News & Events Troy Davis on Death Row

[Gough]

Who would have thought that the 10 commandments had a caveat?

 

[Simple Jack]

Who would have thought that the 10 commandments had a caveat?

They very clearly do, and always have.

Leviticus 20:13 - Kill gay people.
Leviticus 20:9 - Whoever curses parents should be killed.
Deuteronomy 22:20 - If a man has sex with his wife and discovers she had sex with another man before they married, stone her to death.
Deuteronomy 20:10-20 - Tribes and nations surrounding Israel get two options; become slaves or get slaughtered. But the nearest six tribes surrounding Israel have no such choice; the Israelites have to kill all of them.
Exodus 31:15, Numbers 15:35-36 - Kill people who work on the sabbath.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 - Kill anyone who worships another God.
Deuteronomy 13:6-17 - Kill anyone who asks you to worship another God.

Such a beautiful religion.

 

[fairdinkum]

Leviticus 20:13 - Kill gay people.
Leviticus 20:9 - Whoever curses parents should be killed.
Deuteronomy 22:20 - If a man has sex with his wife and discovers she had sex with another man before they married, stone her to death.
Deuteronomy 20:10-20 - Tribes and nations surrounding Israel get two options; become slaves or get slaughtered. But the nearest six tribes surrounding Israel have no such choice; the Israelites have to kill all of them.
Exodus 31:15, Numbers 15:35-36 - Kill people who work on the sabbath.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 - Kill anyone who worships another God.
Deuteronomy 13:6-17 - Kill anyone who asks you to worship another God.

IIRC both of the Books you have cited are of the Old Testament rather than the New.

Despite the massive Zionist lobby at play in the US, it is generally considered a Christian a nation rather than a Jewish one.

Ergo, I think your post is a little bit misrepresentative.

 

[Simple Jack]

IIRC both of the Books you have cited are of the Old Testament rather than the New.

Despite the massive Zionist lobby at play in the US, it is generally considered a Christian a nation rather than a Jewish one.

Ergo, I think your post is a little bit misrepresentative.

So are the 10 commandments which is what I was responding to.

 

[fairdinkum]

So are the 10 commandments which is what I was responding to.

Again I am no expert but I think the (New Testament) Christians may have their own.

Happy to be proven wrong.

 

[drd23]

Again I am no expert but I think the (New Testament) Christians may have their own.

Happy to be proven wrong.

No, there are only 1 set of 10 commandments, and they are found in the Old Testament as SJ said.

IIRC there are additional 'commandments' that Jesus added such as "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" though

 

[Bomber Bears]

"So there are the 14 commandments, did you get all of them down?"

 

[Mooster7]

How do you know he is guilty? Do you know anything about the case?

Yes, I do know about this case. I haven't read through the entire record of trial, that would involve taking a trip to Georgia and spending literally days in a county records building to read it all. A summary is good enough along with knowing that he was convicted.

It's not as though he was found guilty by 12 people and immediately dragged outside and hanged from the nearest tree. This ****er has been through the appellate process. His case has been heavily scrutinized for 20 years. It was sent all the way to the US Supreme Court who kicked it back down to Georgia with orders to further review the case, and it was reviewed yet again. 20 years of scrutiny and reviews and every single expert review committee comes up with the same conclusion - he's guilty. That's how I know he's guilty. Any more questions about that?

Of course AI is against the death penalty! That is the point of their existence! Insubstantial smoke? Ok, you are a real genuine source here mate, really genuine and thick.

AI are a rabid exremists group with a very narrow focus. They'll reveal information out of context, give completely false information and conceal information which shows conclusive guilt of whatever convict they are going on about at any particular moment. What I said in my post is that they aren't a good source for the story in this case. The reason I mentioned AI at all is because they were the source in the OP. That's what anyone reading this thread needs to know. AI are not reliable. By all means follow the link in the OP, but also find other source material. Does that make sense?

I am not pretending to know about this case, but when you have a lot of grey areas floating about and the evidence and testimonies are not black and white, you simply can not send a man to his death until every single avenue of investigation has been exhausted and he is hands down guilty.

