The point I was making to MTU. Sure we say one thing and mean it but do another. That is the United States and this is the way it has to be. . . ahem, frankly because it is the way it happened. The chances of an alternate reality do not exist because things happen as they happen and then cannot be changed. Things are the way they are not by chance, but through reality Nigel. This should be a simple concept when thinking in terms of ultimates; and I have poorly spoken that principle which is so true in such a large and existing sense.

I “hope” the Sun will rise tomorrow, but knowing my bad astronomy I know now that it is perfectly plausible that any sort of galactic events could take place to prevent the rising of the Sun. Any number of unknowns. . . agreed? Consequently if the Sun does rise tomorrow it will be the reality of it rising and not the chances today of it rising tomorrow. (iam trying to be a little zen here using some things I might understand of the physical world and the principles of mathematics)

All the cloudless skies I have seen are blue, yes, those all happened as reality not by chance. It was not by chance that I witnessed those skies. It was through reality.

Yeah I think rainbows are pretty. In reality, not by chance.

Yes I agree boiling water is hot to me. That is a super reality having been burnt before. . . ahem, and not by chance.

(last part of 274)

There are plenty of things upon which two people (or even millions) can agree. Mainly, but not exclusively, these kinds of things are based on reference to evidence. So, I’m not sure what you wer trying to say here.

Taking each and every disagreement I have heard on the matter into evidence I concur that there is no solution good sir’s. Not even to satisfy the greatest of reasonable men.

I’m not sure I can agree with this. I think that there are plenty of arguments against the death penalty, and only one for it. All it would take is for peopole to consider the various arguments calmly and compassionately.
Arguments for the death penalty:
1. It gives the family (etc.) of the criminal’s victims and society in general feelings of satisfaction and closure.
No, the prevention of recidivism is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.
No, the protection of society is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.
No, that a person was found guilty and that’s the verdict and sentence delivered is not an argument for the death penalty, because it presupposes that the death penalty is appropriate without justification.
Arguments against the death penalty (in no particular order):
1. It is irrevocable. Innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. At least if someone is wrongly convicted and given a life sentence, you can apologise to them if evidence later turns up to prove their innocence.
2. It sends the message that killing is not wrong as long as you are killing a bad person, even if that person is defined as bad because they killed someone.
3. It punishes the family and loved ones of the person executed as much as it does the person who is executed.
4. It is (arguably) barbaric.
5. It is (assuming some of the uncontested statements in preceding comments to be correct) more expensive than life imprisonment (I assume this is because of the inevitable rounds of appeals).
6. It demands that a line be drawn between people who are bad enough to “deserve” death and people who are not quite bad enough to “deserve” death, and such a line will inevitably be subjective and inconsistently applied (as it is in the present situation in the US).

Thank you for detailing a large portion of the actual argument. What I meant by that particular statement is that after my little brain has tried to empathetically justify both sides of the argument I just cannot. I cannot make decisions of this nature without being present and that it is entirely a fair argument to suggest that “one cannot decide.”

As you stated that there were plenty of arguments against the death penalty but only one for it. Well 1 is a real number. A real important number when it comes to family. And sadly enough as I agree with most if not 100% of what you say (for real); still, people and myself have a long way to go when it comes to being agreeable with others (and not on matters of the Sun rising or the sensation of a rainbow, but when it comes to matters such as complicated as death I am sure you could be stunningly aware of how vast the beliefs between cultures of the past and present can be)

I might be taking the chance and reality thing a bit far (and certainly have not been . . . smooth or professional or critically clear) but it is a deep understanding that that which has come to pass did not happen by chance, for it could have happened no other way.

Unless of course you have that time machine built for once a moment is created and your alive in it and the next moment comes . . . we cannot go back. Chance cannot happen. Only reality can happen. You can calculate the chances, such as the coin flip as 50/50 but in reality only one appears

Cheers brother

I in my heart believe that anything is possible. Perhaps entropy and time could reverse and we could all grow back into our mothers and so forth and so on until we reach whatever started this wonderful existence in the first place. . . but there is obviously no evidence for that. Chance does not exist in the big picture.

