the discussion. I found the comment by the judge that Davis' evidence while providing additional minimal doubt, was not enough to prove his innocence. Now, I will readily admit I have not carefully read the 174 pages you kindly provided. However, the judge did write there was a small about of doubt, albiet minimal. To me, that is not beyond a shadow of doubt. Again, the man could have been guilty. However, if there is any doubt, I am not convinced execution is warranted. It is just not worth it to make a mistake on the side of execution.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If he didn't want to get executed... he probably shouldn't have shot that cop and certainly not in the state of Georgia

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I wouldn't go around flaunting that police report there sailwind.

One witness says Troy Davis was wearing a white t-shirt, another a yellow t-shirt, another a tank top. One witness says Troy Davis weighed 130 pounds. Another says he weighed 150.

Why is it that none of the evidence on the police report matches up?

More importantly, why are you ignoring that none of the evidence on the police report matches up? Why do you right wingers like to see people die? Is your life better now that Troy Davis is dead?

You are a bitter lot, I'll tell you what.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why do you right wingers like to see people die? Is your life better now that Troy Davis is dead?

@Taka, let's as them if they are for PRO LIFE. Let's ask them if all 50 states have the death penalty. Let's ask them if they find something more cruel and unusual punishment beyond death. These questions will make their heads to spin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bitter isn't the word to describe them.

Intelligence dictates that if there's a doubt, and if seven of the nine witnesses have issues, then you don't execute another human being before a fine tooth comb has been put over the things that have come to light since the conviction.

The extreme right are a barbaric lot. If only they had been on the receiving end of an injustice perhaps they'd think twice about their armchair verdicts, but then again that would involve thinking....

I'm going to do what they would love to do, only they can't, and that's critisize President Obama. Why oh why did he not enter the fray on this occasion?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I'm going to do what they would love to do, only they can't, and that's critisize President Obama.

Madverts, The Supreme Court of US (Judicial Branch) can decide this, not Obama in Excecutive Branch. A great system of balancing power in US constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps, I admit to being European and un-educated in this domain.

We've seen pardons from US presidents so why not pressure here?

I mean the US looks pretty barbaric here. Iranian style I might add, they may as well have hung him from a crane or a bridge near the parking lot where the officer was murdered.

But I apologize if my lack of understanding erodes from the initial point of executing a man over dubious testimony.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We've seen pardons from US presidents so why not pressure here?

@Madverts, good question! The US Supreme Court rejected to consider this case to be heard. That's the reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The courts found him guilty and his appeal was rejected. The process was conducted in a legal and orderly fashion.

If only they had been on the receiving end of an injustice perhaps they'd think twice about their armchair verdicts, but then again that would involve thinking.

You assume being on the receiving end of injustice and compassion for a criminal goes hand in hand. It doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry Question,

I've been on the receiving end of an accusation. I thankfully had intelligent people investigating that did an impartial job and saw through the allegations.

I don't think the executed individual had such a luxury.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Taka, let's as them if they are for PRO LIFE. Let's ask them if all 50 states have the death penalty. Let's ask them if they find something more cruel and unusual punishment beyond death. These questions will make their heads to spin.

It cuts both ways. Why do liberals support the right to abortion but oppose the death penalty. BOTH sides are hypocrites!

As for me, I oppose both abortion and the death penalty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wouldn't go around flaunting that police report there sailwind.

Taka,

Its not a police report. It is the appeals court review of the trail and the appeals court ruling on Mr. Davis.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Intelligence dictates that if there's a doubt, and if seven of the nine witnesses have issues, then you don't execute another human being before a fine tooth comb has been put over the things that have come to light since the conviction.

Madverts,

The link I provided is 174 pages of the Appeals court going through everything that came to light after his conviction with a fine tooth comb and their conclusion. The court upheld the verdict and death penality conviction.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

President Obama should have intervened here.Troy Davis was a teenager when he was in that parking lot with his friend that night,pistol-whipping a homeless guy one minute and then fleeing for his life the next after someone who looked like him shot a policemen.

Like President Obama, Troy probably didn't come from a very stable home, he might not have known his father or maybe his dad wasn't around.Maybe Troy used drugs or was on them that night.There was an affinity there,but President Obama turned his back on this young man.

Let us not forget that the Obama administration asked for a stay of execution for an undocumented worker from Mexico named Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., ,by the state of Texas,but to no avail, back in July.

But Obama said nothing about Davis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well whatever it was sailwind, you presented it as evidence of Troy Davis guilt. Not me. YOU. I just happened to be the one to find contradictory evidence within the ahem "Appeals court review/Appeals court ruling" (gotta be fancy, don'tcha know). You just conveniently STILL seem to ignore that.

Did it feel good to see him die? Did it make you feel big and strong?

And FINALLY lieberman isn't talking out of his ass. Your criticism is warranted in this case. Pres. Obama SHOULD have acted on Davis' behalf. It would have been the right thing to do.

Taka

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I've been on the receiving end of an accusation. I thankfully had intelligent people investigating that did an impartial job and saw through the allegations.

Depends on the context you're talking about. If we're talking about finding yourself being treated to the hospitality of a holding cell in Nagoya because apparently I looked like some other 6'7 Hispanic guy that skipped out on his bill and was treated to the pleasure of several hours of repetitive interviews after which I still ended up having to pay my own bill after being released, even though I didn't even get to finish my food...I write that off as an inconvenience. (It was a some place near the Aoki HQ building, something about a desert they make. The foods overpriced anyway, best to avoid FYI)

The man was tried and convicted and his appeal failed. I don't see any injustice considering the array of tools that the attorneys have at their disposal.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I just happened to be the one to find contradictory evidence within the ahem "Appeals court review/Appeals court ruling" (gotta be fancy, don'tcha know). You just conveniently STILL seem to ignore that.

Just for a little clarity as you seem not to quite grasp what the Appellate Court actually does. On an appeal, lawyers file contradictory or new found evidence to the court so they can examine the evidence and determine if a new trial or hearing is warranted based on the new or contradictory evidence........You found nothing but what Mr. Davis lawyers had filed with the Appellate court to examine and rule on if it would have changed the outcome of the case.

As for the personal attack...........I provided all the details involved with the case that the media did not in the story so people can make up their own determination if justice was served. You provide nothing but insults yet again to one who does not agree with your politics.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The death penalty is outdated and barbaric. Of course, people will say think about the family of Mark MacPhail, who have lost someone to murder. Yet, can they really be at peace knowing that the wrong man may have been killed, especially when more than of a reasonable doubt exists (as in Troy Davis' case)? Of course, I can understand that just the fact that someone was punished (no matter if it was the right person or not) would give some people peace of mind. However, I for one would like to get it perfectly right; especially when it involves a person's life. An eye for an eye may work, as long as it is the correct eye.

As other posters have written, once you put that life out, you can't get it back if you found out later that you made a mistake. And we all know that grievous mistakes like these have been made in the past. Just imagine if it was a brother, father, mother, good friend, etc. of yours who was wrongly accused of a crime. Would you so easily go against the accused (your brother, mother, father, etc.), without thoroughly observing what evidence (or lack of it) there was?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The link I provided is 174 pages of the Appeals court going through everything that came to light after his conviction with a fine tooth comb and their conclusion.

I have looked over the document and read most of it. It is rife with problems and inconsistencies. For one thing, the police and prosecution claim that many of the people who testified against Davis are later "unreliable" and "can't be trusted" when they retracted their original accounts. If they are unreliable, then they are just as unreliable in their primary accounts.

The off-duty police officer was incredibly reckless -- to the point of stupidity. His arrival on the scene successfully stopped the attack on the victim (Mr. Young), but then, without backup, he decided to chase after the suspects -- who had turned tail and were running away. Had he stayed to render assistance to Mr. Young and called for help, he would have lived well beyond that day. But he made a terrible decision that cost him his life.

As I've written elsewhere, the Savannah police themselves decided early on who they thought was guilty and then did whatever they could to coerce eyewitness testimony and skew the evidence to make their case -- which is actually a hodgepodge of confusion: conflicting shirts, conflicting heights and skin-colors, conflicting descriptions of the gun involved.

The document presented here has to be taken as extremely suspect. After all, it is presented by people who have to defend their process and proceedings. Naturally, they pretend that they are perfect. However, if one steps back and observes how the police, in their zeal to nail a "cop-killer," will often conduct investigations of this type, one would have to be extremely careful not to take this stuff at face value. To see how the Dallas police and prosecutors railroaded an innocent man into Death Row, take some time and watch Errol Morris's excellent documentary film, The Thin Blue Line. It should be viewed by every American high-school kid as part of their civics education.

Like the 124-page document, Morris first makes the case against Randall Adams as seen from the view of the Texas justice system -- and the documents available to the public regarding that case. And then, in a process that is horrifying to watch, demonstrates how terribly wrong they got it. One thing is for sure: the Dallas case against Adams was FAR stronger and more consistent on its surface than the case against Troy Davis.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yabits,

The off duty policeman was increbidly reckless?...........Good Gawd, what the he'll is that! It's his fault he got killed trying to prevent a crime? It's his fault that he is dead for doing his job, even off duty???????

Worst post of the year and decade....period.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The off duty policeman was increbidly reckless?

Yes. Terrible judgment.

Good Gawd, what the he'll is that! It's his fault he got killed trying to prevent a crime?

He wasn't trying to prevent a crime. The crime of the assault on Mr. Young had already taken place. So much for prevention. He made a decision to chase after the men without attempting to call for assistance for Mr. Young or for himself.

It's his fault that he is dead for doing his job, even off duty???

It's not "his job" to arrest every criminal with a gun single-handed. A person who does that is only looking to get seriously hurt.

Worst post of the year and decade....period.

This irrational reaction shows how emotions overtake reason.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

When did the extreme right get so touchy anytway? I thought the radical brothers on the left dealt with the serious dummy throwing. You've had your revenge killing, right or wrong. Mr Davis is toast.

