|
On September 22 2011 21:03 BobMcJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:55 PolSC2 wrote:
I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous. Because killing someone without being 100% sure that he is guilty isn't ridiculous? Even if you leave aside the moral non-sense that is death penalty, it remains an absurdity for the sole fact that it's not reversible, and justice cannot be 100% fail proof, which implies that any system involving death penalty will end up killing innocent people. This case is just another unneeded proof that death penalty has nothing to do in a society that is supposed to be civilised... Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 21:00 rapidash88 wrote:
I'd rather people who commit first degree murder should be put to death then waste thousands of dollars trying to "rehabilitate" them. In this case scenario, arguing that racism is the cause for death is also insulting. Read the thread, keeping the guy in death-row + execution is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life...
Just because it is costlier, it doesn't mean that it's the wrong choice to take. If anything, something should be looked into to make executing a criminal cheaper because it might be the right thing to do at times.
|
Last time i checked the rate of after the fact proven innocent executioned people in the USA was about 60%. One could argue the statistic isn't far because most of the errors go back to when they had no DNA tests and alot of evidence tempering happened. But then again one could argue it hasn't changed all that much since then.
|
Even if he is guilty. i think that the justice apparel doesnt recognize the fact that humans can change, can be reabilitated and that we must not take for granit the action of a person. would that be fair to missjudge somebody wrong because he went to jail before, even tho he reintegrated the society, even tho he paid the price of his acts. some people wont change though, but i dont think that's their fault. With the penetentiary system we have (based on punishment and not reabilitation), USA (and starting in canada with Harper) has Mega prison where the individuals who enter are most likely to go out worse when their time is over.
alot of convicts are imprisonned for small crimes of small impact over morality. robberies, assaults these are problems that dwels deeper in the society, in poor boroughs. they result of poverty, and therefore its poverty we gotta fix ultimately, because poverty is a culture where education might not be as valorised, where its ok to hustle to live, cause it pays more to slang crack on the corner than going to university.
here in canada, having 1 convict cost 50k/year to the state. who does wanna pay for people who at the end might come out of there even worse.
the death sentence is just the top of the iceberg, and i think its mostly used right now in the states to clear some space for the upcoming new convicts.
|
On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote:
If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird.
no, killing people who kill people makes us the same as them. You do not need to kill people to serve justice I believe it is primative and immoral. By kiling that person it won't bring back anyone from the dead and it won't make you feel better, end of the day you will still be sad about losing a friend or family. your not going to be happy about your famiy/friend death by killing someone.
If anything by committing such a act you would lose a part of yourself that made you human, and you would be a little bit more like the mosnter who hurt your friend or family.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
It doesn't matter if you think he's innocent or guilty. It matters only if you're sure he's guilty. In the case of Troy Davis, I do not understand how a person could fail to have reasonable doubt.
1) Only circumstantial physical evidence connected Mr. Davis to the murder. The ballistics expert who testified admitted that he had some doubt as to even the circumstantial evidence. The murder weapon was never found. No direct evidence was ever produced that tied Mr. Davis to the crime.
2) The most compelling testimony presented in the case of Mr. Davis were the accounts of witnesses at the scene. Seven of nine have now recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits. Several of the witnesses said they felt pressured by the police, including a man who had been with Davis all evening and testified he did not even believe Davis had a gun. Three people have signed affadavits stating that the man who initially accused Davis, (and one of the two unretracted witnesses) had privately confessed to the crime.
3) Other police procedures in collecting the witness testimony have been called into question. The handling of the identification of the subject in a line-up was deeply flawed, and injected a tremendous amount of bias into the results.
4) Finally, Mr. Davis has never once wavered from his own assertion of innocence.
Since the trial, based on the new evidence, two of the original jurors have spoken out to say that they believe the trial verdict was incorrect. There can be no doubt, that were the case entirely tried again today, Mr Davis would not be convicted on the basis of just two eyewitness accounts and bare forensic evidence.
Why then, should the standards of guilt or lack of guilt in a court of law be vacated the moment the defendant is convicted? The fact that Davis was originally convicted is in no way actual evidence of his guilt.
Furthermore, I don't see how a rational person can condone the use of the death penalty as it stands in the United States. An absolute mountain of studies have proven that the administration of the death penalty in the United States is
A) Deeply influenced by the race of the defendant, and above all the race of the victim.
B) Deeply influenced by factors completely outside the realm of sanity, including, for example, at what time of day the trial is held.
