Concordant man being put to death
In the past, I would have said "brace yourselves", but nothing will happen if we wait for others to do what we have to.
Man just reflecting on this... it's fucking Calgary. The people crying out for his death... the Jews crying for Jesus' death.
2000 years back in time. In many ways, we have changed little.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-22-2011 at 05:24 AM.
The recanting was irrelevant and overstated in the media/internets, it was the last of circumstancial evidence that really bugs me. Please explain, do not be a bandwagon fool.
It doesn't follow that this guy would shoot a man just out of anger. I think Redd did it. He was a drug lord after all.
But this guy... clearly liberal, the kind of guy who would hardly touch a fly unless he felt himself or someone he loved was threatened. He dies at 42... my impression is that his situation fell through the cracks because 1) it was extraordinary, 2) it involved the shooting of a white cop by a black man in Georgia. I read the reaction by the prosecutor: it smacked of conservatism and cherry picking. One of the more interesting aspects of the case: local drug lords threatened Davis' family if he didn't turn himself in. This was a case of someone not having the Se to fight back, a typical problem for young liberal IEIs, in particular. He did learn to use it, but only after he was already on death row. There are pathetic numbers of exonerated people in Death Row... really, the numbers are bad. It's a frequent thing for a concordant (read: neutral good) person to get caught up in the legal system and spend years of their life in prison just waiting to be exonerated. Indeed they tend not to wage vigorous defenses in part because they can't imagine that their community could turn against them until it does. Naivete is a dangerous thing.
At the end of the day, when a man has the face of an angel, he probably is one. If he has the face of a devil, guess what?
It was in the nature of the drug lord to kill the cop. I don't think it was in the nature of Davis to do so. Inclinations matter.
And I'm sure you've already noted that Redd and Davis carried the same model gun, a .38 caliber. Everything else... you don't put someone to death on basis of eye witness testimony. It just isn't done. Hell, you don't convict on eye witness testimony imo. This Darwinian approach to justice ("if he doesn't resist, he must be guilty") must stop.
I'm stricken deeply by the similarities to Calgary. The Teabaggers were out in force last night, crying and screaming for this execution to go forward. It was reminiscent of Jesus' crucifixion. I reflected on what would happen today if an INFJ of exceptional character claimed the right to be ruler under chaotic conditions... I concluded they would demand that INFJ be tried and executed for treason if their followers committed any act of violence against officers of the state. If a modern day Jesus were to appear it would be the Teabaggers who would call for his crucifixion.
But I think Davis was Jesus, just with a different set of priorities and interests.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-23-2011 at 08:35 AM.
This is an interesting article about it:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311881
When I first heard of the Troy Davis case, I definitely thought he was being treated unfairly, and maybe he was. But this article makes some good points. It's so easy to hear some information from the media or activists on one side of an issue and then make an armchair decision without knowing if the facts presented to you are accurate. I don't know if he was innocent or guilty, but I can't put myself in a higher position than the judge who had a lot more facts than I do. Certainly the articles that say there were holes in the case make a compelling, heartrending case. But without any rigorous standard for evidence, whom can you believe?
Last edited by Jonathan; 09-24-2011 at 12:27 AM.
Jonathan how can you support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt when there is reasonable doubt?
I myself don't like the death penalty, no matter what, because humans are imperfect, and so there is *always* a reasonable doubt.
I support it only for serial killers.
I'm not supporting the conviction. As I said, my first reaction was similar to yours, but I posted an article that makes a very valid point: The fact that there are websites and articles that say there's reasonable doubt doesn't necessarily mean that a jury would conclude that there's reasonable doubt if presented all the evidence according the standards of a judicial proceeding.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
To take it out of the question of this particular situation, suppose someone was justly convicted, but his lawyers mounted a media campaign saying that there was all kinds of tainted evidence and bias, and people who opposed the death penalty picked up on it, and it became viral. To the general public, bombarded with all kinds of information that they don't know is true, there would be reasonable doubt, but to a jury presented both sides, with all the standards of evidence required, there might not be reasonable doubt.
I'm not saying that that's the case here. The guy does have an innocent "look" in the picture, as you pointed out. But read the article. It makes some interesting points.
The one thing I would say, though, that's a bit unsettling, looking into the case further, is the number of times procedural issues with timing played a decisive role. It seems as if the defense lawyers missed some crucial deadlines, and the system appears to be biased towards punishing the lawyers for improper procedure over getting to the truth. That is concerning.
Why did they miss the deadlines?
I don't know. I just read about it just a little. It seems their biggest mistake, after the Supreme Court gave them an unprecedented opportunity to present evidence in a new hearing, was that a key part of their argument was that Coles did it, but they didn't try to subpoena Coles to defend himself until the day before, apparently. According to Wikipedia, Judge "Moore responded that the attempt had been made too late, given that the hearing had been set for months." Earlier, on appeal, they also tried to present new evidence, but according to Wikipedia "The State of Georgia argued that the evidence had been procedurally defaulted since it should have been introduced earlier."
I guess the bad part is that trials are kind of like a chess game between lawyers, and the verdict is based on the lawyer's skill and attentiveness.
So that is a bit unsettling. As I said earlier, we don't know all the facts; not everything we hear from the media is true or complete. Nevertheless, the way the judicial system polices itself in a way that affects verdicts is dangerous. It works the other way too....Some policeman or prosecutor makes some minor technical mistake that shouldn't logically be important, and so key evidence is thrown out, and the guilty person goes free.
I think part of the solution is to find some other way to ensure that lawyers, police, etc., have an incentive to follow proper procedure, but without punishing justice itself.
There was an article in TIME about how Perry refused to halt the execution of a man convicted of arson. An expert used modern methods to re-examine the crime, and concluded no arson had taken place.
Jonathan you are so arrogant. I mean this is really callous. Sickeningly callous. What if it were you in that position?
^ Concern troll plays concerned.
Why are you blaming me? I just stated some reasons why the trial may have been unfair, and offered a solution (find a way to enforce proper procedure without causing a miscarriage of justice). I thought we were taking the same position on that. The only difference was that I also said that we can't be sure about everything that's being reported in the case. I think that's only reasonable. How is that being arrogant?
Well, it looks as if another controversial case (Amanda Knox) was resolved in favor of the defendant, although prosecutors can still appeal. And by the way, I never denied the apparent injustices in Troy Davis's case...in fact, I mentioned some of them. I was only pointing out that we can't know for sure when don't have all the facts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote