The Case of Troy Davis

[kandrathe]

His federal appeals have been denied, so it looks bleak for this probably innocent man in Georgia.

The Case of Troy Davis is typical of my impression of police investigations. There is not the heroics, and intuition applied that you see on TV crime drama's. Rather, I believe there is usually a rush to pin the crime on someone, and then manufacture the evidence to get a conviction. This case deserves more attention.

[Jester]

Well, you know, eggs and omelettes and what have you. Can't run a justice system without occasionally framing a minority and sentencing them to death with little or no recourse or appeal; it would be tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars to do otherwise.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, you know, eggs and omelettes and what have you. Can't run a justice system without occasionally framing a minority and sentencing them to death with little or no recourse or appeal; it would be tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars to do otherwise.

This is the type of case where there should be sufficient physical evidence, like finger prints on the gun, powder residue on the suspect, or other forensic evidence. Rather, this case relies on only eye witness testimony, of which 6 of the 8 have recanted. One of the eye witnesses might be the actual gun man, and the other's memory has improved with age where at first he was uncertain. This is too flimsy a case to go to the death penalty.

[Jester]

This is the type of case where there should be sufficient physical evidence, like finger prints on the gun, powder residue on the suspect, or other forensic evidence. Rather, this case relies on only eye witness testimony, of which 6 of the 8 have recanted. One of the eye witnesses might be the actual gun man, and the other's memory has improved with age where at first he was uncertain. This is too flimsy a case to go to the death penalty.

One would hope, but where the death penalty, race, and American justice intersect, I'm afraid I haven't got a whole lot of hope to spare.

-Jester

[weakwarrior]

His federal appeals have been denied, so it looks bleak for this probably innocent man in Georgia.

The Case of Troy Davis is typical of my impression of police investigations. There is not the heroics, and intuition applied that you see on TV crime drama's. Rather, I believe there is usually a rush to pin the crime on someone, and then manufacture the evidence to get a conviction. This case deserves more attention.

Incidentally, if you are suspicious of facts from newspapers with the word socialist in their title, here are links from Time Magazine and the Economist (courtesy of wikipedia) - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...00.html?cnn=yes and http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstate...ory_id=12689946.

[Taem]

His federal appeals have been denied, so it looks bleak for this probably innocent man in Georgia.

The Case of Troy Davis is typical of my impression of police investigations. There is not the heroics, and intuition applied that you see on TV crime drama's. Rather, I believe there is usually a rush to pin the crime on someone, and then manufacture the evidence to get a conviction. This case deserves more attention.

I'm sorry, but someone who was in that parking lot at that time in the morning, hanging out with people who carry guns was probably up to no good anyways. Even if he is innocent of killing the police officer, he certainly is an accessory, as so is the other seven "witnesses." As Occi has said before, I just wouldn't place myself in a situation that warranted investigation on my behalf for something like that, especially not with my wife and kids. Obviously this guy can choose who he wants to associate with, but this time he made the wrong choice, as all his trusted friends turned him in as the shooter; nice bunch of friends... IMO, they all deserve to get sentenced, but only one of them took the fall; now thats the real shame in this story.

[weakwarrior]

I'm sorry, but someone who was in that parking lot at that time in the morning, hanging out with people who carry guns was probably up to no good anyways. Even if he is innocent of killing the police officer, he certainly is an accessory, as so is the other seven "witnesses." As Occi has said before, I just wouldn't place myself in a situation that warranted investigation on my behalf for something like that, especially not with my wife and kids. Obviously this guy can choose who he wants to associate with, but this time he made the wrong choice, as all his trusted friends turned him in as the shooter; nice bunch of friends... IMO, they all deserve to get sentenced, but only one of them took the fall; now thats the real shame in this story.

In fact, I think kandrathe should also be sentenced. Who does he think he is trying to dispute the justice department - must be up to no good as well.

[Kevin]

His federal appeals have been denied, so it looks bleak for this probably innocent man in Georgia.

The Case of Troy Davis is typical of my impression of police investigations. There is not the heroics, and intuition applied that you see on TV crime drama's. Rather, I believe there is usually a rush to pin the crime on someone, and then manufacture the evidence to get a conviction. This case deserves more attention.

I'm not sure this is all on the investigators. There was a breakdown in the justice system too if weak evidence got a conviction. This is especially more problematic if the sentence includes the death penalty.

Of course while I'm not against the death penalty, I'm also of the mindset that you better be damn sure if you use because you can't make any type of amends if it turns out you were wrong. I accept that mistakes will happen. Best of intentions and practices and things can add up to the wrong conclusion. But if you are taking someones life away you better be air tight. The chances of not being air tight are the strongest argument against a death penalty in my mind. I actually feel that some people can not be rehabilitated, and I get high and mighty enough at times to feel that some people have given up their right to live. I also feel at times killing someone is more humane than other forms of punishment (yeah my morals my be mixed up).

I tend to lean to the side of don't kill em, but not so strongly that I don't think it can't be the better way to go. But again, this case is not solid enough for that, I don't think. Is the man innocent of the shooting, it seems likely but as mentioned he is an accessory. The death penalty for killing one man is not something I support either. This is not a case where it should be applied.

I'll agree that the police seemed to have railroaded things, but again, the court system is supposed to help stop that. You can not put all this on the police.

[kandrathe]

In fact, I think kandrathe should also be sentenced. Who does he think he is trying to dispute the justice department - must be up to no good as well.

I have an airtight alibi, or at least I will manufacture one if needed. :)

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure this is all on the investigators.

...

I'll agree that the police seemed to have railroaded things, but again, the court system is supposed to help stop that. You can not put all this on the police.

You are right, it takes a few things. Circumstances that place the defendant in the wrong place at the wrong time, a rush to judgment by the investigators, buy in from the prosecutor, and a very poor defense. In this case, the defense failed to get a change of venue, failed to identify the testimony as coerced, and failed to make the counter case against Coles (whose gun probably did the killing). If anything, this case reinforces a maxim I've lived, in that if you don't want bad things to happen to you, then be aware of where you are, and who is around you. Many times in my youth, when things began to get a little crazy at parties I would round up my friends and leave only to hear about the police raids the next day.

[Nystul]

How relevant is the death penalty aspect, when it's all said and done? Clearly relevant to the writers of the article, because that is their agenda. But what if he had been sentenced to life? This man has been in prison for almost 20 years now. If he didn't commit the crime, that is a tragic failure of the justice system. To say that he has had ample time to build an appeal would be an understatement. The very thought that someone could be in jail for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit is appalling, regardless of any additional circumstance. Were it a life sentence, should he not also be able to talk to lawyers and present an appeal to have his sentence vacated?

The one thing I know for sure is that it's almost 20 years after the crime, and he's still alive (if one can even call it alive). To call this a death penalty case is some joke of our system. It's not Death Row; more like Purgatory.

[Jester]

I'll agree that the police seemed to have railroaded things, but again, the court system is supposed to help stop that. You can not put all this on the police.

That's only because there's so very much blame to go around. Each level has its own, separate injustice. If the police had only tried to frame some black guy for a crime he didn't commit, but failed due to the diligence of the courts, would that somehow make the police less culpable?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

How relevant is the death penalty aspect, when it's all said and done? Clearly relevant to the writers of the article, because that is their agenda. But what if he had been sentenced to life? This man has been in prison for almost 20 years now. If he didn't commit the crime, that is a tragic failure of the justice system. To say that he has had ample time to build an appeal would be an understatement. The very thought that someone could be in jail for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit is appalling, regardless of any additional circumstance. Were it a life sentence, should he not also be able to talk to lawyers and present an appeal to have his sentence vacated?

The one thing I know for sure is that it's almost 20 years after the crime, and he's still alive (if one can even call it alive). To call this a death penalty case is some joke of our system. It's not Death Row; more like Purgatory.

And, what is tragic is that I believe this kind of justice is common. Only high profile "death penalty" cases get the kind of scrutiny this one has.

[Kevin]

That's only because there's so very much blame to go around. Each level has its own, separate injustice. If the police had only tried to frame some black guy for a crime he didn't commit, but failed due to the diligence of the courts, would that somehow make the police less culpable?

-Jester

I'm not saying the police should be off the hook, but it was looking like they were getting the lions share. Police behavior needs to be fixed in the country, but you can't just stop there. That's all.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's not Death Row; more like Purgatory.

I've often said that if a doctor gave me six months to live, I'd commit a capital crime. My life expectancy on death row would statistically be an order of magnitude longer.;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Of course while I'm not against the death penalty, I'm also of the mindset that you better be damn sure if you use because you can't make any type of amends if it turns out you were wrong.

In theory, I agree with you. The problem is that you can never truly be 'damn sure'. For most my life, I've defended the death penalty because some actions are just too evil to allow a lesser punishment. But the large number of cases that have been overturned by advances in forensics, especially DNA, causes me the doubt our system.

