Troy Davis is Executed

I posted some more detailed info about the case, does it change anyone's mind? For me it made me feel that he's likely guilty but there's still enough room for doubt that I think he shouldn't have been executed.

I agree with the above. I read more in-depth into the case and about the witnesses there were, the appeals, etc. It does really sound like he's guilty, but because of the recanted witnesses, it should be given another look.
 
I'm aware of that the above comment wasn't meant to be entirely serious but it is a little surprising to me that with such influential people and organizations they couldn't have stopped it.

Just because someone is 'influential' doesnt mean that they have insight or knowledge to all the facts of the case to the level the various Judges have over it.

I would rather keep our system in place 'as is' rather than trade it by fiat for one where personal influence matters more than a judges/juries opinion after hearing the facts.
 
I don't think those here who are opposed expected him to go free, just that he should have been commuted to life.
 
I am probably the last one on this forum to throw around accusations of racism, but I am just waiting till someone digs up how many of the witnesses were white policemen and that the jury was also 90% white. Then it will all make a perfect sense...

The jurors were mostly black. There was no racism here.

That said, I think this case is actually an excellent example of why the death penalty is a bad idea, even though in theory it is a fair punishment.
 
I don't think those here who are opposed expected him to go free, just that he should have been commuted to life.
No, I think he should have gotten a new trial given that the police coerced 7 out of 9 of the eyewitnesses to lie under oath.
 
For the consideration of those who see no problem.

The world is watching, and they see a problem. You may not care what the world thinks right now, but it matters when you (we) want to call out Iran or whoever's going to carry out an execution or whatever apparent human rights violation you (we) disagree with. If we want to claim moral authority we have to demonstrate it clearly. We're doing a really bad job of that. Supposing this man were a murderer, it may well have been worth it to leave him in prison until he died on his own time, if only to deny critics the opportunity to point to this questionable case to damn the institution. Your own trust of our system is really not adequate.

Just throwing it out there.

The world doesn't exclude Americans, btw.

I dont see how you could be more certain. The facts of this case were heard over and over again, appeal after appeal. There was no new dna evidence to confirm his innocense.

This case was heard properly, even all the way up and to the supreme court. He was found guilty of murder, and his myriad appeals found no error in the process.

The standard for certainty in a capital punishment case needs to be much, much higher than the standard for certainty in a life imprisonment case. Perhaps higher than the standards currently commonly considered adequate. I don't have faith that higher standards were upheld. Obviously I'm not the only one.

Actually the family of the victim was present at the execution and fwiw consider the execution as the final closure to what happened to their family member. As far as I can read they do indeed seem unified that justice was indeed done in this.

Check this out. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2094328,00.html
 
He was proved guilty.

Exactly. He was proven guilty, and that verdict upheld myriad times via the mandatory appeal process all the way up to the Supreme Court.
He was found guilty. From what I've read there doesn't seem to be much proof at all.

Why would almost all the witnesses later change their tune & say they were coerced? A grand conspiracy? Doesn't that even make you curious?
 
...no DNA evidence? Wow.

While it doesn't seem he was innocent, you still shouldn't execute so willfully; it's a last resort, not a be all and end all.

Never mind that for common crimes it should be abolished entirely. Keep it for mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. but common murderers? Too much room for error. We should reduce the pool of error. It's easy to get framed for one or two murders, but for dozens, thousands, or millions? Good luck.
 
Thanks, this puts Mrs. McPhail into a different light.

...no DNA evidence? Wow.

While it doesn't seem he was innocent, you still shouldn't execute so willfully; it's a last resort, not a be all and end all.

Never mind that for common crimes it should be abolished entirely. Keep it for mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. but common murderers? Too much room for error. We should reduce the pool of error. It's easy to get framed for one or two murders, but for dozens, thousands, or millions? Good luck.
But apparently a "cop killer" is no common murderer.
 
But apparently a "cop killer" is no common murderer.

The idea is that killing a police officer is a far more heinous act than killing a private citizen, as it is an attack on the brave individuals who maintain law and order in our society. From a more cynical perspective, it is an attack on state authority and that is a nono.

Though, while morally it may or may not be worse than attacking a private citizen, there's still room for framing.

Now, if you see someone committing a chain of killings against multiple officers, I'd understand, but just one or two? Not really good enough.

