The execution of Troy Davis

[Bakustra]

It's a bad idea to heavily imply that the ACLU/Amnesty International got illegitimate recantations out of those witnesses, which is what Chocula did, because it is accusing them of obstruction of justice. That does not rely on pedantry about the specific definition of coercion. Now, you can either admit that you responded because you are breaking the injunction against pursuing a vendetta, or you can explain why you hate AI and the ACLU, or you can admit that you didn't read closely. Which is it going to be, I wonder? Perhaps option 4: accuse me of a bunch of shit and ignore everything I post.

Piss off, Bakustra. Here are the Amnesty International affidavits from 2007. Oddly, they didn't change the outcome of the case after judicial review. Then go back and read whackadoodle's post at the top of the page. So yes I impugn Amnesty International, and what the hell, the ACLU, Bob Barr, and Harry Belafonte, and Big Al Yankovic.

So you formally accuse Amnesty International of obstruction of justice and incitement to perjury on the grounds that the US Supreme Court did not find in favor and that the prosecution did not admit intimidating eyewitnesses. Really.

[Master of Ossus]

It's a bad idea to heavily imply that the ACLU/Amnesty International got illegitimate recantations out of those witnesses, which is what Chocula did, because it is accusing them of obstruction of justice.

Nonsense. Obstruction of justice in the United States requires interference with a government official--even under the worst possible light, he did accused them of nothing of the sort.

That does not rely on pedantry about the specific definition of coercion. Now, you can either admit that you responded because you are breaking the injunction against pursuing a vendetta, or you can explain why you hate AI and the ACLU, or you can admit that you didn't read closely. Which is it going to be, I wonder? Perhaps option 4: accuse me of a bunch of shit and ignore everything I post.

What the flying fuck is this? I have to justify why I decided to smack down an illiterate fucktard trying to hijack the thread?

Moreover, nothing is immune from criticism. It is possible not to hate something without thinking it above any and all criticism on internet message boards, you know? (Or... maybe you actually don't).

So you formally accuse Amnesty International of obstruction of justice and incitement to perjury on the grounds that the US Supreme Court did not find in favor and that the prosecution did not admit intimidating eyewitnesses. Really.

Bakustra, it's clear that you know nothing about the laws whose names you are reciting. Please go back and read them before using them in your posts. Actually, you know what, don't bother: you can't read, anyway, so don't waste anyone's time.

[Bakustra]

So what you're saying is either that it is perfectly legal in the United States for a non-governmental organization to convince witnesses to give false testimony, what Chocula accused them of, or that proper forms are more important for you than the actual meaning, and that you literally want threads to devolve into mind-numbing guessing games because your robotic intellect cannot handle conversation, starting to overheat at the mere thought of it. Pick carefully, asshole.

PS: Why are you the only one that's allowed to come out swinging and make accusations, huh?

[Master of Ossus]

So what you're saying is either that it is perfectly legal in the United States for a non-governmental organization to convince witnesses to give false testimony, what Chocula accused them of, or that proper forms are more important for you than the actual meaning, and that you literally want threads to devolve into mind-numbing guessing games because your robotic intellect cannot handle conversation, starting to overheat at the mere thought of it. Pick carefully, asshole.

In case I wasn't clear, earlier,

Definitions of terms are fundamental to legal analysis, moron.

When you try to engage in legal analysis, you therefore must get the definition correct before you can proceed. You have inarguably and completely failed to do this.

PS: Why are you the only one that's allowed to come out swinging and make accusations, huh?

When have I said anything like that, you flaming retard? Why don't you go back to finger-painting class and develop some motor skills, because you obviously haven't gotten to the "thinking" aspect of "critical thinking."

And I mean the term "critical" in multiple ways.

