|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
I know that you are directed by the highest possible motives, jugglestruck, but the compromise you propose would be manifestly unjust. According to the basic set-up that you appear to accept: Either he is guilty or he is innocent. If he is guilty, capital punishment is warranted. If he is innocent, he deserves to go free. Imprisoning him, likely for his natural life, because you aren't sure one way or the other just doesn't seem right. Does it? In any event, a duly seated jury of his peers determined after trial that he was in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Twenty years of appeals didn't change that finding.
|
|||||||||
jugglestruck Inner circle Wales 1038 Posts |
I really don't see it as manifestly unjust, I see it as merciful common sense.
It is a no win situation because of the doubt surrounding his case. |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
"First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.
Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone." Is this true or not? |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Your mileage may vary, but I am grateful that our courts & juries do not have the option of returning a verdict of "not sure" and (in criminal cases) sentencing the liminally neither-guilty-nor-innocent defendant to 1/2 of the usual sentence or (in civil cases) awarding the plaintiff 1/2 of what they are seeking. A man sentenced to life in prison because the jury couldn't decide if he was guilty or not might well agree with the proverb that "the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."
|
|||||||||
jugglestruck Inner circle Wales 1038 Posts |
I did say in my previous post that this was not a legal argument and it was certainly not a blanket statement regarding law in general.
I was voicing my opinion on one particular case. As I said before, life is not that straightforward. |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 15:24, Marlin1894 wrote: According to rules of Boolean logic, it is untrue. More precisely, some of it is true but it also contains some falsehoods. E.g., one of those Air Force members did take back some of what he said. (That is, he later said that some of his testimony was incorrect.) FWIW, she also neglects to say why those 9 (of the 34) witnesses stand out and tend to get special mention.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Thanks, jugglestruck. I would tend to agree that life is never straightforward, so that we have to apply straightforward principles based on an unerring compass in a practical way that encompasses all of the twists and turns we encounter. However, with respect to this case, and this charge, either the defendant was guilty of murder or not. If he was guilty of the murder as described, capital punishment would be a decorous outcome. If he was innocent, then on this charge, he deserved to go free. He does not deserve to be imprisoned for life because we can't be sure. If we aren't sure of his culpability beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be found "not guilty." I might add that in Scottish courts, a jury is allowed to return a verdict of "not proven" -- which however has the same practical effect as a "not guilty" verdict, except insofar as the defendant's reputation might be concerned.
|
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 16:25, balducci wrote: Was the Airman "who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter" the one who said that some of his testimony was incorrect? Why do those 9 get special mention? You havve to admit, a lot of the stories sure make it sound like there were only nine witnesses that testified against Davis. |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
Didn't Lawrence Russell Brewer, who was also exceuted last night, claim that he was innocent of murder as well? His seems to be one of those cases that even ardent anti-death penalty people don't have a lot of problem with.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 14:47, balducci wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if she did misrepresent facts of the case. It also didn't surprise me that supporters of Davis did.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 15:24, Marlin1894 wrote: You'd think you wouldn't forget such, but then again, you would think you wouldn't forget he face of the man standing over you and raping you, and yet . . .
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 11:23, LobowolfXXX wrote: Not sure what you are referring to with regards to me ducking an answer. Well, your claim that "a crime against you was a crime against society at large" is an assertion, the more pertinent issue, IMHO, is the issue of bad actions having consequences, and, as I said, there are plenty without locking them up. Quote:
On 2011-09-22 11:40, balducci wrote: The aspect I was referring to being impossible was the idea that we could know that such a person was not a threat to anyone else. As I mentioned before, a person who is willing to kill their father for money is probably quite likely to be a threat to others. Such a person clearly is willing to do bad things for their own benefit. The idea that "The killer is no more likely than anyone else to commit any future crimes," or rather that we could possibly know this is what is impossible. As for it only being the law being the ONLY thing that prevents someone from receiving insurance claims on someone they killed, do you think insurance companies would be eager to hand over money in such situations without such a law? Seriously? To summarize, if there were such a situation wherein the sole benefactor, and only relative, kills their father, then, where it known that they killed him (no use discussing scenarios where they simply get away with it unknown, as they would be pretty much the same under any current system), then any insurance company would be fairly stupid to not have this be one of the scenarios they do not honour the claim. Also, whoever the father set up his will with, and arranged to oversee the transfer of his estate would probably have had a clause, or the father himself, were he to have any wits about him, that establishes that should his benefactor kill him, he is cut off if you will. Unless he really wishes to have his belongings go to his murderer, in which case, hey, why not respect the mans wishes
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 15:24, Marlin1894 wrote: Apparently so. That would be Steve Sanders who, AFAIK, hasn't recanted.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 17:26, gdw wrote: Sorry, should clarify, before Tom jumps on me. One might not "forget" said face(s) but remembering them properly, or properly identifying the actual person, that is another matter.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 17:39, gdw wrote: The question/s was/were, what, if any, should be the consequences to the killer, in my admittedly contrived hypothetical scenario; and If there ARE consequences, what's the justification for them, in your worldview, when the killer neither poses a threat to anyone else, nor owes restitution to anyone? In short, should the guy get a pass? And, of course, I'm talking about official, sanctioned consequences that would in some way impede on his autonomy, not individual decisions to shun someone who would do such a horrible thing.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 17:39, LobowolfXXX wrote: The second sentence is true, but the first is not. That is to say, one of these three Armed Forces members did later say that part of his testimony was incorrect. Cut and pasted from elsewhere: "Of the two witnesses who have not contradicted their trial testimony, one (Steven Sanders) could only identify Troy Davis at trial, two years after he told police that he “wouldn’t know the shooter again if I saw him.” The other is Sylvester Coles, whose recantation would implicate himself."
