Executing the Innocent is Justice for None! Help Us Help Him!

Swampped so didn't get to this until now. Thanks Kyana!!!

Troy has heard about our efforts this week and he is overjoyed.

:)

Let's make NewsVine the Troy Davis Vine for the next 36 hours. Maybe that will draw media attention.

Good idea, KyanaBelle. Instead of NewsVine just DISCUSSING the news, this is a time when NewsVine can help MAKE some news!!

And I hope it will be good news.

Good idea, KyanaBelle. Instead of NewsVine just DISCUSSING the news, this is a time when NewsVine can help MAKE some news!!

Precisely, Don, that is what really makes the news. Not just sitting and accepting it, but making moves as well! It is great to see Newsvine taking some initiative.

KyanaBelle, it is sincerely meant..:o)

Well, here's another take, not mine, something I received via email:

I. The real killer goes free.

Every time we assert Troy Davis's innocence (or even likely innocence), we are simultaneously asserting that the real killer is still at large (or likely at large).

This is an argument that would appeal to many minds that are otherwise unreachable: It is an outrage that law enforcement and the District Attorney are wholly unconcerned that they may be executing an innocent while letting the real killer of Officer McPhail go free. (And letting a particularly cold-blooded killer go free, as the murder of Officer McPhail was an utterly pointless face-to-face assassination.)

WHY ARE THEY SO OBLIVIOUS????

II. Police and prosecutorial misconduct in the original case.

The new emphasis is on police and prosecutorial misconduct in the original investigation and prosecution.

III. Merge the 2 themes: Motive to cover up.

These 2 themes can be merged.

Chatham and Savannah law enforcement is oblivious because they know that they so botched the case (with coerced and false testimony and the like) that it would be very difficult at this point to convict the real killer. That's a scandal in its own right.

By executing Troy Davis, Chatham and Savannah law enforcement would shamelessly bury -- cover up -- their own misconduct. The case would become a dead letter, and they could always point to the fact that the system had let them push through to execution.

It just goes to show what we have said all along: For them, any black man will do -- the very essence of a lynching.

Max Hess

...given what I've read and heard, there was not sufficient evidence at the time nor anything presented as new evidence later that would really keep Davis from being a strong suspect for the shooting.

Perhaps the evidence they HAD was enough to make him a 'strong suspect', as you say... but being a strong suspect does not automatically make him guilty. There are many people in the world who are strong suspects of a crime, and yet they did not commit that crime. Yes, of course, some are guilty, but because all the evidence takes them beyond being a strong suspect and shows their guilt. It certainly appears, in this case, that all the evidence, at THIS time, still leaves a less-than-reasonable doubt.

It isn't sufficient to make him a less-than-strong suspect now that almost all the witnesses want to recant their false testimony which they gave because they were pressured by the police to do so?

Shawn, would the fact that there is a witness who NEVER testified, was not deposed or interviewed- a witness that may have actually SEEN the shooting- persuade you to at least hold off on the execution until this witness could tell what they saw? What if this one witness actually saw the other man shoot the policeman?? Wouldn't that make the other person a strong suspect??

@QD

Shawn, would the fact that there is a witness who NEVER testified, was not deposed or interviewed- a witness that may have actually SEEN the shooting- persuade you to at least hold off on the execution until this witness could tell what they saw? What if this one witness actually saw the other man shoot the policeman?? Wouldn't that make the other person a strong suspect??

Schrödinger's Cat comes to mind here.

It isn't sufficient to make him a less-than-strong suspect now that almost all the witnesses want to recant their false testimony which they gave because they were pressured by the police to do so?

Perhaps, but is their compulsion to recant a side effect of being pressured to act in the opposite manner? Adults aren't far off from being teenagers nowadays. Tell your kid NO and what do they do? Do it anyway - I mean it's part of why abstinence as a single policy fails, isn't it?

Yes, of course, some are guilty, but because all the evidence takes them beyond being a strong suspect and shows their guilt. It certainly appears, in this case, that all the evidence, at THIS time, still leaves a less-than-reasonable doubt.

But we have to consider, was Troy Davis given due process of the law and a fair trial? If yes, then it would diminish the validity of granting clemency, and add to that the fact that the case was reviewed previously the clemency... well... you see where I'm going.

Look, I'm not saying he's guilty and I'm not saying we've got a perfect system - I am saying this is the system we have and while there's nothing wrong with wanting to change it we have to look beyond a single case, single person and a set of shaky new information that leaves more questions than answers> What I can't seem to figure out is why Davis turned himself in if he wasn't guilty?

@Vas

Interesting, I never thought of some of that. Thanks. To address it:

Why then did Troy Davis turn himself in. Had he not done so, 90% of this wouldn't have happened. He might be the victim in a cover up, but I seriously think that the 'black men are great scape goats' isn't a good theory.

Chicken Hawk Express gives a scenario about this case and how the 'race card' isn't really a viable 'excuse' despite that it is just an opinion. But there are also sites that seem to encourage the kind of behavior of race card pulling.

Lastly, Savannah Cops seem to have made great effort to balance the ethnic ratio in the force. I find it hard to believe that if there are racial motives here that a Black cop would remain silent (provided that the theory holds true about picking a black scape goat). After all, cops were white or black before they were blue (again going with the 'scapegoat' mentality).

Now, with his 90 day stay of execution, hopefully both sides of this argument will get to sort some things out.

@Shawn:

Look, I'm not saying he's guilty and I'm not saying we've got a perfect system- I am saying this is the system we have and while there's nothing wrong with wanting to change it...

You and I are in total agreement about this.

...we have to look beyond a single case, single person and a set of shaky new information that leaves more questions than answers

This is where we disagree- because if the system needs to be changed, whenever the system has been changed, it always starts with one case ... a case that brings to light a problem that may just be in a certain portion of the system, or that may be system-wide. And it's precisely when the new information doesn't tie up the loose ends that the problem may become better-seen.

...is their compulsion to recant a side effect of being pressured to act in the opposite manner? Adults aren't far off from being teenagers nowadays. Tell your kid NO and what do they do? Do it anyway - I mean it's part of why abstinence as a single policy fails, isn't it?

The 'pressure' to recant, if there is any, would not carry nearly the same weight as the real pressure being put upon them to lie- the witnesses allege that they were threatened with revocation of their probation/parole if they did not say that Davis did it. And don't forget that if they officially recant in court, they can be charged with perjury. As far as adults being teenagers, and abstinence.... those are other issues that don't serve you well to support your position.

But we have to consider, was Troy Davis given due process of the law and a fair trial? If yes, then it would diminish the validity of granting clemency, and add to that the fact that the case was reviewed previously the clemency... well... you see where I'm going.

I and many others have done exactly what you suggest, to consider whether Davis was given due process. I and many others have come to the same conclusion: He has not.

I cannot speak for everyone, but the reasons I believe he has not been given due process are:

Shawn,

I don't know. In the AJC (Atlanta Journal Constitution, it seems that Troy had his case reviewed more than most people would have their stuff looked over again:

All of that review was by the Parole Board, an entity within the Executive Branch, and their review of the new evidence, witness recants and new witnesses was not public. Do you see the two problems with that?

1. A body of the executive branch held the "trial" to consider the new evidence. That is a clear violation of the principles that underlie the separation of judicial and executive functions. I'm sure I don't need to spell them out.
2. The new evidence was not heard by jury of Troy's peers, a denial of Troy's constitutional rights.
3. The "trial" was not public, again a denial of Troy's constitutional rights.

The constitutional way to convict or aquit Troy is a new trial to consider all of the evidence, old and new.

I wonder if any of the parole board members knew Officer MacPhail personally. It might be some kind of conflict of interest.

In any case, just the facts that they have a Law Enforcement background and that they were making a decision about someone accused of murdering a police officer would seem to automatically inject some bias into the process.

@vas

1 A body of the executive branch held the "trial" to consider the new evidence. That is a clear violation of the principles that underlie the separation of judicial and executive functions. I'm sure I don't need to spell them out.

Okay, but Troy was already indicted, so a jury trial isn't guaranteed. The second 'trial' was an administrative trial, therefore not subject to jury trial or the stipulations that go with it (and if it was, then that would be double jeopardy). In an administrative review, the executive branch has full authority to act as it did. It (administration - executive) reviewed the case, not to see if Troy was innocent, but to see if there was something wrong in the way that the the government (state) did something.

Lastly, in GA the Clemency Parole Board is not State Executive, but independent.

2 The new evidence was not heard by jury of Troy's peers, a denial of Troy's constitutional rights.

Was there a motion to retry?

3 The "trial" was not public, again a denial of Troy's constitutional rights.

If the court makes a motion for closure, then the defendant doesn't ahve to get a public trial. No right is absolute, and I think people get hung up on that. The reason why a trail may not be public is that, and especially with the global buzz generated by this case, is that it can effect the jury thereby further eroding the fairness of the trial.

Trials may be closed at the behest of the government only if it shows "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

-source

and by "government" it is meant 'executive branch'.

The constitutional way to convict or aquit Troy is a new trial to consider all of the evidence, old and new.

Don't you think that the old evidence would be prejudicial to the trial and not really help Troy at all, becuase, the old evidence is what got Troy sentenced. The witnesses would then look as though they were not credible. it wouldn't hurt Troy, but it wouldn't help him. If Troy is trying to go free he needs to NOW be proved innocent. Bringing up witnesses who purger themselves isn't smart. The cops pressured the witnesses, but the witnesses had the opportunity to get on the stand and switch their stance to do the alleged right thing.

@QD

Using Schrödinger's Cat as a response was a nice touch, and while elements of it may correspond to the incident (MacPhail is the cat?), is it so relevant or appropriate a response, given the context of the incident? I would say it is close to being a non sequitur dodge to answering the questions. Okay, you don't have to answer them, you are certainly free to treat them as rhetorical questions if you want to.

Well, I didn't use it to avoid the question and I didn't use it to be a smart ass. The cat are the witnesses you spoke of previously:

...a witness who NEVER testified, was not deposed or interviewed- a witness that may have actually SEEN the shooting- persuade you to at least hold off on the execution until this witness could tell what they saw...

We don't know the state of witnesses, but if you think of it in a quantum sense, then - both. We don't know and wondering about it when there isn't anything pointing to this seems fruitless, so yes, I looked at it as a rhetorical question, but was trying to spin it back around and cause elaborate thought on it from your end.

@KanaBelle

Not only that, if you read the profiles of the parole board members you will find that most are Law Enforcement. Hardly what I would call an "unbiased" jury, given that the victim was a L.E. officer.

All states have a parole board, and Georgia's Parole Board, many members are with Law Enforcement history, but GA parole board is within the Department of Corrections, so there should be no surprise. Speculating that they knew the victim isn't out of line, but one must also ponder that if they showed bias for McPhail they'd also have to show bias for other LE victims. However, in GA, the clemency paole board is not a part of the state executive branch but independent and takes into consideration the rights of hte victims when making a decision. So, while it's easy to say that they might have shown bias, it's just as easy to say that is false.

And, you know, you can always ask the GA Parole Board about Davis and why Clemency wasn't granted or what the clemency criteria is... whatever you want. I did.

and part of what I'm saying is that the witness testimony is going to be hard to make credible. Let's say that the police used coercion. If those witnesses gave false testimony in court, despite coercion they are still purgers. Therefore, testimony that they give contradicting their previous stance is not credible given that they lied before. I'd question why suddenly the change of heart on the part of the witnesses? If they were coerced by cops and led to lie once, what says that it isn't going to happen in the opposite direction? My point is that it's equally possible in either direction, so the testimony would be out.

Also, Troy isn't guaranteed a jury of peers at this point. I went over that in part of my previous comment:

If the court makes a motion for closure, then the defendant doesn't have to get a public trial. No right is absolute, and I think people get hung up on that. The reason why a trail may not be public is that, and especially with the global buzz generated by this case, is that it can effect the jury thereby further eroding the fairness of the trial.

A public trial is a jury trial. Troy has already been indicted, so a jury trial isn't appropriate, especially given that the change of witness testimony would cause the witnesses to purger themselves (granted - you testify under oath).

Also, let's pretend Troy gets a new trial. A new trial would allow new evidence. The old witnesses wouldn't testify again becuase they're part of old evidence. They need new evidence, not a new story.

Whether you believe the witnesses who recanted (which means you'd have to believe their later testimony) or whether you threw out all of their testimony because it is unreliable, then what do you have left? Pretty much nothing is my understanding.

Is 6 out of 8 > a 5 to 4 vote?

@Shawn:

We don't know the state of witnesses ... We don't know and wondering about it when there isn't anything pointing to this seems fruitless

So then since we don't know what the missing witness saw or didn't see, it becomes fruitless to even try to find out?

If we take the approach you're implying, then we should all just let it happen and no one should have even bothered with getting the stay of execution- or to take it a step further, why even have the Board review the case at all!?!? Why all the delay!?!?! Just get it over with, right?!?!

Wrong.

Your 'sit back and let it happen' approach is one reason why injustices of the past were able to go on- because nobody would bother to try to stop an injustice from happening. They figured, 'it's all decided, the system has always been this way and nothing's going to change, nothing's going to be done about it, and it's too hard to even try to do something about it, so I'll just keep quiet and let it happen.'

Too many people have done that too many times.