It's not that you don't know about this case, Davey. It's obvious that you know very little about criminology and criminal law. There is NO SUCH THING as a black and white case. Every single criminal case, from conspiracy to commit murder to shoplifting a chocolate bar has grey areas. Grey areas are the bread and butter of defense attorneys. It's why there are trials with rules of law. It's why there are judges and the appellate process. Every single case has grey areas. However, if there is enough legitimate evidence, admissable according to the rules of law (which largely favor the defendant BTW) then you can convict as was done in the Troy Davis case.

EDITED TO ADD: The appellate process I mentioned IS the exhaustion of every single avenue of investigation. Troy Davis IS hands down guilty. Any doubt about it is nothing but an Amnesty International shit stir.

What a disgrace, you should be ashamed of your off the cuff and thoughtless comments.

My comments weren't without thought In fact a great deal of thought had been put into them. Nor am I heartless. You see, I tend to care about the victims of crimes. I care about the loved ones of homicide vicitms too. I care about how their lives were destroyed by some scumbag. Do I give one flying rat's ass about a piece of shit like Troy Davis? No.

And I'm not the least bit ashamed about it.

Peace,

 

[tonk]

Not any more.

 

[Gough]

Yes, I do know about this case. I haven't read through the entire record of trial, that would involve taking a trip to Georgia and spending literally days in a county records building to read it all. A summary is good enough along with knowing that he was convicted.

It's not as though he was found guilty by 12 people and immediately dragged outside and hanged from the nearest tree. This ****er has been through the appellate process. His case has been heavily scrutinized for 20 years. It was sent all the way to the US Supreme Court who kicked it back down to Georgia with orders to further review the case, and it was reviewed yet again. 20 years of scrutiny and reviews and every single expert review committee comes up with the same conclusion - he's guilty. That's how I know he's guilty. Any more questions about that?



AI are a rabid exremists group with a very narrow focus. They'll reveal information out of context, give completely false information and conceal information which shows conclusive guilt of whatever convict they are going on about at any particular moment. What I said in my post is that they aren't a good source for the story in this case. The reason I mentioned AI at all is because they were the source in the OP. That's what anyone reading this thread needs to know. AI are not reliable. By all means follow the link in the OP, but also find other source material. Does that make sense?



It's not that you don't know about this case, Davey. It's obvious that you know very little about criminology and criminal law. There is NO SUCH THING as a black and white case. Every single criminal case, from conspiracy to commit murder to shoplifting a chocolate bar has grey areas. Grey areas are the bread and butter of defense attorneys. It's why there are trials with rules of law. It's why there are judges and the appellate process. Every single case has grey areas. However, if there is enough legitimate evidence, admissable according to the rules of law (which largely favor the defendant BTW) then you can convict as was done in the Troy Davis case.

EDITED TO ADD: The appellate process I mentioned IS the exhaustion of every single avenue of investigation. Troy Davis IS hands down guilty. Any doubt about it is nothing but an Amnesty International shit stir.



My comments weren't without thought In fact a great deal of thought had been put into them. Nor am I heartless. You see, I tend to care about the victims of crimes. I care about the loved ones of homicide vicitms too. I care about how their lives were destroyed by some scumbag. Do I give one flying rat's ass about a piece of shit like Troy Davis? No.

And I'm not the least bit ashamed about it.

Peace,

Just like the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 were hands down guilty I suppose. Good thing that the U.K. were civilised enough not to perform judicial murders upon it's citizens.
As for Amnesty being rabid extremists. Really, really? You want to get your head out of your arse mate.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, if a court in Georgia said that a black man was guilty despite no physical evidence then it must be true.

Jury was composed of majority blacks.

By the way, this was in the 1990s, not the 1960s. Say what you like about Georgia, but I live here and I can tell you that the stereotype does not match reality.

 

[Simple Jack]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=860785

Mooster is right. Everyone that is convicted and sentenced to death should be taken out the back and shot, there's just no way the system can be wrong or actual evidence can show up 15 years later.

 

[Bomber Bears]

AI rabid extremists? wow, heard it all now

 

[Copernicus]

A jury that heard 9 or whatever it was eyewitness accounts and had no reason to doubt them at the time, and would have taken those accounts with the weight that they deserved at the time. Since then, all but two of which have then apparently recanted on their testimony and said they were pressured into it. Pressured by who, I wonder? Who knows what a jury would decide with what we've heard today.