Be happy.

In fact, be happier, Texas is even taking away to the time-honoured tradition of the condemned man's last meal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15034970

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yes. Terrible judgment"

Sorry Yabits but I find that a tad insensitive. I'd defend a homeless man getting a beating over a beer. I suppose I'd defend anyone get a beating they didn't deserve. I'd expect nothing less from a police officer, in fact since I imagine he was un-armed at the time, I submit it was quite a brave act for someone acustomed to superior fire-power.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yabits: "... the fact that his real killer is walking free and an innocent man executed in his place..."

Do you have proof of this? Of course you don't. So why did you post it?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What you fail to seem to grasp sailwind is that YOU still offered up your fancy schmancy Appeals court review/Appeals court ruling as evidence of Troy Davis' guilt. You said, "look at the last 15 pages blah blah blah."

You poste the link as proof of guilt and probably didn't read the entire document and you got busted and now you are embarrassed. Deal with it. There was contridictory evidence brought forth in the document that you posted as proof of Troy Davis' guilt. Do you get it? Your proof was not so proofy. OK. Why is it that you refuse to look at the evidence you provided on this thread? Is there something there you are choosing NOT to see? It was pretty easy for Yabits and me to find it. So what's the deal? Are we just better readers than you or are you choosing to ignore something?

The only thing I can conclude is that you wanted Troy Davis dead, despite the fact that there is contradictory evidence, that may have freed him. What did Troy Davis ever do to you? Where does this irrational hatred for the man come from? Any other people you want put to death so that you can feel better about yourself?

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Taka

Justt a couple of words to respond to your post........William Reese is still sucking up oxygen in his jail cel

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The only thing I can conclude is that you wanted Troy Davis dead, despite the fact that there is contradictory evidence, that may have freed him. What did Troy Davis ever do to you? Where does this irrational hatred for the man come from? Any other people you want put to death so that you can feel better about yourself?

I hear you, Taka313. It's terrible that some people tend to believe in a sort of blind justice. To them, justice is served as long as someone is punished to the fullest. Sadly, it often gets to the point when it doesn't even matter anymore if the person punished is the actual person who did it, as long as some semblance of court procedures (no matter how half-ass the manner it was done in), was followed. I mean, 7 out of 9 witnesses recanting their testimonies due to police coercion is something that shouldn't be ignored, yet some people continue to disregard that. Also the fact that one witness, Michael Cooper who was shot in the face, even confessed that he was inebriated at the time and couldn't quite be sure if it was Davis who actually shot him. And where is the murder weapon? The prosecution never proved that Troy Davis ever had a gun in his possession too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sorry Yabits but I find that a tad insensitive. I'd defend a homeless man getting a beating over a beer.

The officer successfully defended the homeless man. The man's attackers were running away. There wasn't any need for the off-duty police officer to pull his weapon and start to run after the man's attackers and get into a gun battle with them. Up to that point, the worst they would have been charged with is assault and battery. When the bullets start flying, however, there's no telling who could be hit.

Would it be worth the risk of killing an innocent bystander in a hail of bullets over a minor assault by a bunch of young men barely out of their teens?

I don't believe we should be overly sensitive to the point where we can't bring ourselves to question the officer's judgment and actions. The police are human beings like the rest of us, and subject to the same evil temptations and terrible blunders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you have proof of this? Of course you don't. So why did you post it?

The proof I have is of exactly the same quality of that used to convict Troy Davis.

No, even better. The statements from the jurors saying they never would have voted to convict Davis had the GBI ballistics evidence been made available to them indicates that Davis would have been found innocent. If Davis was innocent, it means the real killer of the police officer got away scot-free.

I'll repeat this again: You're another one who doesn't trust the state to take a few extra dollars from a rich man but trusts it completely when they take the life of a poor one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only thing I can conclude is that you wanted Troy Davis dead, despite the fact that there is contradictory evidence, that may have freed him. What did Troy Davis ever do to you?

Taka, you must refrain from attributing such lofty intentions onto these "law-and-order," right-wing conservatives.

They wanted somebody dead. It didn't have to be Troy Davis; anyone would have done just fine. The semblance of a trial -- conducted with completely inexperienced and inept public defenders -- was just that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So in this case, was justice blind in the left eye?

If police did lean hard on witnesses and coerced confessions, whether or not Troy Davis did or didn't kill Mark MacPhail becomes a moot point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Justt a couple of words to respond to your post........William Reese is still sucking up oxygen in his jail cel

OK, now you can't even type so I can tell that you are getting all emotional here, sailwind. SO...you want William Reese killed, is that it? WIll putting another man down make your life better? Will it bring back that woman he killed?

And really, how does William Reese have anything to do with Troy Davis? There wasn't a lot of evidence that was contradictory in Reese's case. His guilt was pretty much so established. That wasn't the case with Troy Davis. A point that you refuse to acknowledge. The point you are trying to make is lost on me because it's all emotion and no thought. Try again.

And while you are at it, why don't you try acknowledging that the evidence against Troy Davis was contradictory, according to your own post. It would be the right thing to do.

Taka

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

After what I have just seen right now, I know for a fact that I am ashamed of the American Legal Justice System as well as the USA as of today because it wouldn't spare the life of an innocent man who did nothing wrong, and that the U.S. supreme court didn't stay his execution long enough to review his case. It is completely unforgivable in my opinion. I know for a fact that the United States Of America should know better than to execute an innocent man, and yet this country of mine had the disgraceful act of doing it anyway. Excuse me for saying this, but I had to let it out because it was so frustrationg to me; I apologize if I have offended some of you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It takes balls to execute an innocent man" - Rick Perry primary voter upon learning that Rick Perry executed an innocent inmate and attempted to cover it up.

Innocent people are executed by the government with alarming frequency. I don't think any one of you would be shrugging it off and saying "Well, the justice system did what it's supposed to..." if it was you in shackles.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

judging from the impassioned responses even here,on a forum about japan, it seems clear to me that Presindent Obama made a grievous error in not intervening in this case. He tried to intercede when texas wanted to execute an 'illegal' from Mexico,but he did nothing for Troy Davis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He wasn't trying to prevent a crime.

Yes, he was. Armed men were running away after committing a crime. One cannot predict, but it is certainly a possibility that these men could have committed further crimes. Armed criminals running free is certainly a danger to society and it seems to me perfectly appropriate for an officer of the law to want to give chase and apprehend them. Anything less would be irresponsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And really, how does William Reese have anything to do with Troy Davis? There wasn't a lot of evidence that was contradictory in Reese's case. His guilt was pretty much so established. That wasn't the case with Troy Davis. A point that you refuse to acknowledge. The point you are trying to make is lost on me because it's all emotion and no thought. Try again.

I'll go with what the Court found after reviewing 20 years of evidence.

CONCLUSION Before the Court is Petitioner Troy Anthony Davis's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 2.) Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, this Court has held a hearing and now determines this petition. Davis, 130 S. Ct. at 1. For the above stated reasons, this Court concludes that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989. Accordingly, the 107 The Court further notes that whether it adopted the lower burden proposed by Mr. Davis, or even the lowest imaginable burden from Schlup, Mr. Davis's showing would have satisfied neither. 108 After careful consideration and an in-depth review of twenty years of evidence, the Court is left with the firm conviction that while the State's case may not be ironclad, most reasonable jurors would again vote to convict Mr. Davis of Officer MacPhail's murder. A federal court simply cannot interpose itself and set aside the jury verdict in this case absent a truly persuasive showing of innocence. To act contrarily would wreck complete havoc on the criminal justice system. See Herrera, 506 U.S. at 417. 171 Case 4:09-cv-00130-WTM Document 92-1 Filed 08/24/10 Page 109 of 112 petition is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of this order on the docket and forward this order to the Supreme Court of the United States. SO ORDERED this 2day of August 2010. WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. V UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 172

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...the State's case may not be ironclad, most reasonable jurors would again vote to convict Mr. Davis of Officer MacPhail's murder. A federal court simply cannot interpose itself and set aside the jury verdict in this case absent a truly persuasive showing of innocence.

That is just so, so wrong.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'll go with what the Court found after reviewing 20 years of evidence.

Even after having contradictory evidence brought to your attention, you choose to side on the side that didn't show you any evidence and just asked you to take their word for it.

You wanted to kill a man. You didn't care if he was guilty. You wanted him dead.

Taka

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'll go with what the Court found after reviewing 20 years of evidence.

So that pretty much so means you're regretting that fancy shmancy Appeals court review/Appeals court ruling now, huh? Since your going with the court ruling now, instead of that, since we've pretty much so shredded that argument.

Instead of admitting you're wrong, you change your argument. This is why Madverts calls you a radical.

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Even after having contradictory evidence brought to your attention, you choose to side on the side that didn't show you any evidence and just asked you to take their word for it.

Let's try this one more time. The contradictory evidence was brought to the U.S DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT's attention on direct orders from the U.S SUPREME COURT to review the case. The first time the Supreme Court had ordered this type of procedure on a case in 50 years ( Media left that fact also).

I knew of all the contradictory evidence already because that is what what the court had to look at and rule on the validity and relevance. What do want me to write Taka????? That there was contradictory evidence but that it was already ruled on by a U.S Federal court and found lacking and was not enough to prove his innocence and that he was still found to be guilty?????? How clear can this be? Do you want me to disagree with the courts findings after their review citing the very same contradictory evidence they are ruling on? What do think they were looking at during the Federal Court Hearing? Your citing evidence that I BROUGHT to your attention in the first place by posting the link of the Federal Courts ruling.

I wanted to kill a man? Give the hyperbole a rest Taka.

I'm with the Federal Court and our court system that gave Troy Davis and his attorneys every chance to prove the initial trial and jury got it wrong, they failed. Troy Davis was found guilty by a jury of his peers, his case was thoroughly reviewed by higher courts who upheld the original verdict and justice was done.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Uh-oh.....CAPS and lot's of exclamations. This isn't looking good.