In the end, it may indeed be fruitless and the execution will go on. It may all have been futile. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop something from happening when we think it is unjust, that we shouldn't try to change the system when something about it needs to be changed. If nothing is done to stop injustices and problems with the system from going on, then those injustices and problems will simply continue to go on.

As I said before, I don't know right now if he is innocent or guilty, because the old evidence as we now know it to be cannot indicate his innocence or guilt one way or the other. I tend to believe he is innocent, because I try my best to hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Either way, I think he was not given due process for the reasons I stated earlier. For that one reason alone, I think he deserves a new trial, but as I say, his guilt has not been sufficiently proven. He may be innocent, and for the reason that an innocent person should not be put to death, he deserves a new trial.

You honestly can say that you can't be supportive of that at all?

@vas

Whether you believe the witnesses who recanted (which means you'd have to believe their later testimony) or whether you threw out all of their testimony because it is unreliable, then what do you have left? Pretty much nothing is my understanding.

Yes, pretty much. See, a retrial if it were actually legal, would nullify new information leaving the courts to go with the original verdict and sentence.

@QD

So then since we don't know what the missing witness saw or didn't see, it becomes fruitless to even try to find out?

Well given that if he's retried, old evidence isn't admitted, you'd have to take the sole testimony of a single person. One person alone isn't enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Troy is guilty or innocent. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" phrase is very black and white. As such it has a duality. While someone may be innocent until proven guilty, the defense has to convince a jury that the defendant is innocent becuase the prosecution is trying to prove he's guilty. It's the job of the prosecution to prove the guilt and if they can't he's pronounced innocent - becuase of lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence promotes doubt, which is the only criteria a jury needs to hang.

In the end, it may indeed be fruitless and the execution will go on. It may all have been futile. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop something from happening when we think it is unjust, that we shouldn't try to change the system when something about it needs to be changed. If nothing is done to stop injustices and problems with the system from going on, then those injustices and problems will simply continue to go on.

I never said that we should sit back and let it happen. Fight injustice, but make sure that it was really an injustice. Vas and a few others claimed that Troy didn't get a second trial by a jury of his peers. He's not entitled to it a second time. It was claimed that the executive branch meddled with the affairs of the judicial branch - which is part of the system. It's allowed and needed. My point is that you, I, and other newsviners are debating the fate of a man, with little to no scholastic knowledge of law and how the system works. We can interpret the Constitution all day long to how WE see it, but that is not our job. The furthest we go with that is electing a President we trust to make choices that go in line with ours - and hopefully put Supreme Court Justices in power to interpret the Constitution how WE see it. It's all outlined in high school civics class - the nation over.

I did say that in this particular case, with the points brought before me in this debate, that the way Troy Davis' case was handled isn't as 'wrong' as some have made it to be. I've also made clear that I do not know if he's innocent or guilty. I said that if things went the way I've heard people ask them to go, our current system would place Troy in no better a position than he's currently in. I also said that a missing witness AFTER than fact isn't going to do anything. Now, I ask you - if we change the entire system based on a single case, have you given thought as what part of the system you'd change, how it would change and the long term after effects.

As an example, Roe V Wade changed a LOT of things in the legal system concerning abortion. Some of the after effects are that now in some states (most states I think), a minor is not required to notify their parents of an abortion based on 'right to privacy'. While there is a right to privacy, parents who neglect their children are deemed bad parents and in some cases the State will take custody of said child(ren). What I get from this, is that it's only bad to neglect a child if the law doesn't force you to do it. Let minors get abortions, fine - I won't debate changing that but I fail to see the logic, or desire to allow children to have what the medical community considers invasive procedures without the notification of legal guardian. Just consider the effect of changing a system - even if the current system has a few slip through the cracks, what new things would slip through with a change and would you approve of those? if not, why? Would you think that the new way would be worse in those terms? it's a lot to think about and the questions are rhetorical, but shoudl still be considered in ponderance. I'm probably as clairvoyant as you are, but I think you get my point from here.

Either way, I think he was not given due process for the reasons I stated earlier. For that one reason alone, I think he deserves a new trial, but as I say, his guilt has not been sufficiently proven. He may be innocent, and for the reason that an innocent person should not be put to death, he deserves a new trial.

If it can be proved that Troy was not given due process of law, then legally he's got to be retried and I wont argue that. However, if there is insufficient evidence that due process was not given, in fairness I have to side with the sentence given. It would be hypocritical to say that if there is insufficient evidence of Troy's guilt, he should be acquitted and given restitution, but if there is insufficient evidence of missing due process, he should still be retried.

That should be the first step if you really feel that Troy could be innocent. Seek out the answer about due process.

The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process is applicable only to actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment contains virtually the same phrase, but expressly applied to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted the two clauses identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: "To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection."[14]

The due process clause applies to "legal persons" (that is, corporate personhood) as well as to individuals. Many state constitutions also have their own guarantees of due process (or the equivalent) that may, by their own terms or by the interpretation of that State's judiciary, extend even more protection to certain individuals than under federal law.

Due process under the U.S. Constitution not only restrains the executive and judicial branches, but additionally restrains the legislative branch. For example, as long ago as 1855, the Supreme Court explained that, in order to ascertain whether a process is due process, the first step is to "examine the constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions...."[15] In case a person is deprived of liberty by a process that conflicts with some provision of the Constitution, then the Due Process Clause normally prescribes the remedy: restoration of that person's liberty. The Supreme Court held in 1967 that "we cannot leave to the States the formulation of the authoritative ... remedies designed to protect people from infractions by the States of federally guaranteed rights."[16]

As a limitation on Congress, the Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court not only as a remedial requirement when other constitutional rights have been violated, but furthermore as having additional "procedural" and "substantive" components, meaning that the Clause purportedly imposes unenumerated restrictions on legal procedures — the ways in which laws may operate — and also on legal substance — what laws may attempt to do or prohibit. This theory of unenumerated rights is controversial. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas stated as follows, in a 2004 dissent:[17]

As an initial matter, it is possible that the Due Process Clause requires only "that our Government must proceed according to the 'law of the land'—that is, according to written constitutional and statutory provisions." In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 382(1970) (Black, J., dissenting).

Despite the objections of people like Justice Hugo Black in Winship, the courts have attempted to extract unwritten requirements from the Due Process Clause, regarding both procedure as well as substance. The distinction between substance and procedure is difficult in both theory and practice to establish. Moreover, the substantive component of due process has proven to be even more controversial than the procedural component, because it gives the Court considerable power to strike down state and federal statutes that criminalize various activities.

By the middle of the 19th century, "due process of law" was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that "it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The [due process] article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will."[18] But determining what those restraints are has been a subject of considerable disagreement.

- source

Another thing that needs to be proved is the coercion of witnesses by police. Review the interview tapes. If the tapes do not prove that the witnesses were coerced, then witnesses recanting isn't something in all fairness either of us can really allow, is it?