Also, I'm no expert on the American judicial system, but I'm guessing those appellate processes didn't involve a jury. Chances are they involved ageing Southern judges who are probably still stuck in the 1960's.

No, there are no juries in appeals courts. But there are plenty of black judges in Georgia. I don't know who heard the appeals, though. They've been through something like 20 reviews and appeals.

I think it's fair to say that after such a rigorous review, and the ruling has been upheld, there is no racial bias in play. The judges who hold 60s era views are dead by now.

 

[Mooster7]

Mooster is right. Everyone that is convicted and sentenced to death should be taken out the back and shot, there's just no way the system can be wrong or actual evidence can show up 15 years later.

I didn't say that, Jack. Quite the opposite. What I did say was that he WASN'T taken out and immediately hanged. He had 20 years of reviews and appeals. He was guilty as the day is long. Naturally, I don't mind at all if you disagree with me, but at least read what I ****ing wrote, represent it accurately, and then roll your eyes.

Just like the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 were hands down guilty I suppose.

No. Just like Troy Davis was guilty. That's the subject at hand after all. For that matter, Gough, I'm innocent of committing murder and I'm going to presume you are too. Has nothing to do with Davis. Ted Bundy was guilty of murder. He's dead now too. But again alas, has nothing to do with Davis.

Good thing that the U.K. were civilised enough not to perform judicial murders upon it's citizens.

You're opposed to the death penalty. I get it. But let's not translate that fervor into re-presuming Troy Davis is innocent. He was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Then he had 20 years of advocates fighting for his further rights. 20 years of appeals, reviews and intense scrutiny of his case. Still guilty, and then the switch was pulled on that worthless mother****er.

If you don't like American criminal jurisprudence, then stay right where you are. On the other hand, if you do visit the United States, enjoy yourself. If you don't murder anyone, I think you'll have a dandy civillized time.

As for Amnesty being rabid extremists. Really, really? You want to get your head out of your arse mate.

I'll eat this one. 'Rabid' was probably a touch too much. I should have said 'Myopic Extremists.' AI is not without it's criticism, you know? They do a lot of good and I'm glad they're in existance. However, in their narrow focused methods they tend to blow a lot of smoke and this is not secret at all. As I said in my previous post, they are well known to misrepresent facts, deliberately withold facts not in keeping with their views, goalls and bias, and at times even releasing completely false information altogether.

I suppose I'm going to have to say it again; The ONLY reason I mentioned AI was because they were the source listed in the OP. AI isn't an unbiased news source. If AI had simply attacked the notion of capital punishment, I would have no problem with that. That's not what they did, is it? Instead they stirred the pot just slightly enough to raise emotions in uneducated readership and those not familiar with the case in order to garner public support (and continued funding). It's just a tactic. An effective tactic and that's why they use it. I would be willing to bet the moon that most in the AI leadership probably believe Troy Davis was guilty. That of course is irrelevant in the formation of their tactics and strategy.

Gough, DO continue to be opposed to capital punishment. I'll respect that. But don't be foolish enough to buy into AI's PR hoodwink over Davis' "innocence" and then tell me to pull my head out of my arse. That's being just plain silly.

Peace,

 

[Simple Jack]

I didn't say that, Jack. Quite the opposite. What I did say was that he WASN'T taken out and immediately hanged. He had 20 years of reviews and appeals. He was guilty as the day is long. Naturally, I don't mind at all if you disagree with me, but at least read what I ****ing wrote, represent it accurately, and then roll your eyes.

I was using that as a colloquialism for 'killed' not referring to time frame, you bolded and focussed on the wrong part of my post and missed my point.

You said, he went through 20 years of appeals etc so must be guilty and be killed (under the local laws that apply). If you look at my example, you will see 3 innocent boys, one of which who was sentenced to death and who could have quite concievably gone through 20 years of appeals and still not have that ridiculous conviction overturned.

As it happened, new forensic evidence was found 15 years after the fact which was able to get the three released, and save a life.

One thing that I always think needs to be considered is that (in that case specifically) the likely highly religiously prejudiced jury of the early 90's convicted the 'satanist'.