RIP2EveryLivingThingEver

Even the wicked, for I know not why reality happens.

The point I was making to MTU. Sure we say one thing and mean it but do another. That is the United States and this is the way it has to be. . . ahem, frankly because it is the way it happened. The chances of an alternate reality do not exist because things happen as they happen and then cannot be changed. Things are the way they are not by chance, but through reality Nigel. This should be a simple concept when thinking in terms of ultimates; and I have poorly spoken that principle which is so true in such a large and existing sense.

I “hope” the Sun will rise tomorrow, but knowing my bad astronomy I know now that it is perfectly plausible that any sort of galactic events could take place to prevent the rising of the Sun. Any number of unknowns. . . agreed? Consequently if the Sun does rise tomorrow it will be the reality of it rising and not the chances today of it rising tomorrow. (iam trying to be a little zen here using some things I might understand of the physical world and the principles of mathematics)

All the cloudless skies I have seen are blue, yes, those all happened as reality not by chance. It was not by chance that I witnessed those skies. It was through reality.

Yeah I think rainbows are pretty. In reality, not by chance.

Yes I agree boiling water is hot to me. That is a super reality having been burnt before. . . ahem, and not by chance.

(last part of 274)

There are plenty of things upon which two people (or even millions) can agree. Mainly, but not exclusively, these kinds of things are based on reference to evidence. So, I’m not sure what you wer trying to say here.

Taking each and every disagreement I have heard on the matter into evidence I concur that there is no solution good sir’s. Not even to satisfy the greatest of reasonable men.

I’m not sure I can agree with this. I think that there are plenty of arguments against the death penalty, and only one for it. All it would take is for peopole to consider the various arguments calmly and compassionately.
Arguments for the death penalty:
1. It gives the family (etc.) of the criminal’s victims and society in general feelings of satisfaction and closure.
No, the prevention of recidivism is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.
No, the protection of society is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.
No, that a person was found guilty and that’s the verdict and sentence delivered is not an argument for the death penalty, because it presupposes that the death penalty is appropriate without justification.
Arguments against the death penalty (in no particular order):
1. It is irrevocable. Innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. At least if someone is wrongly convicted and given a life sentence, you can apologise to them if evidence later turns up to prove their innocence.
2. It sends the message that killing is not wrong as long as you are killing a bad person, even if that person is defined as bad because they killed someone.
3. It punishes the family and loved ones of the person executed as much as it does the person who is executed.
4. It is (arguably) barbaric.
5. It is (assuming some of the uncontested statements in preceding comments to be correct) more expensive than life imprisonment (I assume this is because of the inevitable rounds of appeals).
6. It demands that a line be drawn between people who are bad enough to “deserve” death and people who are not quite bad enough to “deserve” death, and such a line will inevitably be subjective and inconsistently applied (as it is in the present situation in the US).

Thank you for detailing a large portion of the actual argument. What I meant by that particular statement is that after my little brain has tried to empathetically justify both sides of the argument I just cannot. I cannot make decisions of this nature without being present and that it is entirely a fair argument to suggest that “one cannot decide.”

As you stated that there were plenty of arguments against the death penalty but only one for it. Well 1 is a real number. A real important number when it comes to family. And sadly enough as I agree with most if not 100% of what you say (for real); still, people and myself have a long way to go when it comes to being agreeable with others (and not on matters of the Sun rising or the sensation of a rainbow, but when it comes to matters such as complicated as death I am sure you could be stunningly aware of how vast the beliefs between cultures of the past and present can be)

I might be taking the chance and reality thing a bit far (and certainly have not been . . . smooth or professional or critically clear) but it is a deep understanding that that which has come to pass did not happen by chance, for it could have happened no other way.

Unless of course you have that time machine built for once a moment is created and your alive in it and the next moment comes . . . we cannot go back. Chance cannot happen. Only reality can happen. You can calculate the chances, such as the coin flip as 50/50 but in reality only one appears

Cheers brother

I in my heart believe that anything is possible. Perhaps entropy and time could reverse and we could all grow back into our mothers and so forth and so on until we reach whatever started this wonderful existence in the first place. . . but there is obviously no evidence for that. Chance does not exist in the big picture.

