|
Post by brendanrizzo on Sept 23, 2011 19:16:38 GMT -5
I've read this thread twice and can't see anyone displaying that attitude: Care to point out which posts I missed? I never said that people on this thread were doing it. I was talking about popular opinion in the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 23, 2011 19:29:34 GMT -5
Funny how conviction by a jury of peers doesn't mean he was actually guilty. What is your point here? What? Juries make mistakes? Juries are bad? We shouldn't abide by jury verdicts? What? No really. No matter what system is used to mete out justice, innocent men will always end up wrongfully convicted. Always. No system is 100% perfect. The choice is how many. I am of the opinion that our current system gives us the best chance of keeping innocent people out of jail while still ensuring that the majority of guilty people get locked up. But some guilty men will always go free and some innocent men will always be punished. Don't like? Get a time machine and stop humanity from evolving. And I don't even care to argue the death penalty. Whether Troy Davis got executed or whether he died of natural causes in prison would not impact the wrongness of punishing an innocent man. Cases like this are always tragic, but don't go fucking trashing the jury system because of it. And before anyone jumps on me, Zachski just gave two examples where juries where not reliable arbiters of innocence. He did not follow it up with "so therefore the death penalty should be abolished". That I can get behind. "Juries fuck up" can be and has been used as a reason to abolish prisons in general. And if you don't qualify your argument, that, it ends up sounding like "juries fuck up, let's get rid of them".Okay, I have just one question here. If there really was all this evidence that Davis did it, then how come literally the only people saying that he did are here in the United States. Not for nothing, but I'd put a higher premium on the opinions on American observers of an American court case than I would on that of people on the other side of the world. Can I get an example? You said literally.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 23, 2011 19:48:11 GMT -5
Funny how conviction by a jury of peers doesn't mean he was actually guilty. What is your point here? What? Juries make mistakes? Juries are bad? We shouldn't abide by jury verdicts? What? No really. No matter what system is used to mete out justice, innocent men will always end up wrongfully convicted.First of all, that right there is precisely the reason we should not have the death penalty. At all. Second of all, my point was in response to erictheblue who seemed to be implying that since it was a jury conviction, the sentence was perfectly fine, where I pointed out that no, juries are not perfect, and that a conviction doesn't mean that he actually did it. Juries are human. The best lawyer in the world could sway a case without evidence simply through wordplay and theatrics. In the end, an innocent man can be convicted of guilt without evidence simply because he can't afford a lawyer, while a guilty man can receive the "not guilty" verdict simply because he's a rich icon with some of the best lawyers in the country. "It happens, we should live with it" is never a proper response to the government-sanctioned killing of an innocent human being, and it should never be the response to government-sanctioned killing of a human being, period. Violence does not solve violence, especially when it is delivered in a manner that is entirely in-efficient, slow, and malicious, and often with absolute disregard for the family of the executed as if they didn't matter. You can say "But the killer didn't consider the family of the victim he killed", but that sounds exactly like the "But he did it first!" mentality you hear on playgrounds. Two wrongs do not make a right, you cannot use evil to justify evil. That being said, even those who are for the death penalty should probably support a more efficient means of execution, yet they seem to revel in the lethal injection, even though a bullet to the back of the head would be cheaper, quicker, more merciful, and all around efficient.
