The state of Georgia is preparing to execute a man whose guilt is very doubtful.

Details at http://action.aclu.org/savetroy

Yow.

Thanks for sharing, Kid Charlemagne.

Update - the Supreme Court has issued a stay of execution and the New York Times article I read said they would decide by Monday whether to order a new trial. If no new trial is ordered the stay is terminated. I've been following this in the Atlanta paper and it sounds like his conviction was pretty dubious.

Update - The Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision. Possibily *this* coming Monday.

Alas, the execution is now set for 10/27/08.

Appeals to the Pardons and Paroles board can still be sent from http://action.aclu.org/savetroy

What would Valor do?

The US 11th Dist. Court of Appeals has issued a 25-day stay of execution.

The state of Georgia is still seeking to execute the dubiously guilty Mr. Davis:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...179&template=x.ascx&action=11448

There's also the case of Lori Berenson:

http://www.freelori.org/index.html

What would he do, you ask?

He would remember the moment until he gets out of the Phantom Zone, and then commandeer a time bubble back to our century and stop it, by breaking bones if necessary! As a rule, explanations always come AFTER the blows are dealt.

The state of Georgia is still going about its dirty work, in zombielike fashion, of trying to kill Mr. Davis, whose guilt is dubious at best.

The link lets you send an e-mail to the governor.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...179&template=x.ascx&action=12168

Done.

Thanks.

Georgia's still at it. Persistence is not always a virtue.

http://action.aclu.org/savetroy

I don't know why AI sent me another link for Mr. Davis this soon, but here it is:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...;ICID=D0906A01&tr=y&auid=4922153

Disapointing news from Connecticut.

I once supported the death penalty, until I learned how often the guilt of the convicted person was dubious.

I actually think it is probably justified in certain extreme cases (Ted Bundy, for example), but I tend to think there's far more risk in abusing it than in not applying it when appropriate. I think the purpose of "punishment" should be rehabilitation rather than retribution or prevention, so unless somebody is just so screwed up mentally that nothing can be done to help them, it's hard to justify that sort of response to their crimes.

Meanwhile, in Missouri, a DIFFERENT dubiously guilty man is set to die June 17:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advoca...amp;JServSessionIdr011=osat65lvj5.app24a

An appeals court overturned the death penalty, how did it get reinstated? Can a superior court do that?


Thanks for bringing these to the fore KC. I've never been a fan of the death penalty. Not a fan of clubhouse prisons, three meals, recreation... either and I'm not aware of a better system but there's an obvious (to me) problem when the person who is counted on to determine clemency is the former prosecutor.

Bringing attention to these "dubious" cases is improving the justice system but I'd feel more than a bit guilty sending that message, which makes claims about which I have no knowledge. I'm not sure what ACLU hopes to accomplish with that and what weight could it possibly hold if sent by a non-resident of Mo.?

Having been on boards for charities, the letter has a familier ring to it that I've seen from several directors (must be a university class in it lol). As the ACLU never actually provided the address so that a person could send it directly, I'm not sure that it is so much intended for the Governor of Missouri as it is self-serving for the ACLU, using this case to try and collect addresses and emails for fundraising perhaps? hmmmm...

There's an ACLU summary of Sotomayer on their site; interesting 70 page read. I skimmed it, but looks like it's worth an afternoon read.

Some encouraging news on the Davis case: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear his appeal when it reconvenes in September. In case the Court does not overturn his conviction, here is a link to the office of the new DA in Savannah, who has the authority to order a new investigation:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...;ICID=A0906A01&tr=y&auid=5030305

Got an e-mail from Amnesty Int'l regarding Troy's case:

Fingers crossed.

I heard a report on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. It was a bit disturbing in that Scalia doesn't really seem worried that a potentially innocent man could be executed as long as the original trial had not legal errors. May I also add that if Davis did not do it, there's a cop-killer out there who has gone unpunished and to me that's unacceptable.

*sigh* Here we go again, folks.

Mr. Davis hasn't run out of appeals yet, but his latest one was rejected.

Petition to protest dubious conviction and sentence:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...179&template=x.ascx&action=12970

And here we go again, folks.

Davis could be set to die as early as September.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis

Seriously, Georgia, WHAT THE SPROCK?!?

The "justice" system of the state of Georgia reminds me of a zombie, in its mindless persistence.

Davis is set to be executed Sept. 21.

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/si...ce=W1109EADP01&tr=y&auid=9445278

Just heard the news.

As the Trommites would say, Troy Davis was just transmuted to a higher state.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/troy-davis-execution-stay-denied-supreme-court/story?id=14571862

The zombie "justice" system claims another life.

********************************************

Thanx to any of you who took an action.