Am I willing to put up with an error rate? Yes, both for false positives and false negatives. But the evidence seems to indicate that false positive rate is way too high, even in the judicial system which we have, where the accused have all the rights and the victims have none. So, in practice I have to change my stance. Fix the system, and only after that is done (if ever) use the death penalty. Until then, kill no one on the basis of corrupt cops, incompetent defense attorneys, twelve people too stupid to dodge jury duty, and senile judges.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Until then, kill no one on the basis of corrupt cops, incompetent defense attorneys, twelve people too stupid to dodge jury duty, and senile judges.

Another problem with our system is that death penalty jurors are screened to only allow those that are willing to sentence someone to death. This skews the jury in favor of higher conviction rate and harsher sentencing than would a true random selection of 12 "peers".

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
I've often said that if a doctor gave me six months to live, I'd commit a capital crime. My life expectancy on death row would statistically be an order of magnitude longer.;)

--Pete

Freakonomics points out that in the 1980s (maybe 1990s) a gang member in Chicago had a shorter life expectancy than a person on death row.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Another problem with our system is that death penalty jurors are screened to only allow those that are willing to sentence someone to death. This skews the jury in favor of higher conviction rate and harsher sentencing than would a true random selection of 12 "peers".

I've heard this before, but don't understand the logic. If a person is willing to sentence someone to death, does that imply that he is less likely to be impartial in his determination of guilt? Does it imply that he is more likely to impose a harsher sentence (execution aside)? What about people like me (until recently); I am a 'child of the sixties', I do not trust the government and would hold the police, the prosecution, the judiciary, to a very high standard. Unless a good, fair case was made, I would vote 'innocent'. If substantive mitigating factors existed, I'd take them in consideration in sentencing. Was I so unusual, or was I a typical supporter of capital punishment?

If the law permits a punishment that one disagrees with, then it is the ballot box and not the jury room that should be used to change the law. Or so I feel, but perhaps I have quaint definitions of 'legislative', 'executive', and 'judicial'. Perhaps the ingredients in government stew have boiled in the same pot so long now that they've blended into one homogeneous mess.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I've heard this before, but don't understand the logic. If a person is willing to sentence someone to death, does that imply that he is less likely to be impartial in his determination of guilt? Does it imply that he is more likely to impose a harsher sentence (execution aside)?

I think you get more of the "Hang em, no matter what" people, and some of the impartial apathetic people, and less of the presumed innocent people. In the jury questionnaire they outright ask if you are opposed to the death penalty. Those people who support the death penalty, are also probably more likely to believe in harsh sentencing and are probably easier to convince.

What about people like me (until recently); I am a 'child of the sixties', I do not trust the government and would hold the police, the prosecution, the judiciary, to a very high standard. Unless a good, fair case was made, I would vote 'innocent'. If substantive mitigating factors existed, I'd take them in consideration in sentencing. Was I so unusual, or was I a typical supporter of capital punishment?

No they by and large are not like you. You think and will understand the evidence understanding both what was presented and what was not presented. Like the jury I sat on recently (The case was against a heroine addict for witness tampering by talking to his wife on the phone), there was one guy that would not listen to the other 11 of us (10 after the 2nd day because one juror disqualified himself by talking to a witness >duh<). This guys mind was stone walled for conviction no matter what evidence was presented. There was obviously insufficient evidence to convict the addict of the charge (the felony version), but it was clear he was very guilty of the misdemeanor version of the law. The prosecutor was pushing for the felony to try to get the guy to roll over on some other charges pending against him. What you are forgetting about are the percentage of the population who are not rational thinkers.

If the law permits a punishment that one disagrees with, then it is the ballot box and not the jury room that should be used to change the law. Or so I feel, but perhaps I have quaint definitions of 'legislative', 'executive', and 'judicial'. Perhaps the ingredients in government stew have boiled in the same pot so long now that they've blended into one homogeneous mess.

The trend for the last 40 years has been the cliche' "tough on crime" candidate. Both political parties have tried to out do each other in proving that they are the true tough on crime party. The war on drugs has really been a war on liberty and weakening the rights of citizens to a fair trial, and equal protection. The war and terror has equally been an assault on personal liberty in the name of "protection". We have yet to see where Pres. Obama lands in regards to the positioning of government power used against the people. Meanwhile, we still get cases like the one where the single mother with young kids get 10 years minimum sentence because her dead beat dealer boyfriend hid 2 Kg's of coke in her closet, then testified against her in a plea deal to lighten his own sentence. Like I said earlier in this post, that a person can save themselves most of this agony by disassociating (if possible) with anyone or anyplace likely to attract police attention.