I think any person who has had contact with society wouldn't be able to deny it would have played some part in their perception of the person regardless of circumstance.

Now that nearly 20 years later, being an atheist etc no longer has the stigma attached that it used to (maybe it still does in the South), would the decision be the same?

Getting back to this case, my point is that when there is clearly a lot of doubt on a conviction, 20 years of not getting conclusive proof of innocence does not=certain guilt.

 

[Mooster7]

I was using that as a colloquialism for 'killed' not referring to time frame, you bolded and focussed on the wrong part of my post and missed my point.

I'm sorry, but this:

"Everyone that is convicted and sentenced to death should be taken out the back and shot"

Clearly implies an immediate time frame to any reasonable person. And then is reinforced rather than clarified by the second part:

"...there's just no way the system can be wrong or actual evidence can show up 15 years later"

The immediacy of the execution may not have been your intention, but I think you'll have to agree that it's what you typed. But yes, I didn't get your point. My apologies for my share of the misunderstanding.

You said, he went through 20 years of appeals etc so must be guilty and be killed (under the local laws that apply). If you look at my example, you will see 3 innocent boys, one of which who was sentenced to death and who could have quite concievably gone through 20 years of appeals and still not have that ridiculous conviction overturned.

As it happened, new forensic evidence was found 15 years after the fact which was able to get the three released, and save a life.

That happens. Especially with the advent of DNA science. The example of those three isn't unique. It's only very rare. This wasn't the case with Davis. He wasn't convicted based upon a DNA match or a science that could be re-tested. The focus with his appeal was with contradictory witness statements which happens in every single criminal case involving witnesses. It also involved witnesses changing their testimony over time which also often happens. These were investigated and found to be erroneous. Davis was convicted with genuine admissable evidence that hasn't been overturned or even convincingly challenged. Enough to prove his guilt, dodgy witnesses changing their stories notwithstanding. For Davis there isn't any questionalbe scientific evidence to be challenged last week or any time in the future. Laboratory science is not the basis of how he was convicted.

One thing that I always think needs to be considered is that (in that case specifically) the likely highly religiously prejudiced jury of the early 90's convicted the 'satanist'.

I think any person who has had contact with society wouldn't be able to deny it would have played some part in their perception of the person regardless of circumstance.

Now that nearly 20 years later, being an atheist etc no longer has the stigma attached that it used to (maybe it still does in the South), would the decision be the same?

Those particular types of things are mostly what is considered in appeal. Davis has had attorney's working for him for free for 20 years and they scour the record and spend pondering hours trying to think up every conceivable way the convict could have been discriminated against. Without doubt, Davis' lawyeres and anyone else looking to be his benefactor has thought of these things and were unable to demonstrate that any discrimation took place.

Someone else has written on this thread about the possibility of a biased judge or jury. That is ALWAYS considered in appeal, and a hokey judge didn't happen in this case.

A judge cannot guide a trial without leaving a record of what he did. He can rule what evidence is admissable or not admissable but there's a record of that. He can overrule or sustain objections by the defense or the trial attorney, but again there's a exact record of that. All of these things are carefully reviewed in appeal. The judge acted correctly in the Davis case.

Getting back to this case, my point is that when there is clearly a lot of doubt on a conviction, 20 years of not getting conclusive proof of innocence does not=certain guilt.

Agreed, but the doubt in this case isn't coming from the experts who have been working this case. The doubt is coming from internet message boards and e-mails by people who have no connection with the case. And they are being shit stirred into it by groupls like Amnesty International who have an anti-death penalty agenda. Again, I don't care what their stance is on capital punishment but dollars to donuts they believe Davis is guilty and this is all a smoke screen tactic by them.

Thanks, Jack.

 

[woomera_skp]

Juries should never, ever, ever be allowed to sentence someone to death. 12 random people off of the street should not have that big of a say.

This .

I am still for the death penalty though However leaving it to normal people off the street who can easily be fooled by Trained Lawyers is Unacceptable when someone life is at stake.

 

[Simple Jack]

Mooster, the bits you've quoted me and then responded to in relation to Davis, I was actually just making generalised points, not referring to that case in particular.

I pretty much agree what gopower is saying, especially the last sentence.