Thanks, Kid Charlemagene, for bringing this issue some attention. Many posters here are probably too young to remember when the use of the death penalty wasn't considered a done deal in the United States and when liberal politicians weren't afraid to say that they opposed it. The Davis case raises questions that illustrate the reasons why some of us oppose the death penalty.

It's sad that Capital Punishment persists when its a given that no justice system is perfect.

I don't believe in CP anyway, but I always find it strange that those who feel its morally OK can't see that it's still subject to such tremendous flaws.

If it hadn't been abolished here for instance, David Milgaard would most definitely be dead right now.

I once supported CP, but then I learned how many times the wrong person is convicted, and even executed.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Agreed so much.

It's revolting to me on so many levels that we can't even keep people housed, employed and fed in America, but you can always find some creep who'll dance for joy at an execution.

Sorry, but despite it's many many flaws, I think that the justice system is better with Capital Punishment than without much like I think the flawed 'Democratic' Goverrnment is better than Communism, a Monarchy or a Dictatorship. There are indivduals that are beyond repair or redemption and I see no need to store them and pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives. If you wish to change/improve the system, then work on the trial process, not the sentencing (unless you wish to extend the Death Sentence to include child molesters, rapists and terrorist of any kind). IF there was a failure in this instance (and I AM NOT convinced there was), then it was in that part of the process.

No, sorry.

Legal executions are a mark of barbarism, IMHO.

A legal execution of an innocent person is doubly barbaric, and never acceptable.

Agreed.

Not to mention that it's not proven to deter crime. There's a lot of supporting data that shows a relationship between the death penalty and violent crime. For instance, states without the death penalty have less violent crime.

There is one huge deterent it provides that those against ALWAYS ignore: There has never been a repeat offense by someone that has been executed. Now, Look at the number of murderers that have repeated the offence and tell me that it isn't a deterent. The same could be said of rapists or of child molestors. They can not repeat the offence if they are dead... Can they?

Agreed with that part of your statement, and only that part. That is why a jury, the judge and the prosecution should be damn sure that they believe the party is guilty and that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Also why there should be serious reprecussions for anyone found to have not done their job in the prosecution, defense, or judgement of the case through choice or error.

And in my opinion, an execution is the logical way to deal with a person that can not be fixed and released back into the population due to the threat they pose to others. It is more cost effective AND it is less cruel to the Criminal themselses. If you want to torture them (and I have to admit that I often entertain the notion) then by all means, keep them locked up for the rest of their lives with no hope of ever re-entering into society and always aware of that fact. Now THAT would truly be cruel punishment.

I reject your logic, not to mention the idea that cost alone should determine national policy.

One of my major issues with legal execution is that it encourages human beings to develop god complexes, as you illustrate neatly in your untenable assertion that life imprisonment is less cruel than death. How can you possibly clarify this? Are you psychic? And is every prisoner in jail the same?

My logic is simple and unasailable by any reasonable person: A dead offender can not re-offend.
As for the cost being the only factor.... can you not read? Look at my my statements again. Cost is not the only reason I give. My belief in the cruelty to the imprisoned is mentioned in my reply to you and my concern for future victems of the guilty is mentioned in another of my posts. And how dare you accuse me of having a 'God complex'? Is not your belief just as arogant? Are you psychic enough to know which accused are guilty and which are innocent? That is what the judge and jury are for and if you can do a better job of it then please do. I also hate to think of the innocents that the system has failed... on both sides. But it is the best system I know of and I do not know how to improve it.
Basicly, I think this comes down to 1 issue though: You have your opinion and I have mine and I don't think either one of us is going to change the other's mind. So, we can agree to disagree about thiss issue and let it go. Or, we can take this further, get really nasty to each other about it and still not change the other person's mind.
So what will it be?

There are alternate means of preventing convicted murderers from repeating their offenses.

Besides ... keeping people from repeating their crimes is nowhere near as effective as never having the crimes in the first place.

what would gates say about all this??


nothing, as he also was murdered unjustly. thanks alot fabian.

Other than life imprisonment, not any that work nearly as well. And, the imprisoned can possibly escape.

Agreed, and since you obviously believe you have that solution (being smarter than all of us and our entire legal system).... Please share it with us.

Did I acidently hit a nerve? Is there something you feel guilty about?
Why not kill everyone? Because:
1. I don't believe (and never stated nor even suggested) that EVERYONE will be guilty of something (let alone be a danger to other people like murderers, rapists and child molestors are) 'sooner or later' and I sure would like to know what part of my posts (or your lack of reading comprehension) made you think that.
2. Despite what you (or another poster) seem to believe, I do not feel I have the God-like (or even Tom Cruise from 'Minority Report'-like) ability to know what someone is going to do.... but after they do it I definately have an opinion on how to keep them from doing it again.

P.S. If you plan on editing out your snotty, unreasonable comments... you should do it before they are quoted by the person you made them to.

*removed*

Now that was good.