@jbdaad

Is 6 out of 8 > a 5 to 4 vote?

Yes. 6 of 8 is 75%, 5 of 9 is 55% - 75>55... and in the context of votes 75>>55.

Why do you ask? Was this some kind of mental exercise (given that you phrased the question "out of" vs "to")?

Just a train of thought. To me the most important part of Troys` Trial is the 6 witnesses that recanted. For what ever reason they recanted, it cast the trial in the bogus category. A 5 to 4 vote is all it would have taken to end a mans life over a bogus trial. Just food for thought.

Whether you believe the witnesses who recanted (which means you'd have to believe their later testimony) or whether you threw out all of their testimony because it is unreliable, then what do you have left? Pretty much nothing is my understanding.

Yes, pretty much. See, a retrial if it were actually legal, would nullify new information leaving the courts to go with the original verdict and sentence.

Either you didn't understand my point or I don't understand the meaning of "retrial".  Unless you show me that a retrial is not a new trial from scratch, as I've already said just above the logical conclusion is that the new trial will either accept the recants as truth, in which case you have 7 fewer witnesses of guilt, or it will treat those 7 witnesses as unreliable, which again leaves you with 7 fewer witnesses.

@ Shawn,

Well given that if he's retried, old evidence isn't admitted, you'd have to take the sole testimony of a single person. One person alone isn't enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Troy is guilty or innocent.

I think that in a retrial, all the evidence is new again, meaning that all the evidence from the first trial CAN be used again if there is no finding by the judge that it is inadmissible for one reason or another (not simply because it was used in the first trial). As for whether it WOULD be used again,... that is a decision for the defense and the prosecution to make in regards their own respective evidence whether they want to use it again or not.

If the witnesses are ready to recant their testimony under penalty of perjury and say that Davis did not shoot the officer, as they say they are ready to do, then I would imagine that the defense would want to use them in court. So then it is not just one person's testimony, but 7 and possibly even 8 if the missing witness can be found.

Fight injustice, but make sure that it was really an injustice.

I agree completely, and even more so in a capital case.

My point is that you, I, and other newsviners are debating the fate of a man, with little to no scholastic knowledge of law and how the system works. We can interpret the Constitution all day long to how WE see it, but that is not our job.

If it's not our job to interpret the Constitution, then whose is it? The lawyers? So you think we should leave it all up the lawyers? We should just trust them that they will always make the right decision?

Were the Founding Fathers all lawyers??

If you see what has been going on here to be an effort to create a new interpretation of the Constitution, I disagree. I really don't think that anyone here is trying to do that- but what IS happening, I believe, is that people have looked at Troy's case, saw either an actual injustice or a possible injustice that has occurred, and decided to do what they can to right a certain wrong or a possible wrong.

Granted, some or most of us here may not, or may, be legal experts, but our limited knowledge of the criminal justice system is indicating the certain or possible presence of an injustice- an injustice that, in this case, cannot be corrected if he should be put to death. Particularly in this case, it is the finality and the irreversibility of the punishment that has spurred so many people to become involved. We may not be experts, and we may not know all there is to know about the criminal justice system, but we DO know that once a person has been put to death, there is no turning back! So as long as this country is going to allow the penalty of death as the punishment for certain crimes, then it is incumbent that we do all we can as human beings and [for those of us who are] as American citizens, to ensure that a) the person who will be put to death is indeed the person who committed the crime, and b) the manner in which the person was found guilty was conducted in a way that the individual's American right to due process was not violated.

And if I make the first point more generalized to say that the person found guilty is indeed the person who committed the crime, then I contend that these should apply to ALL criminal cases in the United States.

Now, I ask you - if we change the entire system based on a single case, have you given thought as what part of the system you'd change, how it would change and the long term after effects.

As I said, when the system allows an injustice to occur, then the system needs to be changed. The system needs to be changed so that it will not allow, or at least will be much less likely to allow, such an injustice to happen again. I didn't say that the system CAUSED the injustice to happen, but that it ALLOWED it to happen, meaning that the system was failing in some way to prevent the injustice from happening. Specifically in Troy's case, the system WAS allowing an injustice to happen by allowing Davis to be put to death on the basis of what may be false testimony. It took going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court just to put a hold on this injustice from being carried out, and at this point it may still happen, but for now I say that the system is finally, so far, preventing an injustice from happening- but only because ordinary people saw that an injustice was about to happen and so they did what they could to stop it.

If it should be that his execution is still carried out without a new trial- where the witnesses can officially testify on the stand that they recant their previous testimony, and lied before because of coercion, AND if there is reason to believe that such coercion did in fact occur, AND also the missing witness is included in the trial- then I submit that the system would have allowed an injustice to happen. Whatever happens to Troy, these allegations of police coercion need to be investigated, and if found to be true, something needs to be done about it. Permitting someone to be put to death on the basis of weak and/or incomplete evidence needs to be changed. THAT'S what I mean about changing the system, in this case. I'm not saying to scrap the entire system. Just change what needs to be changed. And yes, I have considered the long-term after effects: less corruption by police, less cases being prosecuted on weak evidence [and this would necessitate the need to fully pursue all the evidence in a case to make sure the case was air-tight... which ironically would result in STRONGER cases and a greater likelihood that the RIGHT person was convicted!], and less innocent people being put to death.

As an example, Roe V Wade changed a LOT of things in the legal system concerning abortion. Some of the after effects are that now in some states (most states I think), a minor is not required to notify their parents of an abortion based on 'right to privacy' ... I fail to see the logic, or desire to allow children to have what the medical community considers invasive procedures without the notification of legal guardian.

Many people agree with you, Shawn. That's why many have fought to keep parental consent and notification laws from being passed in some states. In other states, there were many who disagree with you on this issue, and so they fought to pass parental consent and notification laws in some states. Sorry to use your own example against you, but this is actually a good example of changing the system!

People decided that the system needed to be changed, so they did.

Seek out the answer about due process...

I think you already found the answer about due process. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the portion relevant to this discussion, defines due process: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...", but as your research points out, there are unenumerated restrictions on legal procedure and legal substance- you won't find a hard and fast list of what is needed to meet a person's due process right. Often it's on a case-by-case basis. So due process is always and constantly up for interpretation, and also for disagreement as to when it has been met. I happen to think, for the reasons I have given at 7.4, that Davis' due process right has not been met, but since it is not clearly detailed in the constitution, others, including the Court, may disagree with me.

Another thing that needs to be proved is the coercion of witnesses by police. Review the interview tapes.

That is a good idea, but couldn't the coercion have happened somewhere else than in the interrogation room? The tapes won't help if this is so.

If the tapes do not prove that the witnesses were coerced, then witnesses recanting isn't something in all fairness either of us can really allow, is it?

Just because the tapes do not prove it does not mean it didn't happen elsewhere, so the recanting is still not out just because of that.

