Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktNote: Please be kind – this is my first attempt at posting and I rushed it because of its timely nature. I will be gone most of the afternoon but will try and check back here and there when I can, so please don’t think I posted and ran away — SCat
The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied clemency this morning to Troy Davis who is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection tomorrow evening at 7 p.m.
If you have not recently seen or heard about his case, a decent overview is given here. In brief, Mr. Davis was convicted of shooting Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail in 1991. The murder weapon was never found, no physical evidence linked Mr. Davis to the crime, and since that time 7 of the nine witnesses who testified against Davis have recanted – several claiming that they were coerced by police. The eighth witness originally claimed he could not identify anyone involved in the crime and the ninth witness actually has himself confessed to the crime to friends and family members in the last few years. Mr. Davis has had his execution stayed on three separate occasions – in 2007 by the state parole board, in 2008 by the US Supreme Court, and in 2008 by a federal appeals court. With the decision handed out this morning, it is highly unlikely his execution will by stayed again.
As a progressive and a Roman Catholic, I admit that the death penalty is one issue that I have struggled mightily with in my life. I wince at the thought of the state wielding that sort of power, I am sickened at the idea of executing the innocent, and I am appalled at the role that race or poverty often play in these cases. On the other hand, I see obviously guilty monsters like Timothy McVeigh or David Westerfield and I have a very difficult time mustering up any degree of sympathy for their plights; and as I watch the family of Officer McPhail on tv fighting for their loved one, I wonder: how would I respond in their shoes? How would I feel if it was my husband or my child that had been violently taken away from me? Would I be secure enough in my faith to not seek revenge through the justice system? Could I take a step back and question the evidence and wonder whether the right person was convicted?
I don’t know and hope I never know the answers to those questions, but when a case like Mr. Davis’ arise, it clarifies the main issue for me: how can we execute someone when such profound questions of innocence and guilt remain?
Where no ghost can follow me
There’s another place beyond here
Where I’ll be free I believe.
— Steve Earle, Over Yonder (Jonathan’s Song)
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Death Penalty |
All Things in Moderation 
I don't have time to read up on this case. As a far-right wingnut, I support capital punishment in principle (and found the Supreme Court's since-reversed decision finding it unconstitutional to be outrageous) but am troubled by the problem of convictions of innocent people. In principle, I support moratoria on executions or lax standards for stays pending comprehensive review of state justice systems. That's as specific as I can be right now.
LikeLike
SCat, I haven't followed the case much but I certainly share your dilemma. I'm not one to favor the Death Penalty either, I don't believe in that kind of retribution. It's tough to take that stand though at times isn't it? It does appear that there is enough conflicting evidence to warrant a revisit to his conviction and I don't understand why this is not being done. That's really the crux of the matter isn't it? Are we now executing an innocent man? Are we sure as a society we should be doing this if we're not certain of guilt?One of my first debates in high school was pro or con, the death penalty? I was on the con side and many of those arguments still resonate all these years later.
LikeLike
QB, why are you calling yourself a far-right wingnut? I thought we were trying to get away from those kinds of labels, even self-inflicted.
LikeLike
lm: I think it's an attempt to recognize that: "Yes, I know I'm a conservative, and I am aware of how this might sound to some". I've used the same strategy in many conversations. Not that it always works, but . . . In regards to this: "I don't know and hope I never know the answers to those questions, but when a case like Mr. Davis' arise, it clarifies the main issue for me: how can we execute someone when such profound questions of innocence and guilt remain?"I don't think we should. Like QB, I don't object to the death penalty out of hand. There are some cases where it seems fitting. Although, like many to my left, I'm not sure I'd miss the death penalty, if it were gone; but there are so many things I don't like about our prison system in this country, I'm very libertarian on it overall. I don't think we should be entrapping people, I don't think we should be jailing non-violent offenders, I think the goal should be to prevent crime rather than arrest criminals (although, of course, you must do the latter), I think we need to change drug laws . . . and on and on. lms, can I refer to myself as a rock-ribbed conservative or RINO? I often have to use both, depending on who I'm talking to. 😉
LikeLike
I think we can call ourselves pretty much what we want, I'm just trying to be careful here as a few people have already left because of tone. If it's funny or self-deprecating I'm fine with it. Just thought I'd ask in order to bring it up for discussion. We left the Plumline for more than one reason.Also qb, your post is still on my list of things to do. I'm just waiting for a lull.
