Supreme Court orders hearing for Troy Davis

Jcomp said:

Oh I know. That's part of what I like about you even though I disagree with you so much I've created macros for my counter-arguments to save time on typing. You don't waffle based on party lines or anything like that. You're consistent.

Click to expand...

So you're saying your arguments supporting government in most cases are -- inconsistent?

robeiae said:

Would you two like to share a Fresca[sup]TM[/sup]?

Click to expand...

Cheapass. Obama would at least spring for two beers.

ETA: Of course, he'd pay with them with other people's money, so I see your point.

robeiae said:

Yes, you're right. VERY LITTLE doubt.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see anyone give a reasonable argument that it wasn't him that did it.

robeiae said:

I give up. How?

Well in this case, the "new evidence" appears to have been heard several times and rejected each of those times. What has changed in this case that would require another hearing?

Click to expand...

Obviously, different judges will come to different conclusions when presented with the same evidence. It's been the Georgia judges (or the pardons and parole commissions, whoever - I've been sort-of following this case off and on for the last year or two) who decided all this evidence wasn't good enough for a new hearing.

One might suspect the Georgia judges of being reluctant to go against a conviction done by Georgia prosecutors and a case ruled on by a Georgia judge, but who am I to question the motives of those in the Justice System, surely they're perfect and not biased in any way ...

Don said:

So you're saying your arguments supporting government in most cases are -- inconsistent?

Click to expand...

My arguments supporting anything are subject to change based entirely on who I'm dating at the moment...

Jcomp said:

My arguments supporting anything are subject to change based entirely on who I'm dating at the moment...

Click to expand...

Sorry, J, I'm married. I thought you knew that.

benbradley said:

I'd like to see anyone give a reasonable argument that it wasn't him that did it.

Click to expand...

I tend to think that supposing he is guilty is a very reasonable conclusion to make. And if he goes to trial, I think he would likely be found guilty by a jury of reasonable people.

Regardless, such a jury could not--if they were honest--say they were 100% sure that the guy was guilty, because none of them were there. They would be accepting evidence as valid and some testimony as truthful/correct to reach such a decision.

Don said:

Cheapass. Obama would at least spring for two beers.

ETA: Of course, he'd pay with them with other people's money, so I see your point.

Click to expand...

I wasn't offering to pay, sport...

robeiae said:

I tend to think that supposing he is guilty is a very reasonable conclusion to make. And if he goes to trial, I think he would likely be found guilty by a jury of reasonable people.

Regardless, such a jury could not--if they were honest--say they were 100% sure that the guy was guilty, because none of them were there. They would be accepting evidence as valid and some testimony as truthful/correct to reach such a decision.

Click to expand...

You are right. It is scientificially impossible to be 100% sure of anything. Given the uncertainty principle and other probabilistic limitations of this known universe, you can never be 100% sure.

SO I will amend my argument to 99.999% sure + the requirement of Physical evidence to give us another couple of .99% points making it 99.99999% sure.

Mel...

benbradley said:

I'd like to see anyone give a reasonable argument that it wasn't him that did it.

Click to expand...

From the OP:

Hearing is to determine whether there is evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial (that) clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Click to expand...

Sounds like they're looking to see if there is a "reasonable argument". Sounds like a proper procedure to me.

caw

dgiharris said:

You are right. It is scientificially impossible to be 100% sure of anything. Given the uncertainty principle and other probabilistic limitations of this known universe, you can never be 100% sure.

SO I will amend my argument to 99.999% sure + the requirement of Physical evidence to give us another couple of .99% points making it 99.99999% sure.

Mel...

Click to expand...

So, how would you draw that up, for purposes of the legal code and jury deliberation?

And what happens when that one case comes along wherein the level of certainty is achieved--according to the rules--but it is discovered after the fact that the person was, amazingly enough, not guilty? A new set of rules, specifying 99.9999999% certainty?

Or maybe we could just appoint a Certainty Czar...

robeiae said:

I tend to think that supposing he is guilty is a very reasonable conclusion to make. And if he goes to trial, I think he would likely be found guilty by a jury of reasonable people.

Regardless, such a jury could not--if they were honest--say they were 100% sure that the guy was guilty, because none of them were there. They would be accepting evidence as valid and some testimony as truthful/correct to reach such a decision.

Click to expand...

There may well be police dashboard video of the event (several police chasing, woman driving the car getting stuck in the mud, man in passenger seat pointing gun at her and firing), and I'd expect that to be considered to be more than adequate evidence.

blacbird said:

From the OP:



Sounds like they're looking to see if there is a "reasonable argument". Sounds like a proper procedure to me.

caw

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm talking about the "suspect" arrested right after doing the act in the news story in my post #14.

DavidZahir said:

The problem with "beyond all possibility of doubt" convictions is that such remains a subjective human judgment. And humans will make mistakes, even the smartest and most honest of us (neither of which, btw, is a criterion for serving on a jury, not even in a capital case).

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not all possibility of doubt (you probably know that, but I just wanted to make sure).

I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances. Not only is it something that cannot be divorced from human error, it also qualifies as homicide without need. When somebody engages in a shootout with the police, then the police officers are acting in clear self-defense, responding to force with force. To cold-bloodedly take a helpless prisoner and simply kill them when he (or she) presents no immediate threat is no better than murder in my eyes (although legally, of course, it isn't).

Click to expand...

I support the death penalty in only certain circumstances, but I think it is used way too much.

Nor do I consider valid the arguments about closure (which strikes me as nothing more than revenge) nor the cost of keeping a prisoner behind bars for life (i.e. killing people to save money).

To be sure, it is easy to select horrible, sickening human beings whose deaths will not cause me to even contemplate shedding a tear. What I argue is that "he's a terrible human being" is not a justification to kill someone. Ever.

I'm pleased to read that SCOTUS is willing to consider innocence as an adequate reason to re-examine a criminal case. From what I understand, this is something of a new precedent.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely pro-Police, and I think anyone who kills a police officer should rot for the rest of his life; however, it sounds like there is a lot of doubt about his guilt.

dgiharris said:

You are right. It is scientificially impossible to be 100% sure of anything. Given the uncertainty principle and other probabilistic limitations of this known universe, you can never be 100% sure.

SO I will amend my argument to 99.999% sure + the requirement of Physical evidence to give us another couple of .00099% points making it 99.99999% sure.

Mel...

Click to expand...

Fixed. X_x

I get e-mails from Amnesty International, so I've been informed about this case for a while now. No one is asking for Troy Davis to be set free, so I don't understand why the state is in such a big rush to kill the man. Commute the sentence to life.

I've been to prison, life is worse than death. Believe me.