If it can be proved that Troy was not given due process of law, then legally he's got to be retried and I wont argue that. However, if there is insufficient evidence that due process was not given, in fairness I have to side with the sentence given.

Ah, then we are in agreement, Shawn! This is all I have been trying to say all along.

I just happen to think that the evidence shows due process was not given, and so he deserves a new trial. But the Court will make its decision soon.

Quixote Don,

Your my lawyer hands down. Glad your on our side.

P.S. Do `Not break my @!$%# down like that. lol : )

Currently I'm reviewing different information, hopefully formative information, concerning my opinions.

However, to address a few things.

I think that in a retrial, all the evidence is new again, meaning that all the evidence from the first trial CAN be used again if there is no finding by the judge that it is inadmissible for one reason or another (not simply because it was used in the first trial).

That was what I was saying. However, if the old testimony is used against the new testimony by the same witnesses, it puts the witnesses as purgers - not good. Especially since there is no statute of limitations on purgery. The other thing is hat it relies on a judge NOT finding the evidence from the first trial inadmissible. It's pretty risky. I'm not going to question if the risk is worth it, clearly that is subjective.

If it's not our job to interpret the Constitution, then whose is it? The lawyers? So you think we should leave it all up the lawyers?

Supreme Court. The lawyers debate their case and try to sway their opinion as to the interpretations, but the Federal Supreme Court has final say as to how the Constitution is interpreted. Those justices are appointed by the President, who WE vote upon. I don't know if you've been listening to the tinier voices around here, but the SCJ appointments are part of what people look at when choosing a president.

Were the Founding Fathers all lawyers??

A couple of them, yes.

All of them, no. Then again, lawyers don't interpret the Constitution. The founding fathers were simply men, and most of them help political position of some kind - and not 'regular joes'. While you make an interesting point about leaving it in the hands of lawyers, I'll turn the question around and ask would you want a nation of 'regular joes' who have more concern over what some iTrinket can do in their pocket, why they're not on someone's "Top 8" and in a country where we can't even properly communicate basic ideas to one another? You're telling me, that you may rather want leigons of people who are largely stupid, to interpret what your rights are? Let's face it - Statistically, America is pretty dumb compared to other nations.

As I said, when the system allows an injustice to occur, then the system needs to be changed. The system needs to be changed so that it will not allow, or at least will be much less likely to allow, such an injustice to happen again. I didn't say that the system CAUSED the injustice to happen, but that it ALLOWED it to happen, meaning that the system was failing in some way to prevent the injustice from happening. Specifically in Troy's case, the system WAS allowing an injustice to happen by allowing Davis to be put to death on the basis of what may be false testimony. It took going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court just to put a hold on this injustice from being carried out, and at this point it may still happen, but for now I say that the system is finally, so far, preventing an injustice from happening- but only because ordinary people saw that an injustice was about to happen and so they did what they could to stop it.

Okay... let's say that a Judge rules to allow for extenuating circumstances and that they throw out the old testimony, and the lack of cameras (becuase they didn't record interrogations back in 1989) there is no way to prove coercion one way or the other... allowing new evidence to be retrofitted or old laws and an old system to be refitted to a new system - whatever is needed since alws changed during Troy's prison stay - you have to understand and also be morally accepting of the fact that while one truly innocent man would go free, can you justify the 10 (just a number) of truly guilty people who would now be allowed to receive the same treatment and appeal to possibly go free. Now, let's say that those 10 go free at some point - and that they go commit a crime again. How do you justify to the new victims this new change? How about the old victims?

Many people agree with you, Shawn. That's why many have fought to keep parental consent and notification laws from being passed in some states. In other states, there were many who disagree with you on this issue, and so they fought to pass parental consent and notification laws in some states. Sorry to use your own example against you, but this is actually a good example of changing the system!

Don't be. I used it as a change, becuase it was a good example and wanted to have it used as such. I think you and a couple others think I want Troy to die, or that I feel he's guilty, or that I'm not for changing a system. None of that is the whole story here.

What I'm asking for is that people stop to consider the change and look beyond one person. I believe there is such a thing as acceptable loss - especially in a rule by majority society. Sometimes, as much as such downright sucks, someone has to take one for the team. No system is perfect, and no system with benefit everyone all the time. I don't see a problem with working towards said perfect system, but I see a problem with jumping on a bandwagon and getting only partial information. I ask primarily rhetorical questions. Sometimes I know the answer before I ask - but I can determine who talks and who believes based on the answers. I can also tell who lies. Now none of this was in that category, but I wanted to see who believes in what they're saying and then find out why. I really don't have a set stance on Troy as a person becuase I do not know every detail. I do know a little bit about law, and I've argued my point within how I've interpreted the law, but going back to your question about shoudl lawyers interpret the law, I'm not qualified to interpret the law and make a call on the fate of Troy - nor would I want that responsibility. The risk of being wrong in either direction is more weight than I think I could emotionally bear for a while - particularly in such a case where people ask for rules to be changed and the long term effects are entirely unknown. Do I save one at the risk of many? A passenger plane packed with innocent people flies over a city with the threat of detonation over a populated area. Do you shoot it down in a safe area? most likely you do. People die, it's part of life and nothing says we have to like it, but to some extent we have to accept it.

If it should be that his execution is still carried out without a new trial- where the witnesses can officially testify on the stand that they recant their previous testimony, and lied before because of coercion, AND if there is reason to believe that such coercion did in fact occur, AND also the missing witness is included in the trial- then I submit that the system would have allowed an injustice to happen.

I would agree, but only if those conditions are met.

That is a good idea, but couldn't the coercion have happened somewhere else than in the interrogation room? The tapes won't help if this is so.

Yes, which means that a canvass needs to be done to define a group of people who can positively identify coercion being done, where, to who, and by who. This would bring up a different trial (I think), and with it new questions of if this trial shoudl occur before or after Troys hypothetical retrial. Either way, it would mean another stay of execution because Troy only has 90 days.

Just because the tapes do not prove it does not mean it didn't happen elsewhere, so the recanting is still not out just because of that.

I disagree, sort of. If all you have are tapes and there is no evidence of coercion, then the presumption of evidence would hold here too. It has to to be fair. Now, I see your point and you've used 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', and to a point that's fine, however if you can't drum up testimony or evidence that coercion occurred outside of the interrogation room, what other than the tapes would give credit to a purguring witness?

Ah, then we are in agreement, Shawn! This is all I have been trying to say all along

So you see, I'm not for Troy (or against Troy) being put to death. What I've been trying to get is the information to form an opinion either way and NOT bandwagon or listen to talking heads who have a personal agenda and empty pockets. I'm not an @!$%# (usually... sometimes...well okay, I am), but if someone is treated unfairly I don't like it - but I'm not about to change a system for one single person who received unfair treatment at the risk of greater society either. There are TWO things that need to be looked upon - the hard part is in choosing what order to look at them.

@ Shawn;

...I see a problem with jumping on a bandwagon and getting only partial information.

You yourself said that you don't like it when someone is treated unfairly. Well, that's all that I and a lot of other people are saying, too! But simply because we talk about it here at Newsvine and elsewhere, and as the more we talk about it, the more that others decide that they don't like it when someone is treated unfairly, and they start to talk about it too,.... that you see this as nothing more than bandwagon-jumping, and it offends you?

To say that the only reason that people are involved at all with what happens to Troy Davis is insulting to their motivation to do so, to their sense of right and wrong, and to their intelligence. I will say more about this later.

As for your point about how people are basing their protest against Troy's execution on partial information- I say the state of Georgia is ready to go ahead with Troy's execution on partial information! Once again, I say that ALL the evidence needs to be presented in a new trial to determine Troy's guilt or innocence!

If the way in how an upwelling of support in favor of fairness for Troy Davis bothers you, in what you say is nothing more than bandwagon-jumping, then what way would YOU suggest that it be done? Or should we all just keep quiet and step aside while someone who may actually be innocent be executed for a crime that he may not have committed?

I believe there is such a thing as acceptable loss... Sometimes, as much as such downright sucks, someone has to take one for the team.

...you have to understand and also be morally accepting of the fact that while one truly innocent man would go free, can you justify the 10 (just a number) of truly guilty people who would now be allowed to receive the same treatment and appeal to possibly go free. Now, let's say that those 10 go free at some point - and that they go commit a crime again. How do you justify to the new victims this new change? How about the old victims?

Is 'acceptable loss' anything like 'collateral damage'?

If Troy Davis should go free, it will NOT be because of a technicality that can be automatically applied to every other case. [Remember we agreed that due process is on a case-by-case basis.] If Troy is set free, it should only be, IMO, after a retrial with all true evidence shows he is not guilty. The problem with his case, as I see it, is that his guilt or innocence could not have been truly determined for the same reasons that I presented in 7.4. The problems with missing witnesses, coercion, and incompetent defense could very well only apply to this case because it involved the murder of a police officer and so the state was highly motivated to get a conviction- but, those problems could be rampant throughout the Georgia criminal justice system. If this should be so, then these problems need to be addressed, so that not only will the 1 innocent person not be imprisoned and/or put to death, but so that the 10 truly guilty people WILL be imprisoned and/or put to death.

So on that basis, can you truly justify the execution of an innocent person,... while the one who was truly guilty goes free and will be free to commit the crime again, and can NEVER be tried for the original crime because somebody else was tried and convicted for it?

Do I save one at the risk of many? A passenger plane packed with innocent people flies over a city with the threat of detonation over a populated area. Do you shoot it down in a safe area? most likely you do. People die, it's part of life and nothing says we have to like it, but to some extent we have to accept it.

Yes, people die, it's part of life, and we don't like it, but this fact of life is separate from the issue of trying to stop the execution of a man who may be innocent. And your example of the plane, while very pertinent in this post 9/11 age in that it is unfortunately conceivable that it could come to pass, is not so pertinent here, because everyone agrees that the plane is packed with innocent people. In the case of Troy Davis, he is being executed because someone decided he was guilty- not everyone believes he is innocent. If everyone thought he was innocent, then he would not be in danger of getting executed, so your plane example is not congruent with the Davis case.

...if someone is treated unfairly I don't like it - but I'm not about to change a system for one single person who received unfair treatment at the risk of greater society either.

As I said, the problems in this case may may only have occurred in this case alone. If that is so, then I am not advocating changing the entire system, but only the factors in this case that allowed this one injustice to occur. But if it is a problem that is widespread to the state system, it won't be about one person who has been treated unfairly, but many more, wouldn't it.

This leads me to ask: how many people must be wronged before you are willing to change the status quo?

...The risk of being wrong in either direction is more weight than I think I could emotionally bear for a while - particularly in such a case where people ask for rules to be changed and the long term effects are entirely unknown.

Of course we can never really be sure about the long-term effect if changes are made, but we CAN see what the long-term effects will be if changes should be made, but are not. Everything will continue as it has in the past. Troy will be executed, and others after him will be imprisoned and/or executed for crimes they did not commit, because witnesses that could have exonerated them were not used in court, because police used coercion to get witnesses to lie in court, and because the prosecution for the state was more concerned about winning a case than about justice.

....what other than the tapes would give credit to a purguring witness?

Other than tapes, evidence of police coercion can be supported by a person, maybe even a police officer, who can testify that they actually saw and/or heard a witness being coerced, threatened, or pressured to lie on the witness stand- specifically to say he or she saw Davis shoot MacPhail. Or, a person who is willing to be a whistleblower informant and testify that an officer admitted to them in conversations that they had done such coercion to one or more of the witnesses. Or maybe even an actual confession by a police officer that he pressured a witness to lie. Or, as you said....

...a group of people who can positively identify coercion being done, where, to who, and by who. This would bring up a different trial (I think) ....

I don't see how this necessitates another trial, but it would require an investigation into the allegations of police coercion to find out whether they are true or not. Yes, this would put a hold on Troy's execution, but I personally think that the extra time must be taken to verify those claims is needed.

Whoever out there knows what really happened isn't going to talk until they know that this is being taken seriously with some kind of high-ranking investigation.

...if the old testimony is used against the new testimony by the same witnesses, it puts the witnesses as purgers - not good. Especially since there is no statute of limitations on purgery. The other thing is hat it relies on a judge NOT finding the evidence from the first trial inadmissible. It's pretty risky. I'm not going to question if the risk is worth it, clearly that is subjective.

If there is evidence, such as I described, which would give reason to believe that the coercion did occur, then the judge would throw out the false testimony and allow the new testimony. Not only that, but it is not deemed to be perjury when the witness is suborned to lie, according to the Department of Justice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01752.htm

So the witnesses would not be guilty of perjury if there was evidence of coercion.

...the Federal Supreme Court has final say as to how the Constitution is interpreted ... lawyers don't interpret the Constitution.

The Justices on the Supreme Court are lawyers, so lawyers do interpret the Constitution. But I get your point.

...I'm not qualified to interpret the law and make a call on the fate of Troy - nor would I want that responsibility.

...would you want a nation of 'regular joes' who have more concern over what some iTrinket can do in their pocket, why they're not on someone's "Top 8" and in a country where we can't even properly communicate basic ideas to one another? You're telling me, that you may rather want leigons of people who are largely stupid, to interpret what your rights are? Let's face it - Statistically, America is pretty dumb compared to other nations.

