The Troy Davis Case

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:14PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

he can and would of, had the lad been white.

That's a cheap and easy cop out. Just for the record, the State of Texas executed a white man last night. It was a well documented and truly barbaric case in which a 'white supremacist' dragged a black man to death behind his truck.

The case did stink. I do not know all of the details, nor does anyone else on this site. The case was reviewed multiple times by multiple courts/appeals panels and yet they still found enough evidence to not overturn the conviction. Something tells me that there is more to this story than what is being reported.

I have followed multiple death sentence appeals leading up to the eventual execution of the convicted dating back to Gary Gilmore in the mid-70s. It is incredible what comes out to try and stop these executions. I was at the Stateville prison the night John Gacy was executed. It was a 'circus-like atmosphere' for the execution of 'Pogo the Clown' with thousands of people in attendance. This man had raped, tortured and murdered at least 33 boys and buried them in his crawlspace or dumped them in the Des Plaines river. In a strange way I was sickened, yet understood why the anti-death penalty protesters were there.

I have no sympathy for anyone who commits murder. I have even less sympathy for a cop killer. As the son of a Chicago Police officer, I have been to enough wakes and funerals of officers who were killed in the line of duty. I take zero remorse in seeing someone someone who perpetrated an act like Davis was accused of being wiped from the face of the earth.

In saying all of the above, I really hope for the people involved that they did get it right. The thought of an innocent man being executed for a crime that he didn't commit is a terrifying thought.

ScumLord · 22-09-2011 01:14PM

Plazaman wrote: »

I would say the procedure began at 10.53pm, the first injection they get is a strong sedative to knock them out. Very sporting of them.

When it works, sometimes the sedative doesn't knock you out and if it doesn't it's an extremely painful death. But the people in charge don't mind that possibility because their killing bad guys and god loves and guides them.

upandcumming · 22-09-2011 01:18PM

joseph brand wrote: »

http://ourtimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/usa_bible_belt.png?w=519&h=320

http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/02/independent_death_penalty.jpg

See any similarities here? You try and tell me that Republicans don't count religious whack-jobs among their supporters.

I just can't see Liberals, Democrats, Atheists, Agnostics cheering for the death penalty. Maybe I'm wrong?

I wonder what Palin and Bachmann's views on the death penalty are. "We're fighting Gods war".(Palin on Iraq). Dangerous, religious, Republicans.

I wasn't going to 'try and tell' you anything. I'm failing to see why you brought political parties into this.

SharpshooterTom · 22-09-2011 01:26PM

I wouldn't even support the death penalty for people like Timothy McVeigh tbh.

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:28PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Blonde and pretty young girl versus obviously guilty before tried black man. The south shall rise again etc. :rolleyes:

You obviously missed the OJ Simpson trial.

SharpshooterTom · 22-09-2011 01:30PM

joseph brand wrote: »

I just can't see Liberals, Democrats, Atheists, Agnostics cheering for the death penalty. Maybe I'm wrong?

Most Democrats in America support the Death Penalty.

Temptamperu · 22-09-2011 01:31PM

Rented Mule wrote: »

You obviously missed the OJ Simpson trial.

Rich and famous always helps in a case.

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:32PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Rich and famous always helps in a case.

Being 'black' helped him as much as anything in that case.

Temptamperu · 22-09-2011 01:33PM

Rented Mule wrote: »

Being 'black' helped him as much as anything in that case.

It really was his laywer that got him off if i remember correctly.

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:35PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

It really was his laywer that got him off if i remember correctly.

His lawyer(s) played the race card against the 'evil white racist LA police officers'. He had the best legal team that money could buy and this is what they resorted to.

Temptamperu · 22-09-2011 01:36PM

Rented Mule wrote: »

His lawyer(s) played the race card against the 'evil white racist LA police officers'. He had the best legal team that money could buy and this is what they resorted to.

Going back to the rich part of my first post there

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:40PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Going back to the rich part of my first post there

Going back to the 'race' part as I stated.

Temptamperu · 22-09-2011 01:43PM

I suppose its a bit from column A and a bit from column b to be fair.

bucketybuck · 22-09-2011 01:44PM

In the interests of accuracy, I should address some misrepresentation in the OP.

but most of the witnesses have since recanted or changed their testimony.

Most of the witnesses did NOT recant their testimony. There were not nine original witnesses, there were 34. None of the stated nine fully recanted their testimony, and most only recanted details that the presiding judge has already stated had no bearing on the final judgement.

In Davis appeal, he stated that two witnesses had changed their story, but though the two witnesses in question were sitting outside the courtroom and available to take the stand again, Davies refused to let them do so. The common consensus is that Davis knew that their supposed change of mind would not stand up under scrutiny.

The murder weapon has never been found, and there is no physical evidence linking the crime to Davis, who has asserted his innocence throughout.

Not quite accurate again. Shell casings were found at the site of the shooting that matched a gun used in a shooting earlier that day which Davis had been convicted of. Additionally, the description of Davis' clothing matched more closely to what Davis was wearing than did the clothing of the other man involved in the preliminary assault.

I have no particular interest in this case, but for others reading please be aware that the case is not as simple as the OP has presented it.

Rented Mule · 22-09-2011 01:46PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

I suppose its a bit from column A and a bit from column b to be fair.

The funny thing about it is that OJ Simpson had to be accused of murder before he was considered 'black' again. He was a pariah and a sellout in the 'african-american' community after marrying Nicole.

Race, and how people are perceived is a very odd thing in the United States.

jimdeans · 22-09-2011 01:49PM

Well, according to Amnesty International, there has been some degree of alteration of testimony. The extent of which is unknown to most of us, presumably.

But that isn't the issue. Most people who are against the death penalty are against it, regardless of guilt. It's the fact that a supposedly civilised country decides on a person's right to live or die that's galling. We understand that people need to go to jail to protect other citizens. But what does killing them achieve?

Simple, it's bloodthirsty revenge. and that shoudln't be what a civilised coutry is about. We know the death penalty isn't a deterrent. We know it's not cheaper than locking someone up. We know it's irreversible. And we know they get it wrong sometimes.

That's the point. He could be guilty as hell. So lock him up and don't let him out until he's a harmless old man. But killing him? What's that ever going to achieve?

joseph brand · 22-09-2011 01:56PM

stovelid wrote: »

I find the practice of allowing the family of the victim in the same room as the execution profoundly disturbing.

With the way the victims' family were talking of their excitement about Troy being executed, I get an image of them watching, rubbing their hands briskly with eager eyes.

Justice my AR*E!

And in relation to costs. Money means absolutely nothing when a persons life is concerned. Don't mention money unless you want to try to calculate a persons worth in dollars.

parrai · 22-09-2011 02:06PM

jimdeans wrote: »

Well, according to Amnesty International, there has been some degree of alteration of testimony. The extent of which is unknown to most of us, presumably.

But that isn't the issue. Most people who are against the death penalty are against it, regardless of guilt. It's the fact that a supposedly civilised country decides on a person's right to live or die that's galling. We understand that people need to go to jail to protect other citizens. But what does killing them achieve?

Simple, it's bloodthirsty revenge. and that shoudln't be what a civilised coutry is about. We know the death penalty isn't a deterrent. We know it's not cheaper than locking someone up. We know it's irreversible. And we know they get it wrong sometimes.

That's the point. He could be guilty as hell. So lock him up and don't let him out until he's a harmless old man. But killing him? What's that ever going to achieve?

Exactly, deprivation of freedom, in my opinion, is a better form of punishment than death, as it lasts as long as they live....

joseph brand · 22-09-2011 02:06PM

jimdeans wrote: »

Well, according to Amnesty International, there has been some degree of alteration of testimony. The extent of which is unknown to most of us, presumably.

But that isn't the issue. Most people who are against the death penalty are against it, regardless of guilt. It's the fact that a supposedly civilised country decides on a person's right to live or die that's galling. We understand that people need to go to jail to protect other citizens. But what does killing them achieve?

Simple, it's bloodthirsty revenge. and that shoudln't be what a civilised coutry is about. We know the death penalty isn't a deterrent. We know it's not cheaper than locking someone up. We know it's irreversible. And we know they get it wrong sometimes.

That's the point. He could be guilty as hell. So lock him up and don't let him out until he's a harmless old man. But killing him? What's that ever going to achieve?

I wonder if, locking them up and allowing them wear their belts would satisfy both sides of the argument. Just an idea. Could be an awful idea, could be good.

bucketybuck · 22-09-2011 02:25PM

jimdeans wrote: »

But that isn't the issue. Most people who are against the death penalty are against it, regardless of guilt.