RIP2EveryLivingThingEver

Even the wicked, for I know not why reality happens.

People might also like to visit http://www.innocenceproject.org/ to read about the hundreds of cases where innocent people have been freed after years or decades in jail.

Chance has no reality.

Eh?

What does this mean?

Therefore it is the reality that billions of people cannot agree on even 1 simple thing, let alone capital punishment let alone Troy Davis.

Do you agree that the sun is likely to rise tomorrow morning?

Do you agree that a cloudless sky is blue? (Yes, if you take a long-exposure colour photograph of the night sky, it is actually blue.)

Do you agree that a rainbow is pretty?

Do you agree that boiling water is hot?

There are plenty of things upon which two people (or even millions) can agree. Mainly, but not exclusively, these kinds of things are based on reference to evidence. So, I’m not sure what you wer trying to say here.

Taking each and every disagreement I have heard on the matter into evidence I concur that there is no solution good sir’s. Not even to satisfy the greatest of reasonable men.

I’m not sure I can agree with this. I think that there are plenty of arguments against the death penalty, and only one for it. All it would take is for peopole to consider the various arguments calmly and compassionately.

Arguments for the death penalty:
1. It gives the family (etc.) of the criminal’s victims and society in general feelings of satisfaction and closure.

No, the prevention of recidivism is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.

No, the protection of society is not an argument for the death penalty, as there are alternatives that are as effective.

No, that a person was found guilty and that’s the verdict and sentence delivered is not an argument for the death penalty, because it presupposes that the death penalty is appropriate without justification.

Arguments against the death penalty (in no particular order):
1. It is irrevocable. Innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit. At least if someone is wrongly convicted and given a life sentence, you can apologise to them if evidence later turns up to prove their innocence.

2. It sends the message that killing is not wrong as long as you are killing a bad person, even if that person is defined as bad because they killed someone.

3. It punishes the family and loved ones of the person executed as much as it does the person who is executed.

4. It is (arguably) barbaric.

5. It is (assuming some of the uncontested statements in preceding comments to be correct) more expensive than life imprisonment (I assume this is because of the inevitable rounds of appeals).

6. It demands that a line be drawn between people who are bad enough to “deserve” death and people who are not quite bad enough to “deserve” death, and such a line will inevitably be subjective and inconsistently applied (as it is in the present situation in the US).

Do you believe all men are created equal?
Myself, under this system of governance that we share right now I would agree that yes, all men women and children should be seen as having equal opportunity and rights.
But your saying there is more to it than that???

All “men” are clearly not created equal. The declaration of independence is based on a false assumption.

First of all, there’s the historical context, that this declaration was penned by the leading lights of a commonwealth of which parts practised extensive slavery.

Second, there’s the obvious physical differences between people, but over which we have no control (exepct perhaps fleetingly) such as eye colour, hair colour, height etc. that impact upon the way other members of our society treat one.

Third, there is the social standing into which a person is born. Clearly the offspring of a Harvard lawyer and a Kentucky garbage collector do not have the same opportunities in life. In fact, the latter would have to work damn hard to get even half of the opportunities that the former is likely to be handed on a plate.

So, although all US citizens have the same rights and opportunities in theory, the practice fails to live up to the principle.

@263. Nigel Depledge :

I have not seen anyone taking Davis’s side per se. I have also not seen any convincing argument made that he deserved to be executed.

He was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murdering a policeman – that’s why he deserved to be executed. That’s the crime, that’s the law, that’s the punishment that’s appropriate. Period.

But this is not an argument. It is just stating the present circumstances that pertain in certain parts of the USA if you happen to be poor and black. If the punishment is appropriate, as you claim, how come it makes so much difference to be white and not black? How come it makes so much difference if you can afford a better lawyer?

IOW : in what way is death an appropriate punishment for that crime when other people in the same nation have received lesser punishments for essentially the same crime?

And, given that you are supposedly sending a message to society that killing people is wrong, why is killing people the appropriate medium to send that message?

