Ontopic So did Georgia murder an innocent man last night?

BeachballBunny said:
Proving it wasn't him isn't really enough. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was him. That's how we are supposed to work anyway. One of the other witnesses was the prime suspect until he blamed this guy. It seems a little fishy at least.



While there is truth in this, I think the witnesses would have started to feel guilty had he been up for execution back then too. I think they all recanted out of a feeling of guilt about their accusation for whatever reasons they had, be it lying or guilt over being partially responsible for a man's death. Sounds like a bunch of really sorry people.

I do feel bad for the cop's family and friends. I'm sorry they lost a loved one. I don't think killing another guy helps that though. I bet they don't even feel better today. I bet they still miss the guy. I don't really think capital punishment solves anything and it makes us look bad as a country on top of it all. Because we have this policy we get to count ourselves up there with North Korea and Iran and Saudi Arabia. I just love being compared to them. It's interesting that the rest of the civilized world has done away with such a thing though. And if we are going to rank up there with those places, can we please do away with the cost of putting someone on death row and all of these appeals? Let's just behead the guilty party the day after the trial because it costs like 3x as much to keep someone on death row and then execute them as it would to just keep them in jail for life.

And although I know this isn't a very religious forum, I don't think very many of us here are actual Gods, so how come any of us have the right to say who dies and who doesn't. Doesn't that make us just as bad as the murderers? That eye for an eye stuff went out with Jesus, didn't it?
Click to expand...

He was innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty, after which time it's up to him to prove his innocence.

So you think if he was given life instead of death nobody would have felt guilty and changed thier mind? Nobody seemed to be protesting to free him, just a bunch of anti capitol punishment people wanted a stay. I think you are right though that people felt guilty thier testimony put someone to death. Has any of the original jurors chimed in yet?

The other suspect who turned davis in and admitted to owning a 38 which also was never recovered and who davis claimed is the killer is fishy at first glance. When you dig deeper though, why did none of the witnesses ever pinpoint him? And more importantly how did shell casings from an earlier shooting with a different set of witnesses and only davis involved also turn up at the cops body? Kind of seals that deal imo.

davis should have coughed up his gun if it would have proved his innocence. Fact that it dissapeared says alot too imo.
 
W2F4S.png
 
So Davis should have tried having his lawyer do a plea deal where if he said he was guilty he would get life. Like a no contest plea. Where he gives up any ability to purse the matter further but stays in jail.
 
b_sinning said:
So Davis should have tried having his lawyer do a plea deal where if he said he was guilty he would get life. Like a no contest plea. Where he gives up any ability to purse the matter further but stays in jail.
Click to expand...
You can't always plead no contest, it's usually up to the court, it's also no an admission of guilt which is usually what they are going for.
 
True. At this point the case was too public so Georgia had to to show that it follows the letter of the law to prevent other people trying to win reversals by public out cry.
 
Onnotangu said:
hmm according to this media might be over doing it and turning this into some sort of madeup race war.

http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/tro...-172-pages-to-tell-us-why-look-for-an-appeal/
Click to expand...

gee you think?

waw's one sided image was proof of that, it's like a giant political add. OMG HE DID THIS but we aren't gonna mention this, but compare it to the guy WHO DID THIS but we won't tell motives or anything else about the case. AND THE OUTCOME IS DIFFERENT!!!~! OMG
 
BeachballBunny said:
Proving it wasn't him isn't really enough. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was him. That's how we are supposed to work anyway. One of the other witnesses was the prime suspect until he blamed this guy. It seems a little fishy at least.
Click to expand...
Reasonable doubt. Not beyond, just reasonable. I made a point in another thread about how the legal fiction of 'reasonable' is not exactly what most people think it is.

Also juries decide facts, judges apply law (except in courts of equity). The jury to set the standard for 'reasonable.' When you appeal, you are appealing the application of law, not the determination of facts. If there are new facts it you might get a new trial, but you will not have a discharge of final judgement (which is wayy different from a vacated judgement).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back