LikeLike
I don't object to the death penalty either.However, in view of technology advancements, I think that every shred of evidence had best be scrutinized, and when the death penalty is concerned, not only should it be scrutinized twice, but if there is no physical evidence, then no death penalty.
LikeLike
People have left HERE because of the tone?I LIKE it here! I don't agree with everyone, nor should I, and I like that. And there are no flame wars either.Now, I like flame wars. On the POST. Not here.
LikeLike
I don't understand where the 'reasonable doubt' bar is in cases like this. I too haven't followed it, but how does lack of physical evidence and witness recanting play into a rendering of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt here?While I understand self-deprecation, I personally will try to avoid it. If I think I might object to someone else calling me a left-wing benefit-sucking southpaw, it'd be better if I didn't refer to myself that way.
LikeLike
MsJs, I'm pretty much the same way, I avoid those kind of self-inflicted wounds, and sometimes I'm clueless to the humor. I did use a hippie avatar on plumline though to be somewhat label accepting. Taroya, I agree the tone is excellent, a few people wanted more of a one-sided blog I think, if I'm interpreting the issue correctly. Hell, I could be wrong about that also.
LikeLike
"People have left HERE because of the tone?"Well, trying to keep a cordial and collegial atmosphere, without smothering the conversation, is tough, and some folks don't want to do it, or don't have the time, or what have you. Trying to keep the conversation productive without sounding like an old goose (no offense, Michigoose) or a prude or spoilsport is tricky. Occasionally, in any conversation, someone will say, "Well, that's just stupid," or, "You're always repeating Republican/Democrat lies", and then the person on the receiving end, if they going to stick with the general thrust of the blog, have to respond with, "Well, I'm not so sure. But perhaps I didn't provide enough information. Here's why I say that . . . " And that's hard, and it's not immediately rewarding, and if feels unfair (why am I having to keep cordial when that person just insulted me?) and, in my experience, if you ask somebody who feels insulted or offended in an exchange, they think that is how it's always going to be. And they usually have a good reason for thinking that, so changing their minds is hard. But also, in my experience, it doesn't always have to be that way. My fellow Plumliners will recall, I drove Ethan2010 away from Plum Line for months just because he could not get everybody else to hate me as much as he did. 😉 But even he came back. And trying to remain conciliatory with him was tough, but I think it also encouraged a few other people to engage me in thoughtful discussion . . . so, difficult but worth it. But no matter how hard you try, it's not a game for everyone.Everybody has good reasons to believe what they do, and sometimes we're so comfortable with the rightness of our position, we forget that, and it seems absurd to you that I want to raise taxes on job creators, or it seems crazy that I support a carbon tax or that I believe/deny man made climate change, so instead of talking it out, our reaction is: "Come on, that's stupid. That's like saying your a 40 year old guy who believes in Santa Claus. Or that you think the world is flat." And if you feel like that's the obvious reaction to this crazy position (even though the original position is presented without invective), and you want to say that that person's an idiot or a Nazi but you know shouting that in the library is frowned upon . . . you may end up not sticking around. Or that's my take on it, anyway. I could be crazy. Crazy and stupid! It's always possible.
LikeLike
As a fan of various far-right conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter) I would also note while I enjoy the fact there is a huge conservative media in this country now, I do think there is a uniformity to not necessarily the media we consume, but the community we affiliate ourselves with (tribal loyalties), and big kahunas like Coulter and Limbaugh tend to put forth the argument that there is nothing legitimate left of center (and not even in the center), that it's all wrong, that everyone on the left has a shadow agenda, etc., etc. And why would you bother having a discussion with a liberal? So, you try, and immediately the liberal confirms everything Limbaugh says. He hates the job creators! He wants to tax energy so hard working families can't even turn on their lights–and ban light bulbs! No discussion! Yell! Argue! To quote Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!" There is comfort in spending time in company of like-minded individuals (indeed, that is the goal of this blog: for people who value constructive dialog to spend time together). In some cases, I think it stimulates tribal loyalties, and so we discuss (and want to discuss) politics and policy like people discuss sports teams or gossip about the black sheeps of the family. I'm now just thinking out loud. And I have work to do. Stop me.
