The death penalty?

Yes, but there need to be changes to the death penalty. For one, I think they need a speed line for people like Olsen.

 

I do support the death penalty, but it should only be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.

On another note, I don't see how opponents can argue that it is more costly, compared to lifetime sentences for such crimes that has taxpayers paying for their indefinite incarceration.

 

I'm opposed to it. Only because they sometimes seem to hang the wrong person. That really, REALLY, sucks, IMO.

 

Sheesh. If they have overwhelming evidence, they should just get it over with. Why would death row take so long anyway? It doesn't take that long to hang/electrocute/shoot/behead/poison someone so I can't imagine the queue being too long.

 

Killing people is wrong on so many levels. I would not want to be a part of a society that killed its citizens no matter how horrible their crimes. Society must have higher standards than its individual parts and should not deal in vengeance.

How would you want to speed up the process of killing someone? You are not afraid that the risk of killing the wrong guy would be even greater?

 

In cases where the evidence is so clear cut that a trial is almost not even warranted are the only situations that I feel the death penalty should even be considered. If those conditions are met, I agree there should be a "fast lane".

As to deterence, I don't really care if it deters anyone. I'm all about vengeance

As to cost, this is another example of "fuzzy" math. I've always thought there should be a law that before someone can mention a "cost" it should be audited by a CPA and what is in the "cost" should be identified.

 

While I don't disagree with that in theory, I also have a problem with it. If the evidence is enough to convict someone in the first place, then why isn't it enough to impose the death penalty? And where do you draw the line on what is and isn't "clear-cut" evidence?

Is business down for you, Snook?

 

I am against the death penalty with all my heart. I don't agree with the "eye for an eye" reasoning. You can't fight violence with violence. The idea of a prison is to remove a harmful individual from society to protect the other individuals. I believe in rehabilitation. I don't believe anyone can be naturally evil. Some people have lived really f***** up stuff that can damage anyone. I think we should help people instead to getting rid of them permenantly. Does that mean that rehabilitation prison is magical place where the wicked become good again? No. But most can become safe, productive members of society is you press on the right buttons. For others with whom you can't help or don't want help, well, let them stay appart from society where they can do no harm until they can be help. If that doesn't happen, well at least he won't be able to hurt anyone lese (outside of prison guards and other inmates).

Like Chandos, I think the risks of killing an innocent person is too great. Take the Troy Davis case for example. In 1989, Troy Davis was arrested for the killing of off-duty cop Mark MacPhail in a Burger King parking lot late at night. 9 witnesses testified against him. He was found guilty by a jury and setenced to death. Seems clear cut?

Well the murder weapon was never found, no DNA evidence ever linked Davis to the murder. Yeah, ok, but still, 9 people saw him, right? Well, in the years following, several witnesses changed (under oaths) their testemonies, saying they were forced to accuse Davis (some say by the police). Others even swore under oaths that Sylvester Coles, the first eye witness to point the finger at Davis, had bragged a few years later that he had actually killed the cop and Davis took the fall.

Davis' lawyers exhausted every single avenue of the state justice department to reopen the case, given the situation. They were denied *evey single time*. The case had attracted international attention. Many people urged Georgia to do something, including Susan Sarandon, the french government, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Pope, former president Jimmy Carter, William Sessions a former F.B.I. director, in addition to 51 members of Congress. Tuesday, Georgia's board of pardons denied clemency for Troy Davis. He was executed last night at 11 pm.

Was he innocent? I don't know. But it's clear he deserved a new trial. Even three of the jurors who convicted him said they were no longer sure he was guilty.

Oh yeah, I forgot to say. Troy Davis was black...

 

I think the biggest issue with Davis was the murder weapon was tied to a previous crime committed by Davis. He wasn't a nice guy and had a history of violence -- I don't know whether or not he was guilty but every appeal was denied and every judge (and politician) involved upheld the verdict.