There was reasonable doubt over this man's guilt whatever twist and turn you're planning next. There was no murder weapon found. 7 of the 9 wintesses used to initially convict this man had issues.

Reasonable doubt here could be seen by a blind man, yet you're insisting he was guilty and merited execution. It's barbaric frankly, barbarism through radiclaism sailwind - and you've have someone opposite you here who actually agrees occasionally to the death penalty, when the crimes are heinous enough and more importantly, when there is no doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adverts,

You are focusing on what the Media reported only not what they left out. There were 34 witnesses called by the state. Not all eyewitnesses but the vast majority were, Three of the eyewitnesses were members of the U.S Air Force who happened to be in a bus parked by the Burger King parking lot and watched the whole thing go down. All three ID'd Troy Davis as the shooter and testified at his trial as such. All three had no interest in Mr. Davis or knew him from Adam. They are as impartial as you get and have never recanted or changed their testimony to this day.

I looked at the entire thing and concluded that if your going to off a cop don't do it in Burger King parking lot in front of a whole bunch of witnesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll go with what the Court found after reviewing 20 years of evidence.

The GA court represents a criminal justice system with the prime objective of covering it's butt. Obviously, sailwind, you can't read with any understanding or discernment:

"A federal court simply cannot interpose itself and set aside the jury verdict in this case absent a truly persuasive showing of innocence. To act contrarily would wreck complete havoc on the criminal justice system."

Who determines what a "truly persuasive" showing of evidence is? (The same state's justice system that has every incentive to do just the opposite. The life of a human being is secondary.) The evidence that arose in the 20 years after the case was persuasive enough to cause a great many staunchly pro-death-penalty advocates such as former FBI Director William Sessions, former GA congressman Bob Barr, and a whole group of death-row wardens from other states.

the Court is left with the firm conviction that while the State's case may not be ironclad, most reasonable jurors would again vote to convict Mr. Davis of Officer MacPhail's murder

An egregious lie is being thrust upon the people of my home state by this Court. First of all, several of the original jurors have come forward to say that they would have never voted to convict Troy Davis if they had seen the GBI's findings that the gun used in the Cloverdale party shooting was not the same one used in the murder of the police officer.

Additionally, the way the Savannah police handled the evidence of the eyewitnesses was grossly wrong. The initial report of the beating victim, Larry Young, identified Sylvester "Red" Coles as the man who had beaten him. Coles was the one who went to the police the day after the shooting to tell them that it was Troy Davis who shot Offices MacPhail. The police never treated Coles as a suspect but as a primary witness -- and brought all of the witnesses together during the investigation to "re-enact" and thus "help" their memories prior to trial. The other witnesses, seeing how the police were regarding Coles, could only presume that he couldn't have been the "bad guy."

The vast majority of the 278 people freed from death sentences were sent to Death Row based on eyewitness testimony. It's a complete joke and travesty that the police would use the eyewitness testimony of Dorothy Farrell -- who testified she could make out who shot the police officer from well over 125 feet away at just past 1 AM under very poor lighting conditions.

The Court admits that the case against Davis is not "ironclad." To decent, justice and truth-seeking people, that admission alone should be sufficient to have restrained the state from taking Troy Davis's life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Impartial?

A black man suspect in Georgia?

22 years ago?

With exerted pressure from the police that caused some witnesses to recant later?

Are you trying to prove the case of reasonable doubt for me?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adverts,

Since you want to bring race into this. The three Air Fore members who ID'd him were Americans of African American descent. His jury was composed of 7 members of African descent and 5 Anglo Americans. They got along pretty harmoniously as they only took two hours to convict him after deliberations in the jury room.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are focusing on what the Media reported only not what they left out. There were 34 witnesses called by the state. Not all eyewitnesses but the vast majority were,

That is a complete and utter falsehood -- repeated by such right-wing liars such as Ann Coulter. The vast majority of the 34 "witnesses" were nowhere near the Burger King parking lot on the night of the murder at 1 AM. The majority of them were connected to the shooting at the Cloverdale party, which, as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation later indicated could not be connected by the gun used -- since their findings showed that the guns were different.

Three of the eyewitnesses were members of the U.S Air Force who happened to be in a bus parked by the Burger King parking lot and watched the whole thing go down.

Again, this is flat-out wrong. In the very document you posted the link to, none of the military people in the van parked by the Burger King claimed they could identify the shooter in the initial police reports. Lt. Col. Anthony Lolas reported that "he didn't see the shooter's face." (page 12) Matthew Hughes reported that he heard the shooting from inside the van, but did not see it taking place. (He saw the men running away and could describe their clothing.)

Eric Riggins also heard the gunshot but did not see it. He did see the next shots being fired and could describe the clothing of the shooter. He told police that "beyond the shooter...a second, taller male was running towards the Trust Company Bank building." (Davis was taller than Coles.)

Steven Hawkins also heard the shooting but did not see it. He could only describe the clothes of the men as they ran away (p. 14). Steven Sanders, also in the van, told police he would not be able to recognize the men, except by their clothing. Robert Grizzard saw the shooting from inside the van but told police "he would not be able to identify the shooter." (p.16)

So much for this "ironclad" eyewitness testimony from the military folks inside the van parked at the Burger King.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yabits,

I agree, the way the Savannah police department was grossly wrong in how they handled the evidence. They did not obtain a proper search warrant when they went inside Troy Davis's house and found Officer MacPhail's blood on his shorts that were in the washing machine. Court ruled it as inadmissible and it was never was able to introduced in the trial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree, the way the Savannah police department was grossly wrong in how they handled the evidence. They did not obtain a proper search warrant when they went inside Troy Davis's house and found Officer MacPhail's blood on his shorts that were in the washing machine.

sailwind, it is only natural that you love lying as much as you cherish judicial murder, as accepting even the slightest doubt as to the gross fallacies you post would start to cause your sad, little world to crumble around you.

In re Troy Anthony Davis, No. CV409-130, (S.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2010), p. 161, footnote 97:

The State introduced evidence regarding Mr. Davis’s “bloody” shorts. (See Resp. Ex. 67.) However, even the State conceded that this evidence lacked any probative value of guilt, submitting it only to show what the Board of Pardons and Parole had before it. (Evidentiary Hearing Transcript at 468-69.) Indeed, there was insufficient DNA to determine who the blood belonged to, so the shorts in no way linked Mr. Davis to the murder of Officer MacPhail. The blood could have belonged to Mr. Davis, Mr. Larry Young, Officer MacPhail, or even have gotten onto the shorts entirely apart from the events of that night. Moreover, it is not even clear that the substance was blood. (See Pet. Ex. 46.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ummm, Yabits,

You do understand that this evidence was not inadmissible at his trial and was submitted to the Board of Pardons and Parole after his conviction for their consideration to determine if he be should pardoned of the crime? My sad little world deals with facts not spin, which is what you did again.

Evidence presented to a parole board happens after the conviction Yabits, and if the state determined it to be of little value at that time does not deter from the fact that they could not introduce at his trial to bolster their case.

You make hay about how the police where dead set on railroading him yet nothing on how the case was actually prosecuted and followed to the letter of the law as to what evidence could be introduced and what could not to let the jury decide.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Heh, sailwind's gonna try to say race aint no issue down there on ole Georgia.

As always, the radicals bow out in style.

Police pressure on witnesses.

Witnesses going back on their testimony beacuase of said pressure.

No murder weapon.

Reasonable Doubt

Not once have I said the man was innocent. But there's enough doubt not to end a man's life.

For years I've seen you radicals deny anything you don't want to hear. If evidence turns up to prove this man's innocence you'll simply deny it's existence like the case for reasonable doubt that has already caused an international outcry.

You're with the nuts in the Iranian courts on this. Good luck to y'all....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Give the hyperbole a rest Taka.

sailwindSEP. 24, 2011 - 12:01AM JST

Taka

Justt a couple of words to respond to your post........William Reese is still sucking up oxygen in his jail cel

Let me just remind you where you are coming from again. Your words have been used against you right and left on this thread. Here's some advice. I'd quit posting on this thread if I were you. You're just digging yourself a bigger hole.

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hole or none, let them post and the rabbit hole digs deeper. I hadn't seen sailwind's post on the bloodied shorts, posting off a Blackberry often 'aint adequate.

I'm interested how you wish to credibly insert evidence that even at the time that was found inadmissable through improper procedure, as evidence for your own case of executing this man today...

I mean police are trained by a set of rules and know pertinently that breaking them could cause the collapse of a case. The same Georgia police, that put so much pressure, apparently, on at least 7 of the witnesses that had the courage to denounce said pressure and renounce their testimony?

You're further making the case for reasonable doubt again here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Evidence presented to a parole board happens after the conviction Yabits, and if the state determined it to be of little value at that time does not deter from the fact that they could not introduce at his trial to bolster their case.

You claimed that the police went into Davis's house without a proper warrant and found an article of clothing with Officer MacPhail's blood on it. The State of Georgia claims that not only was there not enough of the DNA material to determine who it belonged to, but that the substance might not even have been blood. That would make your claim a gross falsehood.

Likewise your statements about the military folks that your own earlier reference document proves completely wrong.

It is very clear as to what actually happened. The Savannah Police made a gross error when they treated Redd Coles as a witness, rather than a suspect -- even though the beating victim (Mr. Young) picked him out as the man who beat him. And because they did that -- making him a consultant to the investigation and the re-enactment with the other witnesses -- they immediately contaminated any case they might have later wanted to bring against him. And so they were left with the man that Coles accused, Troy Davis.

This precisely parallels the Randall Adams case in The Thin Blue Line -- who was fingered by the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed a police officer. The real killer, David Harris, was brought in for questioning by the Dallas police. And those police are recorded on film telling the director (Morris): "We wanted Harris to tell us what we already knew." There was never any presumption of innocence by the police towards Adams, just as there wasn't towards Troy Davis. A cop was killed and somebody had to pay for it.

