Troy Davis

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We even have a Presidential Candidate who has duly exercised his right as Governor of Texas to execute an innocent man.

What innocent man did Perry execute?

[Night Watchman]

What innocent man did Perry execute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

I believe he may have been refering to this man.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

NR,

Boy, but you just try telling that to Jefferson Davis.

It's a semantic pet peeve.

FLOW,

The Willingham case is a perfect example of the System being unwilling to entertain the possibility that it came to the wrong conclusion in the initial trial. When we are talking about the State taking someone's life it is my sincere opinion that we must be virtually certain the person to be executed committed the crime. After all its not like "Oops, my bad" is going to bring this person back from the dead. If there is doubt, even if the doubt is raised after the trial, they should, at a minimum, have their sentence commuted to life in prison.

[imladolen]

My biggest issue with this case isn't that any witnesses recanted, but the fact that the main "evidence" the prosecution used was eye witness testimony. Such testimony is known to be unreliable, and there are plenty of scholarly articles about this if you just do a simple google search. This fact is actually taught to police (according to several friends who have gone through the local police academy).

There simply was no physical evidence against Mr Davis (doubt was cast on the original ballistics report as well).

Testimony of witnesses alone should not, ever, be enough to condemn someone to death.

EDIT: People are also forgetting that even for non-elected officials, politics is still a "game" that has to be played. I'm sure that there is plenty of quid pro quo shenanigans going on between members of the SCOTUS; southern governors face an electorate that is strongly pro death penalty and commuting sentences makes you look weak on crime (this applies mostly to Bush, Perry and such ilk); not sure if the Georgia Board of Pardons or whatever it is called is appointed or elected, but even appointees have to answer for their decisions to someone with influence and power. It's sad that it is simply easier for bureaucrats, appointees and elected officials to just do nothing and let events proceed without rocking the boat. Which is what I think played a large part in this case.

I don't think most people are assuming the recantations are worthless. In fact, they're assuming the opposite.

This murder took place in a well-lit burger king parking lot, with lots of eyewitnesses. The vast majority, some of whom actually knew Davis personally, didn't recant. One of the ones who did (an admitted friend of the defendants) said only that he was "no longer absolutely sure" that the defendant was the murderer, even though he was standing only 5 feet away. Well, one guy saying "I'm not sure" doesn't cast doubt on the large number of other people -- including 3 air force members -- who made a positive I.D.

There apparently were two recantations that went to substance. The problem was that for those recantations to be considered as evidence, the defendant had to call them to the stand so that they could be cross-examined in the post-evdientiary hearing. Or at least make a reasonable attempt to call them as witnesses. But Davis didn't. The judge specifically told Davis and his attorneys that such evidence couldn't be considered unless he called them as witnesses, and one of those witnesses was literally waiting outside in the hall. But Davis and his attorneys wouldn't call the guy to the stand. The judge specifically said that if they refused to call those witnesses, it would appear as if it was because they didn't believe the attorney-drafted affidavits would hold up under cross-examination. They still refused to call the witnesses. So when they come out years later and say "you should consider these affidavits", I can see why that gets dismissed.

Now, the failure to call those people as witnesses doesn't mean that you're guilty. But it does mean that it is perfectly reasonable -- even wise -- for the justice system to ignore hearsay evidence when the opportunity to validate that evidence is in the sole hands of the party offering it, and that party refuses to do so.

Now of course, if the attorneys for the defendant then take hearsay-based and other alleged facts to jurors, present them a one-sided and perhaps unaccurate view of this evidence, you might get a couple of them to waffle. But that's not the way we have trials or present evidence, nor should it be.

Actually, they can dissent from just an Order. Happens all the time, and there have been plenty of prior dissents to orders refusing to grant a stay in death penalty cases. The fact that the request was denied, and there was no listing of dissenters, means there was no dissent. 9-0. So Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan all agreed with the refusal to grant a stay. That's not exactly a lineup of pro-death penalty judges unsympathetic to the rights of defendants.

[Tempra]

Testimony of witnesses alone should not, ever, be enough to condemn someone to death.

