It is sad that this topic has gotten so little attention. Even death penalty supporters would agree that it is unjust, to put it mildly, to execute an innocent person. I don't know if Troy Davis was guilty or innocent. I do believe after reading and watching what was available that there was enough doubt that the execution should not go forward.

I would hope this sparks an awareness in this country that when you have a death penalty, innocent people are going to get it from time to time. No human being is perfect. No system is perfect. Mistakes happen. Just in this case, somebody innocent dies for that mistake.

I would ask this question.

How many innocent people is it acceptable to execute to ensure that the guilty are executed?

The supreme Court of the state, the Parole and Pardon board, the Governor the District Attorney's Office and the SCOTUS ALL found enough evidence to continue the execution and not a reason AT ALL to stop it.

as many as it takes... the man was not innocent, your just watching to much msnbc

Not to mention he was even offered a polygraph test yesterday by the state and he TURNED it down.

That is the Million dollar question and the answer is 0; however, every form of evidence must be collected, sorted and entered in order to make a proper decision. I don't know all the details of his trial, but it seems that he exhausted all of his appeals and his lawyers could not come up with anything to get his conviction overturned.

It's funny how these little enhancements find their way into these arguments. What "hard evidence" would that be?

I don't know whether the guy was innocent or not, and neither do you. Witnesses who were there say he is (7 out of the nine, I believe). I guess 22% likelihood of guilt is good enough for the people who cheer over executions.



Why don't stand face to face with the Davis family to explain how their Government doesn't really care whether he was actually guilty.

yes , and thats whats sad. How much 'evidence' justifies taking a life, and how much 'evidence' does it take to overturn such a decision?

in this case the 'evidence' was limited to eyewitness testimonay, and those in authority determined that evidence enough to CONVICT when it was given,, but the same eyewitnesses RECANTING wasnt enough to overturn said conviction,,there is something sad and inconsistent in that...

Let me get this straight, because maybe I'm a little dense and misunderstand you.

You don't care how many innocent people are put to death, so long as we get the guilty ones?

Everyone who recanted their testimony was a career criminal or had a lengthy rap sheet with an ax to grind with the Police Departent and the DA's Office, of course they will change their testimony and all ALL unreliable.

thats not consistent or logical, if their criminality makes them so unreliable, why was it enough for the conviction in the first place?

No there was bullistics and ALSO a pair of Davis's shorts the cops got from a washing machine at Davis's residence with the victims Blood\DNA on them(which the shorts were thrown out because of a claim of improper search and seizure because one of the officers screwed up on announcing their presance).

again, it is innocent until proven guilty and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in every case not just this one

They don't sound like very reliable witnesses to me. Odd that they were reliable enough for a death penalty conviction.

but this wasnt beyond a reasonable doubt, if we are honest

I get the jury decided on a conviction, BASED UPON WHAT PEOPLE CLAIMED THEY SAW

but the system didnt take these same people on their word when they RECANTED the story,, they erred for the decision that ended someones life,,,,when there was obviously DOUBT That had arisen

I dont believe he ever contested being there. Im sure the homeless man the cop was trying to help also ended up with his blood on him. The issue was whether Troy Davis was the person who KILLED The officer. THat is the issue that is in question and the only evidence that he was the one to pull the trigger is eyewitness account. so if the eyewitness account is reliable enough to give us certainty that he did it. Why weren't those same eyewitnesses saying he DIDNT do it not reliable enough to overturn a decision to take the mans life?

define innocence, since it does not apply here... if they have enough evidence, and 4-5 appeals were shot down, and nobody in power seemed to think he was innocent, then what is the problem? maybe he should have thought about that before he killed the cop...

because 12 jurors said he was guilty... any other questions?

so, 12 people should be all that is needed to determine whether a life is ended? damn any testimony or evidence?

thats sad

ms harmony, when someone gives testimony, that is considered the honest truth, because before the testimony is given they are sworn in. the jury can only consider what the judge allows. it's the prosecutors job to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense to show that there is reasonable doubt. if a guilty verdict is returned than there are several automatic "reviews" if you will to make sure that procedure was followed. having a poor defense is not an excuse to overturn the verdict just as having a superior defense is not an excuse to bring the accused back for a retrial

the jurors just decide if he is guilty or not, the judge decides if it is worthy of a death sentence...