the case of Troy Davis shows exactly why the dealth pentalty should be banned

[McDowell's]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the definition of recanted. There is enough doubt that it will be criminal to execute him. Well, IMO, it is criminal to allow the state to execute anyone.

But then, I'm not a big government supporter.

He's guilty enough to be imprisoned for the rest of his life but not to be executed. So how guilty but not really guilty is that exactly? Damn you're fucking stupid.

Nah, I wouldn't touch you with Glen Rice's penis.

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the definition of recanted. There is enough doubt that it will be criminal to execute him. Well, IMO, it is criminal to allow the state to execute anyone.

But then, I'm not a big government supporter.

Recantations are generally not worth all that much.*

IF your theory of criminal justice were ever to hold sway, there would be no such thing as a death penalty, since to get it negated, all anybody would ever have to do is get any witness to publicly SAY that he or she was "recanting" what they'd previously testified to under oath.

BTW: the concept of "big government" does not entail the power that a government might have, under law, to sanction criminals convicted of crimes.

Raving Hypocrite, you ARE a big government supporter. You just quibble about the scope of governmental power in SOME respects when it suits your political ideology.

_________
* For example:

* * * * Post-trial recantations of testimony are "looked upon with the utmost suspicion." Johnson, 487 F.2d at 1279 (citations omitted); see also United States v. DiPaolo, 835 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 1987) (same); United States v. Castano, 756 F.Supp. 820, 824 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) * * * *

Excerpted from U.S. v. Green, 4 F.3d 987 (4th Cir., 1993).

Coerced testimony should also be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.

And yes, allowing the government to execute people is the ultimate expression of big government.

Coerced testimony SHOULD be looked at with extreme suspicion. That doesn't mean that anybody who later CLAIMS that his/her testimony was allegedly "coerced" actually had that testimony coerced.

And no. The power of government to impose a death penalty in compliance with proper law and procedure is NOT the ultimate expression of big government. It is a compelling expression of governmental authority and power, however. Not the same concepts.

 

[Ravi]

He's guilty enough to be imprisoned for the rest of his life but not to be executed. So how guilty but not really guilty is that exactly? Damn you're fucking stupid.

Nah, I wouldn't touch you with Glen Rice's penis.

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

 

[Ravi]

Recantations are generally not worth all that much.*

IF your theory of criminal justice were ever to hold sway, there would be no such thing as a death penalty, since to get it negated, all anybody would ever have to do is get any witness to publicly SAY that he or she was "recanting" what they'd previously testified to under oath.

BTW: the concept of "big government" does not entail the power that a government might have, under law, to sanction criminals convicted of crimes.

Raving Hypocrite, you ARE a big government supporter. You just quibble about the scope of governmental power in SOME respects when it suits your political ideology.

_________
* For example: Excerpted from U.S. v. Green, 4 F.3d 987 (4th Cir., 1993).

Coerced testimony should also be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.

And yes, allowing the government to execute people is the ultimate expression of big government.

Coerced testimony SHOULD be looked at with extreme suspicion. That doesn't mean that anybody who later CLAIMS that his/her testimony was allegedly "coerced" actually had that testimony coerced.

And no. The power of government to impose a death penalty in compliance with proper law and procedure is NOT the ultimate expression of big government. It is a compelling expression of governmental authority and power, however. Not the same concepts.

They are exactly the same concepts.

You love governmental authority and power when it suits your agenda. You're no different than the progressives you whine about.

 

[Liability]

Nah, I wouldn't touch you with Glen Rice's penis.

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough for a conviction.

Fair enough.

What standard IS valid for the imposition of a death penalty -- if there is to be a death penalty?

If you suggest that it has to be "proof beyond all possibility of doubt" you are actually just saying "there may permissibly be no death penalty."

 

[McDowell's]

Nah, I wouldn't touch you with Glen Rice's penis.

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

His appeals process has been completely exhausted. The alternative is life in prison. You haven't argued that he should be released based upon your doubt; therefore in your mind he's still guilty. Just not guilty enough for the death penalty. Google is right. This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about your opposition to the death penalty and your own statements prove it.

 

[Liability]

Coerced testimony should also be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.

And yes, allowing the government to execute people is the ultimate expression of big government.

Coerced testimony SHOULD be looked at with extreme suspicion. That doesn't mean that anybody who later CLAIMS that his/her testimony was allegedly "coerced" actually had that testimony coerced.