In the Dallas case, Harris even bragged to others that he killled the policeman, just as Coles is reported by witnesses to have claimed he shot MacPhail. But because Harris was 16 at the time of the shooting and could not be given the death penalty, the police decided to pursue the case with someone they could fry. These police don't care about the lives of innocent people ultimately; they are far more concerned about clearance rates and covering their rear ends when they completely screw up an investigation.

The number of ardent death-penalty supporters persuaded as to the wrongful conviction and overt reasonable doubt towards Troy Davis's guilt ought to give any honest person serious pause. But the dishonest will continue to plow right along.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I finally got it. The Savannah Police Department let an innocent man die and just lets the real cop killer walk around free and clear with no worries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you're giving up making a case and reverting to hyperbole?

The police got results and that's what they do, especially when a cop is dead. This case stinks to high heaven. The public gallows on the end of an industrial crane in Iran is your shoulder-height.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Savannah Police Department let an innocent man die and just lets the real cop killer walk around free and clear with no worries.

Would it destroy your world if that turned out to be the case?

When the Dallas police told Harris (the real cop killer) to tell them what they already knew they were taking on the attitude of infallible certainty that is one of the defining features of the modern conservative mindset. Thanks to Morris, the viewers can see with great clarity that what the cops claimed to know was completely wrong. Even after Randall Adams was freed, there were some on the Dallas police force who refused to believe that Adams wasn't the killer.

Those of us who are compelled to witness these kinds of sick personalities must redouble our efforts to prevent the horrible damage to innocent lives these monsters so often inflict.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Madverts,

Hyperbole? I am still waiting how you have determined Troy Davis did not get a fair trial and how the verdict was not reviewed and all evidence afterwards brought out afterwards not considered that might prove his innocence through the highest courts in the land. Must be racism I guess.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Racism? Heh, this is now your argument?

Wow. I'm stunned. You are that far gone.

At no point have a talked about the original case, nor proclaimed his innocence, merely pointed out that there is certainly reasonable doubt.

He's dead. Be happy brother.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People do not know if he did do it or didn't do it ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I usually don't believe in the death penalty, but he was given a fair trail, the evidence was overwhelming and the appeals process used, submitted and ultimately rejected, the law was followed and nothing you can do about it. I always try to put myself into the situation, if that were my kin or child, how would I feel. Yabits and people like him, never can understand this, because they have never been in that kind of situation to begin with. It's easy to criticize the system from the outside and easy to pass judgement, but once that something like that happens to you, I am just saying, you never know until you are faced with such a tragedy. The man is dead, good riddance. Now we need to move on.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Have any of you people who don't think racism is alive and well in the US ever lived in "the south" recently?

The US is always talking about equality, blah blah blah, but after recently spending a month down there, let me tell you, racism is everywhere..... with the exception of the extreme cases (ie. the KKK) it's not as obvious as one would think, but racism, and these days, reverse racism/discrimmination are definitely prominent in the south. It was an eye-opening experience for me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RossBardJapanSep. 22, 2011 - 03:15PM JST

"Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A."

They have been eradicated everywhere else?

No, but 1, this article is about an incident in the US, and 2, America has supposedly always been at "the forefront" of human rights movements and laws, which is in my opinion, a very big illusion that city dwellers in the US, allow themselves to see.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

sailwindSep. 22, 2011 - 03:26PM JST

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

Not really, August 28, 1991: The jury, composed of seven blacks and five whites, finds Davis guilty after less than two hours of deliberation.

sailwind: If the jury makes a bonehead decision (such as in this case; "found guilty" with zero hard evidence) the judge can overturn that decision, which was also not done....

besides, have you not heard any of the accusations of coersion on behalf of the cops? Well if the cops were coercing, you can bet that there was something fishy going on in the courtrooms as well. The law down south can be different at times, despite what is perceived by many outsiders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlphaapeSep. 22, 2011 - 05:55PM JST

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

@Tahoochi: If this was true, then the two KKK men who killed the Black man in Texas, one of whom was executed also today and the other is up next would be free and not be on death row.

There was obviously so much evidence against them that they could not be aqcuitted. Here, this is but a small example of racism today in the good ole USA.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=37736.0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I always try to put myself into the situation, if that were my kin or child, how would I feel.

People who genuinely seek justice must first seek the truth. Seeking truth is something that must be carried out with a completely clear, patient and rational mind. It's not something that can not be achieved by wallowing in some imaginary role play.

Yabits and people like him, never can understand this, because they have never been in that kind of situation to begin with.

Most if not all of the 278 people that the Innocence Project has freed from Death Row would have been executed in the days when DNA evidence was not available. Murderers often kill in the heat of emotion or passion. The State's killing of an innocent human being is very carefully calculated and procedural. The situation of a person killed by a criminal should not merit no more and no less than the situation of a person judicially murdered by the State. It is clear that bass4funk and people like him can never understand this.

278 people. Completely innocent of the crime in which the system convicted them and landed them on Death Row. That's a terrible error rate, considering that DNA evidence plays a factor in less than 10% of all convictions. There are plenty more innocent people on death row cell blocks all over America.

Now we need to move on.

We will never forget. People need to become more aware of the innocent blood that is on Governor Perry's hands, while we continue to condemn the depraved individuals -- nearly all conservatives -- who cheer at the mention of state executions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

while we continue to condemn the depraved individuals -- nearly all conservatives -- who cheer at the mention of state executions.

I somehow doubt this kind of rhetoric is going to change anyone's mind about this issue.

This really has very little to do with 'right' or 'left' or even general discussion of the death penality. This should be a discussion about this particular case.

It seems to me, only focusing on this case, that even the appeals court judges admitted there was some doubt, although they describe it as minimal. IMHO, any doubt is too much for an execution to have been approved. That is the sticking point for me in this case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This really has very little to do with 'right' or 'left' or even general discussion of the death penality. This should be a discussion about this particular case.

I completely disagree.

The number of people falsely convicted and put on death row in the United States numbers in the hundreds. And those people were found innocent because of DNA evidence -- which plays a factor in less than 10% of all convictions. Georgia is one of the states that has falsely convicted people to death.

The Troy Davis case must be considered in that light because the discussion is at least as much about the judicial system that convicted him as it is about Davis himself.

In treating a prime suspect as a trusted witness, the Savannah Police totally botched up their case from the very beginning. I can't even begin to understand what was going through their heads in not regarding Sylvester Coles as a suspect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand how you would completely disagree as you are one of the most vocal in jumping up and down pointing your fingers shouting "the right this" "the right that". However, nothing you wrote points to "the right" as much as it points to possible errors in this specific case. In fact, with your above post, you have successfully proven my point. Thanks for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand how you would completely disagree as you are one of the most vocal in jumping up and down pointing your fingers shouting "the right this" "the right that".

A check of this topic will quickly reveal that I have nowhere used the terms that you put in quotation marks. I neither shout, point fingers, nor jump up and down. Words are the tools I have, and one has to conclude that your false impressions are a result of your fear of words.

I believe we should have a greater fear of how our criminal justice system sets up innocent people to be put to death. As for the people who actually cheer for executions under these circumstances, they are depraved. I really don't care if you agree with that or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Troy Davis case must be considered in that light because the discussion is at least as much about the judicial system that convicted him as it is about Davis himself.

As noted before The Supreme Court of the United States for the first time in 50 years sent the case back to the Federal Court in Savannah for another independent exhaustive review and Judge Miller's ( a Clinton appointee to the Federal bench) and his Aug 2010 ruling is previously posted on this thread along with his entire review of the case.

Previous reviews and rulings summarized as follows after his initial trial:

Davis v Ga, March 17, 2008 Georgia Supreme Court,

the majority finds that ‘most of the witnesses to the crime who have allegedly recanted have merely stated that they now do not feel able to identify the shooter.’ “One of the affidavits ‘might actually be read so as to confirm trial testimony that Davis was the shooter.’ ”

Note: The Savannah Federal Court also noted the same thing in one of the recanted affidavits.

9/22/08, “THE PAROLE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION OF THE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS CASE”

“After an exhaustive review of all available information regarding the Troy Davis case and after considering all possible reasons for granting clemency, the Board has determined that clemency is not warranted.”

“The Board has now spent more than a year studying and considering this case. As a part of its proceedings, the Board gave Davis’ attorneys an opportunity to present every witness they desired to support their allegation that there is doubt as to Davis’ guilt. The Board heard each of these witnesses and questioned them closely. In addition, the Board has studied the voluminous trial transcript, the police investigation report and the initial statements of all witnesses. The Board has also had certain physical evidence retested and Davis interviewed.”

A detailed review of the extraordinary judicial review and consideration that Troy Davis was given to prove his claims of innocence after his trial.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Troy Davis' last words:

“I did not have a gun. For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls. May God bless your souls.”

"I did not personally kill your son, father, brother.” He also asked them to “dig deeper” into the case so they could “find the real truth.”

Mr Lewis added: "And then he said to the prison staff - the ones he said 'who are going to take my life' - he said to them, 'may God have mercy on your souls,' and his last words were to them, 'may God bless your souls.'"

I would say the same to those who have cheerled his death.

Taka

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

As noted before The Supreme Court of the United States for the first time in 50 years sent the case back to the Federal Court in Savannah for another independent exhaustive review and Judge Miller's ( a Clinton appointee to the Federal bench) and his Aug 2010 ruling is previously posted on this thread along with his entire review of the case.

None of the reviews dealt with the guilt or innocence of Troy Davis. The purpose of the reviews was to exonerate the Savannah Police Department and the criminal trial proceedings of Davis's case. Georgia is a very conservative state. In many rural areas -- Chatham County being one -- racism is quite commonplace. Most ordinary citizens of Georgia were not going to question the competency and tactics of the Savannah Police Department in its zeal to bring a cop-killer to justice. Most wouldn't have known or cared that the person who should have been a prime suspect in the shooting was being treated by the police as a prime witness. That fact, more than any other, sealed Davis's fate.