At the very least, we should get a confession before applying the death penalty in cases of single murders.
 
No, I think he should have gotten a new trial given that the police coerced 7 out of 9 of the eyewitnesses to lie under oath.

Please. Why are you so prone to belive this so many years after the fact of the trial? Did you not read the court brief in regardin the issue? It was never brought up as pertinent in the initial appeal.

I attribute it more to 'yeah, the man made me do it' years after the fact than any real or factual claim. And it seemed the various courts who heard the argument felt likewise.

So I have to ask: why are you so quick to give such claims credence?
 
Er, blacks can be racist against blacks. The 'negative associations' with blacks can be picked up by black people, too.

Justice at least guaranteed that the suspect was tried by a jury that reflected the real ethnic makeup of the community. So Winner's remark that he was probably convicted by a 90% white jury is way off.

And I really don't think blacks in the US would be more likely to convict blacks than other ethnicities.
 
Please. Why are you so prone to belive this so many years after the fact of the trial? Did you not read the court brief in regardin the issue? It was never brought up as pertinent in the initial appeal.

I attribute it more to 'yeah, the man made me do it' years after the fact than any real or factual claim. And it seemed the various courts who heard the argument felt likewise.

So I have to ask: why are you so quick to give such claims credence?

That's not the point, is it? No one here seems to give them enough credence to say he's certainly innocent. However it's dismissing them quickly that might lead to a miscarriage of justice. Sure, your explanation is the most likely one. But how certain are you? Certain enough to put a man to death? I can't see how anyone could feel that way, especially since there's another possible suspect.

So why are you so quick to say that the claims are certainly false? That's the real question here, not yours.
 
The eyewitnesses didn't recant until after the initial appeal. And by then the new law restricting habeus corpus rights in exactly these sort of cases made any further appeals futile.

Why am I so "prone" to believe the facts as they are now known? Why shouldn't I? These facts serve as the fundamental basis why justice was not served here.

Affidavits Recanting Testimony or Statements Given in the Troy Davis Case

(From: Amnesty International, ‘Where is the justice for me?’: The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia , Feb. 1, 2007)

Kevin McQueen

“The truth is that Troy never confessed to me or talked to me about the shooting of the police officer. I made up the confession from information I had heard on T.V. and from other inmates about the crimes. Troy did not tell me any of this… I have now realized what I did to Troy so I have decided to tell the truth… I need to set the record straight.”

Monty Holmes

“I told them I didn’t know anything about who shot the officer, but they kept questioning me. I was real young at that time and here they were questioning me about the murder of a police officer like I was in trouble or something. I was scared… t seemed like they wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop.”

Jeffrey Sapp

“I got tired of them harassing me, and they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear. I told them that Troy told me he did it, but it wasn’t true. Troy never said that or anything like it. When it came time for Troy’s trial, the police made it clear to me that I needed to stick to my original statement; that is, what they wanted me to say. I didn’t want to have any more problems with the cops, so I testified against Troy.”

Dorothy Ferrell

“From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the
one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the
witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the
detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer.”

Darrell "D.D." Collins

“After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told them what they wanted to hear. They would tell me things that they said had happened and I would repeat whatever they said. … It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail.”

Larry Young

“I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had
been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept
pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them.”

Antoine Williams

“They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling
them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read.”

Robert Grizzard

“I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that the person who shot the officer was wearing a light colored shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement …”

Michael Cooper

“I have had a chance to review a statement which I supposedly gave to police officers on June 25, 1991. I
remember that they asked a lot of questions and typed up a statement which they told me to sign. I did not read the statement before I signed. In fact, I have not seen it before today. … What is written in that statement is a lie.”

Benjamin Gordon

“I just kept telling them that I didn’t do anything, but they weren’t hearing that. After four or five hours, they told me to sign some papers. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I didn’t read what they told me to sign and they didn’t ask me to.

Joseph Washington

“I saw Sylvester Coles – I know him by the name Red – shoot the police officer. I am positive that it was Red who shot the police officer…”

Tonya Johnson

Red then took both guns next door to an empty house and put them inside the screen door and shut the
door … he threatened me after this happened. He told me that he wanted to make sure that I did not tell the police about the guns he hid in the screen door that morning. This is why I did not testify about the guns at Troy’s trial because I was afraid of what Red would do to me if I did. I have not told anyone about this until now because I was still scared… But I have decided that I must tell the truth."

Anthony Hargrove

“I know a guy named Red, from Savannah. His real name is Sylvester Coles. I’ve known Red for years and
we used to hang out together. Red once told me that he shot a police officer and that a guy named Davis took the fall for it. He told me this about a year or so after the officer was killed…”

Gary Hargrove

“I am sure that Red was facing in the officer’s direction when I heard the shooting. … I was never talked to by the police or any attorneys or investigators representing Troy Davis before his trial. I didn’t go up to talk to the police that night because I was on parole at the time and was out past my curfew so I didn’t want my parole officer to find out about that.”

Shirley Riley

“People on the streets were talking about Sylvester Coles being involved with killing the police officer so one day I asked him if he was involved… Sylvester told me he did shoot the officer …”

Darold Taylor

“I remember reading in the paper once about how a guy named Troy Davis got sentenced to the electric
chair… One day when I was in the parking lot of Yamacraw drinking beers with Red. I told him about how I’d heard that he was the one who killed the officer. Red told me to stay out of his business. I asked him again if he killed the officer and Red admitted to me that he was the one who killed the officer, but then Red told meagain to stay out of his business.”

April Hester Hutchinson

“Red turned to me and asked me if I would walk with him up to the Burger King so ‘they won’t think that I had nothing to do with it’. That’s exactly what he said… I told [the police] that I saw Red talking to my cousin Tonya and that Red was real nervous. I did not tell them about what Red had said to me because I was scared he would hurt me. I was thinking that if he did that to a police officer, what would he do to me? I didn’t want to die like that officer, so I kept my mouth shut.”

Anita Saddler

“When I saw Red and Terry, they were jumpy and couldn’t stand still. Their eyes were shifting around and
they were looking everywhere. They walked up to us and Red asked us to go up to Burger King and see
what happened. Like I said, they were real nervous and fidgety. Red had a gun which was stuck into his
shorts. I saw the outline of his gun through his white shirt. I had seen him with a gun many times before.
”

Peggie Grant (mother of April Hester Hutchinson)

“A few hours later, April called me on the phone. She told me that she had had a conversation with Red
where he asked her to walk up with him to where the officer was shot so that the police would think that he was with her and not think he did anything.”


The entire Amnesty International article:

DOCUMENT - USA: 'WHERE IS THE JUSTICE FOR ME?' : THE CASE OF TROY DAVIS, FACING EXECUTION IN GEORGIA

The Intro to the article:

US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens(1)

I think this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment… I really think it’s a very unfortunate part of our judicial system and I would feel much, much better if more states would really consider whether they think the benefits outweigh the very serious potential injustice, because in these cases the emotions are very, very high on both sides and to have stakes as high as you do in these cases, there is a special potential for error.

Troy Anthony Davis has been on death row in Georgia for more than 15 years for the murder of a police officer he maintains he did not commit. Given that all but three of the witnesses who testified against Troy Davis at his trial have since recanted or contradicted their testimony amidst allegations that some of it had been made under police duress, there are serious and as yet unanswered questions surrounding the reliability of his conviction and the state’s conduct in obtaining it. As the case currently stands, the government’s pursuit of the death penalty contravenes international safeguards which prohibit the execution of anyone whose guilt is not based on "clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts".(2)

Amnesty International does not know if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent of the crime for which he is facing execution. As an abolitionist organization, it opposes his death sentence either way. It nevertheless believes that this is one in a long line of cases in the USA that should give even ardent supporters of the death penalty pause for thought. For it provides further evidence of the danger, inherent in the death penalty, of irrevocable error. As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote in 1993, "It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible."(3) Or as a US federal judge said in 2006, "The assessment of the death penalty, however well designed the system for doing so, remains a human endeavour with a consequent risk of error that may not be remediable."(4)

The case of Troy Davis is a reminder of the legal hurdles that death row inmates must overcome in the USA in order to obtain remedies in the appeal courts. In this regard, Amnesty International fears that Troy Davis’ avenues for judicial relief have been all but closed off. In particular, he is caught in a trap set by US Congress a decade ago when it withdrew funding from post-conviction defender organizations in 1995 and passed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996.

