The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

That's the whole point of juries though. They weigh the evidence and determine if it's credible. If it is, they convict. If it isn't, they acquit.

 

Example, in a DUI trial where the officer used a breathalyzer instead of a blood draw, the defense attorney will call a witness who will tell the jury that the entire science of breathalyzer technology is flawed (and it's true that it isn't as accurate as a blood draw). It is then up to a panel of people who may or may not have a science background to determine if the State's expert is more credible than the defense's expert as to the science involved.

 

Likewise, in a murder trial where the defendant has someone testify as to an alibi. The jury has to weigh the credibility of that person's statements. Polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence, so the jury has to become the polygraph and determine who they believe.

 

It goes beyond determining if a witness is credible and if they are telling what they 100% believe to be the truth, that's the additional burden. Your breathalyzer example really isn't a comparable scenario. In your second scenario, remembering if your friend's alibi isn't really the same as fingering someone for a crime or remembering details of a scene or an event. The issues with eyewitness testimony comes from remembering details, people you don't know, timelines and events.

 

Seriously, there's a decent amount of research in this area, it's not something I'm just making up here. Human memory just isn't reliable enough to be the only evidence to sentence someone to death imo.

Edited September 22, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I did, and so have many others that don't agree with you. It's not as clear-cut as you're presenting it.

 

With respect to this guy getting his due process, and Georgia's system being entirely adequate, it is. This dude had multiple opportunities to provide some piece of evidence to establish that the jury got it wrong. Every single one was questionable, if not downright unbelievable. I think your guys' standard is beyond reality.

 

I'll be asking my next jury pool if anyone is a soxtalk member....yikes you guys would be difficult to convince.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

It goes beyond determining if a witness is credible and if they are telling what they 100% believe to be the truth, that's the additional burden. Your breathalyzer example really isn't a comparable scenario. In your second scenario, remembering if your friend's alibi isn't really the same as fingering someone for a crime or remembering details of a scene or an event. The issues with eyewitness testimony comes from remembering details, people you don't know, timelines and events.

 

Seriously, there's a decent amount of research in this area, it's not something I'm just making up here. Human memory just isn't reliable enough to be the only evidence to sentence someone to death imo.

 

Seems to me you're thinking about this in a vacuum. You're ignoring that there are multiple witnesses corroborating what the others saw plus the physical evidence. There's more than just one guy thinking he saw someone do something with a ~10% chance of being mistaken.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Seems to me you're thinking about this in a vacuum. You're ignoring that there are multiple witnesses corroborating what the others saw plus the physical evidence. There's more than just one guy thinking he saw someone do something with a ~10% chance of being mistaken.

Reall, at this point, there are no longer multiple independent witnesses.

 

Let me ask you this...because this is bothering me. Imagine I'm right. Imagine that the conviction was 99% based on corroberating testimony of 9 witnesses. 1 of those witnesses is a possible alternate suspect. 7 of those other witnesses recant their stories after conviction and allege coercion, which frankly is not uncommon in these cases. Imagine a situation where the wrong person is set to die. Is there any actual reason to think this is impossible? That it could not possibly have happened in this case?

 

The only legal protection left after conviction is what the appeals court is allowed to consider and that is very narrow. In the hypothetical scenario that the wrong person was convicted right jere because of illegal police behavior, I can't see how by your standards that an innocent person would not die.

 

If it is 1% possible that an innocent person could die...isn't that an enormous problem?

[farmteam]

It's kind of amusing to me how quickly law school has changed my thought process. I'm only four weeks in, but it's already being drilled into me that in general, juries are the fact finders -- not judges. And not only that, but how sacred that role is held in the legal system; judges (especially appellate judges) don't want to encroach on the role of juries. They're there simply to interpret the appropriate law and and communicate that to the jury, who then applies it to the facts they've found (unless of course it's in appellate court, in which case there's no jury, obviously).

 

The point is, a month ago I would have been more tempted to agree with those who are saying that this was ridiculous. And maybe it was -- but to say Troy Davis didn't get his "day in court" seems beyond rational thought.

 

I'll note, however, that much of this ties into something someone earlier mentioned, and that's concerning media portrayals. I'm really skeptical about stories like this that the media has ran with, and you don't really know the facts anymore...it's essentially become hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay.

