Context: I'm a big fan. You got it wrong when you said you're not saying you want Troy Davis released, just off death row. If Troy Davis is innocent, he MUST be released. If he's guilty, then the state of Georgia got it right and clemency would just be a hedge in case he isn't guilty. Perhaps this is what you're thinking, but then the argument is that all death sentences should be commuted just in case. This is an argument for another forum, however.
lindsaycampbell
· 1 year ago
If they don't kill him, then there's still a chance to review the case and see what the new witnesses bring to the table. Step one, commute his sentence. Step two, review the new testimony. Step three, determine his innocence. Step four, release him.
Pro-death penalty people get all agitated when you talk about sentence reduction from death to something else. Very often, the person in question might be guilty of something, just not something punishable by death.
I was talking about taking it one step at a time. First, stop his death, then see what's what.
As for your last point, ALL death sentences should be commuted because the system is chaotic and inconsistent. Only a perfect system should administer punishment by death.
andyswan
· 1 year ago
Yet another reason why the death penalty should be abolished in cases of domestic crime.
nolalou
· 1 year ago
There are many reasons why I am opposed to the death penalty. This case is an example that our system of justice is not perfect (and I'm not saying it ever can be 'perfect'). It is bad enough when someone is convicted and given a long prison sentence , only to find out later he or she was not guilty, it is far worse when that person has been put to death. While DNA evidence is sometimes helpful in resolving some of these cases, depending on the nature of the crime , there may not be any DNA or a weapon , and only testimony of witnesses is available. Should that be enough to sentence someone to death, especially when those witnesses were somehow involved in the crime, or have a prior record?
Abe
· 1 year ago
Stories like this one are what truly scares me about this country, that it takes only the word of others (a majority of which have recanted their testimony) to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives when there is no physical evidence of any kind linking them to the crime, especially considering that there exists a possibility of police coercion of said witnesses.
amado v
· 1 year ago
I’d like be clear, I do not want to sound callus. Depravation of a life is the most of serious of government action. But the reality is that there are 50 states with 50 processes. To say “Only a perfect system should administer punishment by death.” is making an all encompassing judgment using the lowest common denominator. It’s juvenilia argument, unless it’s a long way of saying ‘never under any circumstances’. As if all death penalty cases are flaky in evidence, and having misrepresented accused. This course would bring all capital crimes under strict jurisdiction of the Federal government. Not going to happen. So, a reality check: You are asking for something that will never be. Fed don’t want it states don’t want to give it up.
This is the collision of the sovereign individual and society. A populace that feels that government is not meting out proper justice is a very dangerous society. When people feel criminals are freed to re-victimize society. ‘Why bother the authorities, we’ll take care of it here and now’. Now, that is scary! Maybe you think we will never go that far. But this is exactly why governments historically stepped in, to release the pressure of vigilantisms. It brings “cool heads” into the situation. Current gang wars is the expression of this circumventing of authority. I don’t think there’s an in-between, so I’ll take “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one”
I don’t lose any sleep when the blood stained boyfriend ‘hangs’ after 3 kids and mother are found slashed. BUT with no witnesses and only random and thin connections some guy gets pegged. That’s where I’m fine with a law that limits the punishment. And if cops threat the more extreme punishment only to lower it after a plea form an innocent, well, this issue is not easy.
I’m ok with the government taking life, simply because collectively and theoretically we can control and restrain government. I am not OK at all with killers going loose because of some technicality; this issue eclipses capital punishment imperfections. I think if we tighten up punishments, limit the “games” and speed the process. Only then will society soften their harts and consider capital punishment ban.
Abe
· 1 year ago
To play Devil's Advocate, what if the blood stained boyfriend didn't do it? What if he became stained with blood by gathering his now-deceased girlfriend in his arms in a state of panic? I cannot imagine the thoughts that would race through my head if I saw loved ones bloodied in the manner you describe, but it is easy enough to leave prints on the body if you're checking for a pulse to see if they are still alive.
Our system is far from perfect, and while it seems to deter crime, it also seems to be inefficient at catching the innocent. Further, the history of systematic oppression of the poor, lenience for the wealthy/famous, and frequency of wrongful convictions cannot and should not be ignored. Do I advocate wholesale change of the system? No, but the fact remains that if there exists a doubt to the guilt of the accused the death penalty should not even be considered. Ever.
amado v
· 1 year ago
The criteria is "reasonable doubt" not any doubt at all. “Nobody saw me do it, you cant prove a thing” as far as I’m concerned is not good enough argument.
That’s why I used that blooded boyfriend example. Yes, you are right maybe he did not do it, no one saw him do it. But we all know he is usually found hiding at his mom’s or new girlfriends house, and has a restraining order, and has previously put the woman in the hospital, and owns the knife and threatened others with it, and called the victim 12 times and cops had been called to the house 40 times and it turns out she was just about to get remarried. But you’re right there is doubt but not reasonably doubt.
steve nelson
· 1 year ago
And I think a lack of reasonable doubt is all you need to put someone away for life.
But if there is ANY doubt, it's quite a risk to just off someone. I agree with Andy Swan on this one.
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears issued a strong dissent.
“If recantation testimony, either alone or supported by other evidence, shows convincingly that prior trial testimony was false, it simply defies all logic and morality to hold that it must be disregarded categorically,” she wrote.
The new testimony, if found credible, could lead a new jury to find reasonable doubt of Davis’ guilt or enough residual doubt to impose a sentence other than death, she wrote.
I don't know what you do, but clearly, the law sees things a little differently than you do, and "Nobody saw me do it, you cant [sic] prove a thing" appears to be a better argument than you think.
lostfan
· 1 year ago
your audio streaming is really really bad! stopped by wont be back.
nolalou
· 1 year ago
I've never had any problem with MobLogic's audio or video streaming! Maybe it's your computer or internet connection?
steve nelson
· 1 year ago
Is your volume on "mute"? That could be the problem.
Stephanie
· 1 year ago
What do we do right this moment to get the Supreme Court to step in? They don't have e-mail from what I can find. I want to let them know that this would be a travesty of justice.
I wouldn't trust someone's "uncruel death" with Flori-duh. They can't even handle a primary election, let alone killing someone.
amado v
· 1 year ago
The Bush government uses law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign..stop these evil illegal nazi criminals!!!!!
steve nelson
· 1 year ago
???
MobLogic! Please...this is a very important time in new and politics. I love what you guys do and really wish you were pushing more episodes out right now.
Scott Thomas
· 1 year ago
OMG! 9 days of same video while the markets are taking a nose dive. So much for your timely video updates.
Seby
· 1 year ago
How can somebody take away the life of a person. It's inhuman and animal like. And even animals show respect to each other. Life is God's gift and it can't be taken away by earthly powers. Christ cruciifes again
amado v
· 1 year ago
Did everyone at mob logic get laid off? Are you unable to meet payroll? Lindsey obviously did this last video as a freebee. I think this is the last breath of Mob logic. Historical events are happening all around and mob logic is mute. This “bail out” is full of Mob logic reactions. Congressional mob, electoral mob, conservative mob, liberal mob, Media mob, Wall St mob. It is as if you created this site for the very issue we have at hand but sadly you squandered resources to assuage your political views. This is why mass media is losing customers.
All Comments
Pro-death penalty people get all agitated when you talk about sentence reduction from death to something else. Very often, the person in question might be guilty of something, just not something punishable by death.
I was talking about taking it one step at a time. First, stop his death, then see what's what.
As for your last point, ALL death sentences should be commuted because the system is chaotic and inconsistent. Only a perfect system should administer punishment by death.
This is the collision of the sovereign individual and society. A populace that feels that government is not meting out proper justice is a very dangerous society. When people feel criminals are freed to re-victimize society. ‘Why bother the authorities, we’ll take care of it here and now’. Now, that is scary! Maybe you think we will never go that far. But this is exactly why governments historically stepped in, to release the pressure of vigilantisms. It brings “cool heads” into the situation. Current gang wars is the expression of this circumventing of authority. I don’t think there’s an in-between, so I’ll take “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one”
I don’t lose any sleep when the blood stained boyfriend ‘hangs’ after 3 kids and mother are found slashed. BUT with no witnesses and only random and thin connections some guy gets pegged. That’s where I’m fine with a law that limits the punishment. And if cops threat the more extreme punishment only to lower it after a plea form an innocent, well, this issue is not easy.
I’m ok with the government taking life, simply because collectively and theoretically we can control and restrain government. I am not OK at all with killers going loose because of some technicality; this issue eclipses capital punishment imperfections. I think if we tighten up punishments, limit the “games” and speed the process. Only then will society soften their harts and consider capital punishment ban.
Our system is far from perfect, and while it seems to deter crime, it also seems to be inefficient at catching the innocent. Further, the history of systematic oppression of the poor, lenience for the wealthy/famous, and frequency of wrongful convictions cannot and should not be ignored. Do I advocate wholesale change of the system? No, but the fact remains that if there exists a doubt to the guilt of the accused the death penalty should not even be considered. Ever.
That’s why I used that blooded boyfriend example. Yes, you are right maybe he did not do it, no one saw him do it. But we all know he is usually found hiding at his mom’s or new girlfriends house, and has a restraining order, and has previously put the woman in the hospital, and owns the knife and threatened others with it, and called the victim 12 times and cops had been called to the house 40 times and it turns out she was just about to get remarried. But you’re right there is doubt but not reasonably doubt.
But if there is ANY doubt, it's quite a risk to just off someone. I agree with Andy Swan on this one.
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears issued a strong dissent.
“If recantation testimony, either alone or supported by other evidence, shows convincingly that prior trial testimony was false, it simply defies all logic and morality to hold that it must be disregarded categorically,” she wrote.
The new testimony, if found credible, could lead a new jury to find reasonable doubt of Davis’ guilt or enough residual doubt to impose a sentence other than death, she wrote.
I don't know what you do, but clearly, the law sees things a little differently than you do, and "Nobody saw me do it, you cant [sic] prove a thing" appears to be a better argument than you think.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idU...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/24/ameri...
MobLogic! Please...this is a very important time in new and politics. I love what you guys do and really wish you were pushing more episodes out right now.
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
Is anybody home? Heeeloooooo!
ehh, too bad