Ever? I think if you have a sufficient number of eye witnesses, the probability that they are all wrong is small to non existant. Besides, there is generally circumstantial evidence to support eye witness testimony.

Granted, there are situations where eye witness testimony may not be reliable (dark outside, bad eye sight,etc), but shouldn't that evidence be weighed in determining guilt or innocence? By the sentencing stage, the defendant is guilty, and other factors should determine the severity of the sentence.

[MinDonner]

We had a more general death penalty thread last year, and while I started out by supporting it in principle while abhorring the flawed-justice nature of it in practice, I eventually concluded that the two are inseparable - ie. the risk of executing even one innocent person by accident, is indefensible even if it means NOT executing those whose guilt is undisputed. Yes, even if it were some fucker like that Norwegian guy. No-one's need for mortal vengeance is worth the chance of an innocent person's death IMO.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Granted, there are situations where eye witness testimony may not be reliable (dark outside, bad eye sight,etc), but shouldn't that evidence be weighed in determining guilt or innocence? By the sentencing stage, the defendant is guilty, and other factors should determine the severity of the sentence.

One of the factors going to the reliability of eyewitness testimony is whether or not the witness knew the defendant before the incident, or was identifying a stranger. In this case, it appears that a number of the eyewitnesses who identified the perpetrator were well-acquainted with him prior to the incident, making mistaken identity much less likely.

[Tempra]

We had a more general death penalty thread last year, and while I started out by supporting it in principle while abhorring the flawed-justice nature of it in practice, I eventually concluded that the two are inseparable - ie. the risk of executing even one innocent person by accident, is indefensible even if it means NOT executing those whose guilt is undisputed. Yes, even if it were some fucker like that Norwegian guy. No-one's need for mortal vengeance is worth the chance of an innocent person's death IMO.

And what about inmates and guards who are killed in jail? How do you balance the small risk of an innocent dying via the death penalty with the much more common occurrence of jailhouse murder? It is not as if no innocent people will die if we ban the death penalty. Heck, I would wager that more innocent people would probably die if we abolish the death penalty.

[Dragonfish]

And what about inmates and guards who are killed in jail? How do you balance the small risk of an innocent dying via the death penalty with the much more common occurrence of jailhouse murder? It is not as if no innocent people will die if we ban the death penalty. Heck, I would wager that more innocent people would probably die if we abolish the death penalty.

If the death penalty needs to be maintained simply to deter lifers from committing further violence in prison, then what is the argument against using other inhumane deterrents, such as torture? Surely a lifer would think twice about killing a prison guard if they knew their fingernails would be ripped out as a consequence. Would that not logically mean, according to your argument, that we ought to employ such tactics in order to deter further violent behavior in prison?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If the death penalty needs to be maintained simply to deter lifers from committing further violence in prison, then what is the argument against using other inhumane deterrents, such as torture?

The 8th amendment. Now, if you repealed the 8th amendment, and outlawed capital punishment at the same time, then you could debate the practical wisdom of putting the screws to people who commit murders while under a life sentence.

ETA:

Removed tangent.

[Tempra]

If the death penalty needs to be maintained simply to deter lifers from committing further violence in prison,

There are utilitarian and retributive justifications for the death penalty.

then what is the argument against using other inhumane deterrents, such as torture?

The Eighth Amendment.

Surely a lifer would think twice about killing a prison guard if they knew their fingernails would be ripped out as a consequence.

I don't buy that argument. Besides, such practices are clearly unconstitutional.

Would that not logically mean, according to your argument, that we ought to employ such tactics in order to deter further violent behavior in prison?

No.

[Dragonfish]

The 8th amendment. Now, if you repealed the 8th amendment, and outlawed capital punishment at the same time, then you could debate the practical wisdom of putting the screws to people who commit murders while under a life sentence.

Ok, so imagine that the 8th amendment was repealed. Would you consider it right and proper to employ torture in order to deter violent behavior?

There are utilitarian and retributive justifications for the death penalty.

So does that mean torture can't be justified from a retributive perspective? If so, why?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ok, so imagine that the 8th amendment was repealed. Would you consider it right and proper to employ torture in order to deter violent behavior?

