Interesting. Troy Davis case.

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

Semantics. When an individual is put to death by Capital Punishment, the only manner of death listed on the death certificate (I haven't looked at sample death certificates from all 50 states) that fits is Homicide.

Botswana 1
Egypt 4
Equatorial Guinea 4
Libya 18
Somalia 8
Sudan 6
Bahrain 1
Bangladesh 9
China 2000
Iran 252
Iraq 1
Japan 2
North Korea 60
Malaysia 1
Palestinian National Authority 5
Saudi Arabia 27
Singapore 1
Syria 17
Taiwan 4
Vietnam 1
Yemen 53
Belarus 2
United States 46

People put to death in 2010 around the world. Some interesting company we keep.

ComputerBreath wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

Semantics. When an individual is put to death by Capital Punishment, the only manner of death listed on the death certificate (I haven't looked at sample death certificates from all 50 states) that fits is Homicide.

Semantics indeed. Homicide is the taking of one human life by another human, and it is sometimes justifiable, which is why it would be called a justifiable homicide instead of a murder in such an instance. If you kill someone who is attempting to rob you of your own life, that too is a homicide CB. It isn't a murder because you have a justification for the taking of that life, but it is still a homicide.

Is it justifiable if the prisoner is innocent or would you count that as murder? If so who should be charged? Should they also be subject to the death penalty?

davis was not innocent.

He was however black therefore the huge outcry, and as noted no one in prison has ever commited a crime.

How can you be so certain?

The whole "recanted their stories" bs is just that. If you really checked that out you'd also know that 2 of the recanters weren't called to testify in the sentencing phase. That's because the defense knew their recanted stories wouldn't hold up under cross examination. There is no question this guy shot and killed the officer. All of them also recanted after the trial and they were all "friends" of the defendant. Trial lawyers, even for the defense, will tell you that's not uncommon. They'll also tell you the changed stories are generally unreliable.

Three Air Force members, who had no connection to the defendant other than being witnesses, also picked him out of a lineup as the shooter.

This guy is as guilty as the day is long. The "recanted stories" line is a distraction engineered by anti-death penalty types, plain and simple.

Sorry Martin, but if you research even a little about the unreliability of eyewitness accounts especially when members of one race are called to identify members of another you'll see how likely it is that mistakes were made. It is likely he was guilty but being likely is not good enough. If he was not the shooter then the actual killer was one of the witnesses that didn't recant and that man walks free.

Ever sat on a murder case?

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Ever sat on a murder case?

Have YOU? If so where? If so, did it involve a black individual? What was the outcome?.......I would like to discuss the "Jena Six" INJUSTICE AND INEQUALITY of this topic.....because Martin, you seem pretty certain of yourself and I believe it is NOT that clear........justice for whites (case in point Casey Anthony) and Justice for the rich(OJ
Simpson) are PRIME examples of how you are wrong....JMO