Political & Elections

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

RE: Should Troy Davis Die?

Razorsharp · Guru

romanigypsyeyes wrote:
Razor, I read in some article that a staunch conservative Republican politician, can't remember who but I'll look later, said that anyone who supports the death penalty should be most vocal against his execution as it may put further negativity on the death penalty. I thought that was an interesting take on it. He pleaded for Davis' life.

I agree with that view. Putting an innocent man to death truly undermines use of the death penalty for those who truly deserve it. I do not know if Davis was innocent, but if he was this was a true tragedy for him and harmful to the view that favors the death penalty.

soccerguy315 · Guru

<<There have been hundreds of innocent people put to death in this country over just the past thirty years who were later cleared by DNA evidence, or proof of grievous police/prosecution malfeasance. It is not alright to put such people to death. It's certainly not justice!>>

... obviously I agree that people who are not guilty should not be put to death. That said, I feel just as strongly that they should not be put in jail.

Obviously this guy's defense attorney won the public relations battle, but he didn't win anything in the court room, as judge after judge ruled the decision by the jury was fair and just.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Thursday 22nd of September 2011 09:06:25 PM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Razor, I read in some article that a staunch conservative Republican politician, can't remember who but I'll look later, said that anyone who supports the death penalty should be most vocal against his execution as it may put further negativity on the death penalty. I thought that was an interesting take on it. He pleaded for Davis' life.

Razorsharp · Guru

Troy Davis has been executed. I am a big fan of the death penalty, but this one bugs me.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

There have been hundreds of innocent people put to death in this country over just the past thirty years who were later cleared by DNA evidence, or proof of grievous police/prosecution malfeasance. It is not alright to put such people to death. It's certainly not justice!

soccerguy315 · Guru

"^ No, but they may be freed if the evidence comes to light that they are innocent and can be released. Think of all the people that were freed once DNA proved their innocence.

You can't resurrect someone when you kill an innocent person. "

sure... but that doesn't fix the problem. "Well, you were innocent, so we're sorry for those 20 years you spent in jail" does not sit well with me.

I don't think the punishments should be lessened or hedged because "well, we might be wrong"

soccerguy315 · Guru

I don't think it's fair to say the government did it... it was a jury of his peers. Just everyday Americans.

Cartera · Guru

I have to say that there are some cases that tax my resolve agaisnt the death penalty and that is one of them. The guy was a murderer/terrorist. His son is a bigger person than I. I'd probably be willing to kill the guy myself if he did that to a family member. I just don't think the government should do it.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I wish I could say I was sorry that the state executed him.

I am glad that the son could forgive his dad's murderer.

Closure comes for families in different ways.

Cartera · Guru

Ross Byrd, the son of James Byrd, who was dragged to death behind a pickup truck in Texas, asked for mercy for his father's murderer. He asked that the state show the mercy that wasn't shown to his father. That is what we should be about.

Lawrence Brewer was executed for James Byrd's death at 7:21pm.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It would absolutely make more sense from a cost standpoint to keep the most heinous murderers incarcerated for life.

However, it's pretty hard to rehabilitate a child rapist/murderer. Which prison do they get housed at? Are they in single cells? Do they get housed with other inmates who have perpetrated less violent crimes - and does that put those who CAN be rehabilitated at risk for either further crime or danger to the other inmates? Can those that unintentionally killed someone be kept separated from those that intentionally took a life? I am pretty sure that we don't do this, which makes prisons a very bad, bad place.

Should we house all the murderers with the murderers? The rapists with the rapists? The petty thieves with the petty thieves?

From a security standpoint, housing the most violent offenders together probably makes the most sense - of course, then you are risking the lives of those who are feeding and guarding the inmates, too.

Then - what do you do when they have been in jail for 40 years and their health has declined? Because...it will. Don't start talking about humanitarian release. Will those offenders just be sad old men and women with bad tickers who aren't a danger to themselves or others, at that point? Have they learned the errors of their ways?

Think...Lockerbie bomber, released to go home to die from Prostate Cancer TWO years ago. He killed, willfully 270 people and gets to die in the peace of his family and friends.

I can't imagine someone doing this crime would have family and friends, by the way.

I do believe that LIFE should mean life in jail, if that is the sentence. I am not a fan of people like Manson living for 40 years in prison, when his original punishment was death. (Thanks, Rose Bird!)

I also don't think that prisoners who are on death row or have life in prison should have the right to things like a jailhouse wedding or conjugal visits. Or cable. I would say books and internet are okay, but not porn.

This is why I don't run prisons, because I think the most heinous among us should suffer a little bit everyday for being thugs who have ruined people's lives.

Cartera · Guru

My position against the death penalty goes further than the "one innocent" idea, although that is a persuasive argument for me. Of course, no one wants to see an innocent person in jail, but as long as they are in jail, there is the opportunity to at least try to correct the injustice. I do not believe you can argue that the death penalty affords that opportunity. It does not make sense economically either. Time and time again, data shows that it is more expensive to go through death case trial than to put someone in for life.

On a more philosophical level, I do not believe the state should sanction and participate in the killing of a person, under any circumstances. I believe it degrades us as a nation.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

^ No, but they may be freed if the evidence comes to light that they are innocent and can be released. Think of all the people that were freed once DNA proved their innocence.

You can't resurrect someone when you kill an innocent person.

soccerguy315 · Guru

I fully support the death penalty. I do not agree with the arguments that "one innocent person is too many"... IMO that means your issue is with the system that found one innocent person guilty, rather than the punishment that was chosen. That argument makes it sound like it doesn't matter if you put someone in jail for life if they are innocent, but if you execute them it is terrible.

That said, I don't know enough about the case to comment on whether it is warranted here.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Even if he stood up and swore he did it, I don't think he should die because I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. So it's pretty clear cut for me.

Me too. But I truly believe that "life without the possiblity of parole" should be exactly what it says.

Cartera · Guru

Even if he stood up and swore he did it, I don't think he should die because I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. So it's pretty clear cut for me.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I don't know why they would, but I do believe that if there is EVER a shred of doubt, you cannot put someone to death. Obviously, there is more than a shred in this case.

This is why I can't support the death penalty. Putting even one innocent person to death is one person too many. I either hope his execution is stayed or he really did do it. If not, a lot of people have innocent blood on their hands :/.

Razorsharp · Guru

One of the most hotly contested death row cases in recent years looks set to go ahead with the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia on Wednesday.

Davis lost his final bid for clemency despite overwhelming evidence indicating that his conviction for murder is unreliable.

He will be put on a gurney at the state prison in Jackson and administered a ****tail of lethal drugs at 7pm local time on Wednesday, barring a last-minute intervention by the US supreme court which few observers expect to take place.

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which alone has power within the state to commute Davis's death sentence, denied to grant him clemency having heard three hours of testimony on Monday casting deep doubts on his conviction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/20/troy-davis-execution-pardon-denied

If the Guardian is to believed, it looks like an innocent man will die in GA. If true, why would GA do this?