Hmmm. That's perhaps too broad a question. But generally, the answer would be "no" in terms of our criminal justice system. Solitary for life, though? Sure. Lock them in a room with a bathroom for the rest of their life, slide food under their door, etc. Bye-bye!

Personally, though, I'm not averse to putting the screws to someone in other situations, like our head-sawing buddy KSM. But that's a different issue.

[Tempra]

So does that mean torture can't be justified from a retributive perspective? If so, why?

If by "justified" you mean made legal, then not without removing the 8th amendment and various treaties we have signed that prohibit torture.

Anyways, I think torture would be justified under utilitarian reasoning (to save lives), not retributive. We aren't sadists, right? (Not that I would justify torture under any reasoning...)

[Dragonfish]

Hmmm. That's perhaps too broad a question. But generally, the answer would be "no" in terms of our criminal justice system.

Well, I'm not really interested in what our criminal justice system has to say about it. I'm just trying to suss out the natural consequences of using deterrence as the sole justification for the death penalty. My questions regarding torture are simply meant to be a thought experiment.

Personally, though, I'm not averse to putting the screws to someone in other situations, like our head-sawing buddy KSM. But that's a different issue.

Yeah, I'd rather not open that can of worms right now.

If by "justified" you mean made legal, then not without removing the 8th amendment and various treaties we have signed that prohibit torture.

Right, obviously there are practical constraints for anyone who wanted to make torture a legal punishment in our criminal justice system. But my question concerns whether it ought to be a legal punishment, not whether it could practically be made a legal punishment.

Anyways, I think torture would be justified under utilitarian reasoning (to save lives), not retributive. We aren't sadists, right? (Not that I would justify torture under any reasoning...)

Ok, so then why can torture not be justified under retributive reasoning, while the death penalty can?

[The Iceman of the North]

And what about inmates and guards who are killed in jail? How do you balance the small risk of an innocent dying via the death penalty with the much more common occurrence of jailhouse murder? It is not as if no innocent people will die if we ban the death penalty. Heck, I would wager that more innocent people would probably die if we abolish the death penalty.

Maybe you should put some more money into your prison system to prevent this from happening? The number of 'jailhouse murders' is mainly due to the crappy prison system you got over there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, I'm not really interested in what our criminal justice system has to say about it. I'm just trying to suss out the natural consequences of using deterrence as the sole justification for the death penalty. My questions regarding torture are simply meant to be a thought experiment

Well, there's specific deterrence (deter the guy who committed the murder from doing it again) and general deterrence (deterring others) . Actually, one other argument is that if there is a death penalty, it can give prosecutors a bargaining chip in trying to get confessions and crack a case. There's also the retributive one, which I personally like. You murder, you die. Works for me.

[Dragonfish]

Well, there's specific deterrence (deter the guy who committed the murder from doing it again) and general deterrence (deterring others) .

Are you saying torture wouldn't have one or both of these deterrent effects?

Actually, one other argument is that if there is a death penalty, it can give prosecutors a bargaining chip in trying to get confessions and crack a case.

Yes, but I could ask a similar question: couldn't the threat of torture be used as a bargaining chip? (again, this is setting aside the fact that torture is explicitly illegal).

There's also the retributive one, which I personally like. You murder, you die. Works for me.

Retributive justice doesn't mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime, only proportionate. We don't punish rapists by raping them, and we don't punish torturers by torturing them.

[The Iceman of the North]

Well, there's specific deterrence (deter the guy who committed the murder from doing it again) and general deterrence (deterring others) . Actually, one other argument is that if there is a death penalty, it can give prosecutors a bargaining chip in trying to get confessions and crack a case. There's also the retributive one, which I personally like. You murder, you die. Works for me.

Very good assumption, except for the fact that the world doesn't work this way. CP doesn't have any deterring effect, rather the opposite.

[Tempra]

Maybe you should put some more money into your prison system to prevent this from happening? The number of 'jailhouse murders' is mainly due to the crappy prison system you got over there.

I have no problem with supermax style prisons with 23 hour lockdown. However, even those places are susceptible to murder. Not to mention, Amnesty International cries "torture" at such "harsh" conditions.

I think you naive if you believe we can eliminate jailhouse murder, honestly.