LikeLike
Well, as a hardcore moonbat leftie I'll weigh in on both issues if I may.Re labeling: I think that we can do it to ourselves as long as it's humorous (which is how I read qb's, as evidently Kevin did) and we don't mind it being thrown back in our face at times (a la MsJS). Heck, I got hardcore moonbat from someone trying to insult me over on PL after Obama's address to Congress on the jobs bill, and then ran with it with qb's and Troll's help. I think it's part of recognizing that that which makes us different doesn't have to divide us.Re the death penalty: I think that it should be applied much more stringently and in cases like this (one person killing one other person) it shouldn't be applied at all without direct DNA evidence. Not exclusionary DNA evidence, but DNA evidence directly linking the perpetrator to the weapon AND victim. I have always believed that there are a certain number of people who will perform such heinous acts that they should be removed from society. Since the world doesn't have a place like Australia anymore where we can ship them to sink or swim on their own, we don't currently have much of an option. But that option should be very, very rarely used, and never in a case as flimsy as this one. (Oh, and I had been following this case, SCat, and I'm glad you made this post. I've given money to the movement trying to get his sentence changed.)
LikeLike
lmsinca: I miss your hippy avatar. That was awesome!
LikeLike
" I think it's part of recognizing that that which makes us different doesn't have to divide us." Indeed. And I don't object to gentle ribbing, myself. I just found the time to not use names, of any kind, or what in other times could be gentle mocking, is when I'm angry or irritated or disagree vehemently. The thing to do then is to skip mocking (if possible!) and use names or handles. What's fun when everybody is getting along becomes disrespect when we're disagreeing about something.
LikeLike
MPR digs into ways to improve eyewitnesses testimony:http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/09/how_to_be_sure_the_guilty_are.shtmlIt would be a lot easier to support capital punishment if the govt were infallible. As it is not, the use of the death penalty is an excessively irreversable sanction.
LikeLike
And, second Michigoose. If someone is going to get the death penalty, there should be no doubt that he or she needs the death penalty. Serial murderers, kidnap-and-torturers caught red-handed in the basement, that sort of person.
LikeLike
What is going to be interesting, and I just did it, is replying to 'one of us' over on PL.I don't want to give away the game, and play insider joke's and such on PL. It is going to happen, no matter what, sooner or later. I would like to keep it to a minimum.So, NoVA, I hope that you didn't take offense at me? I didn't mean to give any, if so.
LikeLike
You and qb kevin, he loved that thing. Maybe I'll bring it out again, you never know. And thanks for the dialogue everyone, I probably jumped the gun on qb's calling himself that. I was actually a little afraid someone that I missed had already gone there to him. You'd think after living with a real comedian for over 30 years I'd recognize a joke when I saw it.I think I might be a little too invested in this place working as envisioned. That's why I need all of you………….to talk me down.It is interesting though that none of us seem to gung ho to see a possibly innocent man be executed. I find that very encouraging.
LikeLike
lms,Point taken. I was just doing a little self-mockery and emphasizing that this issue crosses over extremes, to some extent.I'm not sweating the draft post at all. Other people have put up good posts. No rush. Just publish it at some point if you think things are slow and I haven't done it.To all: label those posts up, folks. We'll be glad we did later.Since tone is on the table again, I note that when I have braved the internet molasses that seems to seep into my computer when dropping in to PL, I am surprised how different it feels to me than this place — more so than I expected. There is a pull toward clashing and making strong statements.And that is not all bad all the time. Many of us have strong views about the other side of the spectrum if not the people there. It is sometimes necessary to say what we think are empirical or (yikes!) moral oversights of the other side. I think we should be candid about what we think but avoid hyperbole that will poison debate, be decent, depersonalize. All this takes conscious discipline but is quite doable.Taking stock of this after a week, what this blog seems to me to offer are at least three things: A bit of a refuge from the vitriol, where disagreeing participants have some commitment to comaraderie.A chance to post and originate content and subject matter.A blog that actually works and doesn't waste untold time loading, crash browsers, etc.And of course, mass hysteria.