“We’re never going to agree.” – MTU
So does this mean you are closed to persuasion by a rational argument on this topic?

No, it means I think *you* are!

But you have yet to make any argument that the death penalty was merited. You just keep carping on about how he was found guilty and that death is the punishment chosen by the court.

But why was death merited? Why not life imprisonment instead? Why should the court have had a sentence of death available as an option?

As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had had the money for better representation, he probably would not have been executed.
As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had been white, he probably would not have been excecuted.

Hypotheticals – and I think false ones. Rich criminals and white criminals do get executed too.

But a far smaller proportion of white murderers, and a far smaller proportion of rich murderers than of poor black murderers. The statistics do actually demonstrate that this is a real effect. And, no, I cannot supply a reference because it is several years since I read about this stuff. Are you saying that the prevailing statistics have changed in the last (say) 5 years?

Especially if they’re as guilty as anything of appalling crimes. I think you overlook what Davis did & devalue the lives of those he killed and injured and the rest of society that needs to be protected from that scumbag.

I don’t contest this (but actually, was Davis not found guilty of murdering just one person?). But life imprisonment would do the job equally well, so why was a death sentence merited?

Of course, there are degrees of murder (and I’m not talking about legal definitions here, I’m talking about the deliberate killing of another human being). Sometimes the crime is done in the heat of the moment, as is the case here. Sometimes the crime is premeditated but provoked by years of abuse (as may be the case in a wife murdering her husband, for example). Sometimes the crime is premeditated and committed for some other reason and is repeated (as might be the case of a mafia boss or a serial killer). So, why are some of these criminals sentenced to death and others not (leaving aside mental illness for the present discussion)?

That Davis actually committed the crime is not an argument for the death penalty, unless you choose to assume that the justice system is both just and rational.

Yes I *do* make that assumption. Why would you assume otherwise without having very strong evidence?

First off, there is piles and piles of evidence to show that our systems of justice very often are unjust.

Second, there is plenty of evidence to show that they are irrational. A rational system would have no need for prosecution and defence representation. A rational system would have a single team seeking the closest approximation to the truth that they can obtain, and would follow the presumption of innocence. (In the UK, an accused person is nominally presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in most cases this applies. where it does not is if that person is accused of a child sex offence of some kind, in which case the person is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, but cannot be sentenced to a prison term without an adequate case).

Third, I have yet to see anyone even attempt to argue that the death penalty is just. The death penalty is about revenge, no matter what Davis’s victim’s relatives might say about their own feelings. It might not be about revenge for the victim’s families so much as revenge for society at large.

Anyhow, even without all that, there is no need to assume that the system is unjust or irrational, because all I need to assume is that I do not know whether or not it is just and rational. Until I see some evidence to persuade me that it is just and / or rational, it seems far safer and more logical to take the opposite stance as a working hypothesis. Thus, the assumption that must be justified is the one you take, i.e. that the system is either just or rational or both.

Evidence Gathered: Chance has no reality & All People cannot agree on 1 simple thing & every disagreement I have ever bore witness to.

Conclusion: I cannot merit or not merit capital punishment.

Therefore if I am bound by my ultimate conclusion than I cannot make any choices or inferences beyond that said “set statement of position” or can I relate to any or all cases which are involved with these elements in any manner.

This does not mean that I cannot act or change due course for due action in the future, whatever or whenever that might be. Maybe the future holds what we all feel today but for a case like this I refuse to feel or think either way about something that I was not there for personally. My own speculation I cannot and will not abide. I choose not to choose right now. And I argue as it stands that this is just as fair a footing as the opposing options.

Do you NOT share these values, and do you NOT believe in our justice system that has stood the test of time? How else would you propose we have a fairer and better system?

If you were charged with a crime would you rather face the criminal system of the USA, the Chinese or Iran?—

Yes I share the values of what we can probably agree upon as being justice.

