|
This isnt about the death penalty in my mind, it's more about the fact that they don't have 100% evidence that he killed him. They are about to execute a man who could in fact be innocent.
I have heard it happens all the time too, you see death row inmates from decades ago finally get released because of DNA evidence, who knows many innocent people we have executed over the years, its fucking sickening to think about.
Also, not suprising this happened in GA, makes me think racism played into it because its just way people are down here.
|
what is "death panalty" ?
User was warned for this post
|
The media is doing an absolutely fantastic job of choosing the battles and framing all of the debates in this country. Choosing the focus of discussion for the county is over half the battle.
|
On September 22 2011 11:09 Bub wrote: what is "death panalty" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence.
|
I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty.
|
The death penalty is a sketchy argument. I do think in some cases its a good option. For instance cereal killers who are obviously guilty etc. However I have issues with the idea of simply killing someone because they killed someone else.
The entire penal system is out of whack if you ask me. A lot of people in prison in there for possesion of small amounts of marijuana or other drugs for personal use. Ya you shouldnt do drugs, but it takes like 20,000 dollars a year to keep someone in prison every year. Wasting 20k on someone who wanted to smoke a little weed after work is a huge waste of federal funds
|
John Grisham » The Confession is a great book to read on the death penalty. IMO the death penalty is just as bad as the things that those criminals do.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
So this guy is the new Mumia?
From what I've read about the case, most of the evidence for this guy's innocence comes from his friends recanting their testimony. One such recantation basically said that he wasn't sure he saw Davis shoot the cop (despite being somewhere in the ballpark of 5 feet away when the shooting happened).
Well, ok, if that's enough to constitute reasonable doubt we might as well stop convicting people of anything, ever.
PS Davis has also been convicted of shooting someone earlier that night, and what a coincidence, the bullets used for the earlier shooting match the gun used to shoot Officer MacPhail.
From the "true-more-than-not-true-in-general" Wikipedia:
On the evening of August 18, 1989, Davis briefly attended a pool party hosted by a friend. As he left with his friend Darrell Collins, the occupants of a passing car yelled obscenities at them... Michael Cooper, a passenger in the other car, was shot in the face, allegedly by Davis I believe that's the other conviction.
|
On September 22 2011 11:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty.
Plus the fact that without the Death penalty that means they have life in prison so they get to have a free meal and shelter all at taxpayers expense. Yay! I want to help a killer live by paying for his food!
edit: however on this guy I don't know if he did it or not
|
I've heard about it, its sad.
|
He still has a real chance, the Supreme Court has been debating another stay of execution since around 6:30 EST. Just keep hoping that they will make the right decision. There must be a lot of debate, as they are around two hours later than they said they would release the verdict.
|
On September 22 2011 11:05 Bonkerz wrote: Statistically in i learned in personal law class that only 98.5% of people who recieve the death penalty are guilty, meaning 1.5% die for a crime they didnt commit.
This is a good enough reason right here not to have the death penalty. Whether or not it is morally right to kill someone for their crimes should not even have to be discussed.
|
The Innocence Project is a pro bono group of lawyers that have actually saved over 250 people in the United States based on DNA testing. This, I feel, is one of the greatest arguments against the death penalty, as mistakes can and have been made, while death is permanent.
|
Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out.
|
I am ashamed to be from Georgia right now... At least this has the possibility of becoming a powerful aid in the fight to abolish the death penalty.
|
On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance.
Edit: And to be case specific, any time it's not crystal clear beyond all doubts ever, the death penalty instantly becomes problematic. If you are to use the death penalty you better be damned sure you don't accidentally kill someone innocent. In this particular case a commute to life in prison would seem like the obvious choice.
Totally agree. the punishment system right now just seems so primitive, if they make them do like 9001 hours of community service instead, then they get to live, as well as give back to society
however theoretically, if they kill someone, i think they should still be killed, but that is if they know 100% (which isn't quite realistic, there's bound to be a mistake sometime) or be forced to work then be killed, or such. Basically something that will make them suffer a LOT because really, killing someone is just so... stupid, honestly
|
On September 22 2011 11:23 Iyerbeth wrote: Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out.
i don't know the us legal system very well but that's it right?
|
On September 22 2011 11:34 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:23 Iyerbeth wrote: Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out. i don't know the us legal system very well but that's it right?
Yep, that's it. He'll be dead in less than thirty minutes.
****
|
he's poking at a typo i get this all the time penalty panalty =p
|
I believe anti-death penalty arguments do not place a high enough value on human life. I would only advocate the death penalty for someone who is clearly, beyond a shadow of doubt, guilty of murder.
I am a Christian. I believe God created man in His image, making human life unique from the rest of creation. Human life is sacred, and both Biblical and Western values speak to this (i.e. Locke's "life, liberty, and property"). There are good Bible-based arguments for circumstances which call for the death penalty. There are also Bible-based arguments against the death penalty; I believe those latter arguments poorly formed.
I believe anything less than the death penalty for unmistakable cases of murder does not uphold the value of the life that was unjustly taken by the murderous act. Proper government via a social contract with the people is designed to uphold the rights of the people. Using Locke again, the government must dutifully protect the natural rights (i.e. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) of its people, and the people must act reasonably toward their government, obeying its laws and paying their taxes.
Protecting the rights of the people means treating their rights, namely their right to life, with the rightful worth and value those rights deserve.
Put more succinctly, here is my mostly secular argument for the likely agnostic audience of this forum: A man's life is valuable/precious. If you murder a man, that is to intentionally take a man's life without just cause (e.g. not out of self-defense), then you forfeit your right to your own life.
As for the problem of convicting an innocent man of murder... I agree. It's a very troublesome problem. I am thankful it happens in very small percentage of cases, but I am, like the rest of you, bothered that it happens at all. No justice system is perfect in its judgements, and I can't imagine a solution to the inevitable fallibility of the Court in some instances.
|
|
|
|