[Archived] Troy Davis

[dopper69]

As you will have seen on the news, Troy Davis, an American death row inmate was executed this morning, his final words being:

"I want to talk to the Mac Phail family,"

"I was not responsible for what happened that night. I did not have a gun. I was not the one who took the life of your father, son, brother."

He then appealed to his own family and friends to "keep the faith", said to the personnel who were about to kill him

"For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls, may God bless your souls."

"Look deeper into this case so you can really find the truth'"

"To my family and friends, keep working, to keep the faith."

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that every prisoner pleading his innocence when faced with execution is speaking the truth, however this particular case has several interesting points - such as 7 of the 9 original witnesses to the murder of Mac Phail either changing their statements or removing them completely. It's also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware the only evidence put forward against Davis is circumstantial, i.e no DNA etc.

I can't help but think that with death being the ultimate leveller, or equaliser for want of a better way of putting it, why would he be compelled to 'lie' to the victims family and media. Judging him by his last words you would imagine that he would want to make his peace before he goes.

As a final note, should a bureaucracy be allowed to determine a persons life or death?

[Tom]

I stayed up till about two hoping common sense would prevail but it became obvious what was to happen when the police presence suddenly doubled outside the prison.

A shameful incident IMO and I personally believe had both parties been the same colour the outcome may well have been different.

Oh and to have a man unsure whether he is to live or die for hours is surely cruel and unusual punishment?

[thenodrog]

###### happens. Without definite scientific evidence he should still be alive and in prison. The death penalty is justified when the evidence is incontroversial.

This should concern us all more.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/9262370.Family_anguish_after_Blackburn_Royal_Marine_killed_in_Afghanistan/?ref=mr

[colin]

###### happens. Without definite scientific evidence he should still be alive and in prison. The death penalty is justified when the evidence is incontroversial.

This should concern us all more.

http://www.lancashir...anistan/?ref=mr

This link may be interesting here

What "should concern us more" is a rather personal opinion and it rather supposes that we should scuttle off from something that may concern us to something else. It does rather suggest that no of us are capable of holding more than one opinion on one subject at the same time.

Perhaps you should allow us the space for us to decide for ourselves what is important instead of suggesting that we ignore the post and redirect our attentions to something that you have unilaterally decided we should be concerned with.

Cheers & all the best

Colin

[jim mk2]

The death penalty is never justified. Barbaric punishment in a barbaric country.

[Rovermatt]

In many ways the US is a deeply uncivilised place, its perverse fondness for the death penalty being one example. At a Republican presidential debate a few weeks back, Rick Perry (Governor of Texas and all-round Tea-Bagging douchebag) got a whole hearted cheer from his audience when he strongly endorsed the death sentence that his state wields with particular abandon. Savages.

[neekoy]

I am for capital punishment under conclusive proof and that would still be only for murder and serial rape and child molestation. it would all be by lethal injection.

Strange Jim that you say America is a barbaric place yet recent surveys have shown the UK having a majority for it.

Some people just don't deserve to walk the same streets that we do and they need severe punishment for the crimes they have committed against society.

[Paul]

Strange Jim that you say America is a barbaric place yet recent surveys have shown the UK having a majority for it.

Do we? BBC Sunday morning ran a phone / text poll on this yesterday. Not at all scientific obviously and came in with 63% for and 37% against. Responding to this, and I think this is a good argument, George Galloway (always good for a laugh!!) pointed out the petition on the Downing Street website has yet to reach 100,000 - the point at which it can force a debate in parliament.

I'm not always in agreement with GG but his view that if less than 100,000 can be bothered to sign up it hardly supports the view that the majority would support the return of the death penalty seems reasonable.

Surely this is one of those very emotive subjects were the sample and the question must be very carefully chosen to get an accurate picture?

[neekoy]

63% for and 37% against.....

George Galloway's response is misleading, you can take all topics that don't effect people directly and get similar results.

How many petitions have you signed because someone stuck it in front of your nose and you went, sounds good enough OK. There is a big difference though to signing a petition to womens rights in Iran by Amnesty and whether or not they are going to knock our neighbourhood centre down to make way for a shopping mall.

Whatever serious polling has ever been done has shown a majority for the death penalty. That may reduce as it has since the 70's but it is still the majority.

Honestly, if the UK said, right the Death Penalty is back in how many people would be clamouring to protest it and how many would be sitting at home going "whatever", don't mistake laziness to sign up to a poll for people's ethical beliefs.

About the same that believe in Free Trade, Animal Welfare and those that believe Free Trade kills Animals.

[jim mk2]

Honestly, if the UK said, right the Death Penalty is back in how many people would be clamouring to protest it and how many would be sitting at home going "whatever",.

I would protest by emigrating (even to Australia) . There is no way I would continue to live in Great Britain if the death penalty were brought back.

In response to your previous post, locking a man in a cell for life is "severe" punishment. State execution might have been acceptable in medieval times but in 2011 there can be no justification.

[True Blue & White]

###### happens. Without definite scientific evidence he should still be alive and in prison. The death penalty is justified when the evidence is incontroversial.