This report outlines the case of Troy Davis. Executive clemency will be his last hope if the courts prove unwilling or unable to provide a meaningful remedy. Time is running out.
Well, time has finally run out...

Details of just one of the statements above:

Benjamin Gordon
Affidavit, 10 February 2003

Benjamin Gordon, who was 15 years old at the time of the crime, had been at the party in Cloverdale and was leaving in the car with Michael Cooper when the latter was shot and wounded. In his affidavit, he states that "the shooting came from the shadows next to the street", and that "I never saw who did the shooting". The affidavit continues:

"Later that night, police officers came and dragged me from my house in Yamacraw. There were police officers everywhere after the police officer was killed and it seemed like they were taking everyone in Yamacraw to the police barracks for questioning. I was handcuffed and they put a nightstick under my neck. I had just turned sixteen and was scared as hell. The police officers took me to the barracks and put me in a small room. Over the next couple of hours, three or so officers questioned me – at first, they called me a m********* and told me that I had shot the officer. They told me that I was going to the electric chair. They got in my face and yelled at me a lot. The cops then told me that I did the shooting over in Cloverdale. I just kept telling them that I didn’t do anything, but they weren’t hearing that. After four or five hours, they told me to sign some papers. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I didn’t read what they told me to sign and they didn’t ask me to.

When it came time for trial, I was in jail, and the sheriff’s office transported me to the courthouse. A person in a suit told me to say to the court what I had told the police. I believe that person was with the District Attorney’s office.

No one working on Troy’s case even came to speak to me before trial. If they would have, I would have talked to them and told them what is contained in this affidavit."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

I found this article from wikipedia very interesting. Apparently there are several states in the US that do not have the death penalty:

North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
West Virginia
New Jersey
Vermont
Maine
Alaska
Hawaii
Rhode Island
The District of Colombia

Kansas and New Hampshire have the death penalty but haven't executed anyone since 1976.
The death penalty was abolished in New Mexico but they may execute two inmates who were sentenced prior to abolition. In New York and Massachusetts, Nebraska and Kansas the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by state courts but it seems like there's something a bit uncertain about the status. I couldn't really tell by the article but it looks like at least in New York and Massachusetts they effectively no longer have the death penalty.

I also found it very interesting that someone was executed for witchcraft in Illinois in 1779.
 
Recanted testimony is generally considered unreliable. While I honestly don't see enough here to say Davis was innocent, I do think it's pretty clear there was enough doubt in the case that he should have had the execution stayed.

In addition to a pretty clear cut wrongful execution in Texas, high profile doubtful executions like this are going to be the death knell of the death penalty. If you're a supporter of capital punishment, you don't want it used in this lax a manner.

I don't think Capital Punishment will ever end, but this isn't good for pro-death OR anti-death people. Nobody likes this.

As I said in the other thread, I don't care if appeals are "Over" if evidence just happens to come up that casts reasonable doubt, don't execute him until you have a retrial.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

I found this article from wikipedia very interesting. Apparently there are several states in the US that do not have the death penalty:

North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Michigan
West Virginia
New Jersey
Vermont
Maine
Alaska
Hawaii
Rhode Island
The District of Colombia

Kansas and New Hampshire have the death penalty but haven't executed anyone since 1976.
The death penalty was abolished in New Mexico but they may execute two inmates who were sentenced prior to abolition. In New York and Massachusetts, Nebraska and Kansas the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by state courts but it seems like there's something a bit uncertain about the status. I couldn't really tell by the article but it looks like at least in New York and Massachusetts they effectively no longer have the death penalty.

I also found it very interesting that someone was executed for witchcraft in Illinois in 1779.

From someone who is currently studying New York's laws, New York technically has never removed the capital punishment statues from its penal law, however, they have not actually used it since 1976, and no district attorney would currently support capital punishment, so its de facto dead, at least at present, but I'm not sure if there was a court case regarding it or not (I'll have to ask my law enforcement teacher next time I'm in school:))
 
The standard for certainty in a capital punishment case needs to be much, much higher than the standard for certainty in a life imprisonment case.

It is.

Perhaps higher than the standards currently commonly considered adequate. I don't have faith that higher standards were upheld. Obviously I'm not the only one.

If the Supreme Court was satisfied they were thats good enough for me.
 
Top Bottom