The Troy Davis case underscores the cynicism and expediency that over time have become the major values of the system. The initial refusal to redress the recantations of seven of the nine witnesses was based on two factors: that they were not presented earlier, and that there were “too many recantations to be believable.” How many would be acceptable?
State sanctioned murder has no place in a civilized society. It implies that the life of someone you love can be “paid for” by taking the life of someone you don’t love. The lengthy process prolongs the agony for victim’s failies and implies that vengeance is the best way to deal with grief. Attempts to expedite the process by time frames for presenting newly acquired information fail to acknowlege the inherent flaws in an expedient rush to punishment.
The death penalty does not deter crime and is more expensive than life imprisonment. More importantly, it diminishes us as a society. We are the only living creatures who plan, sterilize and ritualize the killing our own species. And, it is done in the Bible Belt. What happened to “Vengeance is mine, said the Lord.”
Posted by Jean Hughes on Nov 28, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Hi, Y’all !
My,my ,my! Once again we have another example of how the death penalty process is broken.
You know, I’d like to believe in the death penalty, especially when it involves the murder of a law enforcement officer. The basic laws of our society should be enforced and those who enforce those laws should be considered inviolate. If killing a policeman doesn’t merit permanent elimination from our society, then I don’t know what does.
However, with that said, may I say that I feel that the death penalty process is flawed in ways that, well, have all been said before.
Still, I have one question about the enforcement of our laws. Since when does taking a position of “OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”, and the prolific and capricious application of that position, constitute being tough on crime?
Also, when witnesses recant, especially when they state that coercion was involved, doesn’t that indicate that there may, just may, be an element of reasonable doubt? What about the inconstiencies of the witness testimony? I’m not a lawyer but I do believe that if I were preparing to kill someone, I’d like to be sure that everything was in order.
I’m sorry, but going forward with a case that has flaws in it, especially when the penalty is irrevocable, does not, in my mind, make one “tough on crime”. It makes one appear, oh, maybe…bloodthirsty, perhaps? Just a thought.
Ta-ta!
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on Dec 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
The Troy Davis case underscores the cynicism and expediency that over time have become the major values of the system. The initial refusal to redress the recantations of seven of the nine witnesses was based on two factors: that they were not presented earlier, and that there were “too many recantations to be believable.” How many would be acceptable?
State sanctioned murder has no place in a civilized society. It implies that the life of someone you love can be “paid for” by taking the life of someone you don’t love. The lengthy process prolongs the agony for victim’s failies and implies that vengeance is the best way to deal with grief. Attempts to expedite the process by time frames for presenting newly acquired information fail to acknowlege the inherent flaws in an expedient rush to punishment.
The death penalty does not deter crime and is more expensive than life imprisonment. More importantly, it diminishes us as a society. We are the only living creatures who plan, sterilize and ritualize the killing our own species. And, it is done in the Bible Belt. What happened to “Vengeance is mine, said the Lord.”
Hi, Y’all !
My,my ,my! Once again we have another example of how the death penalty process is broken.
You know, I’d like to believe in the death penalty, especially when it involves the murder of a law enforcement officer. The basic laws of our society should be enforced and those who enforce those laws should be considered inviolate. If killing a policeman doesn’t merit permanent elimination from our society, then I don’t know what does.
However, with that said, may I say that I feel that the death penalty process is flawed in ways that, well, have all been said before.
Still, I have one question about the enforcement of our laws. Since when does taking a position of “OFF WITH HIS HEAD!”, and the prolific and capricious application of that position, constitute being tough on crime?
Also, when witnesses recant, especially when they state that coercion was involved, doesn’t that indicate that there may, just may, be an element of reasonable doubt? What about the inconstiencies of the witness testimony? I’m not a lawyer but I do believe that if I were preparing to kill someone, I’d like to be sure that everything was in order.
I’m sorry, but going forward with a case that has flaws in it, especially when the penalty is irrevocable, does not, in my mind, make one “tough on crime”. It makes one appear, oh, maybe…bloodthirsty, perhaps? Just a thought.
Ta-ta!
register a new account »Posting Security