Troy Davis still on death row

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shoot-first"]

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

_R34LiTY_

Right, and 7 of the 9 eyewitnesses came forward after Davis' conviction and recanted their testimony because of allegations that the local enforcement agency had coerced them into testifying against Davis since they "couldn't go empty handed on this one"(as one of the witnesses put it).

If that doesn't raise any doubt, then what does?

There were only two genuine recantations...both of which Davis denied them to testify and be cross-examined...interesting, no?

Not to mention, one of the recantations was Davis' friend, who was standing five feet away at the time, and all he said was basically "I'm not sure". The rest of his testimony implicated Davis'...interesting, huh?

But go ahead, jump on the media created bandwagon, because that's EXACTLY what they want and EXACTLY why they're starting this.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Right, and 7 of the 9 eyewitnesses came forward after Davis' conviction and recanted their testimony because of allegations that the local enforcement agency had coerced them into testifying against Davis since they "couldn't go empty handed on this one"(as one of the witnesses put it).

If that doesn't raise any doubt, then what does?

_R34LiTY_

Then all that does is lend more credence to the claim that the justice system needs to be reformed if nothing can be done or if no one is willing to do anything about corced testimony.

I think the execution should have been stayed and that the case should have been thoroughly re-examined.

You just strawmanned me in response to being called a strawman. That's actually pretty impressive. Thanks for the vindication, it's not very often the term gets thrown around and it's actually appropriate but there's always cases like yours where it fits to a T. If you're going to continue to argue against yourself then I'll assume my argument was too much for you. I should also point out you're being a hypocrite. Accusing me of arguing from emotion when your entire argument is saying we should kill people for fear of the off chance they break out of jail.Ace6301

Do we euthanize animals (tigers, bears, dogs, etc.) who maul humans because we fear those animals, or as a reasonable precaution against future attacks?

Do we put levees on flood-prone rivers because we fear floods, or as a reasonable precaution against future floods?

In a similar vein, I advocate the death penalty, not because I fear future killings, but as a logical, reasonable precaution. Murderers are paroled, escape prison... even murder fellow inmates and prison guards while still incarcerated.

I didn't strawman anyone. You simply believed that my argument was based on emotion, when your argument is nowhere near logical.

Have a nice day. :D

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You just strawmanned me in response to being called a strawman. That's actually pretty impressive. Thanks for the vindication, it's not very often the term gets thrown around and it's actually appropriate but there's always cases like yours where it fits to a T. If you're going to continue to argue against yourself then I'll assume my argument was too much for you. I should also point out you're being a hypocrite. Accusing me of arguing from emotion when your entire argument is saying we should kill people for fear of the off chance they break out of jail.OrkHammer007

Do we euthanize animals (tigers, bears, dogs, etc.) who maul humans because we fear those animals, or as a reasonable precaution against future attacks?

Do we put levees on flood-prone rivers because we fear floods, or as a reasonable precaution against future floods?

In a similar vein, I advocate the death penalty, not because I fear future killings, but as a logical, reasonable precaution. Murderers are paroled, escape prison... even murder fellow inmates and prison guards while still incarcerated.

I didn't strawman anyone. You simply believed that my argument was based on emotion, when your argument is nowhere near logical.

Have a nice day. :D

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You just strawmanned me in response to being called a strawman. That's actually pretty impressive. Thanks for the vindication, it's not very often the term gets thrown around and it's actually appropriate but there's always cases like yours where it fits to a T. If you're going to continue to argue against yourself then I'll assume my argument was too much for you. I should also point out you're being a hypocrite. Accusing me of arguing from emotion when your entire argument is saying we should kill people for fear of the off chance they break out of jail.DroidPhysX

Do we euthanize animals (tigers, bears, dogs, etc.) who maul humans because we fear those animals, or as a reasonable precaution against future attacks?

Do we put levees on flood-prone rivers because we fear floods, or as a reasonable precaution against future floods?

In a similar vein, I advocate the death penalty, not because I fear future killings, but as a logical, reasonable precaution. Murderers are paroled, escape prison... even murder fellow inmates and prison guards while still incarcerated.

I didn't strawman anyone. You simply believed that my argument was based on emotion, when your argument is nowhere near logical.

Have a nice day. :D

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Do you get flu shots because you're afraid of the flu, or as a reasonable precaution against catching it?

Do we euthanize animals (tigers, bears, dogs, etc.) who maul humans because we fear those animals, or as a reasonable precaution against future attacks?

