Troy Davis

[Marked 197]

I'm not american but this case kinda intrigued me today and got a bit of publicity in NZ.

 

Here's an extract of an article i read:

Troy Davis, the condemned inmate who convinced hundreds of thousands of people but not the justice system of his innocence, has been put to death after losing an eleventh-hour for a stay of execution.

 

Strapped to a table and moments from the start of the 15-minute-long execution, Davis maintained his innocence and told the family of the man he was found guilty of killing that he did not have a gun on the night in question.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/5665974/Troy-Davis-executed-after-appeal-fails

 

This is what I found the most disturbing

Though Davis' attorneys say seven of nine key witnesses against him have disputed all or parts of their testimony, state and federal judges have repeatedly ruled against granting him a new trial. As the court losses piled up Wednesday, his offer to take a polygraph test was rejected and the pardons board refused to give him one more hearing.

I almost get the feeling that the state found it was cheaper to execute this guy than send him back through the court system.

 

Hopefully you guys heard about this.

Was Troy Davis innocent?

Should he have had the chance of a retrial, or at least allowed to take the polograph test?

Is the Death penalty morally acceptable and just? (think about this in the context of the possibility (ie doubt) of this guy being innocent)

[Bigace360 38]

Hopefully you guys heard about this.

 

Saw it on MSN a second before you posted lol.

 

1. Was Troy Davis innocent?
   
2. Should he have had the chance of a retrial, or at least allowed to take the polograph test?
   
3. Is the Death penalty morally acceptable and just? (think about this in the context of the possibility (ie doubt) of this guy being innocent)
   

 

1. I wouldn't even be born for another year so I couldn't be there see if he did the crime or not
   
2. yes
   
3. Sometimes yes, for this stiuation I don't think so.
   

Okay yes he murdered, but don't you just get like 25 to life or is it different for a police officer. Also if there was no gun or evidence leading to him shooting the officer, how did he do it with and invisible gun. Also it should take 20 years to find the real crimial, the family just seemed like the needed someone to blame and he was the closet to the seen as so he should get what the police officer got even if he didn't do it or not. I bet you if he had killed another brother on the street he would of served a 10 -25 yr sentence. But since he's in the south and he killed a white cop, and they couldn't find the real murderer(if didn't actually do it?) they just blamed him and gave him an unnecessary death. But like I said I wasn't there in 89', so I don't really know the whole story.

Edited September 22, 2011 by bigace

[Marked 197]

Yeah supposedly the cops had threatened witnesses. The witnesses (though we don't know their circumstances) and those cops are responsible for a life. Those cops are scum, and this is a really bad look for Georgia.

 

Personally I am for the death penalty, though we don't have it here. I'm currently studying homicide at university, and I think that, when intention can be proven far beyond a reasonable doubt (I stricter test than standard reasonable doubt), then an eye for an eye is fair. I think that it should exist but almost never ever be used, only the rarest case where the evidence is irrefutable and perhaps even the requirement of a confession (although who would confess if they know it would cause them death).

 

Murders here get life, but they get parole after 10 years. That is so unjust. I life is worth of 10 years. The system relies on a conviction meaning the person is culpable of taking that life, therefore they should all be locked up for a long long time.

[Bigace360 38]

Yeah supposedly the cops had threatened witnesses. The witnesses (though we don't know their circumstances) and those cops are responsible for a life. Those cops are scum, and this is a really bad look for Georgia.

 

Personally I am for the death penalty, though we don't have it here. I'm currently studying homicide at university, and I think that, when intention can be proven far beyond a reasonable doubt (I stricter test than standard reasonable doubt), then an eye for an eye is fair. I think that it should exist but almost never ever be used, only the rarest case where the evidence is irrefutable and perhaps even the requirement of a confession (although who would confess if they know it would cause them death).

 

Murders here get life, but they get parole after 10 years. That is so unjust. I life is worth of 10 years. The system relies on a conviction meaning the person is culpable of taking that life, therefore they should all be locked up for a long long time.

 

Wait was the cop threatening on the site you posted because they didn't put that on MSN, but then again thats probably normal around here in the U.S. where they threaten there people to keep quite of certen situations a make up lies.

 

Isn't the parole thing normal in most places, and the judge can sometimes say (depending on the crime) give no parole as well.

[Marked 197]

Actually on the news it said witnesses were threatened, and the fact they recanted their statements.

 

Parole thing? Yes most judicial systems have a parole system, but my point is that 10 years is not long enough for murder.

[Bigace360 38]

Actually on the news it said witnesses were threatened, and the fact they recanted their statements.

 

Parole thing? Yes most judicial systems have a parole system, but my point is that 10 years is not long enough for murder.

 

My uncle told me with life you can mostly like get a parole, however at most case the judge can usually give 100 years without parole as they believe you wouldnt live that long anyways. If you did I guess your free then ;)

Edited September 23, 2011 by bigace

[Marked 197]

Haha yeah. I think a large amount of sentences reflect what your situation will be when you free. For example, if a criminal goes away and doesn't get out until he's 60-70, the 'good' part of his life is effectively over and I guess they take that into consideration.

My uncle told me with life you can mostly like get a parole, however at most case the judge can usually give 100 years without parole as they believe you would live that long anyways

So parole is mandatory? I remember a recent australian case where the judge 'recommended' never allowing parole. Not sure what the rules are here in NZ.