Well, that, and the fact that Davis and Coles share a similar build. Especially to people suddenly exposed to a scuffle and gunshots after 1 AM in a poorly lit area.

The other salient facts: Davis never confessed to the shooting. On the other hand, witness have come forward saying that Redd Coles admitted to them that he shot the police officer. Coles' behavior after the shooting was later described as "scary" by people he came into contact with in the early morning hours of that night. Many who knew Coles were scared of him.

No physical evidence has ever been produced which proved that Davis was the shooter. On the other hand, Coles was seen to have a gun in his hand less than 30 minutes before the shooting. Davis knew who the shooter was, and he had maintained all along that it was Sylvester Coles.

It's interesting how the police just seemed to accept the fact that Coles's gun just up and disappeared after the shooting. Yet it was Coles who was acting aggressively and menacingly to the homeless guy who got beat up with a pistol.

In many of the Innocence Project cases where they have freed the wrongly convicted, there are witnesses who swore up and down that they were 100% sure of who they testified against. A number of these witnesses were military personnel -- heck, they can mistakes just like any ordinary civilian. But nearly all were absolutely crushed and stunned when the truth about those cases finally came out. I don't believe the court system in Georgia regarded the eyewitness testimony with due skepticism in light of the time of day, lighting, resemblance of the perpetrators and how quickly what happened went down.

More importantly, they didn't consider that the primary and most influential witness should have been a prime suspect. He was the one who "helped" the police and the other eyewitnesses in the pre-trial re-enactment. Again, that was another police procedure that was highly wrong, and should have corrupted their entire case. Well, it did actually, just not in the eyes of the Georgia criminal injustice system.

The case is now in the court of public opinion. Former FBI Director William Sessions -- a Republican-appointed federal judge himself -- has written of the terrible irregularities in the police investigation and of the competence of the public defense offered to a poor black kid. Sessions supports the death penalty. His argument is that anyone who claims to support it would have to have serious qualms about its misapplication as was done in the Davis case.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

None of the reviews dealt with the guilt or innocence of Troy Davis.

Not true.

Former FBI Director William Sessions -- a Republican-appointed federal judge himself -- has written of the terrible irregularities in the police investigation and of the competence of the public defense offered to a poor black kid. Sessions supports the death penalty. His argument is that anyone who claims to support it would have to have serious qualms about its misapplication as was done in the Davis case.

Spin again and left out the entire story as to William Sessions and others actually requested be done in case and what the U.S Supreme actually ordered to be done.

Facts:

A group of 27 former judges and prosecutors, including Barr, Thompson and one-time FBI Director William Sessions, asked the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 for the rare innocence hearing to "prevent a potential miscarriage of justice."

The high court granted the hearing, a momentous decision because death penalty appeals typically look only at questions of procedure and constitutional violations, not guilt or innocence.

During two days of testimony in June 2010, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. heard from two witnesses who said they falsely incriminated Davis and two others who said another man had confessed to being MacPhail's killer in the years since Davis' trial.

AP article dated 15 Sept 2011

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits,

check of this topic will quickly reveal that I have nowhere used the terms that you put in quotation marks. I neither shout, point fingers, nor jump up and down.

Sorry, my bs meter went off the charts there. Here, I checked again:

yabitsSep. 25, 2011 - 10:11AM JST

People need to become more aware of the innocent blood that is on Governor Perry's hands, while we continue to condemn the depraved individuals -- nearly all conservatives -- who cheer at the mention of state executions.

What you have succeeded in doing is proving me correct. You seem to care more about putting down those whom you see as your 'enemy' than you do for the cause you claim to be debating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A group of 27 former judges and prosecutors, including Barr, Thompson and one-time FBI Director William Sessions, asked the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 for the rare innocence hearing to "prevent a potential miscarriage of justice."

Fact: After the hearing, did the conservative proponents of the death penalty listed above agree or disagree with Judge Moore?

Fact: Moore lived and practiced law in Savannah for many years. He was well-known and a friend to the police there.

Fact: Moore admitted there was additional doubt cast on the correctness of the original verdict. As Sessions wrote last month: "Last summer, an extraordinary hearing ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to answer these questions instead left us with more doubt...What the hearing demonstrated most conclusively was that the evidence in this case — consisting almost entirely of conflicting stories, testimonies and statements — is inadequate to the task of convincingly establishing either Davis’ guilt or his innocence. Without DNA or other forms of physical or scientific evidence that can be objectively measured and tested, it is possible that doubts about guilt in this case will never be resolved....However, when it comes to the sentence of death, there should be no room for doubt."

If not for DNA, as many as 278 innocent convicts since 1973 -- many from Georgia -- would have been executed. The vast majority were convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Since, as in the case with Davis, there is no DNA evidence to analyze, there is no telling how many genuinely innocent and wrongly convicted people have been put to death.

I understand very well that there are many conservatives who have absolutely no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being executed.

Still, nothing can rightly explain the actions of the Savannah Police who, through their actions and without a trial, determined that Redd Coles was innocent of the crime and made him a primary witness -- when he should have been one of the prime suspects. Knowing Georgia as well as I do, there was no way Moore could have issued a rebuke to the SPD by commuting Davis's sentence -- no matter how much doubt was cast upon it. The memory of former GA governor John Stanton hangs very heavy in the state's legal history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact: After the hearing, did the conservative proponents of the death penalty listed above agree or disagree with Judge Moore?

The fact was that the conservative proponents of the death penalty strongly disagreed with Judge Moore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand very well that there are many conservatives who have absolutely no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being executed.

You don't point fingers? Yeah, right. While I agree with your sentiment that there was doubt in this case, your method of argument certainly makes agreeing with you leave a bad taste behind. Amazing skills you have there.

Funnily enough, you fail to note that a majority of all US citizens favor the death penalty. You also fail at every turn to prove your case that 'conservatives' have no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being killed. That includes a majority of Democrats. Again, your burning desire to derail the discussion into a personal crusade against 'conservatives', I wonder if you also consider Bill Clinton a 'conservative', does little to further this discussion about a case that certainly deserves careful and thoughtful examination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To be clear, I was saying a majority of Democrats, though a smaller percentage, favor the death penalty, not that a majority of Democrats fail to prove their case that 'conservatives' have no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being killed. You have failed to do that, completely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't point fingers? Yeah, right.

LOL!! Oh, is that what you mean by finger-pointing?

While I agree with your sentiment that there was doubt in this case, your method of argument certainly makes agreeing with you leave a bad taste behind.

Better they should avoid the bad taste of having an innocent person executed in their name.

Funnily enough, you fail to note that a majority of all US citizens favor the death penalty.

I'm old enough to recall the decades when a majority of US citizens did not favor it. I believe the pendulum will swing back that way again. The awareness of the hundreds of innocent people nearly executed would give any genuinely decent person serious pause. I believe most Americans are better than the cretins who cheer for executions.

I wonder if you also consider Bill Clinton a 'conservative'

As it regards the death penalty, he was definitely a conservative.

That includes a majority of Democrats.

Just barely. Down in over a decade from 70% to 52%, according to the most recent polls. The trend is definitely moving away from support for it.

Again, your burning desire to derail the discussion into a personal crusade against 'conservatives',

No discussion has been derailed. Those who think so are inventing excuses in the attempt to limit the discussion to very narrow "rails" of their choosing. They want things so narrowly confined that a person can't raise an arm without being accused of pointing a finger.

does little to further this discussion about a case that certainly deserves careful and thoughtful examination

It was careful and thoughtful examination of the Davis case that brought the fight out of me. In this thread, there has been at least one huge lie -- the one about the police supposedly finding bloodstains on an article of clothing in Davis's house. I'm not of the habit of countering, with thoughtful placidity, lies that slander a person who is in all probability innocent of the crime he was convicted of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Broadly speaking, Yabits is correct to point the finger at conservatives. Study after study has found that conservatives show far less empathy than liberals (some studies also find that they are by and large less intelligent, but the evidence isn't as strong and that's another story anyway).

But you don't even need studies to prove that. It's in the very definition of "conservative": their belief in lower taxes and the "self-made man" indicate an "every man for himself" attitude that is the antithesis to liberal values. This is why conservatives often describe progressives as "bleeding hearts".

You're also not entirely correct in your assumption that the majority of Americans favor the death penatly. It depends on the wording of the poll. A 2010 Gallup poll that gave the option to favor either "death" or "life imprisonment without parole" for murder, those that favored the death penalty totaled 49%. So, it's an even split at best, with favor generally swinging towards "life" from the late 90s on.

The American justice system is extremely flawed, with suburban, largely conservative, affluent people largely deciding the fates of others, especially minorities and the poor, as detailed in "The Collapse of American Justice" by Harvard Professor of Law William Stuntz.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

not that a majority of Democrats fail to prove their case that 'conservatives' have no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being killed. You have failed to do that, completely.

Oh, I believe there are some conservatives who have no qualms whatsoever about the state executing the occasional innocent person. I'll bet that if you go out and ask, you won't have to ask too many before you'd find one who'll strongly favor the death penalty no matter how many mistakes are made -- which would prove my point.

We've got said conservatives by the score here in Georgia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact:

You left out parts of Mr. Sessions editorial to further spin again.

In reality, there will always be cases, including capital cases, in which doubts about guilt cannot be erased to an acceptable level of certainty. The Davis case is one of these, and it is for cases like this that executive clemency exists.

Those responsible for clemency play a vital role in ensuring our legal system includes a measure of compassion and humanity. The death penalty should not be carried out, and Davis’ sentence should be commuted to life.