The results of the Innocence Project and DNA testing have exonerated hundreds of people on death row already, a stunning statistic, and one that almost certainly means, simply the laws of probability, that innocent people have been executed. We also know the identity of at least one completely innocent man who was executed; Cameron Todd Willingham. The administration of the death penalty is so irreconcilably broken that I cannot fathom how a rational human being who finds the taking of human life as abhorrent could continue to condone its use.
|
I think it's just appalling that something like this can happen in a somewhat more 'civilized' country. Just imagine your at one night at the wrong time at the wrong place and BAM! just like that your 20 years waiting in prison to die and nothing you can do about it. Creepy stuff man.
|
I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
|
On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote:
I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
Do you propose we should kill anyone that have killed a fellow citizen? You do know how many that would be right?
|
On September 22 2011 22:26 tree.hugger wrote:
It doesn't matter if you think he's innocent or guilty. It matters only if you're sure he's guilty. In the case of Troy Davis, I do not understand how a person could fail to have reasonable doubt.
1) Only circumstantial physical evidence connected Mr. Davis to the murder. The ballistics expert who testified admitted that he had some doubt as to even the circumstantial evidence. The murder weapon was never found. No direct evidence was ever produced that tied Mr. Davis to the crime.
2) The most compelling testimony presented in the case of Mr. Davis were the accounts of witnesses at the scene. Seven of nine have now recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits. Several of the witnesses said they felt pressured by the police, including a man who had been with Davis all evening and testified he did not even believe Davis had a gun. Three people have signed affadavits stating that the man who initially accused Davis, (and one of the two unretracted witnesses) had privately confessed to the crime.
3) Other police procedures in collecting the witness testimony have been called into question. The handling of the identification of the subject in a line-up was deeply flawed, and injected a tremendous amount of bias into the results.
4) Finally, Mr. Davis has never once wavered from his own assertion of innocence.
Since the trial, based on the new evidence, two of the original jurors have spoken out to say that they believe the trial verdict was incorrect. There can be no doubt, that were the case entirely tried again today, Mr Davis would not be convicted on the basis of just two eyewitness accounts and bare forensic evidence.
Why then, should the standards of guilt or lack of guilt in a court of law be vacated the moment the defendant is convicted? The fact that Davis was originally convicted is in no way actual evidence of his guilt.
Furthermore, I don't see how a rational person can condone the use of the death penalty as it stands in the United States. An absolute mountain of studies have proven that the administration of the death penalty in the United States is
A) Deeply influenced by the race of the defendant, and above all the race of the victim.
B) Deeply influenced by factors completely outside the realm of sanity, including, for example, at what time of day the trial is held.
The results of the Innocence Project and DNA testing have exonerated hundreds of people on death row already, a stunning statistic, and one that almost certainly means, simply the laws of probability, that innocent people have been executed. We also know the identity of at least one completely innocent man who was executed; Cameron Todd Willingham. The administration of the death penalty is so irreconcilably broken that I cannot fathom how a rational human being who finds the taking of human life as abhorrent could continue to condone its use.
Thanks for explaining what I think better than I could. So many people fail to understand Innocence presumption in this thread, it's depressing :/
|
tbh they had to kill him
or else they have to admit how fucked upt he criminal justice system is.
Morvoer there are situations where it is right for someone to kill a fellow citizen. It is wrong for a legal system to kill though because of doubt.
|
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong colored skin. Justice is not blind in the US.
|
On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote:
I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick.
|
On September 22 2011 23:03 MrTortoise wrote:
tbh they had to kill him
or else they have to admit how fucked upt he criminal justice system is.
Isn't that even more fucked up?
|
He was INNOCENT! That should have NOT happened...
|
On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote:
I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady...
No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt.
People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath).
|
On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote:
If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open
Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime.
People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too.
Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system.
The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time.
Sorry, I support the death penalty
|
On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote:
If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime. People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too. Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system. The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time. Sorry, I support the death penalty
..So you honestly think it's okay to kill innocent people as long as most of the time the people that are killed are guilty of their crimes? Wow.
|
On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote:
I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath).
Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...
Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you.
All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me.
|
Would you support it if it were you on death row knowing you are innocent? It's just an unfortunate reality after all.
|
On September 22 2011 23:45 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote:On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote:
If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime. People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too. Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system. The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time. Sorry, I support the death penalty ..So you honestly think it's okay to kill innocent people as long as most of the time the people that are killed are guilty of their crimes? Wow.
Either you didn't read what I wrote or I wasn't clear enough.
The flaws are due to the judicial system, not execution. If it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of their crime, then I believe the death penalty can be utilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