Am I reading you right? With your talk of bandwagons, regular joes, and stupid Americans, are you suggesting that the United States, including the laws that regulate the criminal justice system, is and should be solely under the authority of a select group of people? Are you saying that we should wholeheartedly embrace and employ the principles of Mills' power elite theory as the way in which the country should be run?

Mills aside, your observations are:

...I'm not qualified to interpret the law and make a call on the fate of Troy...

...would you want a nation of 'regular joes'...to interpret what your rights are?

...the Federal Supreme Court has final say.

So then, we are in agreement that the decision made by those who are not judges can be wrong. Does this include the Board of Probation and Paroles? Yes, because they are not judges, and their denial for a retrial may very well be wrong.

And we are also in agreement that, since the Board can be wrong, then this case SHOULD be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in fact they SHOULD review this case and the Supreme Court Justices SHOULD rule on Troy's fate!

Well, here's the case as laid out by Troy's attorneys: Petition for certiorari. Decide for yourself which side of the above arguments it comes down on, and whether or not you think the Supreme Court will agree with it. Or just wait.

This was also filed with the petition: Brief amicus curiae of the Innocence Project

You can find the other submitted docs under Davis v. Georgia on this scotusblog Petitions to Watch page.

You yourself said that you don't like it when someone is treated unfairly. Well, that's all that I and a lot of other people are saying, too! But simply because we talk about it here at Newsvine and elsewhere, and as the more we talk about it, the more that others decide that they don't like it when someone is treated unfairly, and they start to talk about it too,.... that you see this as nothing more than bandwagon-jumping, and it offends you?

Yes, but only when those in agreement with us have agreed based on second hand opinion and with no personal investigation or collaboration as tot he facts - yes. If someone takes the time to figure out why they hold an opinion, irrespective of whether or not I agree with them - I respect their opinion, though I'm not bound by any law (man, nature, or otherwise), to accept it as my own.

I see a lot of people band-wagoning on partial information and it makes them no different than the state of GA (provided they did not treat Troy fairly). Both piss me off, unfortunately I've got the band wagoners in front of me (not specifically here in this thread). There are a lot of people that only hear "innocent man being executed" and do nothing to figure out if he's innocent or if he's been treated fairly. Social bias has a large role on both sides of this. Elise77 and I have had a very lengthy phone conversation about this over the course of two days.

To clarify my position, I'm not at all concerned with the probable innocence or guilt of Troy Davis at this point. The most important thing to me is determining if the man was treated fairly by the justice system. So far, I'm beginning to believe no. Once it is determined if Troy was factually treated unfairly by those vested with the power to determine such things, then the next step is to figure out of Troy is guilty or innocent.

Going back to the band wagoning people, as I said - there are many who, in my opinion work this backwards and want to first see if he's innocent or guilty. Then there are some who just assume he's one or the other. To me, this is wrong and yes - it offends me and SHOULD offend you.

So on that basis, can you truly justify the execution of an innocent person,... while the one who was truly guilty goes free and will be free to commit the crime again, and can NEVER be tried for the original crime because somebody else was tried and convicted for it?

No, not entirely. There are extenuating circumstances in everything. In the context of Troy Davis however, no I can't - which is why, to me it is far more important to determine if he was treated fairly and put the innocent or guilty verdict on the back burner.

Is 'acceptable loss' anything like 'collateral damage'?

It depends on the context. You can have collateral damage but that damage can be unacceptable. The term 'acceptable loss' already indicates the loss is acceptable or within the margin of error. I see this much like the meta cognition question (sort of like a Zen Koan) "What is the difference between "spending time and making time?" The answer is: the difference lies in the perception of the terms.

You're seeing 'acceptable loss' as something synonymous with 'collateral damage' (I think), becuase you feel Troy has a greater chance of being innocent, so Troy's death would be the damage done by a broken system or a system with a glaring hole having allowed injustice. I can see where you feel this way (if my assertion is correct), but from my position where changing the system would allow others to escape their befitting justice, Troy could be seen as an 'acceptable loss'. But, I've never given a concrete stance as to his guilt or innocence and I think you misread me on that. I'll make it clear. I don't feel he's one or the other. It is not my primary concern at this point.

If Troy Davis should go free, it will NOT be because of a technicality that can be automatically applied to every other case. [Remember we agreed that due process is on a case-by-case basis.] If Troy is set free, it should only be, IMO, after a retrial with all true evidence shows he is not guilty.

See, you're going on with a belief that he's most likely innocent. I won't assert you do not have anything to substantiate your belief, but you've only provided me with questions you have as to how he might be, and that isn't something I participate in. I cannot in the good of my heart, pronounce the moral status of a person without facts and observation. At some point I'll have more information and I'll form a personal opinion about Troy Davis as a person, but again... I'm not ready to 'know' Troy, I just want to know what placed him there in the legal system and if there was a problem within that system (I sound like a broken record). I did give speculation as to what may need to happen in order to determine this and what could occur if certain criteria were met with in the plans and ideas presented by a few of the thread comments.

This leads me to ask: how many people must be wronged before you are willing to change the status quo?

Is it proved they were wronged and in what way were they wronged. Wrong happens daily, yet nothing happens. "Wrong" itself is a subjective term anyway. In 1950 it was 'wrong' to wear a halter top and miniskirt (unless you were a harlot)... yet it's not wrong today. "Wrong" shifts as society changes, which does evidence a need to change systems, I see that, but I revert back to being cautions with the change, and we both know that in the legal system you can't provide a single person with special treatment because it corrupts the whole idea of fair. So, yes - the change would be widespread or it would be no different than what Troy underwent, but happen to favor Troy. At least, that's my opinion on it.

As I said, the problems in this case may may only have occurred in this case alone. If that is so, then I am not advocating changing the entire system, but only the factors in this case that allowed this one injustice to occur. But if it is a problem that is widespread to the state system, it won't be about one person who has been treated unfairly, but many more, wouldn't it.

Yes, but I think that the problem isn't the system as an entity that failed but certain people within the system who failed to uphold their end of the bargain.

And your example of the plane, while very pertinent in this post 9/11 age in that it is unfortunately conceivable that it could come to pass, is not so pertinent here, because everyone agrees that the plane is packed with innocent people. In the case of Troy Davis, he is being executed because someone decided he was guilty- not everyone believes he is innocent. If everyone thought he was innocent, then he would not be in danger of getting executed, so your plane example is not congruent with the Davis case.

I believe that it is on the grounds that the example was for the decision process involved not the subjects or definition of the subjects. The example could have been changed to a place full of factually and capitally guilty inmates. The choice would be equally hard to make, would it not? If what you are arguing is that life is life and in a strive for fairness rules should apply across the board to reflect this, then it shouldnt' matter if the people on the plane were innocent, the concern is mainly for the people on the ground in the populated area, right? That's what I was trying to illustrate.