This was obnoxious and uncalled for. If you can't engage in a debate without resorting to such base tactics, you really shouldn't bother.

I hear this statement often in regard to a variety of issues. Taken at face value, it implies that the speaker believes she/he knows all there is to know about it (or doesn't care to learn more), and doesn't think the situation can be improved (or doesn't believe it's worth thinking about). It's a defensive statement used to try to close discussion. Different forms of it are widely used in political rhetoric.

No matter how good a system is, when judgments about people's lives are involved, if there are faults in the system, we should be paying close attention and working to make it better. A good friend of mine came close enough to an unjust verdict that I know the possibility is real. And the "system" in his case was as much about the political aspirations of the DA as it was about justice. Perhaps more so. I was appalled at what I saw, including the ways in which the DA used my Muslim friend's name during the trial to color the perceptions of the jury members.

Troy Davis was accused of killing a police officer. Because of that, finding him "close enough" to guilty was good enough for a lot of folks. I think if enough people care enough, we can find ways to improve that.

[snip]



And if you kill an innocent person and call it justice, you can't bring that person back from the dead if you're subsequently proved (or exposed) as wrong.

Your logic is flawed, and hideously ugly.

[snip]

Yeah. I sat on Grand Jury for a month several years ago, and the seeming emphasis on just pushing as many cases through as fast as possible was scary at times. There was a day during the process when one juror besides myself felt extremely skeptical about some of the witness' testimony, and we ended up asking a lot of questions and refusing to tell the Assistant DA that the case was suitable to go to trial.

You could tell the Assistant was unhappy with us, and some of the other jurors were, too. That wasn't even a trial related to violent crime, either. Just some possible low-level money shenanigans at a local business. The fact that two jurors rejected the case as presented also didn't mean that the County had to throw out their case. They still had the option of going back to the drawing board and trying to retool their presentation enough to impress another grand jury.

I'm still not sorry for telling the guy "No." That's what I was sworn to do, after all. Not to rubber stamp everything a person in authority handed me just because they had authority.

NoLongerLegion, you are simply wrong.


Tom Cruise was NOT the precog in Minority Report!


(This spectacular avoidance of the issue and micro-focussing on a tiny inconsequential error brought to you by the Republican National Committee.)

And it was in response to his nasty, obnoxious and uncalled for comment of:
Which is between him and me, so why are you concerned about my impoliteness, but not his? Maybe you should just butt out?

True, but he did believe he had the right to intercede before a crime was comitted, acting on the information from the 3 precogs. We saw how well that worked... not to mention the guy he arrested in the beginning that likely wouldn't have committed the crime if they simply stepped in and got him councilling instead of dragging him off to be frozen and imprissoned for his 'crime'.

Alright, I don't often strap on the mod hat here, but I am now.

this is a forum of friends. We don't always agree, but more than anything else WE RESPECT EACH OTHER! It is also an open forum, meaning that everyone is able to read what is said, and everyone gets to comment.

Keep it clean and respectful, on both sides. Ideas can be presented without getting personal at or on anyone.

this thread obviously strikes nerves on BOTH SIDES, so it behooves everyone to remember that others have their own ideas and opinions. You don't have to agree, just respect yourself, and the other posters.

and yeah, I get that there will be eyeball rolling over me of all people saying this, so, don't make me turn this car around.

I never claimed to believe that I know 'everything there is to know' about this subject and I really take offence at your presumption.
However, I still truely believe that the fault lies in the trial process and not the sentencing. And THAT is where we need to concentrate on improving the system to prevent injustice both in freeing the guilty AND in convicting/executing the innocent.
I was a witness in a case where I knew (personaly witnessed the crime) the 'defendant' was guilty. The trial process failed. He was released. He re-offended. I was excused from jury duty because I admitted to being biased in a case. The 'defendant' was found innocent. He was released. He re-offended. I was member of a jury on another occasion (where I didn't have a bias so was not excused). After much deliberation, despite the fact that we believed he had likely committed the crime, we found that the prosecuter had not proved 'beyond a reasnoanble doubt' that he was guilty. He was aquitted. He was released. He later murdered a clerk while robbing a store. And I really don't know how to improve the process.... other than through the use of a lot of chemicals that I have been told are 'inhumane' even if used to free some one already convicted. So, what is your solution? Because I don't have any other suggestions and I still say the benefits out-weigh the few mistakes... as tragic as they are (and YES, convicting and executing an innocet person is a tragedy of the highest order).