As for the system and its ability to “stand the test of time:
I believe history has taught us to rise above ourselves and we falter on a strong knee (bogged possibly by dead weight, fear and greed). But that is a collective assumption and I would not rule out the possibility that humans have done absolutely miraculous thus far and that we should all know that the harder you perform the harder you push yourself. I think we are really going to have to push ourselves hard to out-accomplish our own feats. Both here in the United States with the accomplishments of our system of law and order and our accomplishments as a species. When I say accomplishments I am not talking about wiping people off the Earth or making 17 billion dollars. (both things our law does) I am talking about considering everything that has happened in the last 14 billion years or so I think “our system” has a little farther to go in its bid to “stand the test of time”, but its here and its here now and that has to be good enough for now, and that’s pretty good for now.
yeah ok?

Individually I agree that people most generally need a system of justice. Whether ours is the best or not does not matter and no I do not have a better idea

Personally the police and fire department have saved my Life 3 times at the minimum and saved me from having to take on the guilt associated with not being able to help someone by responding to accidents and scary events which require police and medical attention. (Its all relative but once was when I almost drowned in my canoe crossing the lake to make it to my 7:30pm Chem class on a snowy day over a 13 mile lake and two times for sure in one way or another).
I believe that this unbelievable level of responding comes with the price of a controlling presence simply doing the opposite of what it is sworn to do (uphold the constitution to the fullest) just so that the system can function and thus save my Life in the process of “owning” it.
I think Canada and Norway could make interesting comparisons as to what a good system might be and I agree with most of whats said in post 141

And to answer your last question I, under these circumstances can only be grateful at having been born in the USA and for some silly and strange reason Hope that if I would have been born in China or Iran that I would have turned out much the same as I am now or at least surely to have learned some of the same lessons.

@MTU239

Fair enough, sturm and drang sub-plots and secondary issues. However:
All people created equal and bs and bs and I am drowning in it=sturm and drang? but

MTUsaid:(238)

“Yes .. and no. People are people but there’s more to it than just that.”—

Do you believe all men are created equal?
Myself, under this system of governance that we share right now I would agree that yes, all men women and children should be seen as having equal opportunity and rights.
But your saying there is more to it than that???

@MTU asked (241)

Thousands and thousands of people commit murder . . . do time . . . and get out. It is always amazing to me the amount of time somebody can get away with after a murder case.

Is that supposed to be an argument *against* the death penalty? Soudns more to me like an argument *for* one! Or tougher sentences anyhow.—

Well, it was not an argument either way. I was simply stating how I feel. Which might not hold any weight in a debate but it makes all the freagn difference in the world on which way I vote. You say I have to provide evidence. In a matter such as this there is no “hard evidence to gather”. I submit to you:
How do people ultimately come to the decision of being for capital punishment or not? What final thought gives them the permission in their minds to make a decision either way? It is not evidence. It is how they feel!!! about All the evidence gathered ever.

I guess my actual stance on the death penalty if you can call it a stance would be:

That I was trying not to make an argument one way or the other and make my argument to not make an argument but I must have failed a bit

@231 I said:

I was just basically saying the whole time “I Dont Know”. I could contend based on this understanding that the following all institute the same amount of reasonableness:

1. Being for the death penalty.
2. Being against the death penalty.
3. Not choosing the death penalty either way. —

&

228. Infinite123Lifer Says:
September 25th, 2011 at 12:34 am

Larian LeQuella Says: (128)

“I won’t comment on the death penalty since I am not really able to articulate a coherent argument free of my own bias.”

How is this to be . . . settled? . . . agreed upon? Is there even a Right or Wrong exacting answer which satisfies us all? Some are partially or fully for or against and some cannot decide and some decide not to decide. The latter is not a “way out” . . . I think it could be a logical conclusion rather.

&

229. Infinite123Lifer Says:
September 25th, 2011 at 1:00 am

I suppose my stance is like many of the others:
I am not “for” the death penalty.
I am not for “not having” the choice to kill someone.
I cannot merit the death penalty. Nor am I confident enough in the human race to consciously give up the right to invoke a sentence of death.
I hope this view can change in time.

& @186 I said:

It was not by chance that that police man died. It was not by chance that Troy Davis was condemned to death for it. It is not by chance that billions of people on this “LITTLE BLUE DOT” cannot agree.—

@QD, I sure did mess up the whole deal more than twice at 210. freahkin italics and quotes. I am working on it.