Mr. Sessions never said he was innocent at all after the hearing, but that the death penality should not be carried out in Troy Davis's case. He advocated that his sentence should be commuted to life after the hearing. Many folks took that same position in Davis's case, Yabits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

Doubts about guilt in this case were clearly at an acceptable level. If anything, this case is unprecedented in that it required the accused to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was innocent - the exact opposite of how our justice system is supposed to work. Normally, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. There was plenty of doubt. Even you have to acknowledge that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the documentary The Thin Blue Line, the wrongly-convicted Randall Adams recounts his initial treatment by the Dallas police after his arrest (after being fingered by the real killer). According to Adams, a poor drifter, the police put him under extreme duress. The main detective put the murder weapon (supplied by the man who turned him in) on the table and ordered him to pick it up. Adams did not.

Then the detective put a statement on the table, drew his service revolver, pulled back the hammer, and pointed it at Adams and ordered him to sign the statement. Adams recalls that after a time that felt like an hour, the detective realized that he would have to kill Adams or leave without a signed statement -- he holstered his weapon, picked up the murder weapon and statement and stormed out. They then subjected Adams to many hours of interrogation without a lawyer present until he finally gave in to signing a statement that he felt was OK to sign.

Compare that to the affadavits of the eye-witnesses in the Davis case:

Kevin McQueen “The truth is that Troy never confessed to me or talked to me about the shooting of the police officer. I made up the confession from information I had heard on T.V. and from other inmates about the crimes. Troy did not tell me any of this… I have now realized what I did to Troy so I have decided to tell the truth… I need to set the record straight.”

Monty Holmes “I told them I didn’t know anything about who shot the officer, but they kept questioning me. I was real young at that time and here they were questioning me about the murder of a police officer like I was in trouble or something. I was scared… [I]t seemed like they wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop.”

Jeffrey Sapp “I got tired of them harassing me, and they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear. I told them that Troy told me he did it, but it wasn’t true. Troy never said that or anything like it. When it came time for Troy’s trial, the police made it clear to me that I needed to stick to my original statement; that is, what they wanted me to say. I didn’t want to have any more problems with the cops, so I testified against Troy.”

Dorothy Ferrell “From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer.”

Darrell "D.D." Collins “After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told them what they wanted to hear. They would tell me things that they said had happened and I would repeat whatever they said. … It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail.”

Larry Young (The man Redd Coles assaulted and who the slain officer was trying to protect.) “I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits and humantarget,

Hey, you want to chase windmills and claim that conservatives do things that you can't actually prove? Go for it. However, both a majority of Democratics and Republicans do support the use of the death penalty. It is hardly just a 'conservative' issue.

By the way, yabits, most becomes many becomes some. It would be better for the discussion if you did not have to keep moving those goal posts. Again, was Bill Clinton a conservative?

We've got said conservatives by the score here in Georgia.

Great. Prove your point. Name one. Name one Georgia conservative who has specifically stated that they would strongly favor the death penalty no matter how many mistakes are made.

LOL!! Oh, is that what you mean by finger-pointing?

Yes, one would have thought it would be obvious by now. You keep doing it so much you don't even notice anymore.

Better they should avoid the bad taste of having an innocent person executed in their name.

What are you yammering about? I wrote agree with the core issue you are bringing up. It is so hard for you to focus on the discussion at hand?

I'm old enough to recall the decades when a majority of US citizens did not favor it.

Not really the point, is it? They generally do now. This defeats your argument.

As it regards the death penalty, he was definitely a conservative.

That is what you mean by 'conservative' in this discussion? That sure has not come across at all. Do you think he is one of the most, many, some conservatives that ' have no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being killed'?

Just barely

So, They exists. How about you stop prentending they don't?

They want things so narrowly confined that a person can't raise an arm without being accused of pointing a finger.

No, I think your pointing fingers so narrowly that you are missing the point of the discussion and derailing it to serve your own purposes.

It was careful and thoughtful examination of the Davis case that brought the fight out of me. In this thread, there has been at least one huge lie -- the one about the police supposedly finding bloodstains on an article of clothing in Davis's house. I'm not of the habit of countering, with thoughtful placidity, lies that slander a person who is in all probability innocent of the crime he was convicted of.

If you would read my comments, you will see that I have no problem with this line of discussion. It has nothing to do with your attempts to derail the discussion with what are now becoming rather boring anti-conservative rants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben,

Rick Perry killed an innocent man and then attempted to cover up that fact by firing the experts that raised doubt about the lawfulness of the execution - but only after attempting to quiet them through coercion. So yeah, there's at least one conservative who strongly favors the death penalty despite the risks of it killing innocent people from time to time.

Also, I just gave you numbers that refute your first point. A majority of Americans, in fact, favor life in prison over the death penalty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In reality, there will always be cases, including capital cases, in which doubts about guilt cannot be erased to an acceptable level of certainty. The Davis case is one of these, and it is for cases like this that executive clemency exists.

Sessions is a conservative attempting to reason calmly and thoughtfully to other conservatives. In other words, a hopeless situation.

Those who still thought Davis was guilty could feel secure in the knowledge that he wouldn't be set free. (At least not until such time that the more likely killer was caught -- the one the police treated as a trusted witness from the very beginning. As if they held a full trial and found Coles innocent.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HT,

Your numbers do not refute my point. A majority of US citizens do support the existence of the death penalty. They want it on the books. I never said anything about a choice between a life sentence or the death penality. That is a different question.

Also, while we might think, Davis was innocent, we do not know this for sure. What we know is there was doubt. For me, that is enough to say he should not have been executed.

Lastly, you are making claims about Perry, with whom I am not familiar, and linking them to the claim that he has absolutely no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being executed. Your link is not very convincing. Maybe he truly believes the man was guilty. Is that so impossible? You have your opinion, he has his. Not everything revolves around the US fight between R's and D's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who still thought Davis was guilty could feel secure in the knowledge that he wouldn't be set free.

Wait a minute? I thought you were claiming they knew he was innocent, did not care and wanted to kill him anyway. Now, you are saying they thought he was guilty?

Again, perhaps your hyperbole regarding 'conservatives' confuses the argument. It certainly has in this case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great. Prove your point. Name one. Name one Georgia conservative who has specifically stated that they would strongly favor the death penalty no matter how many mistakes are made.

The following was written in response to George F. Will's statement as follows: "[The book Actual Innocence] compels the conclusion that many innocent people are in prison, and some innocent people have been executed." Conservatives in particular, Will said, should not assume too hastily that death row inmates are really guilty.

Well, one conservative, Jeff Jacoby, voiced strong disagreement with that:

"No one who genuinely worries about the legal system putting innocent people at risk can afford to waste time denouncing the death penalty."

Q.E.D.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben,

Rick Perry is a major Republican presidential candidate. His attempts to coerce experts to keep quiet about their doubts on the case in question clearly shows that he did not, in fact, believe the executed man was guilty.

Besides, decisions made by people in the political sphere should not be based on opinions - they should be based on the American constitution, and some would say that the requirement in the Davis case that he prove his innocence beyond a doubt is unconstitutional. As I said before, the burden is typically on the prosecutor to prove GUILT beyond a doubt. Not on the defendent to prove innocence. That is the whole foundation our justice system is founded upon.

Are you even an American? I find it hard to believe an American with even the faintest interest in American law and politics would be unfamiliar with Rick Perry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wait a minute? I thought you were claiming they knew he was innocent, did not care and wanted to kill him anyway. Now, you are saying they thought he was guilty?

Nowhere did I claim anything quite like that. You have to learn to read with the careful thoughtfulness that you prescribe to others when you point your finger at them.

There's quite a difference between overlooking a person's innocence and knowing they are innocent. As was mentioned w/regard to the Adams case, even after Adams was cleared, there were still police who thought he was guilty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Human Target,

Doubts about guilt in this case were clearly at an acceptable level. If anything, this case is unprecedented in that it required the accused to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was innocent - the exact opposite of how our justice system is supposed to work.

I can understand where you might confused a bit as far as his rights goes after he was found guilty in his trial. Just to clarify and with no disrespect intended or trying to demean your post or viewpoints in the discussion. The system worked exactly as it suppose to. After a finding a guilty by a jury of his peers that is what the law considers him, guilty. The burden of proof in the appeals process does then in fact go to the premise that now he is guilty and the burden of proof is now on him to prove his innocence. Our Justice system really can't operate in any other way if you think about it ,or our system would null and void every sentence ever handed down to all convicted criminals after they were convicted by a jury of peers where at that point in the Justice system they where considered innocent until proven guilty and it was on the State that had to burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt .

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nowhere did I claim anything quite like that. You have to learn to read with the careful thoughtfulness that you prescribe to others when you point your finger at them.

Sure. Let's look at what you wrote:

And so are the people who cheered on all of his executions, not even caring or pausing that it's nearly certain that a number of those executed were, like Willingham, completely innocent.

These police don't care about the lives of innocent people ultimately

The State's killing of an innocent human being is very carefully calculated and procedural.

I believe we should have a greater fear of how our criminal justice system sets up innocent people to be put to death.

I understand very well that there are many conservatives who have absolutely no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being executed.

Surprise, surprise. This is at least the second time you have claimed you did not write something that you have. Here you are claiming exactly what I wrote you were. Accusing people of knowingly killing innocent people in these cases is hyperbole and you certainly have not proved your hyperbole to be true. It merely clouds the issue. It certainly does not help your case. In fact, it turns off people who might otherwise agree with you. Falsely accusing someone of guilt is not the same thing as not caring whether they are guilty or innocent and knowing they are innocent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I> find it hard to believe an American with even the faintest interest in American law and politics would be unfamiliar with Rick Perry.

Hate to break it to you but the world, much to many Americans' chagrine, does not revolve around every apect of US politics. I venture there are lots of people around the world who neither know nor care who Perry is. This is a site mostly devoted to things Japanese.

His attempts to coerce experts to keep quiet about their doubts on the case in question clearly shows that he did not, in fact, believe the executed man was guilty.