[Bakustra]

I see you've decided to play the guessing game. Well, then. Explain how the action that Chocula implied is perfectly legal within the United States, namely that Amnesty International convinced a number of witnesses in the original case to recant their testimony and give a false one. Because, you see, I'm not going to play your fucking game where you try to shut down any discussion that doesn't consist of you declaring that everybody who disagrees with you is an ignoramus by demanding precise knowledge before responding, where you let accusations against groups go on the grounds that clearly implying that they pressured people to give false testimony is just valid criticism. In fact, by saying that, you have implied that you believe said accusations to be true. Prove them, if that is what you meant, and withdraw, if it is not.

PS: You made a variety of accusations against me in your initial post. If you meant those to be absolutely serious, rather than insults, then I apologize for not recognizing your insanity sooner.

[Count Chocula]

I'm sorry Bakustra, I'm just boggled. What's my vendetta, and against whom? Remind me so I can re-engage my Righteous Rightwing RathTM.

It appears that Amnesty International brought forth these "affidavits" (I put that in quotes because they don't appear to have been actual, you know, testimony) as fodder for one of Davis' many appeals. Where did I say it was false testimony? I didn't, and they weren't prosecuted for having done so, so screw you again for trying to put words in my mouth. They tried a post facto gambit and failed.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry Bakustra, I'm just boggled. What's my vendetta, and against whom? Remind me so I can re-engage my Righteous Rightwing RathTM.

It appears that Amnesty International brought forth these "affidavits" (I put that in quotes because they don't appear to have been actual, you know, testimony) as fodder for one of Davis' many appeals. Where did I say it was false testimony? I didn't, and they weren't prosecuted for having done so, so screw you again for trying to put words in my mouth. They tried a post facto gambit and failed.

In context, it sure as hell looked like you were implying there was something fishy about the affidavits. But I guess I'll apologize, then.

[Count Chocula]

The introduction of them by an anti-death penalty activist group, so long after the event, and so different from the trial testimony, is a pretty transparent attempt to influence the Davis' sentencing. Worthy of scorn, but not fishy or illegal. With over 30 people testifying at trial, and after review, it's obvious these affidavits didn't become evidence. I impugn AI (and ACLU) because it looks like they used Davis to ride their hobby horses.

[Alyeska]

Piss off, Bakustra. Here are the Amnesty International affidavits from 2007. Oddly, they didn't change the outcome of the case after judicial review. Then go back and read whackadoodle's post at the top of the page. So yes I impugn Amnesty International, and what the hell, the ACLU, Bob Barr, and Harry Belafonte, and Big Al Yankovic.

I'm gonna have to ask you to back up your claims.

[Darth Yan]

This reminds me of that John Grisham book the appeal when they execute the guy even when the real killer publicly confesses. My guess is that even if Davis is proven innocent the state will still try to deny it. Look at Sam Sheppard.

[weemadando]

The introduction of them by an anti-death penalty activist group, so long after the event, and so different from the trial testimony, is a pretty transparent attempt to influence the Davis' sentencing. Worthy of scorn, but not fishy or illegal. With over 30 people testifying at trial, and after review, it's obvious these affidavits didn't become evidence. I impugn AI (and ACLU) because it looks like they used Davis to ride their hobby horses.

Not to be snarky, but if people are recanting their original testimony on.the grounds of it being inaccurate (coerced or not) then isn't it reasonable to expect their new testimony to differ from the original trial testimony?

[Count Chocula]

Yes, weemadando, yes it is. Several of them allege coercion on the part of the police in the original arrest and trial. However, seven recantations more than a decade after the original trial does not invalidate the testimony of the other 20-some witnesses called at the original trial. Also, lacking proof of the allegations, the affidavits have precisely zero evidentiary weight. There's simply no way to tell if those who recanted their testimony were lying in 2006/2007 or lied at the trial. I suspect that's why they were not a factor in any of the judicial reviews. Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their 2006/7 affidavits fall under the legal category of hearsay...complicated by being opposed to original testimony.

[Thanas]

They should not. And really, if seven witnesses recant than that alone should be enough to throw serious doubt out there.