 

This is one of those no-good-answer things, imo. People who commit horrible crimes definitely deserve to die. But being killed for a crime you didn't commit has to be one of the worst things that could possibly happen to you. No matter how hard I try, I can't reconcile those two things satisfactorily.

 

My sentiments exactly. There were so many holes and inconsistency's that this alone should warrant a new trial.

But he's gone now...and all that remains is bitter...

 

We don't live in a perfect world, that is for sure.

But to pay money to keep someone in prison for 50 years is absolutely the stupidiest thing we can do as a society when there are others in dire need of the monetary support that lose their lives or are affected in very adverse ways because of it's lacking.

 

First off, unless I'm mistaken, the murder weapon was never found. The only thing they had to go on was the bullets and shell casings that belonged to a .38-caliber pistol. Prior to this, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing Troy Davis was arrested for was carrying a concealed weapon (which he plead guilty for), but I don't know if it was a .38-caliber pistol. But stiil with no murder weapon found, how can they link anything to anything?

By the way, remember the first eye witness to point the finger at Davis, Sylvester Coles? Remember other witnesses said under oath, a few years later, they heard Coles admit he killed the cop? Well in the original trial, Coles admitted he also owned a .38 caliber pistol... See what I mean? To me, it's ludicrous he didn't get an appeal or a new trial. Or at the very least a life sentence instead of an execution.

As for Davis not being nice, well, for what it's worth : "Some neighbors (...) described him as a "straight up fellow" who acted as a big brother to local children.", "His boss reported that Davis was a likable and good worker who appeared to have positive life goals." -- off the wikipedia page.

 

Lets look at the wiki stuff since you want to quote from it:

With seven blacks on the jury I doubt race was an issue. It also only took them two hours to convict. And this was even without the forensics evidence found at Davis' house after the judge ruled the evidence was obtained through coersion.

Seven recanted -- that means 27 did not (assuming only prosecution witnesses recanted). That doesn't seem to be good reason for a new trial.

Sorry, I'm not convinced the jury was wrong.

An interesting thing happened to a friend of mine a few months ago. He took his kids to Chuck-E-Cheeses for a birthday party and at the same time was another birthday party. The kids at the other birthday party were all the children of a local gang that distributes drugs in the city -- a big time ultra-violent group that guards their turf quite vigorously. Yet at their kid's party they were -- surprise! -- decent parents who wanted their kids to have fun, played video games with the kids, and watched the stupid mechanical play while engaging their kids. I guess they're just misunderstood and the police are wrong, after all if you're good to kids you can't possibly be a bad guy.

 

Im all for the death penalty, keeping prisoners is a burden on the society theyve abused, if the evidence is such that they warrant the death penalty, they should be taken out back and shot.

 

Yes, bloody shorts were found at his house. That's circumstancial evidence even if it was admitted. Let's say you're standing next to me and you get shot. You fall into my arms and bleed over my clothes. It doesn't mean I killed you. It just means I was there, which Davis was.

Yeah, 7 on 27 (my bad, I thought it was 9, sorry). But still, that one or two witnesses change their stories is one thing. 7 witnesses, that's another. When you include that some witnesses argued that police coersion was the reason behind their false testimony in the first place, it begs to ask "Might there be more?"

Then, given sworn oaths that one of the witnesses, Sylvester Coles, boasted he had killed the cop, you say it still doesn't warrant a second trial?

I have no clue if he was innocent or not, but what ever happened to "a reasonable doubt"? Not having physical evidence in the first place is enough to me to instill "the reasonable doubt".

So what? Because your friend saw some criminals acting decent means Davis was just acting in front of people who knew him? That very well may be. But it might also not be true. I don't see what your point. In any case, I posted testimonies of people who knew him while you just said he "wasn't a nice guy"...

 

testimonies are bollocks, I knew one of the miners who recently died in a south wales mining disaster, the papers had testimonies that he was a wonderful caring man who doted on his son.... he was an abusive drunk wife beater who never had anything to do with his autistic son.