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Sept 23, 2011 19:53:17 GMT -5
Funny how conviction by a jury of peers doesn't mean he was actually guilty. What is your point here? What? Juries make mistakes? Juries are bad? We shouldn't abide by jury verdicts? What? No really. No matter what system is used to mete out justice, innocent men will always end up wrongfully convicted. Always. No system is 100% perfect. The choice is how many. I am of the opinion that our current system gives us the best chance of keeping innocent people out of jail while still ensuring that the majority of guilty people get locked up. But some guilty men will always go free and some innocent men will always be punished. Don't like? Get a time machine and stop humanity from evolving. And I don't even care to argue the death penalty. Whether Troy Davis got executed or whether he died of natural causes in prison would not impact the wrongness of punishing an innocent man. Cases like this are always tragic, but don't go fucking trashing the jury system because of it. And before anyone jumps on me, Zachski just gave two examples where juries where not reliable arbiters of innocence. He did not follow it up with "so therefore the death penalty should be abolished". That I can get behind. "Juries fuck up" can be and has been used as a reason to abolish prisons in general. And if you don't qualify your argument, that, it ends up sounding like "juries fuck up, let's get rid of them".Not for nothing, but I'd put a higher premium on the opinions on American observers of an American court case than I would on that of people on the other side of the world. Can I get an example? You said literally. If he's referrign to the case I think he is then he's technically incorrect, the man had his death sentence commuted to life in prison, I'll have to go looking for a bit to find the specific case though.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Sept 23, 2011 19:53:29 GMT -5
I remember reading that the family members of the slain officer are being real dicks about it. Regarding Troy Davis' repeated claims to innocence: - Anneliese MacPhail, mother of Mark MacPhail
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 23, 2011 19:53:52 GMT -5
Juries are human. The best lawyer in the world could sway a case without evidence simply through wordplay and theatrics. In the end, an innocent man can be convicted of guilt without evidence simply because he can't afford a lawyer, while a guilty man can receive the "not guilty" verdict simply because he's a rich icon with some of the best lawyers in the country. I'm not disagreeing. But that is just as good an argument against juries at all as it is against the death penalty. And it is why I fucking hate that argument. I'm not arguing for the death penalty, just against that particular argument. It is far two narrow in focus while simultaneously being broad in consequence. I remember reading that the family members of the slain officer are being real dicks about it. Regarding Troy Davis' repeated claims to innocence: - Anneliese MacPhail, mother of Mark MacPhail I don't begrudge them their opinion. They need to be able to move on with their lives. Their opinion should have zero legal weight because of it, but there's nothing wrong with them deciding to accept the closure the legal system offered them. Not their fault if the legal system was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 23, 2011 19:56:47 GMT -5
Juries are human. The best lawyer in the world could sway a case without evidence simply through wordplay and theatrics. In the end, an innocent man can be convicted of guilt without evidence simply because he can't afford a lawyer, while a guilty man can receive the "not guilty" verdict simply because he's a rich icon with some of the best lawyers in the country. I'm not disagreeing. But that is just as good an argument against juries at all as it is against the death penalty. And it is why I fucking hate that argument. Nevertheless, the argument still stands as valid, whether you hate it or not. I do support the need for a jury, simply because right now, it's one of the few systems that seems to work with any semblance. That being said, it's not perfect, and we should not delude ourselves into thinking "Oh well, he was declared guilty, so he's guilty." Also, I want to point out to Anneliese that the government just did to Troy's family what the killer did to her family.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 23, 2011 19:59:57 GMT -5
Nevertheless, the argument still stands as valid, whether you hate it or not. Valid for the abolition of the jury system or the prison more than for the abolition of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 23, 2011 20:02:35 GMT -5
I remember reading that the family members of the slain officer are being real dicks about it. Regarding Troy Davis' repeated claims to innocence: - Anneliese MacPhail, mother of Mark MacPhail I'm going to ignore all the content of this post to say, please cite real sources and not the Daily Mail.
