Dear Troy Davis:

Some of the jury members now think they made a bad decision.

Out of curiousity: Do you think they woke up one day 5? 10? 20 years later, and said "Huh, you know, that guy that I said I was sure I saw commit this crime...I'm not so sure anymore...." and contacted the media? I don't mean for that to be a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer.

Or do you think the more likely scenario, is that an activist group (claiming to be a 'civil rights organization') pushed them, coerced them, made them feel horrible that this poor, poor guy was going to be killed. "It's not going to bring Mr. MacPhail back, after all. Let's do the 'right' thing and recant your testimony."

I believe the latter makes more sense logically.

I wonder how quickly these folks' stories would go back to the original version if they were threatened with purgery?

DoctorBlade wrote: Lawrence Brewer, anyone? One of three convicted of the dragging death of John Byrd in Texas years ago. I read places where people are upset over Davis' execution, but rejoicing in Brewers.

I don't know enough about either case to truly have an opinion. I also don't rejoice in the killing of anyone. But if the brewer case (again, I dont know anything about it) is open and shut, he's guilty, then yes, I can agree that justice was served in his case.

Joey

poopshovel wrote: But I do absolutely, whole-heartedly believe this guy killed the father of a 2-year-old, and I'm glad the penalty was death. If it was my family, that's what I'd want.

With all due respect, nobody cares what you believe, since you were not on the jury. Your opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

poopshovel wrote: PS: It was probably pretty E36 M3ty of me to start the thread to begin with. I know it comes off as needlessly incediary, and honestly, I'm totally aware of the fact that I'm just kind of a dick. I'm no longer able to scream at the TV, so I suppose I've been doing it more with the keyboard lately. Apologies.

We agree. I understand your frustration, but toxic and incendiary comments like this thread do not lead to a better less frustrating world. Apology accepted. I forgive you.

oldsaw wrote: Court records in the Davis case show that he shot McPhail once (in the chest) and went back to shoot him head, just to "make sure".

Are you actually reading court records?

ransom wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote: Guilty or not, I am of the opinion that the USA should suspend the death penalty until any and all reports of post trial exonerations are something people only hear about in history class.

This resonates with me. I can't get my head around the idea that it's more important to kill a guilty person than it is to not kill an innocent person. Especially when the alternative isn't "go free" but "remain incarcerated". As long as they are found guilty, they are imprisoned. If they are exonerated, they can be freed.

First off, the quest for perfection in our legal and criminal systems is completely foolish. If the standard is "...until any and all reports of post trial exonerations are something people only hear about in history class", then we are hog-tying ourselves and disabling our ability to implement anything, because perfection is unattainable.

But secondly, you are completely missing the point of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with killing a guilty person or not killing an innocent one. The death penalty exist to protect innocents who are completely unconnected with the crime and discourage additional crimes against society.

I guarantee if we had a system that implemented the death penalty in a consistent, thorough, balanced, and rapid manner it would be a deterrent to violent crime. In other words, if scumbags understood that they probably wouldn't have years of appeals and it was pretty likely they would die if convicted in a very brief period, it would act as a deterrent.

Theft isn't a really big problem in many Middle Eastern or African countries because most people know a guy with one hand missing.

poopshovel wrote:

Some of the jury members now think they made a bad decision.

Out of curiousity: Do you think they woke up one day 5? 10? 20 years later, and said "Huh, you know, that guy that I said I was sure I saw commit this crime...I'm not so sure anymore...." and contacted the media? I don't mean for that to be a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. Or do you think the more likely scenario, is that an activist group (claiming to be a 'civil rights organization') pushed them, coerced them, made them feel horrible that this poor, poor guy was going to be killed. "It's not going to bring Mr. MacPhail back, after all. Let's do the 'right' thing and recant your testimony." I believe the latter makes more sense logically. I wonder how quickly these folks' stories would go back to the original version if they were threatened with purgery?

I like your logical approach. It is very possible.

I think it is also very possible that the police totally botched the case and had no one to string up in retribution for their fallen comrade and pressured and coerced people into giving inaccurate testimonies in the first place against a guy who was kind of a scum anyway, which they later deeply regretted.

There is a deep culture within the police and criminal system that would find it completely unacceptable to fail to do away with a cop-killer, and would be OK with stringing up any old warm body just to pin the guilt on rather than accept the blame for their own failure to bring someone to justice.

Just a thought.

I believe this is also perfectly logical and plausible.

aircooled wrote: Just to keep Poopie spinning

Looks like the Georgia Board of Pardons hates people with glasses!!!!

DILYSI Dave wrote:

aircooled wrote: Just to keep Poopie spinning

Looks like the Georgia Board of Pardons hates people with glasses!!!!

Let's protest!!!

SVreX wrote:

ransom wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote: Guilty or not, I am of the opinion that the USA should suspend the death penalty until any and all reports of post trial exonerations are something people only hear about in history class.

This resonates with me. I can't get my head around the idea that it's more important to kill a guilty person than it is to not kill an innocent person. Especially when the alternative isn't "go free" but "remain incarcerated". As long as they are found guilty, they are imprisoned. If they are exonerated, they can be freed.

First off, the quest for perfection in our legal and criminal systems is completely foolish. If the standard is "...until any and all reports of post trial exonerations are something people only hear about in history class", then we are hog-tying ourselves and disabling our ability to implement anything, because perfection is unattainable. But secondly, you are completely missing the point of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with killing a guilty person or not killing an innocent one. The death penalty exist to protect innocents who are completely unconnected with the crime and discourage additional crimes against society. I guarantee if we had a system that implemented the death penalty in a consistent, thorough, balanced, and rapid manner it would be a deterrent to violent crime. In other words, if scumbags understood that they probably wouldn't have years of appeals and it was pretty likely they would die if convicted in a very brief period, it would act as a deterrent. Theft isn't a really big problem in many Middle Eastern or African countries because most people know a guy with one hand missing.