No disrespect intended to anybody in the case. I am simply using this opportunity to consider the consequences of our actions.

Over the last couple of weeks, three young children across Australia have been killed in identical accidents – run over by parents in their own driveways. Without knowing the details of any of the cases, I’m content to assume that each of these accidents was a tragic mistake – driving a car and not realising a toddler was on the loose.

The problem is that an accident in which a parent deliberately killed their child would *look* identical. The only difference would be the thought processes in the parent’s brain. But it would take little more than a half-heard comment taken out of context and a vindictive neighbour to turn a tragic accident into a murder charge.

= = = =

Have you been following the case of Amanda Knox in Italy? Did she kill Meredith Kercher? I understand that opinions largely depend on which side of the Atlantic you live.

= = = =

A few days ago an Australian Olympic swimmer was badly injured in a hit-run accident. He’d been riding a bike to training, and, well, you can read the story here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/aussie-olympian-in-hit-and-run/3036768/?site=sport&section=more

And here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/monk-upbeat-despite-hit-run-incident/3050630/?site=sport&section=more

Note what people said:

The victim: “I believe it was done on purpose…” and “I remember the guys in the car yelling ‘oi’ and laughing. I turned and I got whacked on the side – that was it. I thought it was a scare tactic but it went too far. They were young and dumb, trying to impress their mates.”

His coach: “There’s no doubt that he was run down intentionally… they knew they knocked him to the ground, they actually swerved to get him. Kenrick went straight down and they didn’t stop the car or anything else, they left the scene apparently laughing and skylarking in the car, so it was definitely intentional.”

I dare say you wouldn’t want to have been arrested for this.

But this morning we find out that the victim made the whole story up. A witness saw the victim fall off his skateboard, and went to the police.

Messier Tidy Upper said: “Yes I *do* make that assumption.”

MTU

Have you read the stories about why the state of Illinois abolished the death penalty?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/11/us-executions-illinois-idUSTRE70A6G920110111

“”We’ve had 20 innocent people on Death Row…”"

“Among those freed from Illinois’ Death Row after being found innocent were Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez, who were sentenced to death for raping and killing a 10-year-old Chicago area girl, Jeanine Nicarico. They stayed in prison for years even after another man, Brian Dugan, already in jail for raping and killing another girl and a woman, admitted to the crime.”

“Other Illinois prisoners who were freed from Death Row said they were tortured into confessions by police.”

The idea of being sentenced to death for a crime I didn’t commit scares the whatsit out of me.

I have not seen anyone taking Davis’s side per se. I have also not seen any convincing argument made that he deserved to be executed.

He was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murdering a policeman – that’s why he deserved to be executed. That’s the crime, that’s the law, that’s the punishment that’s appropriate. Period.

“We’re never going to agree.” – MTU
So does this mean you are closed to persuasion by a rational argument on this topic?

No, it means I think *you* are!

As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had had the money for better representation, he probably would not have been executed.
As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had been white, he probably would not have been excecuted.

Hypotheticals – and I think false ones. Rich criminals and white criminals do get executed too. Especially if they’re as guilty as anything of appalling crimes. I think you overlook what Davis did & devalue the lives of those he killed and injured and the rest of society that needs to be protected from that scumbag.

That Davis actually committed the crime is not an argument for the death penalty, unless you choose to assume that the justice system is both just and rational.

Yes I *do* make that assumption. Why would you assume otherwise without having very strong evidence?

@

Matthew Johnson was accused of murdering Carl Williams. Johnson claimed he acted in self-defence, and the jury was given the option of finding him guilty of the lesser crime of defensive homicide. In the end they found him guilty of murder.

The background is that Williams was a notorious criminal, involved in a drug war in Melbourne which saw tens of people murdered over the course of a decade or so. Williams was eventually arrested, and pleaded guilty to three murders. He was sentenced a few years ago to a minimum of 35 years in prison. While in prison he was killed by Johnson, who was himself in prison for armed robbery.