(Thanks for including a typo in there so I could continue the joke of "look at this and avoid the issue!", but I decided the risk of someone thinking I'm actually being a jerk was unacceptably high. )

I never said that I called killing an innocent by mistake was 'Justice', so please stop putting untrue and inflamatory words in my mouth. Killing an innocet is a TRAGEDY whether by mistake OR intent. You may feel the same about disposing of the guilty. I do not. The simple and provable fact is: A DEAD OFFENDER CAN NOT RE-OFFEND. That is not flawed, hideous nor ugly. It is a pure and simple fact.
Your statement of: you can't bring that person back from the dead if you're subsequently proved wrong. IS ALSO TRUE. So, shouldn't the focus be to make sure guilt or innocence is firmly and unquestionablely proved?

A typo? If I had a dime for every typo I have made this week, I could afford to go to Law School, enter into polotics, hire a team of expert consultants and find a solution that would make everyone happy. Of course, if I did then our entire universe would be rebooted....

Well, I didn't feel the need to count them, I only needed one.

I have to agree with you there. I think the problem is context, this thread is ALL ABOUT a state refusing to pay attention to the questions about the proof, so frankly I read your logic incorrectly the first time too.

[snip]

There was doubt about the original subject of this thread, given the history of racism in the U.S. and the often shabby motives of DA's and prosecutors.

I don't think he should have been executed.

Furthermore, I think that irresponsible authorities who can't curb their own prejudices should never be trusted to make life-or-death decisions in the name of the law. At least a life imprisonment can at some point be rescinded, if innocence is proved down the road. There's no possibility of undoing an execution.

For the record, my post was not nasty, obnoxious, or uncalled for. I was following your comment that people should be executed before they repeat a crime. That's punishing people before they commit a crime, because they have the potential to commit a crime. As does everyone.

and, I edited my post immediately after i made it, and over ten minutes before you replied, because I don't want to get into some ludicrous debate about what you said or what you meant.

And in the 'grand' scheme of your many disrespectful comments, you are no one to talk.

threatening posters?

and here's another especially 'nice' one.

Which is pretty funny in itself, because Cleome45 can obviously read.


But... once again, this post shows you don't really think about what you're posting.

So why should i bother taking you seriously.

You must have had some idea your comment was nasty, obnoxious and uncalled for, or you wouldn't have bothered to edit it out.
And, I was not calling for people to be executed for crimes they haven't committed yet. I was calling for those THAT HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES TO BE EXECUTED FOR THOSE CRIMES (yes, I am yelling because you still can't seem to hear.... or don't care to?) because it is a fact that they can not commit another violent crime if they are dead.

Guys, again, respect each other.

everyone has made "points" against each other. everyone has gotten in their digs. Enough is enough.

Lets dial it back, folks, shall we? Legionworld is a pretty cool place. Lets not be the ones that changes that.

Well, you are for Capital Punishment now, but what about when you are unjustly sentenced to death for a capital crime.

See it really doesn't matter if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent. There have been cases of people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Per the Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php 273 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, 17 of those were on death row.

Rick, you must still be on those nice pain meds.

(okay, okay, I'll hush. Don't turn the car around....)

As my dad once told me... "If ya gonna act pissy, use the empty bottle back there, I ain't stoppin!"

I'm normally against the death penalty... I'd rather see the guilty live out their sad lives behind bars and THEN face their ultimate punishment; On the flipside, somebody wrongly convicted and executed doesn't get a do-over.

BUT... I don't know how many of you are up on the Cheshire home invasion here in CT... Two men are accused of beating the father near-to-death, raping the mother and 'tweenaged daughter and setting fire to the home, burning burning the mother, daughter and an older daughter to death.

One man has already been tried, found guilty and sentenced to death; the second trial just started. There is no denial of guilt here, only fingerpointing as to who masterminded this brutal crime. Connecticut legislation was very close to abolishing our death penalty... but, God help me, a crime like this has me wishing for Ol' Sparky instead of the relatively humane lethal injection these bastards are going to get.

So I feel the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate sanction; But only when guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And that is the opinion I was trying to express (before I let personal annoyance take over and cloud my responses). To that end, fix the 'proving' part of the process because it is not just broken for capital offences, but in many other cases as well.

And it's a very difficult proposition. Those who tend to most strongly support capital punishment, also tend to have conservative philosophies regarding the size and scope of government. They would be the least likely to support increases in funding for public defenders so the accused could get adequate legal representation. They would also be more likely to support tort reform measures that would increase penalties for malpractice or financial compensation and damages for the wrongly accused.

This bothers me quite a bit:

I am pretty sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, but just incase: YES it does matter!

And that is why WE THE PEOPLE have to work on changing and improving the system. It is Flawed, badly flawed, but still better than most other systems I can think of.

I meant that a particular person's guilt or innocence doesn't matter in the argument over capital punishment.

Unfortunately no matter what system is in place, it will be run by fallible imperfect biased human beings. And as such, mistakes will be made and at times bias against a person may come into play.

[snip]

I don't oppose the death penalty out of compassion for killers, actually. I oppose it because I can't see the sense in punishing murderers by becoming a proxy murderer myself. If it was wrong for them to attack and kill the family, it's wrong for me to start calling for another human being to die.