[Flagg]

Yes, weemadando, yes it is. Several of them allege coercion on the part of the police in the original arrest and trial. However, seven recantations more than a decade after the original trial does not invalidate the testimony of the other 20-some witnesses called at the original trial. Also, lacking proof of the allegations, the affidavits have precisely zero evidentiary weight. There's simply no way to tell if those who recanted their testimony were lying in 2006/2007 or lied at the trial. I suspect that's why they were not a factor in any of the judicial reviews. Anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their 2006/7 affidavits fall under the legal category of hearsay...complicated by being opposed to original testimony.

How the fuck is direct testimony "hearsay"? Do you even know what that word means?

[Anguirus]

All the countervailing evidence (witness recantation) was HEARSAY. That's not evidence

You know what Chocula, I give up. I used to think you had a valid, or at least an interesting, perspective on various issues from time to time.

If you're going to argue about this case, then it behooves you to know that eyewitness testimony is fatally flawed, only 9 out of those 34 witnesses IDENTIFIED Davis as the shooter, 7 of them recanted, the 8th has publicly doubted his identification, and the 9th has reportedly admitted to shooting the cop himself, several of these witnesses reported coercion by police, one of whom did so DURING THE ORIGINAL CROSS-EXAMINATION, and only a 1996 counter-terrorism law prevented these reports from exonerating Davis, the ballistics evidence has been called into question by an expert, as Flagg pointed out, and it never connected Davis to the murder weapon in the first place. Also note, the death penalty is inherently racist.

Go hug someone with an ounce of compassion, perhaps it will rub off on you.

It doesn't matter whether you are pro-death penalty or not (my own views on this are ambivalent). It doesn't matter who you think is legally correct (as this is, after all, the entire problem, and surely we can all admit that the application of the law is not always just nor its conclusions factual). The fact of the matter is, this man's guilt is in serious doubt, and as the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles pointed out, executions should not be allowed to proceed unless "there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused."

Another important observation from Bob Barr's editorial that has yet to be highlighted in this thread: "The U.S. Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of ordering a lower court to conduct an evidentiary hearing in the case because of the witness recantations and the absence of hard evidence. But in that hearing, the federal judge established a much higher standard of proof than the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. After finding -- astonishingly for the first time -- that executing an innocent man is unconstitutional, the court then required Davis to prove that he was innocent.Proving innocence is far more difficult than establishing doubts as to one's guilt and flips our system of criminal jurisprudence on its head. Instead of the American system's presumption of innocence and a requirement that the state prove guilt, Davis' evidentiary hearing began with the court presuming guilt and required the condemned to prove his innocence."

As for SCOTUS, as far as I can tell their four-hour delay and unanimous decision are a total mystery. In the recent past liberal justices have voted in favor of staying executions regardless of the probable guilt of those involved, and they haven't put an execution on hold for four hours, minutes before it was to take place, in order to issue such a decision. Nobody in the media seems to know and the justices certainly aren't telling, but I've read speculation that the unanimity reflects some kind of procedural concern, and presumably the four hours was spent hammering that out. So not only is it irrelevant which/how many members of SCOTUS do or don't think he did it, there's basically no convincing interpretation of what happened at all.

In summary, it is clear to me that you're one of those people who thinks keeping the bloody wheels of justice moving for appearance's sake is more important than taking reasonable precautions to avoid the execution of an innocent man. I have utter contempt for that opinion, and contempt for the ignorant and offensive manner in which you expressed it.

[Terralthra]

Anguirus, without meaning to take away from your excellent post, a small nitpick: "inherently" means that it is an essential component, by nature, intrinsic. The death penalty is not inherently racist; racism exists in the United States' implementation and execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty. Inherently racist would mean that no matter where, in what culture, at what time, and by what system it was implemented, the death penalty was always racist.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Anguirus, without meaning to take away from your excellent post, a small nitpick: "inherently" means that it is an essential component, by nature, intrinsic. The death penalty is not inherently racist; racism exists in the United States' implementation and execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty. Inherently racist would mean that no matter where, in what culture, at what time, and by what system it was implemented, the death penalty was always racist.

