[1eyedjack]

Interesting that the final appeal agains the death sentence of Troy Davis has been dismissed, despite that 7 of the 9 prosecution witnesses have since recanted their evidence and someone else has confessed to the crime and Davis has been living under sentence of death for 20 years.

This could be a dark day for the state of Georgia.

[mike777]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-September-20, 23:37, said:

Interesting that the final appeal agains the death sentence of Troy Davis has been dismissed, despite that 7 of the 9 prosecution witnesses have since recanted their evidence and someone else has confessed to the crime and Davis has been living under sentence of death for 20 years.

This could be a dark day for the state of Georgia.

Yes


1)People are always surprised recanted eyewitness evidence ten years later is not very important under the law.





But one can always change the law.

2) People are always shocked that the goal is not justice or fairness or truth but following the law. I bet you are shocked to learn that.


WE hope and pray that following the law is just, fair and truthful but we know better.


3) If you are against the death penalty then none of the above matters.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2011-September-20, 23:48, said:

If you are against the death penalty then none of the above matters.

Even folks who agree with the death penalty do not want to impose it on an innocent person. Something has gone seriously wrong whenever that happens.

Given that the justice system is not (and cannot be) perfect, a state must have a review system capable of correcting injustices before the death penalty is applied. Or drop the penalty completely.

[blackshoe]

In my opinion, capital punishment is morally wrong. The State cannot have the power to do things that individuals have no right to do. But what's the alternative? Put 'em in jail? Who pays? What if they escape? Does the State have any more right to put people in jail than to execute them?

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-21, 19:10, said:

What if they escape? Does the State have any more right to put people in jail than to execute them?

I would think so. What is the alternative? Personal actions against offenders? Civil suits?

[mike777]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-21, 06:55, said:

Even folks who agree with the death penalty do not want to impose it on an innocent person. Something has gone seriously wrong whenever that happens.

Given that the justice system is not (and cannot be) perfect, a state must have a review system capable of correcting injustices before the death penatly is applied. Or drop the penalty completely.

btw you fail to note 22 years of appeals/review system.

[cloa513]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-21, 19:10, said:

In my opinion, capital punishment is morally wrong. The State cannot have the power to do things that individuals have no right to do. But what's the alternative? Put 'em in jail? Who pays? What if they escape? Does the State have any more right to put people in jail than to execute them?

Wrong individual have the power to put another to death for murder- its called self-defence.

[Bbradley62]

 cloa513, on 2011-September-21, 21:53, said:

Wrong individual have the power to put another to death for murder- its called self-defence.

Wrong. Depending on the situation, a private citizen killing someone to prevent them from killing someone else might be called self-defense; if a private citizen kills someone because they already killed someone else, that is called revenge.

[Hanoi5]

R.I.P.

All justice systems have troubles.

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-21, 19:28, said:

I would think so. What is the alternative? Personal actions against offenders? Civil suits?

"What is the alternative?" indeed. However, the fact that an alternative is difficult to identify or agree on does not give the State a right it does not otherwise have.

[Cyberyeti]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-21, 06:55, said:

Even folks who agree with the death penalty do not want to impose it on an innocent person. Something has gone seriously wrong whenever that happens.

Given that the justice system is not (and cannot be) perfect, a state must have a review system capable of correcting injustices before the death penatly is applied. Or drop the penalty completely.

This.

While I have no strong views on the death penalty itself, its use in this case where the evidence seems very unclear is obscene. You must have a higher standard of proof to apply the death penalty as there's no "Sorry we got the wrong man, have some money" as happens not infrequently in the UK.

It also appears that if you're poor or black or particularly both, you stand a much higher chance of being executed for a similar offence in the US, that's not justice.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-22, 06:49, said:

"What is the alternative?" indeed. However, the fact that an alternative is difficult to identify or agree on does not give the State a right it does not otherwise have.

What's wrong with the basic concept that the state has rights granted by the governed? I've never heard anyone argue that the state should not have the right to incarcerate robbers and murderers.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-21, 19:10, said:

In my opinion, capital punishment is morally wrong. The State cannot have the power to do things that individuals have no right to do. But what's the alternative? Put 'em in jail? Who pays? What if they escape? Does the State have any more right to put people in jail than to execute them?

FWIW, capital punishment is a fairly expensive proposition. I don't know if this holds true today, but 30 odd years ago applying the death penalty was significantly more expensive than incarceration. (Applying the death penalty required a lengthy appeals process which cost significant amounts of money)

Personally, I am strongly opposed to capital punishment.

1. Our justice system is far from infallible and you can't take back an execution
2. Capital punishment is applied in a very discriminatory manner
3. At its core, the capital punishment debate feels like political theater and it sickens me that we treat life and death matters in such a caviler manner

Well worth watching

My link

[wyman]

I don't have a problem with capital punishment in theory. In practice, though, it's pretty clear that (a) it's not a strong deterrent, and (b) we're just not "getting it right," whatever that means.

