The execution of Troy Davis

[Guest bigmatt]

Davis, 42, was put to death by lethal injection after a last minute appeal to the US Supreme Court failed, and his request to take a polygraph test was also turned down.

 

The appeal to the US Supreme Court led to a temporary delay of more than three hours.

Davis maintained his innocence to the end, saying: “I did not have a gun. For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls. May God bless your souls.”

 

According to those who witnessed the execution Davis addressed some comments to the family of his victim while he was strapped to the gurney.

 

He told them: "I did not personally kill your son, father, brother.” He also asked his supporters to “dig deeper” into the case so they could “find the real truth.”

 

Davis was pronounced dead at 11.08pm local time.

 

Supporters held vigils outside the maximum security prison in Jackson, Georgia, the White House in Washington DC, and US embassies in London and Paris.

 

Davis had spent two decades on death row after being convicted of the 1989 killing of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer who was working as a security guard in Savannah, Georgia.

 

Mr MacPhail, 27, was shot dead when he rushed to help a homeless man who was being pistol whipped in a Burger King car park in an argument over a beer.

 

Witnesses placed Davis at the scene and identified him as the gunman. Shell casings found in the car park were linked to an earlier shooting that he was convicted of.

 

But the murder weapon was never found and there was no other physical evidence, such as blood or DNA, to tie Davis to the crime. His lawyers claimed he was a victim of mistaken identity.

 

Seven of nine witnesses who gave evidence against him later recanted all or part of their testimony, while others have claimed that another man confessed to the killing. Some jurors have since changed their minds about his guilt.

A last ditch appeal by Davis's lawyers questioned the ballistics evidence in the case but was turned down by the five-member Georgia Board of Pardons.

 

Davis had received support from high profile figures including former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI and former FBI Director William Sessions. Nearly one million people signed a petition to the pardons board.

But the murder conviction was repeatedly upheld by state and federal courts.One judge dismissed new evidence as "largely smoke and mirrors."

 

Last year, the US Supreme Court ordered a highly unusual hearing into the case and a federal judge, in a 150-page ruling, upheld the verdict and sentence.

 

Davis spent his last hours praying and talking to his family and supporters.

He declined an offer of a special last meal.

 

Outside the prison where he was put to death 200 supporters gathered.

Speaking before the execution his sister Martina Correia, who is battling breast cancer and in a wheelchair, said: "Troy Davis has impacted the world.

 

They say 'I am Troy Davis' in languages he can't speak." His lawyer Stephen Marsh said: "Such incredibly flawed eyewitness testimony should never be the basis for an execution."

Veteran civil rights leader Rev Al Sharpton said: "This is an outrage. No one can execute a man with no physical evidence." But Mr MacPhail's widow, Joan MacPhail-Harris, said: "He has had ample time to prove his innocence. And he is not innocent."

 

Earlier, White House Press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying that although President Barack Obama "has worked to ensure accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system," it was not appropriate for him "to weigh in on specific cases like this one, which is a state prosecution."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8780677/Troy-Davis-executed-in-Georgia-after-last-minute-plea-fails.html

 

Timeline of the case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/19/troy-davis-georgia-execution

 

What do you think? Even if you're pro-Capital punishment is there too much doubt?

[Guest Boyo]

I have a few American Facebook friends and their "status updates" are all about this, and how disgusted they are. I'm glad you've posted this excerpt, bigmatt, because I am interested in the full(er) story, and what is riling them up good and proper.

 

I have read this article once and, quite frankly, I am astonished that a man could be executed with little more than circumstantial evidence. So, what we have here is no DNA, no blood, no fingerprints, "hardly any" reliable witness testimony, no weapon, and an ignored "confession" from another person. We do have some bullet casings though.

 

I'm not against execution - absolutely not against execution. However, Jesus Christ, they've got to be absolutely "caught you red-handed" sure with their evidence before they do kill anyone!!

 

It is telling though, that the dead man was a cop. There must have been incredible pressure on those looking for a conviction.

 

Cheers!

[Maxximus 353]

Yet again, another travesty of the United Stated Judicial system at work.

 

 

I have a few American Facebook friends[...]

 

Shame on you. Am I not good enough to be your facebook friend.

 

*sigh* After everything we've been through?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Maxximus

[etz 78]

Well, I assume that once again, he'll be found to be innocent at a later date, and yet they won't be putting those murderers who call themselves judges and prosecutors on trial. I mean, like the law would apply to the rich and powerful.

[Guest John Hancock]

He'll be found innocent in 20 years and no changes to the death penalty will take place, because reactionary conservative knee-jerkering primitives get way too excited about the fact that they're allowed to still lynch people if they say they saw them with a gun.

 

I don't think I could have been more anti-death penalty than I already was, so this story hasn't had much effect on my opinions, other than to reinforce them.

 

The only question you have to answer to know if you're pro or anti death penalty is; What's more important, a guilty person's death, or an innocent person's life? If you value the innocent person's life, then you're anti-death penalty, because no death penalty system in the entire history of the world has ever existed that didn't have innocent blood on it's hands.

[etz 78]

He'll be found innocent in 20 years and no changes to the death penalty will take place, because reactionary conservative knee-jerkering primitives get way too excited about the fact that they're allowed to still lynch people if they say they saw them with a gun.

 

I don't think I could have been more anti-death penalty than I already was, so this story hasn't had much effect on my opinions, other than to reinforce them.

 

The only question you have to answer to know if you're pro or anti death penalty is; What's more important, a guilty person's death, or an innocent person's life? If you value the innocent person's life, then you're anti-death penalty, because no death penalty system in the entire history of the world has ever existed that didn't have innocent blood on it's hands.

 

Exactly. I'm a huge believer in never letting violent criminals back into society, but there is no way anyone can justify killing them even if they're guilty.

[Guest bigmatt]

The only question you have to answer to know if you're pro or anti death penalty is; What's more important, a guilty person's death, or an innocent person's life? If you value the innocent person's life, then you're anti-death penalty, because no death penalty system in the entire history of the world has ever existed that didn't have innocent blood on it's hands.

 

Yeah, it's like that voltaire quote "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one". I've always found it hard to disagree with.

[Guest Boyo]

The only question you have to answer to know if you're pro or anti death penalty is; What's more important, a guilty person's death, or an innocent person's life? If you value the innocent person's life, then you're anti-death penalty, because no death penalty system in the entire history of the world has ever existed that didn't have innocent blood on it's hands.

This question is a bit redundant when the guilty person has already taken the life of the innocent you're weighing his life against.

 

It can only breed the question, what is justice really? If someone kills in cold blood, and there's absolutely no doubt they did it, then the death penalty is at least a compelling argument.

 

I'm not talking about manslaughters, or self-defence, or killing a burglar, or cases where it seems likely that the guy did it but there's not a lot of evidence. I'm talking the cases where you prove it, beyond doubt.

 

I can see the humanity in letting them earn their penitence in gaol for however many years, but I can also see the flipside.

 

Cheers!

[Paul 584]

This question is a bit redundant when the guilty person has already taken the life of the innocent you're weighing his life against.

 

I'm not sure you understand what Hancock was saying mate. You're not weighing the life against anyone elses, your weighing the possibility of killing an innocent man by mistake and if that act is worth killing the guilty for.

[Guest Saz]

Not that I am making suppositions, but I am guessing the guy was black?

 

Not that I am saying America loves to kill black men regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

 

But I am...

[Guest Boyo]

You're not weighing the life against anyone elses, your weighing the possibility of killing an innocent man by mistake and if that act is worth killing the guilty for.

I understood what he meant; that's why I added that there cannot be any doubt that he didn't kill him.

 

Cheers!

[Guest John Hancock]

Then you make it a prerogative to make criminals murder witnesses.

 

Murder someone with no witnesses; Prison

Murder someone with witnesses; Death

 

You can guess what would happen there. It's actually a pretty well documented thing, countries were rape is punished as strictly as murder tend to end up with a lot more murdered rape victims, because there's nothing to lose and they're protecting themselves.

 

It's also written into the constitution of pretty much every country that any one crime should always have roughly the same punishment. The only way, in reality, execution works is with the presumption that, at some point, you'll kill someone innocent. No amount of hypothetical situations can change that.

[etz 78]

The number of innocent people executed and then proven innocent (not to mention the ones where there is significant doubt) in every country in the world that has ever executed people is proof that the death penalty is unjust.

 

On the other hand, I'd back the death penalty, on the proviso that if an executed person is later found to be innocent, the judge, the jury, the prosecutors, the police investigators, witnesses and executioner were then all executed themselves.

[Guest Boyo]

Then you make it a prerogative to make criminals murder witnesses.

But to counter that point; generally speaking, a rapist or murderer will commit a crime thinking that there are no witnesses, so your point is moot.

 

Murderers will always try to kill any witnesses regardless.

 

Cheers!

[Guest Boyo]

Cycling to work today, thinking about this thread haha, and I have realised a fundemental flaw in my argument, and it relates about "uniform punishment" and "how guilty" someone is, surrounding the application of the death penalty.

 

My stance has softened, however I still believe there is a place for Capital Punishment. I'm not sure how you would make a judgement as to who gets sentenced to die though. Fred West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, "bloke in Cumbria who went on a killing spree" (I forget his name)... those people could be sentenced to death because, without question, there can be no doubt that they committed their heinous crimes. These people deserve death. And yes, it could be said that it wouldn't be "justice" that they would be getting, but "revenge", but in their cases, perhaps the best justice is revenge? That's another point for another day though.

 

What softened my stance is the fact that, in this justice system that we have today, errors can be made with regards to who's guilty or not.

 

If I said that "if you murder someone in cold blood then you should be setenced to death" then, to me at least, I have little problem with that. I'm sure many would disagree. I would also add that, "there must not be any doubt at all" that the person is guilty...

 

...and therein lies the problem. Because if someone is found guilty then surely there can be no doubt at all that they are guilty, and should die, right? That's why they were found guilty.

 

But then again, that's what the appeal process is for.

 

And imagine two court cases being presided by the same judge. One accused is so obviously guitly of multiple rape and murder (in fact he's been caught on CCTV for his rape and murder, so there is no doubt at all) and that guy is sentenced to death. But the second man, who is accused of a rape and murder, gets sentenced to life imprisonment. Ok, so there is no CCTV confirming his crime but there is DNA, body fluids, scratch-marks, witnesses... the works... but he is not sentenced to death. Why not? If he is as guilty as the other guy then why not the death sentence? Is the judge unsure of something? If so, how can you find him guilty?

 

The law itself only asks you to prove "beyond reasonable doubt". Yeesh, when you put it like that you are allowed to find someone guilty even if there are doubts! Crikey!

 

But to summarise, I do feel there is "a place" for capital punishment, it's just "where that place is" which is the problem.

 

Cheers!

[Guest Saz]

Funny, I was reading the other week (sorry no source as it went to the rubbish tip) that with the standard of forensic evidence, there is now a 99% chance that you would get away with murdering someone.

 

However, Etz, take note: Now is the best time to commit murder as Police only have the resources to use forensics in 1% of crimes.

[dsrchris 190]

Funny, I was reading the other week (sorry no source as it went to the rubbish tip) that with the standard of forensic evidence, there is now a 99% chance that you would get away with murdering someone.

 

However, Etz, take note: Now is the best time to commit murder as Police only have the resources to use forensics in 1% of crimes.

 

Sorry to have to jump all over this, but that it sensationalist nonsense from wherever you read it.

 

What's actually happened in UK Forensics is (I'm actually quite involved in all this):

 

1. The government has decided it wants no part of Forensics to try and relieve some of their costs, and as such have turned what was a public service into a private market.

 

2. As part of this cost cutting, the government decided it wanted to close down the UK's Forensic Science Service (my employers) due to it being part owned by the government.

 

3. Police forces are testing a method for in-house testing whereby they can quickly process blood samples to identify if the person they have arrested matches the blood stain from the scene they were arrested at. If the Forensic work is any more involved than a simple identification, then that work is being currently divided up between a whole host of Private Sector Forensic Providers. Some police forces will be going almost completely in-house (I think the Met Police are looking at doing all their own work, but that's mainly because they've got the attitude of "we're the Met, f*ck all you small police forces").

 

4. These Private companies are currently looking to assemble a Forensic Board which will set standards, competencies, and procedures for all private firms wishing to undertake Forensic work. Funnily enough there's rules and accreditation for Public companies to work on forensic material, but currently there are no guidelines in place for Private companies to have to adhere to.

 

5. Folks are geting in a tizzy because there's a historical archive of nigh on 70 years of stored forensic material and casefiles that has proven invaluable in solving unsolved or "cold" cases (this is the placeI work at).

 

So long story short, the government's privatised the forensic industry, taking what should essentially be a public service and offering some companies the chance to make a quick buck at the expense of the public, the police, and the UK Criminal Justice System as a whole. This new private market currently has no parameters it needs to operate within, with is a huge loophole that could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice. Add to that the fact the police are now allowed to undertake their own forensic work again instead of an independent reporting body, which has started to throw up all kinds of reservations with folks not wanting to see a return to the old method of making the evidence fit the suspect, rather than seeing if the suspect matches the evidence, if you get what i'm getting at...

 

Overall the police will be able to process more than 1% of crime...with the help of overcharging Private companies...and with the ability the fluff the results should they so desire.

 

Yay progress!! :lol

Edited September 23, 2011 by dsrchris

[Guest Black Knight]

It's disappointing because there wasn't any real evidence saying he killed the officer.