Maybe. As I wrote, I honestly have no idea. Until this article, I knew nothing about this case. I just found the discussion interesting. This is becoming less true, however, as it has partally devolved into a US partisan argument. However, it is just as possible Perry believed Davis was guilty and then allegedly took the actions you claim he did. It does not neccesarily have to be because he knew he was innocent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two things I still have yet to see in this discussion:

1) Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Davis is guilty.

2) Proof that conservatives don't care whether death row inmates are innocent or guilty.

Neither claims have been proven at all in this discussion, at least not yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's quite a difference between overlooking a person's innocence and knowing they are innocent.

Not sure what sure what dictionary you use, but overlook means to deliberately ignore and that certainly has been the impression what you have written so far has given. Perhaps if you do not mean this, you should attempt to be a bit more careful in the way you present your opinions so as not to be misunderstood.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Our Justice system really can't operate in any other way if you think about it ,or our system would null and void every sentence ever handed down to all convicted criminals after they were convicted by a jury of peers where at that point in the Justice system they where considered innocent until proven guilty and it was on the State that had to burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt .

What an utterly ridiculous statement. But it's also one that unwittingly reveals a great evil.

First off, any sentence handed down to someone who pleaded guilty and confessed without any coercion whatsoever would certainly not be "null and void." So let's get that gross error in reasoning out of the way.

The second gross error is the implication that "our justice system" is superior to every other one on the planet. Something that there is no logical or objective basis for assuming. Since the United States stands with nations like China and Saudi Arabia in the number of people it executes and with the Soviet gulag system in the number of people it throws in jail -- millions -- common sense ought to dispel the notion that our system is all that great.

Other systems of justice which regard any conviction as binding until serious doubt is thrown it operate just fine. The one thing those systems don't do is provide very much satisfaction for the blood lust of those out for revenge instead of seeking justice.

Lastly, the application of the death penalty ought to carry a much higher standard than imprisonment. The prosecutors and police procedure must be thoroughly held to severe scrutiny by a truly independent agency. Any doubt as to their methods and process would nullify not the sentence of guilt, but should certainly nullify the state's intent to apply the death penalty. In the Davis case, as soon as the Savannah Police judged Sylvester Coles to be "innocent" -- without a trial or any evidence whatsoever -- they set the wheels in motion on a terrible injustice.

I do not believe a nation can prosper for very long that accepts, upholds and defends obvious evil and injustice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is at least the second time you have claimed you did not write something that you have.

No. It is at least the second time you have failed to prove that I wrote something I clearly did not. You said I wrote that "they knew they are innocent. I never wrote any such thing.

The standard of the law is "guilty beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt." The state itself admitted that the case against Troy Davis was not ironclad. Beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt means something close to 100 parts to zero. Something that is not ironclad -- using the State of Georgia's own words -- means....what? 90-10? 80-20?

The more that unbiased and reasonable people looked at the case, the greater number of people -- even staunch death penalty supporters -- were drawn to the conclusion that there was FAR greater serious doubt than the State of Georgia would bring itself to admit.

It does not necessarily know that the accused is innocent. That conjecture was first thrown out by sailwind. But it certainly doesn't care if it tells the people there is some doubt and then goes ahead and executes a person ignoring the much higher standard.

So: Where is justice when the state executes an innocent person?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not sure what sure what dictionary you use, but overlook means to deliberately ignore and that certainly has been the impression what you have written so far has given.

Most dictionaries define overlook as "to miss" as well as "to excuse." Ordinary common sense and life experience ought to be enough for some people to understand that the human sensory system can only take in and process so much at one time. And that which is not taken is not being "deliberately" ignored.

Furthermore, human psychology and emotions tend to narrow the scope and landscape of sensory perception. The term "tunnel vision" is one of those that has been applied to this phenomenon. "Groupthink" is another. People are often not even aware of the blinders they put on.

As it relates to the topic, once the Savannah Police made a snap judgment that Redd Coles could not be their suspect -- a judgment with no solid basis whatsoever in what should have been the truth-seeking phase -- tunnel vision came into play regarding Troy Davis. Once that ball got rolling, there was very little chance that that particular police department was going to admit it made a terrible error in judgment.

Errol Morris documents this beautifully in The Thin Blue Line for all to see. The Dallas police fell into precisely the same trap with the Randall Adams case. It also documents the fact that there are some people in our justice system who want an eye-for-an-eye even when it is very clear the person they are about to blind did not commit the crime. In that case, the real killer was only 16 at the time of the crime and could not be given the death penalty -- therefore the state decided to go after the person pointed out to them by the actual killer. It's all there, plain as day.

Morris helped free Adams from death row -- and eventually Adams was completely cleared of the crime he was found guilty of. Not every person who is convicted to die can afford an Errol Morris. But it's the police who make the initial presumptions of guilt and innocence and start building their case based on what may be some very flawed presumptions. Many flaws are caught by the system, but often many are not and end up getting innocent people convicted and executed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It also documents the fact that there are some people in our justice system who want an eye-for-an-eye even when it is very clear the person they are about to blind did not commit the crime.

I should follow up in that, after Adams was convicted, his public defender tells Morris that the judge said to her: "What do you care? He's only a drifter."

In other words, he's not some upstanding citizen deserving of every reasonable doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davis may have killed the police officer. He also may not have killed the police officer.

This should have been all it needed to cancel the execution.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is terrible that in 2011 this can happen. If evidence can not prove someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that person must not be imprisoned, let alone put to death.

Australia stopped the death sentence years ago because we killed the wrong person. After the death penalty was carried out, the man who actually committed the crime, came forward. This started the debate on abolishing the death penalty and finally it was abolished. Sure, we have crimes which we think it might be a suitable sentence ( port arthur mass murder case comes to mind), but now life in prison with no parole is the toughest sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You said I wrote that "they knew they are innocent. I never wrote any such thing.

Yes, you did. You are claiming here that people knew they were killing innocents and that they didn't care. Here you have written what I said you wrote. You cannot alter the meaning of what you have written.

These police don't care about the lives of innocent people ultimately

The State's killing of an innocent human being is very carefully calculated and procedural.

I believe we should have a greater fear of how our criminal justice system sets up innocent people to be put to death.

I understand very well that there are many conservatives who have absolutely no qualms about the prospect of innocent people being executed.

So: Where is justice when the state executes an innocent person?

Why did you write this to me? It should be clear by now that I agree with you about this. Do you just enjoy arguing for argument's sake?

People are often not even aware of the blinders they put on.

These are the same people you claim are very carefully calculated and procedural? Sorry, you are not making any sense here. Either that or you are backtracking from your previous and above quoted opinions. Better than backtracking would be to acknowledge you overspoke.

My biggest sticking point with what you write is that you are so willing to argue that you cannot even see when people agree with you, as I pointed out above. As such, I will end my participation in this particular discussion. However, understand that using the tone and rhetoric you use will not get you the desired result of changing anyone's mind, if that is in fact your goal. It merely distracts and polarizes. I am not talking about your factual descriptions here. I am only referring to the kind of rhetoric I quoted above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ETA, I did not intend for the section in bold to be in bold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tahoochi

Racism and hipocrasy...... alive and well in the good'ole US of A.

There is Racism everywhere in this world...it's sad and wish human kind will get over their racism and prejudice towards people not like themselves...it's not just the USA.

I have lived all over the world and had received prejudice just because I'am an American. But I myself am not racist or prejudice. I judge a person by their attitude towards me. It's sad with our justice system. There are people who are innocent people getting killed by the death penalty and others who murder who get away with it and brag about it (OJ Simpson) later on then they can not get convicted again because of double jeopardy. Anyways when it comes to this situation we will never know what really happened it's a truly sad story for all those involved.

There is another situation going on in WA right now where this police man killed a native american. The are going to punish the police man because he shot the guy out of false pretenses. What will happen to him I'm not sure, but I hope justice will do good this time around. There are some not all police man that have to high of a power trip its sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another day to feel shame over being American. How can any advanced society still practice the barbaric act of capital punishment? How can the state say that murder is wrong and then use the exact same act rationalized as justice?

Capital punishment makes a joke out of our values. If the state can kill, then why can it expect the individual to respect laws against killing? Taking human life, whether sanctioned by the state or at the hands of an individual is still murder.

We must evolve beyond thinking of revenge as justice. Justice must include the very core values of humanity and uphold the sanctity and value of human life. The state should take the moral high ground and assure that murder is demonstrated to be absolutely wrong.

So long as our justice system is imperfect, the risk of murdering an innocent person should also make capital punishment unthinkable.

I am ashamed that my country carried out this act. As I am ashamed of any human state or nation who uses state murder and tries to pass it off as justice. Grow up humanity, violence is not an answer to anything.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I find it fascinating how death penalty opponents - predominately Liberals - are so frequently supporters of abortion. Proponents of the death penalty are at least rational. If you commit the heinous crime of murder, you will be subject to a penalty that is commensurate to the crime. Liberals on the other hand, oppose the ending of the life of a convicted murderer even when found guilty and after having been given decades and millions of dollars worth of legal protections. These same people feel no guilt what-so-ever about partially birthing a baby and then shoving scissors in the back of his/her head. No trial, no legal protections. So save your moralizing about guilt and innocence, morality and values. Troy Davis got his two decades in the court system. Even the Liberals on the Supreme Court rejected his appeal. The death penalty isn't about revenge. If it were about revenge the killers would be put to death in the most vicious manner possible. Perhaps by having a pair of scissors shoved into the back of their head.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Another day to feel shame over being American. How can any advanced society still practice the barbaric act of capital punishment? How can the state say that murder is wrong and then use the exact same act rationalized as justice?

Tough, tough questions.

I do not believe a nation can prosper for very long that accepts, upholds and defends obvious evil and injustice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it fascinating how death penalty opponents - predominately Liberals - are so frequently supporters of abortion.

Those of us Americans who are predominantly liberal feel there are already too many citizens in the US gulag system without the anti-liberals concocting new laws in order to imprison even more.

Liberals on the other hand, oppose the ending of the life of a convicted murderer even when found guilty and after having been given decades and millions of dollars worth of legal protections.