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Yeah, I misread that as "one of the three..."
Also cut and pasted from elsewhere: "Another eyewitness, Harriet Murray, was sitting in the parking lot, and was a friend of Larry Young, the homeless man who was struck by Officer MacPhail’s shooter. At trial, Murray testified that she had identified Davis from the pictures the police had shown her as the man who “hit Larry and shot the police,” and that 31 when she saw Davis’s picture she was “real shaked up.” Notably, she also identified Davis as the shooter in a courtroom identification. But even if we were to consider Murray’s 2002 unsworn affidavit, in it she does not back off of her courtroom identification of Davis as being the shooter. It simply adds an inconsistency concerning whether the shooter verbally threatened Larry Young before striking him." (emphasis added)
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 16:34, Marlin1894 wrote: In response to your first question, no, but the Airman you are talking about DID originally tell police that he “wouldn’t know the shooter again if I saw him.” (See my post above.) In response to your second question, because it seems that only 9 of the 34 witnesses were (using the popular phrase) "non-police".
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-09-22 18:40, LobowolfXXX wrote: From an NAACP site: "Of the eyewitnesses to the murder, only Coles and Darrell Collins (who tried to recant before and after trial) knew Davis. It is critical to note how most of the eyewitnesses first identified Davis as the shooter. Within a week of the murder, they were gathered together by the police for a reenactment of the crime at the crime scene. By then, witnesses would have likely been exposed to Davis’ image, which was all over the local news and he was in jail as the prime suspect. In a photographic spread of five men, Davis was the only one pictured who had been at the crime scene close to the time of the shooting. Not only was Coles not pictured, but he was treated as the principle witness, invited to the reenactment, and treated as an innocent bystander standing alongside the other witnesses." "Harriet Murray (died in 2006) signed an affidavit in 2002 reaffirming her initial statements that the shooter was the same person who argued and followed Young. She could not initially “put a face” on anyone in the lot and identified Davis only after the problematic crime reenactment." Anyway, obviously I don't know the truth of the matter. But it does sound as though there were a number of good reasons to doubt whether Davis' conviction (let alone execution) were warranted. And I'm not really interested in debating it here, especially when so many people (not including yourself here) don't even know the basic background of the case. I did think this article was interesting though ... Savannahians divided on Davis case, but seek closure Ultimately, I think it was a local matter ... and many of the locals pretty much just wanted it all to be over. But I have a question for you. Could the President have overturned the execution had he wanted to? Could anyone else, besides the Governor?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
The President of the United States would not I think have had any authority to act in this case. As the ever authoritative Wikipedia explains:
Quote:
In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties. The case we have been discussing was tried under a State's law. Note that appeals to the Federal courts are made in order to remand the case for re-hearing by the State Courts. The ultimate decision still rests with the State. Back in the good old days, the capital decisions of Judge Isaac Parker (a famous Federal district judge) could only be appealed to the President. Quote:
One unusual element of the Western District's jurisprudence was the fact that, with respect to the Indian Territory, during this period it was a court of final jurisdiction. From 1875 until 1889, statutory law did not provide for appeals of Indian Territory cases from this court to any court of appeal. Judge Parker died of illnesses exacerbated by overwork shortly after Congress changed things to subject his decisions to review by the Supreme Court of the United States. According to the ever authoritative Wikipedia: Quote:
In 21 years on the bench, Judge Parker tried 13,490 cases, 344 of which were capital crimes. Guilty pleas or convictions were handed down in 9,454 cases. Of the 160 sentenced to death by hanging (156 men and 4 women), 79 were actually hanged. The rest died in jail, appealed, or were pardoned. However, he did get off to a pretty good start: Quote:
In the first term of court, eighteen persons came before Judge Parker charged with murder and 15 were convicted. Eight of these men qualified for a mandatory death sentence according to federal law. On September 3, 1875, six men were executed at once on the Fort Smith gallows; an indication that the once corrupt court was functioning once again. One of those sentenced to death was killed trying to escape, and another was commuted to life in prison because of his youth. The notion that actually carrying out capital sentences served to rehabilitate the Western District Court in the eyes of the public is of some interest. In a posting earlier today, Mark Krikorian identifies the establishm...... of law: Quote:
The real social contract — not the theoretical one of Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau but the thousands of actual decisions in distant antiquity by various tribes and clans to submit to political authority — was driven by the need to establish rule-based justice to avoid perpetual vendettas and blood feuds. Where the state still is or recently was weak, you get a sense for what the pre-political, pre-state world was like — parts of Appalachia in the past, Corsica, Sicily, parts of Albania, Mount Lebanon, Afghanistan — with private justice resulting in endless rounds of revenge killings and disorder. So people surrendered their natural right to avenge the murder of their kinsman in exchange for a promise by the political authority to avenge the murder for them, but in a rule-based, orderly way. In general, I think that genetic arguments are fallible, and the putative origins of things don't necessarily shed essential light on their essence. However, if my memory of Greek tragedy isn't completely incorrect, the problems caused by the murders committed by the House of Atreus, and how the resolution of those problems passed from the Erinyes to the law courts, comprises one of the underlying themes of many of the dramas. Indeed, Greek theatre seems to have originated (here I go with the genetic fallacy again, but it is interesting) as a sort of law court, with the arias of the major characters representing their speeches to the enormous juries that served in Athens. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The percentage of Canadians who believe in the death penalty is... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |