Interesting. Troy Davis case.

Following the original trial, seven witnesses changed or recanted all or part of their testimony; others, including an Air Force enlisted man who identified Davis as the killer, did not. The limited ability to appeal his conviction, due in part to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,[3] was one reason cited for the international attention to the case.[3][4] Prosecutors argued that it was too late to present the recantations as evidence,[5] and his defense team failed to call the witnesses who had changed their testimony when Davis was given an evidentiary hearing in 2010.

If that isn't reasonable doubt, then you should be living in Iran.

I used to consider myself anti-capital punishment.

Today, I'd say that I'm unenthusiastic about the death penalty.

The teachings of Christ didn't really abolish capital punishment --- but did call to question, the system that administered it.
(let him who is without sin throw the first stone - there was one person qualified to do so --- and he didn't throw any stones).

The Davis case raises serious questions about the system.

Many an innocent person has been wrongfully convicted and some put to death.
So, they are still free and gone.

I'll take my freedom while I can still fog a mirror, thanks.

I'm all for the death penalty...when the perpetrator has, without a doubt in anyone's mind (not just the jury and judge and victims) did the deed. Example: the dude on Colorado death row that shot up and killed people in the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in the mid-'80's.

If there is any doubt...the witnesses recant...new evidence is even remotely produced...do not execute.

I don't believe this is about innocence in a direct way. Obviously anyone could be found guilty but could be innocent not just this case. However, it is completely unjust that some people are executed for this same crime and others are not. No conformity at all. I do not believe in the death penalty for many reasons. I don't think we can say for certain that ANYONE is guilty, revenge in this way does not DO anything (forgiveness is much more peaceful), the way we do this is ridiculous that one person gets the death penalty because he got a hanging type jury and others don't, and I just don't think killing people is right. When you do that you are murdering as well. We do not have the technology to be totally sure and if you kill an innocent person, my god that is just not worth it! And I am not only talking about this case.

I have always said I DO NOT believe in the death penalty. If you are not willing to flip the switch and watch someone die you can't be okay with it. You cannot go by the families of the victims on this, they are full of emotion. Think for yourself and don't listen to your party either. Listen to your brain and heart.

Death penalty goes back to ancient times when it used to be done as sport. We as a society need to think not just go with what was done before us.

All good points. Here's another good point. Look at the company we are keeping with the death penalty. Pay close attention to the totals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_cap ... by_country

towermonkey wrote:

Following the original trial, seven witnesses changed or recanted all or part of their testimony; others, including an Air Force enlisted man who identified Davis as the killer, did not. The limited ability to appeal his conviction, due in part to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,[3] was one reason cited for the international attention to the case.[3][4] Prosecutors argued that it was too late to present the recantations as evidence,[5] and his defense team failed to call the witnesses who had changed their testimony when Davis was given an evidentiary hearing in 2010.

If that isn't reasonable doubt, then you should be living in Iran.

It is one thing for a witness to say outside of a court of law that they recant, quite another in a court of law while under oath. It is not enough to simply say that a witness has recanted, their change of testimony, as with the original testimony itself, should be subject to rules of cross examination. Lacking that, it is simply hearsay.

CinnamonGirl wrote: I don't think we can say for certain that ANYONE is guilty, revenge in this way does not DO anything (forgiveness is much more peaceful), the way we do this is ridiculous that one person gets the death penalty because he got a hanging type jury and others don't, and I just don't think killing people is right. When you do that you are murdering as well.

No, you are not. Murder is the taking of a human life without justification or excuse. Capital punishment is the taking of life with justification. It is a punishment, the most severe one available in our society. It is not a deterrent, it is a punishment, just as prison is not a deterrent but a punishment for violating the laws of society.

Could I inject the life taking drugs into the vein of a man convicted of lashing a fellow citizen to the back of their truck and dragging them across the pavement until they were dead and all that remained was a dismembered lump of flesh? Absolutely, not a question in my mind. If one has so little regard for the value of another person's life and rights that they are capable of such actions, there is no place in society where others are not endangered by that individual. Not even locking them up for 23 hours each day in a cell all by themselves will ensure that society is never again harmed by such an individual. It is not revenge, it is not murder - it is the ultimate punishment reserved for the most heinous and senseless of crimes. Before it can be administered, 12 of your fellow citizens must be convinced that you are guilty of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt and also convinced that your criminal behavior rises above and beyond the normal level of disregard for the life and rights of others evidenced in any crime. Only then can society justify taking your life from you instead of simply your liberty. It is expensive, and it should be. It takes a while to exhaust all appeals, and it should not be hastened. Neither should it be eliminated entirely from the list of possible punishments that one could potentially be subjected to. There are times when only this punishment rises to the level of justice being served.

PrintSmith wrote:

towermonkey wrote:

Following the original trial, seven witnesses changed or recanted all or part of their testimony; others, including an Air Force enlisted man who identified Davis as the killer, did not. The limited ability to appeal his conviction, due in part to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,[3] was one reason cited for the international attention to the case.[3][4] Prosecutors argued that it was too late to present the recantations as evidence,[5] and his defense team failed to call the witnesses who had changed their testimony when Davis was given an evidentiary hearing in 2010.

If that isn't reasonable doubt, then you should be living in Iran.

It is one thing for a witness to say outside of a court of law that they recant, quite another in a court of law while under oath. It is not enough to simply say that a witness has recanted, their change of testimony, as with the original testimony itself, should be subject to rules of cross examination. Lacking that, it is simply hearsay.

Still reasonable doubt.

Knowing now how unreliable eyewitnesses are and how easily memories can be manipulated any case that relies on eyewitness testimony should not be eligible for the death penalty.