Abolish the death penalty and "millions of dollars worth of legal protections" would not be needed. Abolish the death penalty and the people of the state would never have the execution of innocent people on their conscience.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ben,

I never claimed non-Americans should follow US politics or that I expect them to. My point is, you clearly don't understand the nuances of the American two-party system or large portions of the background of this argument, which starts way before Troy Davis. So, respectfully, don't enter the discussion if you don't understand it completely.

Wolfpack,

Not all liberals support abortion, and even among those that do, I know many (myself included) that draw the line at a certain point in the gestation period. It's a nuanced debate, just as this one is. I find it interesting that conservatives, who apparently cherish life above all else, literally cheered upon hearing that Rick Perry has executed 200+ people, some of whom were doubtlessly innocent, during his tenure as governor. I find it strange that conservatives apparently "support the troops" and yet literally booed and heckled an active duty soldier that admitted to being gay. I can go on and on and on about the hypocrisy of you and your ilk. Or maybe we should just quit with the mud slinging and have a civilized discussion?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So, respectfully, don't enter the discussion if you don't understand it completely.

HT,

I came back to briefly respond. Respectfully, this discussion is about this case and whether the death sentence should have been carried out with the evidence presented. It is not about the US two-party system. It is making this discussion about the two party system that clouds the core issue. In fact, it clouds it to the point that even if two people agree that there was sufficient doubt to warrent not giving him the death penalty, this agreement takes a backseat to slinging meaningless or nearly meaningless political mud around. I continue to see this as counterproductive. However, you all seem to be enjoying it. So, have fun.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After looking at all the things that this story did not report in relation to the case. I've come to the conclusion that justice was served. I have also come to the conclusion that the Justice system in this case functioned in a manner that it should with every case involving the death penalty. In my opinion the system actually tried its very best to not carry out the sentence, affording the almost extreme lengths in allowing his lawyers to present evidence that might have prevented the sentence from being carried out. What stands out more than anything to me is the fact that the Supreme Court ordered a a writ of Habeas Corpus for the first time in 50 years for Mr. Davis and his lawyers to present their evidence. The evidence they presented, and facts are facts, was found lacking and as Judge Moore stated prior to his decision amounted to nothing more than "smoke and mirrors" in the cold harsh light of day and in relation to all the other non disputed evidence that was presented in his trial. I believe the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Court system takes its duties very seriously and I see nothing that prevents me for not believing they did not do the same in Troy Davis's case, and in fact went further than that for him to provide a reason that they could actually legally use that would pass the lowest bar possible as credible evidence to stay the execution. I have come away from all this with the opinion that our court system in this case did not fail Mr. Davis. It was Mr. Davis's evidence that failed to reverse his case, and that his lawyers then resorted to the court of public opinion in a final desperate effort to stop the sentence from being carried out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After looking at all the things that this story did not report in relation to the case. I've come to the conclusion that justice was served.

That's a meaningless statement.

Since the State of Georgia admitted that some doubt was cast upon the guilt of Troy Davis and that their case was not "ironclad," the statement above could only have some meaning when it is tested.

For example, if, sometime down the road, a person comes forward -- a person whom the police should have treated as a suspect but didn't -- and confesses that he killed the police officer and set up Troy Davis, would any person making the quoted statement above still feel that justice was served in this case?

If yes, then the rest of society is left with the conclusion that there are indeed individuals who defend a system that kills innocent people. (They are just as much guilty of murder as the man who murdered the police officer.) If no, then we are left with a justice system that can't be defended.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I guarentee you that at some point in the next couple years, new evidence will come into light that proves his innocence. and it will only serve as a very painful reminder to his friends and family who tried so desperately to save him, only to have the courts deny it

what a cruel world we live in....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guarentee you that at some point in the next couple years, new evidence will come into light that proves his innocence.

Probability and a willingness to look at the circumstances beyond what the judges were willing to consider are on your side.

Only one of the two possible suspects confessed his guilt, albeit to private individuals -- and it wasn't Davis, who maintained his innocence from the beginning to the very end. Davis did what nearly any truly good and innocent man would do and asked God's mercy for those who were about to wrongfully take his life. I strongly suspect that the real shooter is going to want to clear his conscience before it is all over. (He's already broken down a couple of times and confessed, according to signed affidavits that the justices reviewing the case just didn't want to believe.)

And it is by no means all over yet.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Those of us Americans who are predominantly liberal feel there are already too many citizens in the US gulag system without the anti-liberals concocting new laws in order to imprison even more.

I'm genuinely curious about that statement Yabits. I read that as you are of the belief that there are too many citizens incarcerated, and that 'anti-liberals' are arbitrarily making up new laws to incarcerate even more. Is that your inference? What laws are we specifically talking about here? At first glance my thought was - we have set laws in this country that we designated to be as such to keep the safety and sanctity of our civilization (or what we pass off as civilization). If you break these laws, there is punishment, and if the crime is serious enough, this can involve being locked up. Now giving it further thought, I can perhaps see what you mean if your talking about things such as drug offenses. Caught with a bag of weed hardly means you're a danger to society. But other than some of the minor offenses that could result in small amounts of jail time I cannot think of anything that a person might be locked up for that they should not be. I'm just curious of your thoughts behind that statement. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another thought is that it is always easy to 'armchair quarterback' things from the distance of just reading about something in newspaper articles (because we all know how very reliable our news organizations have proven to be). Firstly from the standpoint of the victim - it's quite easy to disassociate yourself from the victim and family and simply say 'and eye for an eye is barbaric and wrong' in condemning the death penalty. For the family of this murdered cop, or say the mother who carried a murdered child inside her womb for nine months, saw them through scrapped knees, graduations, all the myriad of everyday life events, only to see them senselessly murdered by some savage who just doesn't care about another human life - the righteous indignation of those not directly affected who champion the right to live of the convicted murderer seems a bit more out of touch.

Secondly, none of us were in the courtrooms when this man's trials and appeals occurred. The general public never knows every little nuance and happenings of a trial unless you are part of it. I should like to think that if the Supreme Court - supposedly the best and brightest of those knowing and understanding the meanings and interpretation of law (voted in by various administrations) see the evidence as supporting one way, then perhaps they should know best. But very true - any court could be wrong, and personally I think we've made our justice system so rigid that it does play against itself at times. Still, just because a few celebrities or musicians or race card chasers like Sharpeton say it is so does not make it so.

In an example of perception vs. truth I always like to use the Rodney King video. The media showed us a few minutes of the tape and we all thought those cops were the most brutal thugs in the world beating on the poor, hapless Mr. King - open and shut case. Well, for those who have not seen it there is about 7 to 10 minutes or so of video that shows Mr. King continuously coming at the officers involved, essentially assaulting them. But why show us that

Is the death penalty barbaric? Of course it is; a throwback to days when people were drawn and quartered as public spectacle - and not in some third world country but in the capitals of white Western Europeans. But is it so very wrong to say that when you purposely and with intent take a life (not soldiers/wartime - whole different argument) that you then forfeit your own? Why is that deemed so unfair? Wasn't it unfair to the person just living life who had their only chance brought to a horrific conclusion? On the one hand, I'm not for the death penalty. But on the other hand I'm not hypocritical enough to not realize that if it happened to one of my loved ones, I would be quite happy to kill the person myself. And no, of course it does not bring them back.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I read that as you are of the belief that there are too many citizens incarcerated, and that 'anti-liberals' are arbitrarily making up new laws to incarcerate even more. Is that your inference? What laws are we specifically talking about here?

Yes, the United States locks up a vastly higher percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized democracy. I don't believe it would be difficult to find examples of laws. It's why groups like NORML exist. But I don't want to veer off-topic to a discussion of any of them.

For the family of this murdered cop, or say the mother who carried a murdered child inside her womb for nine months, saw them through scrapped knees, graduations, all the myriad of everyday life events, only to see them senselessly murdered by some savage who just doesn't care about another human life - the righteous indignation of those...

She's not the only person to suffer the tragedy of having a family member murdered. I firmly believe that a corrupt and rigid justice system only engenders greater and greater disrespect for law -- and something that leads to more crime and more murders rather than less.

In an example of perception vs. truth I always like to use the Rodney King video.

I believe it's not a very good example as it relates to this case. A much better example is Errol Morris's documentary of the gross police mishandling and miscarriage of justice in the trial of a police killing in Dallas, Texas -- The Thin Blue Line. Also, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills about the terrible miscarriage of justice in convicting the West Memphis Three. (All of whom were recently freed from prison.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Every time someone stands up against capital punishment, the first thing some of you do is start slinging the "Liberal" slogan, as if it is some omin-defining tag.

This kid of polarized thinking is exactly why the US is sinking into the mire and why nothing gets done there. Why can't you just see another person's opinion as just his or her point of view and not something married to their political views?

I don't like the idea of killing people. Period. Whether that killing be personal, state or otherwise.

Now to clear up the whole abortion vs anti-capital punishment issue. The key here is how one defines human life, not whether you are a liberal or not. I don't regard a fetus before a certain point to be conscious life. But I do regard living human beings to be conscious life. I side with science here and not religious mythology. I guess you will say that makes me an "evil liberal" too.

Just do us a favor and drop the tags and deal with the topic itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2,

Exactly. Well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, the United States locks up a vastly higher percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized democracy.

Perhaps true, but is it because of an over-abundance of unfair draconian laws, our socio-economic breakdown or simply because our democracy, population, way of life and even location promotes this. Drugs account for a great majority of crime in this country, promoted by our wealth which provides the buyers, and a direct supply line to South America. But you're right - somewhat off topic.

Certainly there are police mishandling of crime investigations. Given the number of crimes committed per year in this country paired with ever-shrinking law enforcement budgets for manpower, it's no surprise and I can only see it getting worse. Perhaps that alone is the best argument for abolishing the death penalty. But I still say that's easy to say when no one in your family has been killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites