Death-row inmate Troy Davis Denied Clemency

reply to post by Nucleardiver

At least if they were set free justice would still be served eventually.

Yep, I might help with their bail money.

Im so glad i live in the UK where we are civilized and live in the 21st century. Wake up America, 2 wrongs dont make a right. Even with 100% undeniable proof taking someones life is wrong unless that person is trying to kill you.

reply to post by chaztekno


So Life in Prison is a better alternative?

Consider this. Not only the $6.4 billion, but also the fact that 2600 juveniles will spend their entire lifetime behind bars! Sad, wasteful, inhumane, really their aren't words to describe it, and this is just in California.

We also have more juveniles serving life sentences than in California than in any other state. More than 2600 juveniles are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 and if you calculate out the cost, using the 50-grand a year and then the 150-grand after they each reach the age of 55, you're going to be looking at $6.4 billion* to have those 2600 juveniles to serve out a life sentence in prison.

Cost of Life in Prison

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by the owlbear

 

What's the point of living in a box for the rest of one's life? Is that really better than being dead? Is life all about quantity and no concern for quality?

Life in prison is equal to death in my opinion, maybe even worse. Can you imagine 15 minute snapshots of your kids growing up on the other side of some glass where you see them 15 minutes every couple of months? That seems like the definition of torture to me. We don't allow cruel and unusual punishment. What do you think it does to a person to spend 2 days preparing for death, making amends with your god, and then marching down that long hallway, only to have the execution stayed at the last minute, and then repeating the same thing 3 years later? Cruel and Unusual if you ask me. Death is merciful.

When the government can kill you for one offense, then they can sway people for two, three, four, and if I am to take some responses from posters on this thread, they would go for it. Where would it end? Steal a loaf of bread to feed your kids with a water pistol? Guess what, armed robbery is now a capital offense. You're the guest star on pay per view with the "victim" able to shoot at you in a pen.

Evolve. We are better than a death sentence and, if we cannot show we have evolved past that, then we will revert to worse soon enough.
Cutting off a hand for stealing.
Stoning for (supposedly) cheating wives
How about an ear for, well, the guy just needed it and there were seats to fill.
Retard? Kill em, cut em, bleed em.
Child? Same.
Rise above people.
What if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time?

reply to post by chaztekno


And what do you think that life in prison is? It takes your life, just slowly over the course of decades. So in effect when a person gets life in prison without parole at that moment that persons life is over. Sure they still eat, breath and exist, but that is not life. Our interaction with the world is what gives us life, everything else is just existence.

So you mean that making someone sit in a cell for decades upon end with no hope of ever being free or doing anything that they had dreamed of is more humane than ending their suffering quickly?

reply to post by the owlbear


The Death Penalty is supposedly a deterrent, although I don't think it is effective, but..........

You're the guest star on pay per view with the "victim" able to shoot at you in a pen.

maybe your example of the death penalty would actually be a deterrent!!

They used to have public hangings, and I guarantee seeing it for one's self probably makes a little bigger impact than just hearing about it on the news!

Maybe this barbaric approach would actually SAVE LIVES!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by the owlbear

 

The Death Penalty is supposedly a deterrent, although I don't think it is effective, but..........

You're the guest star on pay per view with the "victim" able to shoot at you in a pen.

maybe your example of the death penalty would actually be a deterrent!!

They used to have public hangings, and I guarantee seeing it for one's self probably makes a little bigger impact than just hearing about it on the news!

Maybe this barbaric approach would actually SAVE LIVES!

With all your Ron Paul regalia, you would think you'd want less government.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say, Yeah, Kill, Kill, kill.
Government killing people is the ultimate infringing of rights.

How bout some caning for spitting your gum on the ground?
A hot poker on the cheek for looking at internet porn?
The state shouldn't have that power.

It's called rehabilitation. Other countries do it to much success. And it is cheaper than our prison state.

reply to post by the owlbear


You're right.

Look back a couple of pages for this post.

I think we should de-criminalize a whole bunch of things, like prostitution, most drugs, tax evasion, etc., etc.

Then, when we are faced with true dangers to society, I think we should expedite their treatment. Rehabilitate the ones we can (somewhere besides prison), and cut our ties with the rest.

I think a lot of youthful offenders could learn from a stint in the military or on a chain gang somewhere. I think the most violent ones should be put to death quickly, and I think the victimless crimes should not be crimes at all. "Society" should not be considered a victim. We shouldn't criminalize morality.

I don't believe in drinking ages, but I believe in the right of any establishment to refuse to serve someone.

Yes, get the government out of most things, but where it is involved, it should be decisive and final in its involvement.

No drawn out wars, use diplomacy first, and overwhelming force second, not this long drawn out nation building process.

We can go a long way down the rabbit hole of what I think government should and should not be doing. As for the death penalty, the government should investigate the crime, assemble the jury, administer the hearing, provide a check and balance to prevent corruption, and then hand then either assign the accused for some counseling or hand them over to the family for punishment.

The simple fact that so many individuals have been executed only to later be exonerated should act as a large flashing beacon to us all...If the possibility for error is there, and it most definitely is, then a system where the consequences of a mistake is a human life, the system should at the very least be re-evaluated.

I find it so odd that time and again I hear that this man allegedly killed an "officer".

What in the hell does someones profession have to do with a possible murder case?

I discount all those comments...

I do enjoy some of the real live comments from you who HAVE experience with our legal justice system.

Anyone who would willing kill someone based on our flawed justice system scares the # outta me and please...stay out of my neighborhood.

Originally posted by redoubt

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

I think 22 years is plenty enough of a sentence.Our justice system is out of whack.

A human life can be paid for with 22 years?

That's interesting.

Human lives are incommensurable. You can't pay for a life with another, because a life can't simply be measured and compared another. Each life is unique and once lost can't be repaid given any number of deaths or years. How can subtracting another life repay anything? It just puts you further in debt.

So what purpose is his death going to serve? Is it going to make anyone feel better, now that the victims life has been 'repaid'? Are we going to me that much safer with this man dead instead of in jail? The only benefit I see in the death penalty is making it so we don't have to continually pay for this man while he sits in jail the rest of his life, but money shouldn't be an excuse for killing someone.

I have learned throughout my time, that the legal profession and government institutions are there to support themselves to legitimize their function. If review boards were constantly overturning jury decisions our system of justice would be seen for what it really is: Our best attempt at justice. We constantly hear that our system of justice is the best, that their are some problems, but it is the best we can do. If we do not recognize these inherent problems in our system of justice, and simply ignore they exist, then we will put people to death where there is doubt over their guilt. I personally, do not support the death penalty for this very reason.

We either agree we have a perfect system or not. We have already on the whole admitted it is not perfect. We cannot deny this and kill people in an imperfect system. Someone said it here, two wrongs do not make a right. I understand victims of crimes and their desire to kill someone for their crime. However, the victims of most crimes do not wish death on the offender; rather, it is in murder that families of victims demand death of the offender. I have deep sympathy for families of murder victims, even though I do not support killing another human to justify the killing of a human.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Kryties

 

One that doesn't involve juries, judges or the legal system as a whole deciding whether somebody lives or dies. It is barbaric, frequently proven wrong (execution of innocents) and quite frankly the only people who uphold such a system are psychopaths who enjoy seeing death to satisfy their blood lust.

Wow!

So who does decide then?.....no juries?.....no judges?.......no legal system?

What is your solution?

Stop taking my comment out of context - I meant no-one should decide whether somebody lives or dies - I DID NOT SAY to get rid of judges, juries or the legal system whatsoever.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by redoubt

To be honest, I kind of half expected the victim's family to come forward and support the clemency request, albeit regrettably.

The fact that they haven't, despite evidence suggesting the man is innocent or the trial was flawed, strongly suggests them having put on blinders and simply want SOMEBODY executed to make them feel better about it.

I'm not trying to detract from their pain, but clearly they don't want to know about anything that might jeopardise somebody being executed, rightly or wrongly.

Way to be as contradictory as possible in not only this post, but of numerous other posts you have made. "I'm not trying to detract from their pain.....clearly they don't want to know about anything that might jeopardize somebody being executed, rightly or wrongly..."

You said that. Now...unless you have talked to them personally, I don't know how you could possibly know this to "clearly" be the case. You are a pleaser. There is nothing wrong with that...but you can't please everyone, so you might as well stop trying.

It's better to get rid of the scum than have them 50years in prison or worse: let them out on good behaviour or because they're 'healed', a lot of them directly continue with their crimes and that's a risk that shouldn't exist.

I really don't know how people can sympathize with murderers, rapists or child abusers. How can anyone in their right mind think they don't deserve to be killed? The earth needs to be cleaned of humans that are so evil. What good do they bring us, why should we pay the money to feed them in jails?

Sadly most countries in europe turned the pussy route, no death penalty but 'lalala, in 10 years he's healed...hopefully' and there are so many news of criminals committing the same crimes again after getting out of jail.

I would really wish that those people who are against the death penalty or think it's a shame that criminals don't come free or live a nice life in a jail experience somethng...let them being raped, attacked, leit their children be raped or killed, just so they experience first hand what hell this people bring onto a family with their crimes and if those families after that still believe the death penalty is wrong than i would be really surprised.

reply to post by ShadowAngel85


You'd be shouting a different tune if it was YOU on death row for something you didn't do.

No wonder your country is in such a poor state with attitudes like that prevailing.

reply to post by Kryties


Again, the problem you are touting is a problem with the courts and trials, not the penalties. I agree with you, if I was accused of a crime I didn't commit, there is no way I would stick around for the trial! No way I would take a crap shoot with my life. I'd skip out immediately!

BUT, this isn't a problem with the death penalty. If we assume the courts have done their jobs and the guilty people are the one's on death row, would you still have a problem with the death penalty? For me, I don't see any significant difference between 30 years in jail as an innocent man, or the death penalty as an innocent man. Either way they have taken my life from me.

It seems the death penalty is not the main complaint here, the main complaint seems to be the innocent people in prison.

Assuming all the other problems were 100% solved, and we had guarantees that only the guilty people were punished, and only the most horrendous crimes get the death penalty, would you still be against it? And why?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Kryties

 

Again, the problem you are touting is a problem with the courts and trials, not the penalties. I agree with you, if I was accused of a crime I didn't commit, there is no way I would stick around for the trial! No way I would take a crap shoot with my life. I'd skip out immediately!

It's a bit hard to do that if your locked in a cage on death row!

BUT, this isn't a problem with the death penalty. If we assume the courts have done their jobs and the guilty people are the one's on death row, would you still have a problem with the death penalty?

Yes. I find the death penalty to be abhorrent.

For me, I don't see any significant difference between 30 years in jail as an innocent man, or the death penalty as an innocent man. Either way they have taken my life from me.

But at least the jailed person has a chance at gaining what is left of his life (with a nice hefty bank account depending on where the person was jailed and if the law allows for suing) - the dead man, however, does not.

It seems the death penalty is not the main complaint here, the main complaint seems to be the innocent people in prison.

Actually, for me it's both.

Assuming all the other problems were 100% solved, and we had guarantees that only the guilty people were punished, and only the most horrendous crimes get the death penalty, would you still be against it? And why?

Absolutely. It is backward, barbaric, hypocritical, unnecessary, unforgiving and I abhor the concept of it. The people who participate in and uphold the idea of the death penalty, to me, are no better than the murderers themselves.

reply to post by UniverSoul



I read 7 of 9 witnesses recanted their statements, so that there should prevent this man from being killed. Its sad how many innocent have been executed HENCE ONLY 1 JUDGE. I bet the who injects or pushes or fires never considers their hands become = as bloody and they will be judged on the day of judgment EVEN IF THEIR MINDS CONVINCED THEM ITS ONLY A JOB. Whatever the fate of this man. If innocent may the LORD bless him, its not right could see if the system ran on a perfect level standard but there are too many kinks. SMH


If he is guilty then.... His soul will face judgement on his day as many others shall, but the death penalty is not well set up and spreads the blood on various hands.