I don't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty, but the OP very clearly tried to present this as an innocent man being executed, and I wanted to address that. The fact is, having read the court transcripts the evidence shows that Troy Davis most certainly is guilty of this crime.

If this is a debate about the death penalty in general, I would hope the case of Troy Davis is not used to support any side.

jimdeans · 22-09-2011 02:36PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I don't want to comment on the rights or wrongs of the death penalty, but the OP very clearly tried to present this as an innocent man being executed, and I wanted to address that. The fact is, having read the court transcripts the evidence shows that Troy Davis most certainly is guilty of this crime.

If this is a debate about the death penalty in general, I would hope the case of Troy Davis is not used to support any side.

While I have no strong feelings ont he guilt or otherwise of Troy Davies, I think this case is important, as it illustrates the fact that people are being put to death, when the evidence isn't incontrivertible. The fact that the death penalty is "irreversible" is one of the main arguments against it. Amnesty reckon this convistion isn't safe, and you do. That suggests there's some grey area.

bucketybuck · 22-09-2011 02:46PM

jimdeans wrote: »

While I have no strong feelings ont he guilt or otherwise of Troy Davies, I think this case is important, as it illustrates the fact that people are being put to death, when the evidence isn't incontrivertible. The fact that the death penalty is "irreversible" is one of the main arguments against it. Amnesty reckon this convistion isn't safe, and you do. That suggests there's some grey area.

I guess thats my point. Neither myself nor Amnesty have all the facts, and more, all that we are hearing are distorted facts and misrepresentation.

The only people that did have all the facts as disclosed in the court transcripts, were the judge and jury, and they found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. People would have you believe this is an example of how you can never be sure enough to pronounce death, but in fact this is not a good example, both the presiding judge and the appeal judge were sure.

jimdeans · 22-09-2011 03:56PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I guess thats my point. Neither myself nor Amnesty have all the facts, and more, all that we are hearing are distorted facts and misrepresentation.

The only people that did have all the facts as disclosed in the court transcripts, were the judge and jury, and they found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. People would have you believe this is an example of how you can never be sure enough to pronounce death, but in fact this is not a good example, both the presiding judge and the appeal judge were sure.

Amnesty have had people dealing directly with Troy Davis and have been at all hearings and are involved in high level discussion ont he issue. I woudl imagine they have the same facts that everyone in the courtroom had. As far as I'm aware there's no evidence that only the jury gets to see.

But I still think this part of the debate only serves to cloud the issue in some ways. I think most anti death penalty campaigners are against it, regardless of the person's guilt. This case happens to illustrate that there is some doubt. But he still shouldn't have been killed.

ScumLord · 22-09-2011 04:12PM

jimdeans wrote: »

While I have no strong feelings ont he guilt or otherwise of Troy Davies, I think this case is important, as it illustrates the fact that people are being put to death, when the evidence isn't incontrivertible. The fact that the death penalty is "irreversible" is one of the main arguments against it. Amnesty reckon this convistion isn't safe, and you do. That suggests there's some grey area.

You also have people that are clearly guilty getting off on technicalities, the system of law is broken in most countries and is only a money making racket for the law industry.

Orando Broom · 22-09-2011 04:21PM

Rented Mule wrote: »

The funny thing about it is that OJ Simpson had to be accused of murder before he was considered 'black' again. He was a pariah and a sellout in the 'african-american' community after marrying Nicole.

Race, and how people are perceived is a very odd thing in the United States.

Nobody is racist until push comes to shove in the US.

ejmaztec · 22-09-2011 04:33PM

The Americans commenting on the Europeans' criticism of the execution seem to be dragging up that Europeans are a bunch of loony lefties with bad teeth (in retaliation). I'm sure there's one in there telling how they saved our asses in WW2, but I can't be bothered going through them all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040054/Troy-Davis-execution-Death-penalty-victims-words-family-Im-innocent.html

Seachmall · 22-09-2011 05:21PM

Obviously the guy was at least an accomplice which under federal law means he can be sentenced as the main perpetrator would have been, I'm not sure if Georgia law differs on this but it means if we trialed as an accomplice to the double homicide he may have received the death penalty anyway.

Obviously this is just speculation, Georgia law could differ or the sentencing may have been more lenient, but it's an interesting point. You don't have to actually commit the crime to be trialed as the principal in the crime.

(I realize the discussion has since moved on but I thought it was pretty interesting).

The Troy Davis Case

Comments