I think killing another human is defensible if my life is in immediate peril, but as horrible as these men are... once they're in jail for life the threat to other citizens is ended.

(One of the cases I sat on while on Grand Jury was a murder in self-defense case, BTW. I didn't feel particularly sorry for the dead guy, or the guy who hired him. The former died when the intended victim fought back and the latter is in jail for ten years-- which hardly seems sufficient considering that the intended victim was his wife-. I did feel terrible for the wife. She worked as a nurse and clearly didn't wish harm to anyone, but those two creeps forced her to choose between killing another person and dying herself.)

There's nothing I can do to bring back the family. The only good I can do is not let myself get dragged down to the level of the accused.

Believe me, I've had longings for revenge against people who've done way more trivial things than the killers in CN did. Outside of pop fiction, though, I can't really see either moral or practical sense in giving way to those feelings. There's enough violence in daily life already, all over the world. I'd just as soon not add to it unless, as I said above, my life or somebody else's really is in immediate peril.

Ok, not trying to be snotty here, just trying to understand a couple of points made and how people's minds are working (as well as how my own thought process flows).....
If you have a rabid dog, do you lock it in a cage and take care of it to the best of your ability until it dies? Or, do you do the merciful thing and put it down (in some fassion or other, hopefully as quickly, painlessly and practically as possible)?

Human beings are not rabid dogs. We're responsible for own actions, unless there's mental illness involved.

Killing killers because killing is wrong is about as sensible as eating cannibals because cannibalism is wrong.

Sometimes lethal force is necessary, and if someone is trying to harm you and your family and you shoot the creep in the face to stop him, so be it. Once they are in prison? There's no immediate danger excuse, and killing a prisoner isn't self-defense, it's just revenge, and caters to the very worst qualities that people are supposed to rise above, to prove that we are more than just animals, that we have souls and a respect for life, even the lives of those that have wronged us.

The commandment isn't 'do unto others because you are scared they might do unto you.' The Lord's Prayer admonishes us to fear no evil, not even in the face of death. A life lived in fear is a sad and wasteful thing, and that's true whether you're religious or not.

Ah ha! And this is then a major difference in our point of views. According to my beliefs, NO Life is inheirently of lesser value than any other. A dog is as 'worthy' as a man and a man is no more 'worthy' than a tree. Their value is strictly determined by what they contribute to Life in general. A murderer particularly is of no 'worth'.
So I would not see it as 'coming down to their level' to remove a proven threat to other lives. Anymore than I would see it as 'barbaric' for someone to defend themselves from an attack using whatever means are at their disposal, 'wrong' to put down a rabid dog or 'immoral' to kill a virus or bacteria that caused disease, suffering or death in another lifeform. If anything, the man would be of a greater threat level because he has chosen to be a danger while as the dog probably didn't have a lot of control over it's state and the bacteria or virus does not have a thought process at all that we are aware of.
My only conclusion is that any further attempt to discuss Capitol Punishment with you is futile since we have completely different beliefs in the 'Sanctity' of Life.Should I presume that the majority of the rest of those against Capitol Punishment have the same or similar views? Or does one of you have another perspective?

You notice that I at no point mentioned the worth of the dog's life, Dude. That's not what I was primarily concerned with.

My point is that human beings are not supposed to be ruled by instinct, whereas it's normal and natural for dogs to be so. The majority of convicted murderers can hardly be said to have acted on the instinct that would motivate even a healthy animal.

So your metaphor doesn't really work for me.

But that is a falacious argument, because I am not talking about punishing someone for what they might do.... the murder has already proven that they are a danger by killing someone for some reason other than self-defence. And I never talked about 'making the punishment fit the crime' either (for instance I did not suggest raping rapists or child molestors, I feel they should just be put down with the murderers). Also, I do not believe in prisons in general and certainly not in any long-term sentences. As far as I am concerned, there are only 2 types of criminals: Those that CAN be fixed and Those that CAN'T be fixed. If they can be fixed... do it. If they can not be fixed then why maintain them? And studies have shown that locking 'soft' offenders up with 'hard' offenders usually results in making the 'soft' offenders worse... not better. So why are we doing it? Isn't there a way to say.... tag them, keep them under constant servailance, make them get psychological and medical treatment, learn a useful and gainful skill and then let them go into society? I don't know, I am sure it would take a lot of work... I also think it would provide a lot of work for councilers, therapists, 'probation' workers (lots of these instead of prison guards). There has got to be a better system.