And no. The power of government to impose a death penalty in compliance with proper law and procedure is NOT the ultimate expression of big government. It is a compelling expression of governmental authority and power, however. Not the same concepts.

They are exactly the same concepts.

You love governmental authority and power when it suits your agenda. You're no different than the progressives you whine about.

Wrong and wrong. They are not only NOT the same concepts, but they are actually very distinct and different concepts.

It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to distinguish them however.

You really aren't all that intelligent.

 

[Google]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the definition of recanted. There is enough doubt that it will be criminal to execute him. Well, IMO, it is criminal to allow the state to execute anyone.

But then, I'm not a big government supporter.

Recantations are generally not worth all that much.*

IF your theory of criminal justice were ever to hold sway, there would be no such thing as a death penalty, since to get it negated, all anybody would ever have to do is get any witness to publicly SAY that he or she was "recanting" what they'd previously testified to under oath.

BTW: the concept of "big government" does not entail the power that a government might have, under law, to sanction criminals convicted of crimes.

Raving Hypocrite, you ARE a big government supporter. You just quibble about the scope of governmental power in SOME respects when it suits your political ideology.

_________
* For example:

* * * * Post-trial recantations of testimony are "looked upon with the utmost suspicion." Johnson, 487 F.2d at 1279 (citations omitted); see also United States v. DiPaolo, 835 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 1987) (same); United States v. Castano, 756 F.Supp. 820, 824 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) * * * *

Excerpted from U.S. v. Green, 4 F.3d 987 (4th Cir., 1993).

Coerced testimony should also be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.

And yes, allowing the government to execute people is the ultimate expression of big government.

Was his family member coerced? He went to the police voluntarily and told them in a written statement that Davis had personally told him he had shot those two men that night.

Everyone forgets that he wasn't convicted of one murder that night, but two.

Some of those witnesses had lawyers. It is utter bullshit, and it has been refuted countless times, most notably by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, but they are all biased and just out to get Davis.

 

[Ravi]

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough for a conviction.

Fair enough.

What standard IS valid for the imposition of a death penalty -- if there is to be a death penalty?

If you suggest that it has to be "proof beyond all possibility of doubt" you are actually just saying "there may permissibly be no death penalty."

There is really no evidence that can prove anything beyond a doubt. Therefore there is no justification for the death penalty.

Even if such evidence existed, the death penalty is still wrong. It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

 

[Ravi]

Yup, that's what I thought. No ability to defend your dumbass statements.

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

His appeals process has been completely exhausted. The alternative is life in prison. You haven't argued that he should be released based upon your doubt; therefore in your mind he's still guilty. Just not guilty enough for the death penalty. Google is right. This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about your opposition to the death penalty and your own statements prove it.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. Enough doubt exists that he shouldn't be executed.

I am opposed to the death penalty.

 

[eflatminor]

It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

So does every unconstitutional law, entitlement program and bureaucratic agency.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Troy Davis is not innocent. It astounds me how people that don't know anything about this case are all of a sudden up in arms. Countless witnesses testified they had seen Davis shoot that police officer, and two others testified that Davis personally confessed to them, and years later some, not all, changed their stories. These people should be charged with perjury and put in a cell right next to this murderer.

Not to mention he has lost every appeal and subsequent court hearings. He has been convicted three times.

But you are an expert and know definitively that Davis is innocent. What is complete bullshit is your feigning outrage at something that you read on a blog recently.

Wait ! you citicize people for being up in arms and not knowing but you make an absolute statement that Troy Davis is not innocent? Were you there? And if the police intimidated witnesses it should be the police put in jail.

What I am saying is: based on the evidence and the numerous court proceedings and subsequent appeals, Troy Davis is guilty.

This case isn't about Davis, rather it is about the death penalty. The detractors of the death penalty will defend any and all convicted murders, rapists, child molester--all of the scum of the Earth based solely on their objections to the death penalty. Read the Wikipedia page and tell me it isn't biased toward Davis. Troy Davis case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was born and raised in Atlanta and have followed this case for years, and it is irritating to me that so many people are now coming out and making statements that Davis is innocent when all evidence says otherwise.

Why isn't anyone interviewing the children, now adults that had their father taken from them?

I'm sure you don't watch Atlanta local news, but recently there have been charges of racism. That's right it is all racially motivated.

Witness testimony has been proven to be the least reliable and if that is the only evidence they have and as pointed out they recanted. I know very little about this case but if 9 out of 10 witnesses recanted and the other witness was a suspect then that has to raise some doubt.

 

[Liability]

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough for a conviction.

Fair enough.

What standard IS valid for the imposition of a death penalty -- if there is to be a death penalty?

If you suggest that it has to be "proof beyond all possibility of doubt" you are actually just saying "there may permissibly be no death penalty."

There is really no evidence that can prove anything beyond a doubt. Therefore there is no justification for the death penalty.

Even if such evidence existed, the death penalty is still wrong. It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

There are all types and kinds of evidence that can and do regularly prove LOTS of things beyond a doubt.

WHETHER there is or is not any justification for a death penalty IS a matter of debate, but re-stating your conclusion as a premise does not serve the purpose of making your case.

The death penalty might be "wrong" depending on what you (and others) "mean" by the use of that term, "wrong." But whether it gives government more power than it needs or deserves is also a matter of debate, not a matter subject to your fiat.

I happen not to be a very strong proponent of the death penalty, but I can certainly think of some cases where it is both warranted and validly needed. It's ok that you disagree. But the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right.

 

[McDowell's]

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

His appeals process has been completely exhausted. The alternative is life in prison. You haven't argued that he should be released based upon your doubt; therefore in your mind he's still guilty. Just not guilty enough for the death penalty. Google is right. This isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about your opposition to the death penalty and your own statements prove it.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. Enough doubt exists that he shouldn't be executed.

I am opposed to the death penalty.

You also don't know all the facts of the case. Our legal system does not boil down to, "what does Ravi think?" There's a reason for that.

If he is not guilty enough to be executed then it's also completely unjustified to imprison him for life or any extended period of time. Do you have the ability to add all the years spent in prison back to a person's life? If not and you believe the person is really not guilty, then you have literally stolen part of their life. How much more noble you are. I don't think they're guilty but lets just steal 50 years of their life just in case.

 

[Ravi]

Recantations are generally not worth all that much.*

IF your theory of criminal justice were ever to hold sway, there would be no such thing as a death penalty, since to get it negated, all anybody would ever have to do is get any witness to publicly SAY that he or she was "recanting" what they'd previously testified to under oath.

BTW: the concept of "big government" does not entail the power that a government might have, under law, to sanction criminals convicted of crimes.

Raving Hypocrite, you ARE a big government supporter. You just quibble about the scope of governmental power in SOME respects when it suits your political ideology.

_________
* For example: Excerpted from U.S. v. Green, 4 F.3d 987 (4th Cir., 1993).

Coerced testimony should also be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.

And yes, allowing the government to execute people is the ultimate expression of big government.

Was his family member coerced? He went to the police voluntarily and told them in a written statement that Davis had personally told him he had shot those two men that night.

Everyone forgets that he wasn't convicted of one murder that night, but two.

Some of those witnesses had lawyers. It is utter bullshit, and it has been refuted countless times, most notably by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, but they are all biased and just out to get Davis.

That's another thing wrong with this case. He was convicted of two murders but sentenced to die for one, the cop.

The police aren't "more equal" than other people. Justice is being applied unequally in this as well.

 

[Google]

You're too stupid to see the difference. An executed person cannot be brought back to life. Someone imprisoned for life can be let out of jail.

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough for a conviction.

Fair enough.

What standard IS valid for the imposition of a death penalty -- if there is to be a death penalty?

If you suggest that it has to be "proof beyond all possibility of doubt" you are actually just saying "there may permissibly be no death penalty."

There is really no evidence that can prove anything beyond a doubt. Therefore there is no justification for the death penalty.

Even if such evidence existed, the death penalty is still wrong. It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

There is no justification of the death penalty? This simplistic mentality is the hallmark of your typical Democrat voter.

You can't provide any credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in the United States in modern history, but make these moronic statements based on your belief that murderers, rapists and child molesters don't deserve to be executed for their disgusting actions.

There isn't any evidence that an innocent person has been executed in modern history, but there sure as hell is a mountain of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murders aren't executed.

Kenneth McDuff received three death sentences for kidnapping and murdering three teenagers, repeatedly raping one, but the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in 1972. He was later released and went on to murder 12 people.

He finally received proper justice when Gov. George Bush executed him in 1998. It is your simplistic emotional based mentality that resulted in the deaths of those 12 innocent people.
Kenneth McDuff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many innocent people have been raped/murdered because of the compassionate liberal take on these scum?

 

[Ravi]

So proof beyond a reasonable doubt is good enough for a conviction.

Fair enough.

What standard IS valid for the imposition of a death penalty -- if there is to be a death penalty?