In this case, it's my understanding that all of the courts -- based on the evidence and on the law -- made entirely reasonable rulings, even in the appellate stages. And a lot of this hubbub was anti-DP people seeing an opportunity to fight for their cause. Totally rational behavior on all sides. We can't have high courts overturning small courts' decisions unless the law wasn't followed. Many judges reviewed the proceedings and said that the "new evidence" (witnesses recanting, primarily) was not sufficient to grant Davis a new trial. We have to have some amount of faith in the judges' ability to make decisions. If we don't, we need a new legal system. If we don't like their application of law, we need to change the law. We have a system in place to do this.

A man was executed yesterday in Texas, one of three white men who tied a black man to a truck and dragged him to death. And in this case, the race wasn't incidental; it was the motive. Do I have sympathy for the convict? Hell no. Do I think he deserves to die? Absolutely. However, 2 of the convicted were sentenced to death and one to life in prison. The decision seems arbitrary (in particular not related to their roles in the crime). And studies have "shown" (in quotes because I haven't read them, and -- while I'm not claiming that they are wrong -- I don't trust the mathematics of social scientists in general, so I'd want to see their methodology before I start claiming things as fact) that there are racial biases in the way the death penalty is applied. I wonder if there are the same racial biases in terms of sentence lengths for robberies and drug offenses.

I have a problem when death sentences (or any sentences, really) are not applied consistently. At least if we're going to assign sentences randomly, have them be truly random: have the convicted spin a wheel of destiny or something rather than letting a biased jury pool or judges (again, if the data suggests that they are biased) make a recommendation.

But really, I feel like we should just put a moratorium on the DP for now. Not for philosphical or moral reasons. I just don't see the upside, and the downside is pretty evident, since we're obviously applying it suboptimally. It's polarizing, and we spend a fair amount of political and legal energy (read: dollars) on this. Volunteers, bleeding hearts, advocacy groups, and all of our emotional energy could be better spent on other causes.

[1eyedjack]

Also, it puts you on something of a defensive wicket when you start berating the penal system in, say, China, Iran or wherever.

[BunnyGo]

 1eyedjack, on 2011-September-22, 11:28, said:

Also, it puts you on something of a defensive wicket when you start berating the penal system in, say, China, Iran or wherever.

Not really. I don't have to be perfect to point out that someone else is horrible. Hypocrisy is not the venal sin that many modern people think it is...I can advocate for ideals even while knowing I'll fail to live up to them.

That said, I do agree with most of what has been written above about why we should abolish the death penalty in our country.

[gwnn]

Partly unrelated: I think all people found guilty of such crimes should have a choice between life sentence and capital punishment. It seems like cruel and unusual punishment to keep someone locked up who does not want to live like that. It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone who does not want to die. I am particularly disturbed by scenes in which honest pleads for clemency by fellow human beings are rejected by civilised, elegant human beings.

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 07:55, said:

What's wrong with the basic concept that the state has rights granted by the governed? I've never heard anyone argue that the state should not have the right to incarcerate robbers and murderers.

One can delegate authority one has. One cannot delegate authority one does not have. No individual has the right to take another's life, save in defense of self or others. Ergo, no one can "grant" the State that right.

As to your second sentence, perhaps you haven't been listening. For if no individual has a right to incarcerate someone, no one can "grant" that right to the State.

Note that the power to do something is not the same thing as the right to do it.

Gwnn: You are mistaken. Murder is by no means unusual. It happens every day.

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-22, 15:25, said:

One can delegate authority one has. One cannot delegate authority one does not have. No individual has the right to take another's life, save in defense of self or others. Ergo, no one can "grant" the State that right.

As to your second sentence, perhaps you haven't been listening. For if no individual has a right to incarcerate someone, no one can "grant" that right to the State.

Would you extend your theory to.. say, taxes?

As far as I know, individuals don't have the right to tax one another and yet this is commonly accepted as a power granted to the government.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-22, 15:25, said:

One can delegate authority one has. One cannot delegate authority one does not have. No individual has the right to take another's life, save in defense of self or others. Ergo, no one can "grant" the State that right.

As to your second sentence, perhaps you haven't been listening. For if no individual has a right to incarcerate someone, no one can "grant" that right to the State.

Note that the power to do something is not the same thing as the right to do it.

Rights, individual and governmental, are what we the people define them to be, no more and no less. Over the course of history, rights have evolved along with human understanding and the advance of civilization.

We can certainly grant rights to the state that we do not grant to individuals, and we do so all the time. You can't get around that simply by stating the the contrary.