The story of Troy Davis can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis_case
Briefly, case from 1989 were Mr. Davis was accused of killing an off-duty police officer. No gun or hard evidence was found. The prosecution used eye witness accounts to place Mr. Davis at the scene of the crime, although Mr. Davis' mother testified he was at her house at the time of the killing.
Davis was found guilty. Since then a number of witnesses have recanted their accounts and juror members have spoken out in Mr. Davis' defense.
So, we know the atrocities of this case. What, if any, are the reasons the death penalty should be used? What criteria are needed to sentence an individual to death (e.g., hard evidence, eye witness, video footage)? What are the broader impacts of the death penalty in our society (i.e., original intent was to keep individuals from committing the worst crimes)? Is the death penalty still relevant?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
So, everyone I've asked about this thought he would NOT end up being executed. I agreed. The best explanation I've heard regarding this is "that's Georgia..."
ReplyDeleteAs to your questions. The honest discussion has to revolve around the fact that despite the advances in forensic science, it's not 100% and people will be wrongly convicted. Is the society prepared for this? Depending on the state, I think they are (eg Texas). Minnesota absolutely would not be.
The criteria are the same as convicting a person of murder. Beyond reasonable doubt and so forth which apparently does not require direct evidence. This is a separate question from the death penalty. I would point out the irony though that the same people who believe the justice system is perfect enough to decree murder on a citizen, seem to be the same people who think government can't do anything right (whether it's deliver your post, subsidize your grain producers or educators, or these days even pass a bill).
The most interesting question to me is the broader impact. The death penalty, from what I've read, does not deter capital offenses. Assuming this is true, the death penalty is NOT relevant in this context. Now, I have advocated for the death penalty to the higher level players in society whose decisions affect more than just one person. If someone at ABC Industries decides to not filter Hg out of their new water-transport pipes and as a result 10,000 people end up with neuro-poisoning and hence permament disabilities, then we should strongly consider destroying this person because I think it WOULD stop those kind of crimes. Bernie Madoff I thought should have been put to death. I know we're not supposed to equate life to money, but a lot of people's lives are ruined when 50 billion dollars of wealth disappears. People like him, supposedly smarter, might check themselves before committing what they know is a crime if the consequence might be death.
What are we saying otherwise? If you're going to commit a crime, bring your victim to the brink of death but don't kill them but don't kill them and we will recognize you on a level less than the real criminals. I'll look up the other crimes for which the death penalty has been applied in this country other than murder and repost.