If you suggest that it has to be "proof beyond all possibility of doubt" you are actually just saying "there may permissibly be no death penalty."

There is really no evidence that can prove anything beyond a doubt. Therefore there is no justification for the death penalty.

Even if such evidence existed, the death penalty is still wrong. It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

There is no justification of the death penalty? This simplistic mentality is the hallmark of your typical Democrat voter.

You can't provide any credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in the United States in modern history, but make these moronic statements based on your belief that murderers, rapists and child molesters don't deserve to be executed for their disgusting actions.

There isn't any evidence that an innocent person has been executed in modern history, but there sure as hell is a mountain of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murders aren't executed.

Kenneth McDuff received three death sentences for kidnapping and murdering three teenagers, repeatedly raping one, but the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in 1972. He was later released and went on to murder 12 people.

He finally received proper justice when Gov. George Bush executed him in 1998. It is your simplistic emotional based mentality that resulted in the deaths of those 12 innocent people.
Kenneth McDuff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many innocent people have been raped/murdered because of the compassionate liberal take on these scum?

I can provide credible evidence that people that were suspected of not being guilty after all were executed.

That should be enough for anyone.

If believing the government shouldn't be allowed to execute people makes me a liberal, then I'm guilty as charged.

Funny thing is, there are conservatives that believe the same thing.

Dope.

 

[Google]

There is really no evidence that can prove anything beyond a doubt. Therefore there is no justification for the death penalty.

Even if such evidence existed, the death penalty is still wrong. It gives the government more power than it needs or deserves.

There is no justification of the death penalty? This simplistic mentality is the hallmark of your typical Democrat voter.

You can't provide any credible evidence that a single innocent person has been executed in the United States in modern history, but make these moronic statements based on your belief that murderers, rapists and child molesters don't deserve to be executed for their disgusting actions.

There isn't any evidence that an innocent person has been executed in modern history, but there sure as hell is a mountain of evidence that innocent people have been killed when murders aren't executed.

Kenneth McDuff received three death sentences for kidnapping and murdering three teenagers, repeatedly raping one, but the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in 1972. He was later released and went on to murder 12 people.

He finally received proper justice when Gov. George Bush executed him in 1998. It is your simplistic emotional based mentality that resulted in the deaths of those 12 innocent people.
Kenneth McDuff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many innocent people have been raped/murdered because of the compassionate liberal take on these scum?

I can provide credible evidence that people that were suspected of not being guilty after all were executed.

That should be enough for anyone.

If believing the government shouldn't be allowed to execute people makes me a liberal, then I'm guilty as charged.

Funny thing is, there are conservatives that believe the same thing.

Dope.

You've demonstrated your stupidity beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Nosmo King]

To the contemporary Conservative partisan hack, government can do NOTHING right , unless they execute someone, particularly someone who is not straight, white, Christian or registered Republican.

Those contemporary Conservative partisan hacks are pro-life, doncha know!

 

[blu]

Not to mention that it is a fact that the shell casings recovered at the scene matched the casings recovered from a previous shooting earlier in the evening to which Davis was present for, but this man is innocent because you read it on Amnesty International that would have everyone believe America only executes innocent people.

His own family member said he shot that father of two. Oh, but after testifying and having Davis found guilty then he wants to turn around and say it was all a misunderstanding.

Davis is the only one with motive as well. The other person that now all the witnesses say did it had zero motive.

It is a fact that Davis was present for both shootings that night. The shell casings from both shootings matched, and they both came from the same .38 caliber. The common denominator? Troy Davis.

Davis was also at the scene of the beating of Larry Young, the homeless man in the parking lot the night of MacPhail's death and the person he was trying to assist.

And after the two shootings that night what did innocent Troy Davis do? He drove straight to Atlanta, 4 hour drive 248 miles, in the wee hours of the morning. Complete coincidence that he fled after the murder of two men.

This isn't about the innocence of Troy Davis, because only morons are out there saying he is innocent. This is about the death penalty, and these same retards would be saying the same damn thing about any child rapist, cop murderer, ect that is sentenced to death.

Hey blu, can you name me one person that was executed that was later exonerated? ONE?

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There IS presidence. Not many, it's very very rare that they get it wrong. Or are at least proven to get it wrong.

I asked for one case that was proven an innocent man was executed, and that Wikipedia page doesn't have one.

I should also clarify modern history.

Still waiting.

are you joking? look at the cases where people were saved after DNA testing was done