I don't know how to get you to understand this... YOU keep saying that killing a murderer is wrong for moral reasons and that it 'brings us down' to the murderer's level. THAT is YOUR belief, but NOT MINE. As I just tried to explain, in my belief system the dog would be as inherently worthy as the man and only their actions should determine if they are dangerous or not and if so they should be delt with in a similar manner. So, we can have no meaningful converstion on the subject because we have completely different belief systems. THAT is why my 'metaphor' doesn't work for you. For you it is a bad metaphor, for me it is a straight up comparison. I am not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine. Does any further discussion between us on this subject serve any meaninful purpose?

NLL, I'm going to put this as politely as I can:

If you engage in a conversation, you are not the sole arbiter of when and how it ends. Unless you can persuade a mod to lock the thread, of course.

The most obvious way for you to get us to stop responding would be for you to stop posting in this thread.

Of course the same could be said of you. Unfortunately, I have a terrible character flaw in that when someone says something I don't agree with or that I take offence at, I respond. I wish I didn't have this flaw, it would make my life easier, but I do. Also, I often want to understand why the person says or feels the things they do. I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) your entire opinion is based on your religious conviction that it is wrong to kill another human for any reason other than immediate self defence. Is that correct?

Please read more carefully, NLL. I don't even believe in God. I've mentioned this before in other threads we were both involved in. Religion isn't the only basis for morality out there.

No, I don't believe that premeditated killing of others is right. The fact that our legal system accentuates so many inequalities that already exist only adds an extra layer of wrongness.

Sorry, just checked some of those posts you mentioned. My memory is not always the best either. So, why do you believe Man is better than other Life, or even other Animals?

Humans have a mutual responsibility to one another, as humans, that we can't share with animals. Animals act on instinct and can't reason as we do. I don't know if that makes us "better." It does endow a human who might feel the urge to kill with responsibilities that a dog doesn't have.

If you add legal authority to the picture, you add an extra layer of responsibility. Which is why I find the thought of innocent people being legally put to death particularly repugnant.

NLL,

You stated your point of view well, but there are 2 things in this response which doesn't help your argument. The first is the "Ah Ha!" This is not a game of Gotcha. It is a discussion of a topic in which people have different but valid points of view. I may not agree with someone's point of view and I may try to persuade them to my point of view, but I gain nothing by playing Gotcha.

Second is your last paragraph. People can indeed agree to disagree and stop discussing something. As cleome stated, she made no referrence to the sanctity of life whether a person, a dog, or a virus. But you make assumptions about her point of view on the sanctity of life. Her point of view on the sanctity of life could be the same or very similar to your.

Also your analogy of captial punishment to a rabid dog doesn't work because rabies is a fatal disease and once the symptoms appear the person or animal will die. Treatment after symptoms appear is unlikely to prevent death. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002310/

So, once you have a rabid dog, it is just a matter of time before it will die. Putting it down is more akin to euthanasia than capital punishment. Or do you think that no person who commits a violent crime can ever repent of their act and be rehabilitated, and thus have a fatal defect and should be euthanized? Even given that there are some people who can't be "fixed". how does one determine who can and who can't be fixed?

Think about it for a bit before firing off a reply.

glad to see the discussion taking on a better tone. Lots better explanations of positions.

I will say this as my own point of view. some people say that killing killers makes you no better if they are incarcerated and no longer able to commit murder.

And thats simply not true.

Pee Wee Gaskins was a local serial killer here in the Pee Dee region. He was horribly abused as a child, and it twisted and warped him in horrible ways. He used to drive around in an old hearse he had purchased with his dead victims in it. And there were many.

Once caught and incarcerated, he continued to kill... in prison. Now think of that. He's in prison for multiple murders. His date of execution was delayed multiple times because he would hold knowledge of the location of the bodies of his victims, and when the date was at hand, he'd reveal a location and everything would be delayed or slowed yet again.

What finally ended it was when he murdered another prisoner.

Someone commits an act of passion murder once, yes, its "understandable" that things might have gotten out of hand for someone otherwise normal. If there are questions about whether the murder was done by them, yeah, I can easily see not instigating the death penalty for them.

But some people, like Pee Wee, have no regard for human life other than how they intend to use it, abuse it, and kill it. That is undeniable.

We feel sorry for the child that was, that was horribly abused and tortured, twisted and bent. But at some point, the monster, who continues to kill with no compunction or remorse, must be put down.

Its not just a rehabilitation system, it's also a Penal system, as in penalizing people.

That's a strong story, Rick. If a case can ever be made for the death penalty, that's the kind of situation that could do it.

But if we go back to the title of this thread, "Dubiously guilty man set to die," we're dealing with some different questions. Rehab and/or penalties can be supported if the right person is convicted. In this case, as well as many others, it seems possible that the wrong person received the ultimate penalty. Here in Georgia there are a lot of civilized people who think the evidence in this particular case was "strong enough," especially since a cop was killed, and that's good enough to take the man's life.

And I agree, evidence of guilt should be incontrovertible. There should be absolutely NO QUESTION in establishing guilt.