LikeLike
And now I think I'll post qb's post for him as he seems to have left again.Also, there's a Bits & Pieces draft in the file if anyone wants to put something in there for later. I don't even remember if I thought of that name or if someone else did. Are we keeping it until someone comes up with something better?
LikeLike
Yes, LMS! I forgot that, the most important thing. I love that hippie avatar.We might have to start demanding visitation rights.
LikeLike
Mass hysteria, lol. I'll wait a bit then on your post. I'm glad you're enjoying yourself here and all three are great points.
LikeLike
Actually, I have to check out and work again (meaning, click the other tab on my browser and not click back). So I'll probably be out until evening.
LikeLike
I used to converse with someone during smoke break that was a bigwig with another corporation in the building where I worked.He was die-hard right-wing (and had help!), and I am die-hard left wing. We had the equivalent of knock-down drag-outs, and then on the next break the talk was all about our hobbies, or some such. A natural thing, not a 'calming of stormy waters'.I enjoyed it, and in the end, we established our fundamental differences that would never change, and agreed to disagree. I would work for the guy anytime.Of course, being able to see body language and hear tone is extremely helpful.
LikeLike
Kevin:Everybody has good reasons to believe what they do…I could be crazy. Crazy and stupid!Hmmmm…. 😉
LikeLike
I'll settle for stark raving insane, like all the other libertarians… 🙂
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Thanks, qb for the reminder….label added.
LikeLike
The only valid reason for a death penalty is the social contract that says families and clans must give over their right and duty to avenge blood with blood. The state has the right to demand this because that is the way to end vendetta, since when a family is greviously offended by the death of a member, it cannpt strike back in self protection. (That concept takes too long to justify, but it is justifiavle) Because no one can have vendetta against the King, or his replacement, the state, Capital Punishment of some form must be available to the state, else we go back to clan revenge. Still, there are possible replacements for the death penalty that satisfy the clan need for vengeance, and perhaps the most effective is to declare the criminal dead, and put him in extreme solitude until death takes him.For example, South of Saipan there is an uninhabitable island, just a 500+ mund of rock in the ocean, large enough to serve as a final sentence place for those convicted of capital crimes. Drill tunnels the length of the long axis, more than 100 feet part, and off those tunnels, staggered, drill 20 Foot long passages to 20 X 10 foot cells 10 feet high. cut a sleeping platform in one wall. On the opposite wall cut out a desk with an unmovable stone seat. Instal a Computer terninal. Arrange a mechanism to provide meals to the inmate without direct contact with the deliverer. Upon conviction and sentence, and initial appeals, when someone is convicted and sentenced to death for a crime, he is taken to this Island and put in a cell, with at least 100 feet of rock between him and any other prisoner. He gets some amount of time every day with a spiritual counselor, with limitations, and some amount of time on the computer to read or study. While any remaining appeals are being heard, he also gets some contact with family.Once all appeals are exhausted, he is declared dead and his family contact is cut off. He gets the spiritual adviser until he dies. He never leaves the cell. When he dies he is buried at sea, (like the Vount of Monte Christo. Thus the state carries out its responsibility to provide vengeance in place of the victims family, but does not actually execute the criminal. Initial cost to build the prison are high but maintenance is low because guards and support required are minimal.
LikeLike
Oh good, jokes. I'm still laying pretty low over there although I did compliment Greg this morning on a post and then happened to catch NoVA posting and the rest is history, I hope.
LikeLike
I like Earl's idea.
LikeLike
SCat, nice post, I apologize for leading us off topic. And cef, that's an interesting idea that I'm not opposed to but I also believe that our current prison system doesn't seem to be working too well so I doubt adding more complexity will be popular. I'm not sure all those people belong there in the first place.
LikeLike
qb's post on the Supreme Court is up.
LikeLike
The advantage to burying capital punishment prisoners alive is that you can do something when you turn out to be wrong.
LikeLike
The advantage to burying capital punishment prisoners alive is that you can do something when you turn out to be wrong. Cef, I do like that idea. It's happened more than once.
LikeLike