tinfoilhat Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why are you commenting then ? Nowt to do with you either !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That one problem is a concern, and when using a jury a good argument in favour of life-meaning-life jail terms. However, I would rather see a panel of professional qualified judges make verdict decisions than random people chosen from the great unwashed - for me, juries are an unnecessary complication. I understand your argument, but the defendant's guilt or innocence being decided by a jury of their 'peers' is at the foundation of the criminal justice system. If it was solely at the behest of Crown and High Court judges you'd find anyone could be convicted solely on the basis of not tugging their forelock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I understand your argument, but the defendant's guilt or innocence being decided by a jury of their 'peers' is at the foundation of the criminal justice system. If it was solely at the behest of Crown and High Court judges you'd find anyone could be convicted solely on the basis of not tugging their forelock I really wouldn't have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Threads merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Read it again, he said Even if you, the person reading this, believe in it, surely this case must shake your belief that it's the right thing to do. Thankyou Big time. In other words, if you believe in the death penalty that belief (that killing murderers is right) ought to be shaken by this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thankyou Big time. In other words, if you believe in the death penalty that belief (that killing murderers is right) ought to be shaken by this case. I see, thank you for clarifying this. Much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Why are you commenting then ? Nowt to do with you either True; that's just what I told the others. PLUS I was not commenting on: a. whether the verdict was right or wrong; nor b. whether (if he was guilty) a death sentence wad or wad not appropriate; nor c. in any case, whether death sentences should or should not be available or imposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 These kind of cases are always difficult to discuss because emotions run very high. Davis last minute appeal for stay of execution was sent to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial branch in the country. We now know it was turned down. Why was it turned down? What information on this case did they have that we dont know about to make them reach that decision? These nine judges are no fools but the cream of the judicial system, guardians of the Constitution and the rights and laws pertaining to. We've heard through the press about 7 of the witnesses recanting their evidence but that still leaves two who have not. DNA evidence is not always present at a crime scene. A handgun can be very easily disposed of. The lack of DNA or a weapon does not automatically rule a person as innocent. I would have liked to know what other evidence the jury had at the time of his trial and as already mentioned what evidence was given when the appeal went to the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. My own instinct would have been to delay the execution but by doing so this means that a new trial would have had to have taken place. The shooting of officer McPhail happened back in the 80s. What new evidence would have come to light after all this time? None more than likely. The two witnesses who did not recant might possible give the same evidence again that Davis did the shooting. The seven witnesses would have had to face an enquiry as to why they were so sure that Davis did the shooting at the time then later recanted. There's something very strange there Only Davis knows if he did the shooting or not. Protestations of innocence can be taken either way. Either the protestaions are justified or they are are protestaions falsely made due to a very natural fear of death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Thankyou Big time. In other words, if you believe in the death penalty that belief (that killing murderers is right) ought to be shaken by this case. The issue here isn't about murderers being given the death penalty. It's about a man's guilt or innocence. If the execution had been cancelled would it have made any sense to give him life in prison? Absolutely not. By giving him life the message is that he's still guilty anyway so death penalty arguments are irrelevent in this particular case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 [/b] The issue here isn't about murderers being given the death penalty. It's about a man's guilt or innocence. What more dreadful thing could you do to an innocent man than take his life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.