Death penalty should not apply with circumstantial evidence as far as I'm concerned.

I also have problems with Precedence. It effective takes the place of legal rules.. without any input from anyone outside the justice system, which, lets be honest, is set up for the criminals and legal workers.

the average person that pays bills and works and never causes trouble is not very valued in the system, while the person that makes a career out of being in and out of the legal system is. Judges get paid off them, lawyers, legal workers, guards, prisons, secretaries.... all of them earn livings off the penal system.

I've got lots of problems with the legal system, not limited to the death penalty. But when there's no doubt at all, when the evidence and the system clearly show guilt of a murder, I do not have a problem with hookin' them up.

And here's why. this person has shown that they have no regard for human life other than their own. They do not care about it. Perhaps they might reform, but even if, it is still a penal system, not just a rehabilitation system.

Some folks can call it the flawed eye for an eye system, or simple revenge, or what have you. But some people in this world are simply wired wrong in the head. And as citizens, I believe that we have a responsibility to not only rehabilitate, but punish as well when the situation calls for it.

It's like this, this is one of a few situations where it absolutely should be personal. "Society" will not be sitting at home at night holding a child whose parent has been murdered. Society will not come home to a cold house and empty heart because a wife, a mother, a husband, a child has been killed. There will be shows of empathy and sympathy, but at the end of the day, those people will go home to their families.

Pee Wee was a locally infamous monster. There are far more of them than most people realize.

Eh. Thats just my take. Others mileage may vary.

But I will say this.. some one deliberately kills my kid, I'll give the justice system a chance to do right. And if they dont' because of some BS, because someone doesn't do their job properly, etc... and the killer walks, it wouldn't be for long. There are rules in life that go far beyond what any politician can get written down on paper. And yeah, I would consider someone like that, with a predisposition to murder or harm children an imminent threat, armed at the time or not.

And I'd do it for someone else's kid as well. It's not a mark of compassion from a society to let a monster like that live, its a sign that children have no value in our society.

Completely different from the described situation above, but that's just my take.

This entire thread puts nothing in my mind so much as Carole King's "Smackwater Jack."

"You can't talk to a man
With a shotgun in his hand..."

I assume you mean precedent. Precedent has its place. Precedent is legal rule. The idea is that once a rule of law is established, it wastes time and money to keep trying it. Precedent also gives guidance to judges. This is particularly true for lower court judges.

But precedent is not something written in stone. For decades the precedent of "separate but equal" held sway. But that precedent was overturned. Likewise, you can argue that the facts in your case are sufficiently different from the precedent that the precedent should not be used.

And yet, it's used many times to exclude things that can be relevant, in guilt or innocence. I rank it right there with the IRS being allowed to write it's own rules and laws with little to zero congressional oversite. It can be useful, but it can also be harmful, when the purpose of the justice system is to bring about truth and through that justice, not serve the law itself.

You don't build a house to buy a hammer, you buy a hammer to build a house. Seems like all to often that is glossed over in the name of expediency.

And yeah, thats what I meant. Ya'll know I aint knot bee know spellah!

Quislet Esq,
First, sorry to respond so late, but I haven't had time to get back on since 15 minutes after my last response previous to this one. So, some points about your post:

1. The "Ah Ha!" was ment to represent a light bulb going off over my head because I thought I had a revelation about the nature of some one else's thought process, not as a 'gotcha'.
2. I am certanly sorry I didn't come up with a better analogy at the time than the rabid dog, because a couple of you seem to be fixated on the dog now, and I still haven't really gotten any clue on what I was trying to figure out.
3. Yes, I think that some murderers really can't help themselves, that it is possible that it is a deffect they are born with and Yes, I still think they should be eliminated since they are a clear danger to other people. On the flip side of that, Yes I think some people that have committed a murder might be able to be fixed. I can't think of a real life case off hand, but the first guy arrested in the beginning of 'Minority Report' would be the type... a crime of 'passion' related specifically to the cercumstances and would not be repeated because those ccercumstances will never repeat.
4. People are making that decision now, so let them keep making it. We only need to make sure that the evidence is there and safeguards are put in place to eliminate individual prejudices. For instance (and I realize it has flaws, but it is a start), I can actually imagine 'blind' trials where the jury is given all the facts about the case, all the evidence, but no faces or names to go with the defendant or the victems. They determine guilt AND the penalty... Death or Reabilitation.

NLL,

The blind trial might be a good idea. However, part of what a jury does is weigh the truthfulness of the testimony given. And in most crimes the victim does testify. (in some cases, the victim is the only witness) And people need to see the witness testify because body language and inflection go towards whether you think a person is telling the truth or lying.