Do we put levees on flood-prone rivers because we fear floods, or as a reasonable precaution against future floods?

In a similar vein, I advocate the death penalty, not because I fear future killings, but as a logical, reasonable precaution. Murderers are paroled, escape prison... even murder fellow inmates and prison guards while still incarcerated.

I didn't strawman anyone. You simply believed that my argument was based on emotion, when your argument is nowhere near logical.

Have a nice day. :D

OrkHammer007

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

Since you obviously want some attention, here's a cookie for telling me you find my post humorous.

_R34LiTY_

Am I the one quoting people only to say that I find his/her post humorous? Is this how you normally try to get people to engage in a debate with you, by saying you find such & such to be humorous?

Are you cross posting from an alternate dimension where people say different things or something? Because you're not only misrepresenting my argument but now you're doing it to yourself. If you don't have any interest in having an actual argument then that's fine, I don't care, but if you're going to continue posting things like this then I really and truly have nothing more to say than it's amusing, to say the very least. You've somehow managed to strawman the strawman you made now. It's like some kind of...strawception.Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Are you cross posting from an alternate dimension where people say different things or something? Because you're not only misrepresenting my argument but now you're doing it to yourself. If you don't have any interest in having an actual argument then that's fine, I don't care, but if you're going to continue posting things like this then I really and truly have nothing more to say than it's amusing, to say the very least. You've somehow managed to strawman the strawman you made now. It's like some kind of...strawception.OrkHammer007

You said your argument was perfectly rational and logically laid out. Literally the only argument you have is "They might get out and kill people", that isn't logical or rational. Your example has happened maybe a handful of times in the western world. That's appeal to fear.Ace6301

My argument is based off of finances. Killing an innocent person is expensive, it costs a lot of money to get a person to adult hood.Ace6301

It's also more expensive, without need, to have a death penalty. The only reason to have a death penalty is for emotional reasons and that's literally your entire argument.Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] My argument is based off of finances. Killing an innocent person is expensive, it costs a lot of money to get a person to adult hood.OrkHammer007

It's also more expensive, without need, to have a death penalty. The only reason to have a death penalty is for emotional reasons and that's literally your entire argument.Ace6301

Technically, a conviction does not necessarily mean a person actually committed the crime, just as an acquittal does not necessarily mean (s)he didn't.

Curious, but what is your argument in favor of the death penalty? I'm too lazy to go read through the whole thread. :P

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Oh, please. Stop with the "appeal to fear" BS. I already explained that taking reasonable precautions is not the same thing as acting from fear. [QUOTE="Ace6301"] My argument is based off of finances. Killing an innocent person is expensive, it costs a lot of money to get a person to adult hood.OrkHammer007

It's also more expensive, without need, to have a death penalty. The only reason to have a death penalty is for emotional reasons and that's literally your entire argument.Ace6301

I, for one, don't think that it is really possible for an innocent person to be convicted in modern civilization. If they were innocent, then why did their peers, taking into consideration the evidence at hand, unanimously say they were guilty? Honestly, I think questioning the legal system borders on treason and is entirely antithetical to democracy and freedom. I mean, it would be one thing if we let forensic "experts" and "scientists" decide everything in our lives for us. I wouldn't trust those ivory tower dwellers as far as I could shoot them. But the jury consists of average, honest-to-God, hard-working folk without an agenda. They are presented with what happened and they serve their country. That is JUSTICE.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] If you are convicted of a cpaital crime, you are not innocent. Stop trying to appeal to pity. [QUOTE="Ace6301"]It's also more expensive, without need, to have a death penalty. The only reason to have a death penalty is for emotional reasons and that's literally your entire argument.chessmaster1989

Technically, a conviction does not necessarily mean a person actually committed the crime, just as an acquittal does not necessarily mean (s)he didn't.

Curious, but what is your argument in favor of the death penalty? I'm too lazy to go read through the whole thread. :P

I, for one, don't think that it is really possible for an innocent person to be convicted in modern civilization. If they were innocent, then why did their peers, taking into consideration the evidence at hand, unanimously say they were guilty? Honestly, I think questioning the legal system borders on treason and is entirely antithetical to democracy and freedom. I mean, it would be one thing if we let forensic "experts" and "scientists" decide everything in our lives for us. I wouldn't trust those ivory tower dwellers as far as I could shoot them. But the jury consists of average, honest-to-God, hard-working folk without an agenda. They are presented with what happened and they serve their country. That is JUSTICE.

coolbeans90

Yaaaa Amurica!