I'm not opposed to capital punishment, but to claim certainty in regards to it's effectiveness as a deterrent is a little foolhardy. I completely understand the train of thought that claim comes from, but people routinely defy logic, and this seems to be one of those cases. Studies both attempting to prove or disprove it's role in deterring crime have been inconclusive.

I wasn't basing it on studies. I was basing it on my opinion only, and life experience which include living in several countries with stronger swifter enforcement procedures. What I saw works better than what we've got.

But you are right, I am not claiming certainty. It was more of a "personal guarantee" based only on my opinion.

I will with certainty proclaim that what we have doesn't work, and that the idea of a system that is completely dysfunctional because of the fear of making a mistake is absurd.

In '95 I applied for and was accepted into the civilian execution witness pool in the state. The official notification to appear at the state corrections facility as an execution witness came in the spring of '98 and I confirmed by return letter to witness the execution scheduled two weeks later. There was that creepy feeling at first but I was determined to be in. A week later I received notification of a stay of execution, I was now off the top of the list as a witness and my name would be put back in rotation for future executions.

I had no details of the inmate's crime or trial at the time, nor did I feel the need to know as I was convinced the jury had their say, it was OK w/ me. Much later I found through research he was a drug dealer convicted of the execution style killing of two people in their sleep over suspected theft of his drugs. Two witnesses for the prosecution were murdered just prior to their testimony in his trial. It was believed the murders were directly related to the case. I never followed up w/ info after that but still hoped he finally got his day.

When the state required re-application for all witnesses w/ background checks, 3 pages of forms, references, blah, blah, I let it go and didn't re-up. Should I ever reapply, I'd now want to know that all evidence and the conviction is ironclad before I commit to witness... if that is even possible

In reply to SVreX:

You're right; it would be foolish to demand perfection.

Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to me to execute people. Wrongful convictions suck extra when the exonerated party is already dead.

To call a system "completely dysfunctional" because it doesn't do executions is beyond my comprehension.

Apologies for wandering into this thread. It was a horrible mistake, in every sense.

ransom wrote: In reply to SVreX: You're right; it would be foolish to demand perfection. Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to me to execute people. Wrongful convictions suck extra when the exonerated party is already dead. To call a system "completely dysfunctional" because it doesn't do executions is beyond my comprehension. Apologies for wandering into this thread. It was a horrible mistake, in every sense.

I didnt say that.

It is completely dysfunctional to rule out a method because we are afraid of making a mistake.

Of course, the system we have is also completely dysfunctional.

SVreX wrote: I didnt say that. It is completely dysfunctional to rule out a method because we are afraid of making a mistake. Of course, the system we have is also completely dysfunctional.

Our system would piss me off sometimes with all the crap that goes on, but after watching shows like "Locked Up Abroad" and similar, it is better than most out there. It is scary what people in other countries had to deal with in their "justice" systems. Ours may not be perfect, but it could be a lot worse.

With Troy Davis, with all the times this case has been reviewed by other judges/supreme courts, if the police had screwed up, wouldn't it have come out? I don't see them being able to cover it up for this long. I'm sure there is more to the case than we know or have heard/seen.

SVreX wrote:

ransom wrote: In reply to SVreX: To call a system "completely dysfunctional" because it doesn't do executions is beyond my comprehension.

I didnt say that. It is completely dysfunctional to rule out a method because we are afraid of making a mistake.

I am earnestly and honestly confused.

SVreX wrote: I will with certainty proclaim that what we have doesn't work, and that the idea of a system that is completely dysfunctional because of the fear of making a mistake is absurd.

The way I read that, it sounded like you were proclaiming a system dysfunctional because it wouldn't do executions for fear of executing the wrong person.

I'm not willing to file killing innocent people under "you've gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette", so I would prefer an end to executions. I'm not at all convinced that this no-death-penalty system is dysfunctional.

The only way I can find to make your statements consistent is to take it to mean that not doing executions is not in and of itself dysfunctional, but to rule out executions for the sole purpose of avoiding killing innocent people is dysfunctional.

Honestly, that makes so little sense to me that I have to assume I'm misreading what you're saying. Can you set it straight?

100% certainty is unattainable.

ransom wrote: I can't get my head around the idea that it's more important to kill a guilty person than it is to not kill an innocent person.

Would you apply the same standard to military operations, or pro-life concerns? A lot of innocents die. It's nothing to celebrate, but it does happen.

You are asking for a perfect legal system. Not gonna happen. I am asking for a just legal system, and improvements to the terrible manner in which we currently implement our criminal justice system. But perfection is not possible.

The same day Troy Davis was executed Texas executed Lawrence Brewer. He's the racist b'strd who in 1998 tied James Byrd, an innocent black man, to the bumper of a truck and dragged him to his death. He covered his body with KKK symbols and boasted of his involvement in the murder. He said before his death, "I'd do it all again".

A penalty of death is the only appropriate societal response to cold-blooded or mass murder. The standard should be "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it should be utilized in only the most egregious and indisputable cases. Any one who sits on a jury of such a case should approach it with significant fear and trembling.

Would you rather protect people like Lawrence Brewer, or James Byrd?

Your suggestion is that the death penalty should not exist because we are unable to be perfect. That would be exactly what Lawrence Brewer (and scum like him) would want. I can't endorse the protection of such a waste product.

I understand the consequences of my stand are that (shamefully) mistakes will be made. I am prepared to accept that terrible responsibility in pursuit of a more just system and protection for men like James Byrd.