But even if blind trials could be effective, mistakes can be made, witnesses who have faulty recollections or misidentify the suspect (some witnesses even lie). Actually eyewitness testimony can be pretty bad. And there are still police officers who plant evidence and district attorneys that withhold exculpatory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I think that most police officers and district attorneys do the best job they can and would not plant evidence or withhold exculpatory evidence. Plus innocent people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit. Again, no matter what system we could come up with, it is fallible imperfect humans administering it. No system will ever be 100% errorproof. What if that innocent person who slips through the crack is you or someone you love?

There are some I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty given to. The CT home invaders, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy. (given time I could come up with a few more) But I'd rather they were given life sentences then having an innocent person executed.

Rick,

I think you are confusing precedent with the exclusionary rule also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. That is where evidence that is obtained illegally is excluded. And one result is that the guilty party could go free. But there has to be some penalty when evidence is obtained illegally (and yes <strike>sometimes</strike> probably most times it is because of an honest mistake rather than malice) or there would be no reason for the police to not get evidence anyway they could. Even if that means they can question you for hours on end without letting the lawyer you requested be present or just barge into your house or stop your car for no reason and search it.

But there are two exceptions to the exclusionary rule. They are almost the same. Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery. Independent Source is if the excluded evidence can be and is discovered by a means that is not related to the violation of Constitutional or statutory rights. Inevitable Discovery is if the police would have discovered the evidence eventually through normal police procedures.

Well, it can be I suppose, but I was thinking more of times when things are deemed to not be allowed because of precedent in some other case, or special instructions given, etc...

Well, the admissibility or inadmissibility of particular evidence obtained in a particular manner would be a matter of precedent. But it all works out under the Exclusionary rule.

I mean do we have to try over and over whether the crack found in a shoebox under the bed on the second floor was an illegal search when the police detained the suspect on his front porch and didn't have a search warrant for the house? Do we have to try over and over again whether that big package of drugs the police officer saw through the open window (while he was on the sidewalk) should be excluded because the police officer didn't have a search warrant? (the precedent is that because it was in plain view, it is not an illegal search)

The moral is don't leave your drugs near an open window where they can be seen. Put them in a shoe box under your bed. Um... no wait.. The moral is that precedent works in favor of admissibility as much as it works to exclude evidence.

And as I said in my earlier post, precedent can be overturned. Not easily mind you because lawyers and judges like things that have been settled to remain settled. And when things are settled everyone can know what to do and what not to do.

Good points, true. My point is, the objective is to seek the truth, and through that justice. What will be allowed and wont be allowed is frequently left up to the individual discretion of judges, or even before that, what a prosecutor or a defendent's attorney chooses to bring up, or even to turn over to the opposing team.

Sorry, but tooooo many instances of personal prejudice, etc.. which come into play with judges, DA's, etc... allowing a bad day to influence. No real impartiality when rules and precedent are allowed to be applied as someone chooses.

As I said, the idea has flaws. However that is not one of them. Only experts in human behavior could truly have any possibility of determining if the 'body language and inflection' are genuine, intentionally faked or false due to some mental or physical disorder. Even an expert can be fooled by a reasonablely talented actor.. so no, I don't think that lack of seeing the witness, or the defendant is a problem. If I was dertermining whether they were telling the truth, I would rather have the results of a lie-detector examination (yes, these can be beat to, but not nearly as easily) and/or chemical examination or be informed of their willingness (or lack of) to submit to them. Yes, that is extreme, but in a case of your life being staked on it, wouldn't you be willing to offer any proof you can?

Personal prejudice/bias is a reason for precedent. Judge Bleedingheart thinks it was wrong for the police to trick the defendent into confessing, but the precedent of Illinois v Perkins means he has to allow such testimony. DA Hangem might want to withhold from the defense attorney the identity of witness Bishop Goode who said he was with defedent Gangmemberwitharecordforviolentcrimes in another town when that little girl got shot in a drive by, but because of the precedent of Brady v Maryland the DA knows that the defendent would get a new trial, he will look bad, and all his past cases will be subjected to scrutiny.

As I said to NoLongerLegion, no matter what you do the system is run by fallible imperfect humans subjected to personal prejudice/bias. precedent tries to take some of that personal prejudice/bias out of the equation. In the Supreme Court case about inevitable discovery, Nix v Williams , Chief Justice Burger said that there has to be a balance between "the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime" Chief Justice Burger admits that the exclusionary rule is "admittedly [a] drastic and socially costly course [that] is needed to deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections."

No one likes it when an obviously guilty party gets "let off on a technicality", but no one likes a police misconduct either.

Agreed, but there are laws designed to punish cops that break the law. It's kinda like the "hate crimes" laws. Special laws that extend punishment for people's attitudes? Who determines what is hate?

Crime is crime. You kill a guy for three dollars to buy a rock hit, or you kill a guy because you don't like the fact he's gay...what's the difference? They still killed someone, and it's still wrong.