 

EDIT: I realized the above might be a bit misleading. I actually think that, given what I know of the case (and this is difficult, given the media problems mentioned), Davis shouldn't have been executed last night. I'm more concerned with the reaction of the general public, from what I've seen here and other places.

Edited September 23, 2011 by farmteam

[Texsox]

You act as though this guy wasn't given a fair shot to prove his innocence. He offered nothing over the last 10 years to show that. A jury found him guilty on some pretty strong evidence tying him to the scene in the same clothes, eye witness testimony of him being the shooter, and ballistic evidence to support it. This wasn't some bulls***, trumped up case.

 

Essentially what you guys are suggesting is that our criminal justice system should allow someone to delay their punishment indefinitely because who knows what he might be able to create to establish his innocence. So, credibility or reasonability of the "evidence" aside, he offered a new theory so it must be accepted as true.

 

Actually I was pointing out the difference between life in prison and capital punishment. We have opened the gates of prison and righted, in a small way, wrongful convictions. You can never give those people the years back, but at least to you could something. There is no remedy for those that have been executed.

[StrangeSox]

intentionally inflammatory picture:

Edited September 23, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Sorry Balta, but this is beyond bulls***. MILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of hours were spent by every level of the judicial and administrative system to make sure this guy was guilty.

 

And how much was spent to see if he was innocent? On one hand you have the state of Georgia and their resources pushing for guilty and on the other you have a private individual and their ability to rally resources to work for free.

[southsider2k5]

intentionally inflammatory picture:

 

And people wonder why calls of "racism" fall on increasingly deaf ears.

[StrangeSox]

And people wonder why calls of "racism" fall on increasingly deaf ears.

 

There is a big racial disparity for death penalty prosecution and conviction rates.

[Jenksismyhero]

There is a big racial disparity for death penalty prosecution and conviction rates.

 

And for shooting cops... I wonder if statutorily that automatically bumped up his punishment.

 

And who knows what that other guys' story is. Just like this Davis case, of course the headline makes it seem like bulls***. In reality there's probably a really good justification for what happened.

[Jenksismyhero]

Reall, at this point, there are no longer multiple independent witnesses.

 

Let me ask you this...because this is bothering me. Imagine I'm right. Imagine that the conviction was 99% based on corroberating testimony of 9 witnesses. 1 of those witnesses is a possible alternate suspect. 7 of those other witnesses recant their stories after conviction and allege coercion, which frankly is not uncommon in these cases. Imagine a situation where the wrong person is set to die. Is there any actual reason to think this is impossible? That it could not possibly have happened in this case?

 

What do you mean there are no longer multiple independent witnesses? Yes there are, and they testified to what they saw. 20 years later they signed an affidavit (drafted by the defense attorney) wanting to change their story and creating a theory that they were coerced into testifying the way they did. The court went back through all of the records - from the initial police investigation on the night of the murder, to the trial, to the post-trial appeal, and to this habeas corpus hearing - and determined that of the 7, only one had any actual credible claim to recant their testimony, but at the end of the day what he wanted to recant didn't change his testimony with regard to the guys guilt. So, this nonsense that all of the evidence convicting the guy is suddenly out of the window is simply not true.

 

And I love how you can throw in this - "which frankly is not uncommon in these cases" - which just proves you're inherently biased against cops/prosecutors and believe that every case is a conspiracy to wrongly peg and kill the black guy in the case. I'd never want you on a jury because you'd completely ignore the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and instead create your own "I want 500 people witnessing the murder without a single discrepancy in what they saw before I can even consider that the guy is guilty" standard. Not realistic at all.

 

The only legal protection left after conviction is what the appeals court is allowed to consider and that is very narrow. In the hypothetical scenario that the wrong person was convicted right jere because of illegal police behavior, I can't see how by your standards that an innocent person would not die.

 

Again, I need an explanation for why this is such a bad thing. You're placing an impossible burden on the State to prove any case and to keep the conviction. You're making the determination of 12 people completely meaningless. In essence you're arguing for infinite number of trials until the guy finds that one juror who refuses to find him guilty. How many trials and reviews should a person get before the justice system determines that the person is guilty for good?

[Balta1701]

And I love how you can throw in this - "which frankly is not uncommon in these cases" - which just proves you're inherently biased against cops/prosecutors and believe that every case is a conspiracy to wrongly peg and kill the black guy in the case.

I wouldn't think that after the events in the state of Illinois a decade ago the claim that police coercion in capital cases is disturbingly commonplace would be even a subject for debate.