Johnson’s claim was that he’d heard that Williams was arranging to kill him. The Crown case was that Johnson had heard that Williams was passing information to the police, and that Johnson hated informers.

If I understand the case correctly, the jury’s decision on whether to find guilt on the lesser or greater charge related largely on Johnson’s intent, which only he really knew.

Given the jury found Johnson guilty of murder, would that warrant the death penalty to you? If the jury had convicted Johnson on the lesser charge, would *that* warrant the death penalty? If not, what makes the difference between applying the death penalty in one case and not the other?

If this is the last post on theis whole sad saga (& I hope it is)

Well, given that your central thrust rests entirely on an unfounded assumption, your hope was a vain one.

That Davis actually committed the crime is not an argument for the death penalty, unless you choose to assume that the justice system is both just and rational.

As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had had the money for better representation, he probably would not have been executed.

As several commenters have pointed out, if Davis had been white, he probably would not have been excecuted.

IIUC, Davis only killed one person (I know this sounds callous, but the point is Davis is not a serial killer). That the victim of the crime was a police officer should make no difference, unless you wish to argue that a police officer’s life is – in some fashion which you would need to define – worth more than mine or yours.

So, I repeat the question I have asked several times already – why was the death penalty merited?

Now I could go on and argue more, counter all the points those taking this cop killer’s side wish to make – but what’s the point. They’re as set in their views as I am in mine.

I have not seen anyone taking Davis’s side per se. I have also not seen any convincing argument made that he deserved to be executed.

We’re never going to agree.

So does this mean you are closed to persuasion by a rational argument on this topic?

So I’ll just make this one last point :

Only one person is ultimately to blame for Troy Davis being executed.

That person is Troy Davis himself.

He chose to live a brutal life committing crime. He had alternative choices and options.

What utter nonsense. If he had committed the same crime in Europe, he would now be nearing the end of a life sentence (IIUC, in most European countries a “life” sentence is usually about 20 – 25 years in prison).

He was executed by a system that conflates revenge with justice. And, hence, by the people who support that system, i.e. the American voters.

I have yet to see anyone make a convincing case that the death penalty was merited. Or even make a serious attempt at such. You and Ann both assume that the death penalty is just, and that Davis deserved it because he was found guilty and convicted. You have not made any cogent argument to support your assumption.

Well, whatever. The point is, whatever the reasons for killing bin Laden, what he got was not justice, it was revenge. Now, I reckon he would be a prime candidate for the death penalty (assuming that he did indeed mastermind the 9/11 attacks as is claimed). But I still don’t know where to draw the line. Remember that the Lockerbie bomber was tried under Scottish law and was given a life sentence, and was recently released (about 20 – 25 years after his conviction).

@244. Ann :

The problem with her [Ann Coulter's] comments is that with respect to THIS CASE, they are quite accurate. This was black on black crime that this white off duty police officer intervened to try to stop. According to the people who knew Troy Davis, he had already shot another man in the face earlier in the evening at a party, for no particular reason, by the way. The victim in this case was enforcing the law the way we would all want in this country, without respect to race, creed or religion. He and his family deserve better than to be treated in the press and blogosphere as an afterthought or as people supporting a great miscarriage of justice, which they are not. I don’t care WHO says otherwise. Peace. Out.

Seconded and very well said.

Now I could go on and argue more, counter all the points those taking this cop killer’s side wish to make – but what’s the point. They’re as set in their views as I am in mine. We’re never going to agree.

So I’ll just make this one last point :

Only one person is ultimately to blame for Troy Davis being executed.

That person is Troy Davis himself.

He chose to live a brutal life committing crime. He had alternative choices and options.

Troy Davis chose to committ murder – to shoot dead Mark MacPhail an off-duty policeman, who was married and father to a two-year old daughter and an infant son.

Troy Davis made that choice and he got caught. He got convicted beyond reasonable doubt. His multiple appeals and pleas for clemency were rejected because he didn’t have a much of a case worthy of appeal or clemency. He wasn’t innocent, he was executed. Justice prevailed.