When and in what culture has the death penalty not been racist or otherwise driven by prejudice? It is an essential component because some level of prejudice is inherent in humans, who by definition are required for there to be a death penalty.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it's about human prejudice, doesn't that apply just as well to the entire criminal justice system?

Yes. Though the stakes are higher if you are going to have state sponsored murder

[Terralthra]

Anguirus, without meaning to take away from your excellent post, a small nitpick: "inherently" means that it is an essential component, by nature, intrinsic. The death penalty is not inherently racist; racism exists in the United States' implementation and execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty. Inherently racist would mean that no matter where, in what culture, at what time, and by what system it was implemented, the death penalty was always racist.

When and in what culture has the death penalty not been racist or otherwise driven by prejudice? It is an essential component because some level of prejudice is inherent in humans, who by definition are required for there to be a death penalty.

If it's inherent in humans, then saying "the death penalty is inherently racist" is a useless statement, as ice cream and Rubik's Cubes are equally inherently racist.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Anguirus, without meaning to take away from your excellent post, a small nitpick: "inherently" means that it is an essential component, by nature, intrinsic. The death penalty is not inherently racist; racism exists in the United States' implementation and execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty. Inherently racist would mean that no matter where, in what culture, at what time, and by what system it was implemented, the death penalty was always racist.

When and in what culture has the death penalty not been racist or otherwise driven by prejudice? It is an essential component because some level of prejudice is inherent in humans, who by definition are required for there to be a death penalty.

If it's inherent in humans, then saying "the death penalty is inherently racist" is a useless statement, as ice cream and Rubik's Cubes are equally inherently racist.

No, because neither ice cream or rubik's cubes rely on a process that racism can meaningfully effect.

[Lord MJ]

And this happens the day after Troy Davis was executed, by the same Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/ ... 5020080522

Killer spared from death hours before execution

(Reuters) - The parole board in the state of Georgia spared a convicted killer from execution hours before he was due to die by lethal injection on Thursday and commuted his sentence to life in prison.

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made its decision less than three hours before Samuel David Crowe, 47, was to be executed, according to a spokeswoman for the state's prisons.

"After careful and exhaustive consideration of the requests, the board voted to grant clemency. The board voted to commute the sentence to life without parole," the parole board said.

Crowe's death would have marked the third execution since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted an unofficial moratorium on the death penalty last month.

Crowe was not present at the parole board hearing in Atlanta. He had already eaten his last meal and was preparing to enter the execution chamber at the prison in Jackson, Georgia, Mallie McCord of the Georgia Department of Corrections said.

In March 1988, Crowe killed store manager Joseph Pala during a robbery at the lumber company in Douglas County, west of Atlanta. Crowe, who had previously worked at the store, shot Pala three times with a pistol, beat him with a crowbar and a pot of paint.

Crowe pleaded guilty to armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death the following year.

"David (Crowe) takes full responsibility for his crime and experiences profound remorse," according to Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, an advocacy group, who welcomed the board's decision.

At Thursday's hearing, his lawyers presented a dossier of evidence attesting to his remorse and good behavior in jail, according to local media reports. The lawyers also said he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms from a cocaine addiction at the time of the crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 rejected a challenge to the three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions, which opponents claimed inflicted unnecessary pain. Georgia then conducted an execution on May 5.

Georgia has executed 41 men since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1973 and this week it had 109 prisoners on death row.

[Flagg]

Nice. A guy who admits guilt but feels bad gets spared while a guy whose guilt was in serious doubt gets the needle. Anyone know if Crowe is white?

[Terralthra]

He is.

[weemadando]

Nice. A guy who admits guilt but feels bad gets spared while a guy whose guilt was in serious doubt gets the needle. Anyone know if Crowe is white?

And in news that NO ONE could have seen coming:

[Flagg]

Yeap, he's white.