[StrangeSox]

Nor that there are serious racial disparities in the justice system.

[StrangeSox]

The "Ground Zero" mosque opened yesterday. No one seemed to care without NewsCorp. drumming up OUTRAGE!, like they did last fall.

[Jenksismyhero]

I wouldn't think that after the events in the state of Illinois a decade ago the claim that police coercion in capital cases is disturbingly commonplace would be even a subject for debate.

 

So because it's happened before in Illinois it's now "commonplace" in Georgia? I mean I get what you're saying. This stuff happens. But you have to take this on a case by case basis. In this case there was no evidence of any coercion, just some trumped up affidavits alleging it. There wasn't even a hint of truth to those accusations, let alone proof.

[Balta1701]

So because it's happened before in Illinois it's now "commonplace" in Georgia? I mean I get what you're saying. This stuff happens. But you have to take this on a case by case basis. In this case there was no evidence of any coercion, just some trumped up affidavits alleging it. There wasn't even a hint of truth to those accusations, let alone proof.

If those same people make trumped up allegations in affidavit form alleging coercion, why should I believe that their original testimony isn't trumped up as well?

[Jenksismyhero]

If those same people make trumped up allegations in affidavit form alleging coercion, why should I believe that their original testimony isn't trumped up as well?

 

A concern the Court in the petition addressed. I think there were only 3 who actually alleged coercion. One flat out denied any coercion (despite his affidavit) during the hearing. The second was deemed not credible but his testimony regarding facts allegedly coerced wasn't all that important to the verdict. The third the Court considered the "coercion" but whatever he wanted to recant didn't have much to do with the evidence that the jury ultimately used to find the guy guilty. So it didn't really matter.

 

At the end of the day all of these people, like with most people wanting to recant their testimony, had some ulterior motive. The Court asked some good questions - if this were true, why did it take 20 years for these people to suddenly cry foul? If this were true, why didn't the defense use this evidence in the first appeal and petition to the parole board? In at least one witnesses' case, why did he only sign and affidavit but refuse to testify at the various appeals/petition hearings to back up his claims? It was all pretty suspect.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

So because it's happened before in Illinois it's now "commonplace" in Georgia? I mean I get what you're saying. This stuff happens. But you have to take this on a case by case basis. In this case there was no evidence of any coercion, just some trumped up affidavits alleging it. There wasn't even a hint of truth to those accusations, let alone proof.

 

It would be more interesting to see what percentage "commonplace" actually is. These terms gets thrown around with such abandon, it makes it seem like we are talking about a lot more than there are in reality.

[Balta1701]

It would be more interesting to see what percentage "commonplace" actually is. These terms gets thrown around with such abandon, it makes it seem like we are talking about a lot more than there are in reality.

You said yourself though a few posts ago that a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 chance would qualify as "reasonable doubt" in a lot of cases.

 

Right now there have been ~1200 prisoners executed by various governments in this country since the Court reinstated the Death Penalty, and there are 138 names on the innocence project's list of people who were convicted, placed on Death Row, and then acquitted or proven innocent prior to being killed.

[southsider2k5]

You said yourself though a few posts ago that a 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 chance would qualify as "reasonable doubt" in a lot of cases.

 

Right now there have been ~1200 prisoners executed by various governments in this country since the Court reinstated the Death Penalty, and there are 138 names on the innocence project's list of people who were convicted, placed on Death Row, and then acquitted or proven innocent prior to being killed.

 

So 138 out of 1.4 million is commonplace? "reasonable" indeed.

[Rex Kickass]

So 138 out of 1.4 million is commonplace? "reasonable" indeed.

We don't have 1.4 million people on death row in this country. At least I really hope not.

[Rex Kickass]

So 138 out of 1.4 million is commonplace? "reasonable" indeed.

 

Based on the quick google search numbers I've found, its 138 out of about 4521. (About 3%) And those were people proven innocent and exonerated or had charges dismissed.

[NorthSideSox72]

Based on the quick google search numbers I've found, its 138 out of about 4521. (About 3%) And those were people proven innocent and exonerated or had charges dismissed.

Which is why the death penalty, IMO, is being used far too liberally. It needs to be reserved not only for the most heinous of crimes, but also the cases where evidence is solid as a rock.

 

[BigSqwert]

Once again, Sean Penn is a total asshole.