I understand there are reasons why people would change their (potentially) correct statments when the death penalty/the reality of is sinks in, but for me, having all but 1 'objective' (i.e. not the prime alternative suspect) recant their statements and/or suggest coersion puts far too much doubt on this particular case.

In my opinion if you put someone in jail for life you should be certain beyond doubt about their guilt, to put someone to death you must be certain.

I don't think based on the facts of this case, anyone without a vested interest in conviction could be certain.

 

[nicky]

I saw a big protest in harlem about troy davis.

I shudder to see people endorsing the death penalty. I see it as wrong on every level.

 

[Gough]

Likewise mate. You'd think as a society we'd have gotten over this old testament eye for an eye b*llshit.

 

[BarneyBent]

Jury was composed of majority blacks

So? A lot of blacks are prejudiced against blacks. In the words of Bob Dylan, "to all the black folks he was just a crazy n*gger, no one doubted that he pulled the trigger".

That said, Troy Davis is probably guilty. But "probably" shouldn't be enough to put somebody to death. I don't have a problem with killing when it's absolutely necessary. A guy is going on a gun rampage, the cops should shoot to kill. Hell, even the assassination of Osama Bin Laden I can get behind. They could have taken him alive, but taking a guy as revered as OBL, and revered by such willingly violent people as OBL, as a live prisoner is just asking for truckloads of trouble.

But under normal circumstances, if a person is safely in custody, there's absolutely no need to end their life other than to gain some sort of vindictive pleasure, and for me that is the opposite of civilisation. Troy Davis might be a killer, but it's hard to justify killing a killer while retaining the moral high ground. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Simple Jack]

Hell, even the assassination of Osama Bin Laden I can get behind. They could have taken him alive, but taking a guy as revered as OBL, and revered by such willingly violent people as OBL, as a live prisoner is just asking for truckloads of trouble.

(this may seem like a massive thread drift but I do have a point)
Reasonable opinion, would you 'get behind' a group of Afghans who had had their civilian family members killed by U.S. air strikes assasinating 'Dubya' for the exact same reason?*

Or can you only look at a highly emotional issue from one extreme viewpoint?

This is the major problem with the death penalty, who is the authority on who 'deserves' to be killed? And why are they that authority? What makes them right?


Fwiw I agree with you about killing when necessary, I even agree with killing someone who has deliberately and willfully murdered another, but killing someone who 'probably' did it is nothing but plain wrong imo.

Edit: *If this was when he was still in power

 

[BarneyBent]

(this may seem like a massive thread drift but I do have a point)
Reasonable opinion, would you 'get behind' a group of Afghans who had had their civilian family members killed by U.S. air strikes assasinating 'Dubya' for the exact same reason?*

Or can you only look at a highly emotional issue from one extreme viewpoint?

When I said "get behind", I meant more I could understand it from their viewpoint. It was "necessary" to attain their goals, and they can do it without losing too much of whatever moral high ground they claim to have (very little, admittedly). I'd rather it not have happened at all though.

As for the group of Afghans assassinating Dubya, from an "all's fair in love and war" perspective, I could understand it. I certainly wouldn't agree with it, because like it or not, while Dubya and OBL are comparable in some ways, Dubya was on "our" side, and was Democratically elected into his position of power (and therefore held more responsible for his actions).

But all that messiness aside, I was just trying to use the example to draw a distinction between that and the death penalty. I may not agree with chasing OBL, but I can't criticise the outcome once that course of action was chosen.

This is the major problem with the death penalty, who is the authority on who 'deserves' to be killed? And why are they that authority? What makes them right?

Absolutely agree.

Fwiw I agree with you about killing when necessary, I even agree with killing someone who has deliberately and willfully murdered another, but killing someone who 'probably' did it is nothing but plain wrong imo.

Agree, except about the person who has deliberately and wilfully murdered another. I don't care what anybody has done, if they're safe in custody, there's no need to kill them (my point about OBL was even in custody, he would likely never have been "safe in custody"). Some people may deserve death, but nobody has the right to make that decision.

 

[Malifice]

I shudder to see people endorsing the death penalty. I see it as wrong on every level.

My word.

The death penaly is there to show to people the rule that taking life is wrong.

By killing them.Such a barbaric, absurdly hypocritical and highly flawed custom.