Curious, but what is your argument in favor of the death penalty? I'm too lazy to go read through the whole thread. :Pchessmaster1989

This other guy seems to feel that it's fearmongering, and has gone to absolutely absurd lengths to make this an emotional argument. I consider it simple math (subtract one threat, save lives), but no matter how many times I explain it, he twists it to mean something I never said.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Curious, but what is your argument in favor of the death penalty? I'm too lazy to go read through the whole thread. :POrkHammer007

This other guy seems to feel that it's fearmongering, and has gone to absolutely absurd lengths to make this an emotional argument. I consider it simple math (subtract one threat, save lives), but no matter how many times I explain it, he twists it to mean something I never said.

Do you have a non-moral argument against the death penalty though? I'm not particularly interested in moral arguments for/against the death penalty. Keep in mind that the person could be locked up for life and kept from harm. Yes, you might argue that there is the possibility for escape, but there's also the possibility of a wrongful conviction that leads to an execution of an innocent person. So, you'd have to weigh the lives of the individuals who get killed by escaped murderers against the lives of the innocents executed, which is hard to do.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Curious, but what is your argument in favor of the death penalty? I'm too lazy to go read through the whole thread. :Pchessmaster1989

This other guy seems to feel that it's fearmongering, and has gone to absolutely absurd lengths to make this an emotional argument. I consider it simple math (subtract one threat, save lives), but no matter how many times I explain it, he twists it to mean something I never said.

Do you have a non-moral argument against the death penalty though? I'm not particularly interested in moral arguments for/against the death penalty. Keep in mind that the person could be locked up for life and kept from harm. Yes, you might argue that there is the possibility for escape, but there's also the possibility of a wrongful conviction that leads to an execution of an innocent person. So, you'd have to weigh the lives of the individuals who get killed by escaped murderers against the lives of the innocents executed, which is hard to do.

It's not even entirely about escape, either. Keep in mind that even Charles Manson gets parole hearings.

Finally... why, in this day and age of near-ubiquitous video surveillance and advanced forensic techniques, are we still worrying about wrongful prosecutions? If anything, the opposite is more likely (that a guilty person is freed because a juror watched one too many episodes of "CSI:" and didn't get the DNA evidence they expected).

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Short version: If a person is willing to plot and carry out the cold-blooded murder of another human being, they are a threat to society since they have shown that they do not value a human life and the laws that protect society, and should be executed accordingly.

This other guy seems to feel that it's fearmongering, and has gone to absolutely absurd lengths to make this an emotional argument. I consider it simple math (subtract one threat, save lives), but no matter how many times I explain it, he twists it to mean something I never said.

OrkHammer007

Do you have a non-moral argument against the death penalty though? I'm not particularly interested in moral arguments for/against the death penalty. Keep in mind that the person could be locked up for life and kept from harm. Yes, you might argue that there is the possibility for escape, but there's also the possibility of a wrongful conviction that leads to an execution of an innocent person. So, you'd have to weigh the lives of the individuals who get killed by escaped murderers against the lives of the innocents executed, which is hard to do.

It's not even entirely about escape, either. Keep in mind that even Charles Manson gets parole hearings.

Finally... why, in this day and age of near-ubiquitous video surveillance and advanced forensic techniques, are we still worrying about wrongful prosecutions? If anything, the opposite is more likely (that a guilty person is freed because a juror watched one too many episodes of "CSI:" and didn't get the DNA evidence they expected).

Re: the bolded, it's because despite that, many cases do not have overwhelming (or even much) direct evidence, but rely substantially on circumstantial evidence. I do agree that we are almost certainly less likely on average today to make wrongful convictions, but how many still occur has yet to be seen. Not seeing anything to support your claim that "the opposite is more likely," I don't see it as a legitimate argument.

Parole hearings are a different matter. Of course since life imprisonment without parole would solve your concerns as well, it's not really an argument in favor of the death penalty.

Executing is a reasonable precaution, but so is life imprisonment. You support the death penalty despite not showing that the death penalty is a better precaution than life imprisonment (both from the standpoint of a person escaping and from the standpoint of a deterrence effect), after accounting for execution of innocents. Thus, you are either forming assumptions without actually supporting them, or your support for the death penalty comes from the moral belief that first degree convicted murderers deserve death. If you cannot support your assumptions, then I think it likely you're merely using them to justify an underlying moral belief.