I am for capital punishment under conclusive proof.

No evidence is ever incontroversial or 100% conclusive.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

I would hate to live in a country which can legally kill people, regardless of what crimes they may have committed. If we can kill prisoners then that makes us as bad as them surely?? Justice doesn't equal revenge. Its a moral question. The state shouldn't kill people.

[neekoy]

This is where I think the moral opinions differ....

I think it is a punishment, capital punishment, dealth penalty, whatever you want to call it it is a damage against an severe criminal act against a "civilised" society.

Justice does not equal revenge, but it is not revenge.

If a child misbehaves you deal with the infringement with a penalty you deem merits the act of disobedience. If someone steals from society then we have penalties in place for those who wish to act outside of what we deem as suitable behaviour in a "civilised" society.

The fact that you stop someone from living as punishment seems to be where our moral compass points differently. If someone makes a choice to act in a way that is so extremely detrimental to another individual or "civilised" society then that person does not have right and I no obligation to provide any support for assistance to them continuing to live or participate in a "civilised" society.

Locking them away is a drain on tax dollars where it could be spent assisting those who actually want to participate positively in society.

And while DNA is not exact, a 99.99% probability with supported evidence of intent, motive and location is good enough for me.

[jim mk2]

Locking them away is a drain on tax dollars where it could be spent assisting those who actually want to participate positively in society.

Typical right-wing response. Fortunately this country is more liberal and civilised. You should go and live in the US.

[neekoy]

Typical right-wing response. Fortunately this country is more liberal and civilised. You should go and live in the US.

Whoah, that is the first time I have ever been called right-wing! I have always seen myself more on the socialist side of the political spectrum, I believe I am actually reformist in my beliefs in regard to capital punishment.

What a new and novel idea to actually care more about those who make us good then those who perpetuate bad. And I think you are confusing civilised with permissive.

As I once heard somewhere by someone much smarter then me, "liberal freedom is dependent on moral self-restraint. Without it, freedom becomes licence - which itself is a threat to freedom, as it acknowledges no obligation to others."

Killers, Serial Rapists and Child Pedophiles do not acknowledge obligation to others and therefore do not deserve my or others obligation to them as members of a civilised society.

200 years ago you could have just sent them here but unfortunately that isn't a solution for you these days.

[True Blue & White]

And while DNA is not exact, a 99.99% probability with supported evidence of intent, motive and location is good enough for me.

DNA is said to be 99.9% accurate which sounds near perfect on the face of it. However, in London there are 9 million people alone so a DNA sample taken from a crime scene could belong to 9000 people. The US has a population of over 300 million which means an American shares the same DNA snapshot as 300,000 other Americans. This is what most people forget about DNA evidence, they think it is unique to each person (and therefore proves it was that person) when it's not.

Secondly DNA evidence only provides circumstantial evidence it can not prove an action was undertaken by that person itself, it may prove the murder victim was in my car, home etc but not that I killed her.

[Amo]

###### happens. Without definite scientific evidence he should still be alive and in prison. The death penalty is justified when the evidence is incontroversial.

I'm sure you'd feel that way if you were wrongly sentenced.

I'm firmly against capital punishment. The risk of sending innocent people to their deaths is unconscionable. At least prison sentences can be overturned when new evidence comes to light. How can you save the dead?

[True Blue & White]

I'm sure you'd feel that way if you were wrongly sentenced.

I'm firmly against capital punishment. The risk of sending innocent people to their deaths is unconscionable. At least prison sentences can be overturned when new evidence comes to light. How can you save the dead?

Exactly, we have no idea what new advancements in crime detection we may have in the future which could end up clearing people, even those convicted on strong DNA evidence. Back in the 50s, before forensic science even existed, people made the same arguments for the DP, about how it was fine as long as you were "sure" the person did it.

Since then we have discovered lots of new ways of investigating crime (DNA being one) and have managed to clear many people who were hanged prior to abolition pf the death penalty. Whop knows what new evidence or ways of proving crimes will come up inn the future?

[DE.]

Locking them away is a drain on tax dollars where it could be spent assisting those who actually want to participate positively in society.

Financial Costs

It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, as though life imprisonment were obviously more expensive than executions. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."(49)

A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs - including the time of judges, prosecutors,public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs -- are all borne by the taxpayer.

A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.(50)

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."(51) In 1988 and 1989 th e Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $ 11 million."(52) Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence.(53)

The only way to make the death penalty a "better buy" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant's (and society's) only protections against the grossest miscarriages of justice. The savings in dollar s would be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus, the conviction is overturned.(54)

From here: http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html very much worth a read.

[neekoy]

@ True Blue...

I don't think you read the rest of my post "supported evidence of intent, motive and location is good enough for me."

If you have 9000 people located at the spot of a murder and with motive to kill then I fully agree with you

@ DE4Life.....

This is only true if you take into account endless appeals, reduce the appeal process and you reduce the costs. As noted above

"And while DNA is not exact, a 99.99% probability with supported evidence of intent, motive and location is good enough for me."

Appeals for new evidence sure, but no endless appeal process.