Troy Davis chose to murder. He could have chosen otherwise, then he got the appropriate consequences that were coming as a result of his choice.

Mark MacPhail was the innocent man, his family were made victims for life as well – he and they did nothing wrong, made no wrong decisions and didn’t deserve their permannet punishment.

If this is the last post on theis whole sad saga (& I hope it is) I’ll give *them* the last words :

[Mark McPhail's] mother reported -”That hole in my heart will be there until the day I die, but it may give me some peace and quiet.”

His [MarkMcPhail's] son, Mark MacPhail Jr, stated “It’s not animosity or anger or rage that has kept us going; that’s not what my father would want. It’s justice. The law is what he was all about. That’s what we have to uphold”.

- Source – Wikipedia page – Troy Davis case. (Click on my name to view.)

Oh for crying out loud. What, like they could just serve him a subpoena and have him show up in court?? I’m all for due process, but there are practical limits when you’ve got your own personal army and the tacit support of at least some in the government of a nuclear power (Pakistan).
Also, I think the word “assassination” is a bit more then that assclown warranted.
To paraphrase Chris Rock (quote not regarding OBL, but it still fits):
“Gimme a break. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Malcolm X was assassinated. JFK was assassinated. (That) [expletive deleted] got shot.

Is that supposed to be an argument *against* the death penalty? Soudns more to me like an argument *for* one! Or tougher sentences anyhow.

Tougher sentencing is not a deterrent. This has been proven. Most criminals do not expect to get caught.

Quote from wikipedia page on Davis :

In constrast, law enforcement officials such as Spencer Lawton, the former Chatham County prosecutor who put Davis on trial, remained convinced of the evidence for Davis’s guilt and that Davis’s supporters “would know differently if they looked at the record.“[115] He stated: “We have consistently won the case as it has been presented in court. We have consistently lost the case as it has been presented in the public realm, on TV and elsewhere.”[115]

Yeah, quotes from the guy who sent Davis to his death are less than convincing.

Members of MacPhail’s family were also convinced of Davis’s guilt, and thought his execution would bring a measure of peace.[116][117] His mother reported “That hole in my heart will be there until the day I die, but it may give me some peace and quiet.”[117] His son, Mark MacPhail Jr, stated “It’s not animosity or anger or rage that has kept us going; that’s not what my father would want. It’s justice. The law is what he was all about. That’s what we have to uphold”.[118]

Yes, many USAians have been persuaded that death is a form of justice. I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect.

We need a death penalty for the same reason we need to put down rabid dogs.
Among other things. There is a valid case for it IMHON.

What, so are you saying psychopathy is communicable????

If there is a valid case for the death penalty, what is that case?

To the satisfaction of a duly appointed court of law following the rules of evidence and court procedure to produce a verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

And what does this mean in real terms?

To say that judges or juries are wrong in their decisions you need to make a good strong logical case backed by powerful evidence.

Not really. The western-style justice system is supposedly based on the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”. Therefore, all you need is one good reason to doubt the guilty verdict. It doesn’t need to be a “strong logical case” backed by “powerful” evidence. All you need – in principle at least – is to find one flaw in the prosecution’s case. Obviously, this does not work in practice, which means that “innocent until proven guilty” is not applied in practice.

Symetrically enough, juries and judges make their decisions based on good strong logical cases and powerful evidence. They are the key factors of our justice system and our social values.

What utter rubbish!

If this were true, wrongful convictions would never be made.

Juries make decisions based on the persuasiveness of the respective lawyers. Have you never seen Twelve Angry Men (the original, not the remake)? 11 jurors were prepared to send a teenager to the chair based on the prosecutor’s case, but the twelfth juror logically and systematically picks apart the case and shows it to be built on sand. Maybe the jury in Davis’s case consisted of 12 people like the 11 in the film, and had no-one like the twelfth man. Remenber that logical, critical thought is a skill that must be learned, and it is never taught in any part of western educational systems (except very occasionally, if the students happen to get an especially good teacher).

Decisions made in courts of law are based on opinion, not fact. And the craft of the lawyer is to shape the jurors’ opinion into the outcome desired by their client.