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Sept 23, 2011 20:03:03 GMT -5
Okay after looking into the case i was thinking of it seems as though we're thinking of different cases, anyways here's the one i was talking about on the first page, i was a bit off on it, apparently he plead guilty to the murder and expressed regret, apparently he was also in cocaine withdrawal at the time. A good reason to commute an execution to life to be sure, but then so is not having any evidence. EDIT: whoops, forgot the link www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/22/us-usa-execution-idUSN2250765020080522
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 23, 2011 20:03:07 GMT -5
Nevertheless, the argument still stands as valid, whether you hate it or not. Valid for the abolition of the jury system or the prison more than for the abolition of the death penalty. Thankfully, there are arguments that carry greater weight for the persistence of the jury system and prison, which outweigh the argument I made. There are no such arguments for the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Sept 23, 2011 20:04:38 GMT -5
I am also interested in the case that Brendan is referring to, I'm guessing it's from texas from the context.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 23, 2011 20:17:08 GMT -5
I don't care if Davis was guilty or innocent, the death penalty is barbaric. My thoughts exactly. Nevertheless, the argument still stands as valid, whether you hate it or not. Valid for the abolition of the jury system or the prison more than for the abolition of the death penalty. You can release a man from jail, but you can't bring him back from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Sept 23, 2011 20:18:39 GMT -5
I remember reading that the family members of the slain officer are being real dicks about it. Regarding Troy Davis' repeated claims to innocence: - Anneliese MacPhail, mother of Mark MacPhail I'm going to ignore all the content of this post to say, please cite real sources and not the Daily Mail. I didn't intend to cite the Daily Fail. It was just the first one that came up on my Google search. here is a more local source.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 23, 2011 20:27:52 GMT -5
Although, I will say that regardless of whether Davis was guilty or not, the southern states' attitude to capital punishment is severely broken. A white man can literally admit to killing a police officer in cold blood and they'll walk free, but a black person gets executed on much less evidence, and any evidence that he didn't do it is actively prevented from being used, by government mandate. Yeah, I think that Texas and Georgia are equally disgusting. Not to defend how the DP is used in southern states, but the same night that Davis was executed, Texas executed a white man for the murder of a black man.Second of all, my point was in response to erictheblue who seemed to be implying that since it was a jury conviction, the sentence was perfectly fine, where I pointed out that no, juries are not perfect, and that a conviction doesn't mean that he actually did it. Actually, that wasn't the point I was making. (Though I can see where it could be read that way.) The point was "the jury saw evidence we are not seeing. The judges and justices in the appeals process saw evidence we are not seeing. Therefore, we should not make assumptions on guilt or innocence because we have not seen all the evidence that the jury did." This brings to mind the Casey Anthony trial. Everyone thought she would be found guilty. My mother (who was watching the trial coverage, unlike me) said all the legal commentators were debating whether she would get life without parole or death. No one dreamed she would be acquitted. But the jury can only base its decision on the evidence provided - not the commentary of the legal talking heads. And based on the evidence, the jury there had reasonable doubt. While I doubt this is what you meant, I am going to step in and defend public defenders. Since January, I've been interning with a prosecuting attorney's office. Obviously, this brings me into contact with a lot of defense attorneys - both PDs and private. The PDs I've worked with have always been professional, respectful, and dedicated. While I have encountered a few private defense attorneys who are the same, the vast majority of private defense attorneys I've run into have been unprofessional, immature, and petty, trying to game the system and play with loopholes. Are PDs overworked? You bet! Does that keep them from giving everything they have for their clients? No. I am of two minds on this. While I do see your point (execution punishes the innocent family member as well as the guilty), the major difference is that there is (for assumptions sake) a guilty party. If you don't want to hurt your family, there is an easy solution - don't commit capital murder! Officer MacPhail and James Byrd did not have that option; the ones who killed them did. Also, if you want to argue that execution punishes the innocent family, you would have to argue for abolishing prisons. After all, sending a family member to prison for a long time punishes the innocent family member, who can no longer spend time with a loved one, or curl up with their (now convicted) spouse at night. Over the summer, I witnesses a sentencing hearing in a DUI-manslaughter case. The wife of the defendant got up to beg the judge for a light sentence, and I could see her point. She was losing her husband through no fault of her own. Sure, she wasn't losing him permanently, but he was looking at 10 years in prison. That's 10 years of her life with him that she would lose. He will be released, but 10 years is a long time to have to make up for. (He got 10 years, btw.) Actually, it isn't. (Quicker and more merciful, that is.) People have survived being shot in the head. When done correctly, lethal injection is the most merciful because the condemned is unconscious. (Hanging is also a viable option, since it kills instantly.)
|
|