I don't see how this necessitates another trial, but it would require an investigation into the allegations of police coercion to find out whether they are true or not. Yes, this would put a hold on Troy's execution, but I personally think that the extra time must be taken to verify those claims is needed.

This is what I've been saying. Though, it necessitates another trial becuase if it is shown that the first trial was done without due process or had lack of fairness, then Troy would deserve a fair trial irrespective of innocence or guilt.

Am I reading you right? With your talk of bandwagons, regular joes, and stupid Americans, are you suggesting that the United States, including the laws that regulate the criminal justice system, is and should be solely under the authority of a select group of people? Are you saying that we should wholeheartedly embrace and employ the principles of Mills' power elite theory as the way in which the country should be run?

Sort of. You can take the nation and form a pyramid image of the political power structure. The pinnacle being the President, and then use a sort of 'power of ten' to shrink down to a household and there is one person who holds a majority of the power with household choices, money, so on and so forth. It's a system that is in place no matter what you do. It's fine to strive to abolish it, but someone will have to lead and some others will have to follow. That leader takes the role and has the power vested in them by their peers to be that elite. So in a way, yes. This is why the Supreme Court Justice is charged with interpreting the Constitution and not the social body of this country. This is why the President is the one to go before the people and make the choices - we grant them that power. Now unless you seek true anarchy (which is fine, but doomed) I'd think that to some degree (not to the extent that Mills speaks of) you'd agree in an elite governing body.

The Justices on the Supreme Court are lawyers

No. The Supreme Court Justices WERE lawyers. Now, there is a difference between a Judge and a Justice, though the terms are used interchangeably. A judge will preside at a legal proceeding, such as a criminal hearing or a civil court case. He or she will render a verdict based on the legal procedures and precedents currently in force in the jurisdiction, including the deliverance of sentences for prison terms if the situation merits this course of action.

A justice will perform a different function within the judicial system. Also sworn to uphold the laws of the land, a justice does not necessarily have to be an attorney or have any formal legal training. Some of the Supreme Court Justices were never lawyers, but have experience in law and researching law - so they are not laymen.

And we are also in agreement that, since the Board can be wrong, then this case SHOULD be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in fact they SHOULD review this case and the Supreme Court Justices SHOULD rule on Troy's fate!

No. Anyone CAN be wrong. It's not an issue of possibly being wrong, it's an issue of ACTUALLY being wrong or ACTUALLY being right. Just as with semantics - its' not about right or wrong, it's about correct or incorrect (proper / improper). The Supreme Court should not rule on Troy's fate, but rule on the fairness in which Troy received. It would have direct impact on Troy's fate, but the ruling would not be strictly upon the fate of Troy. We only agree on the idea that the Supreme Court should review the case and the procedural aspects of it.

So then, we are in agreement that the decision made by those who are not judges can be wrong. Does this include the Board of Probation and Paroles? Yes, because they are not judges, and their denial for a retrial may very well be wrong.

You just finished saying Judges can be wrong, and then follow up with saying that people who are not judges can be wrong. This means everyone can be wrong,(which I agree with), but if something CAN be wrong ("can" meaning "able") they equally CAN be right. We're laymen to the law in respects to judges and justices... we have a greater opportunity to be wrong. The Board of Probation and Parole is part of the executive branch. Its role in regards to the judicial branch is to execute the law in accordance with the instructions from the judicial branch. Nothing more, nothing less - so no, this doesn't include the Board since they only do what they're told. The Board would be free of guilt, but if you were to ask if the Police (since they're part of the executive branch as well) would be wrong, then yes - possibly. The Police also act in accordance with the instructions from the judicial branch, but in a very different fashion.

@ Shawn;

If someone takes the time to figure out why they hold an opinion, irrespective of whether or not I agree with them - I respect their opinion ...

I totally agree.

I see a lot of people band-wagoning on partial information and it makes them no different than the state of GA...

Yes, I agree with you again, almost entirely ... except that one bandwagon, the state of Georgia, has decided to take a man's life, based on partial information. The 'Free Troy' bandwagon, based on partial information, wants him to not be executed. I get it that to you, there's no difference, but I see an imbalance in what can result based on partial information. It's noble to stand on principles and say, 'both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is, but [for me] the principle that 'it is wrong to execute someone that innocent' supersedes the goal of allowing the execution to continue because those who say he is innocent are basing it on partial information.

There are a lot of people that only hear "innocent man being executed" and do nothing to figure out if he's innocent or if he's been treated fairly. Social bias has a large role on both sides of this.

Yes, I know that this is the case. I'm not fooling myself and thinking that everyone who joins the bandwagon is doing so because they considered all the information on the case, and I know that a lot of times, people make decisions as to who is right, who is wrong, what is important and what isn't, based heavily on social bias. But, I also think that many, many people have really given some serious thought about the information concerning the case and have then joined the bandwagon.

While the way that some people might have arrived at their decision to be against Troy's execution may have been faulty, it doesn't mean that they are wrong. And none of this negates the fact that the state may have made its decisions based on partial information, and that all the facts need to be presented.

Elise77 and I have had a very lengthy phone conversation about this over the course of two days.

Gee, and here I thought that I was the one that was persuading you. ;-)

To clarify my position, I'm not at all concerned with the probable innocence or guilt of Troy Davis at this point.

I am also not really concerned, at a personal level, whether he is innocent or guilty either, but I am definitely concerned for his guilt or innocence at a human level. I don't know him personally, and I can't vouch for his innocence based upon his good character, because I don't personally know what his character is like. I have read some of the accounts by those who know him, and it has given me some idea as to who he is, but I still can't say that I know him well. If I did know him personally, then I am sure I would be much more involved in his guilt or innocence at all emotional levels. I can try to identify with him and his family through the emotions that they are most likely experiencing, but the response at the emotional level is truly a human thing in which all of us humans can relate to each other. They say he is a good person that has been done wrong, and I can take their word for it as far as sympathizing for their plight, but it is not really for him personally that I want to see a possible injustice prevented. I just want a possible injustice prevented- for the sake of him as a human and for every human, so that no one has to undergo this kind of injustice anymore.

The most important thing to me is determining if the man was treated fairly by the justice system. So far, I'm beginning to believe no. Once it is determined if Troy was factually treated unfairly by those vested with the power to determine such things, then the next step is to figure out of Troy is guilty or innocent.

Yes, yes, and yes.

I have to say it: Once again we are in agreement!

Going back to the band wagoning people, as I said - there are many who, in my opinion work this backwards and want to first see if he's innocent or guilty. Then there are some who just assume he's one or the other. To me, this is wrong and yes - it offends me and SHOULD offend you.

You're right, I don't like it, and it troubles me that people make a lot of decisions about a lot of things without really knowing what they're talking about. Yes, I would clearly prefer that everyone look at the case themselves and join on the bandwagon because they truly know for themselves and not just assume that a possible injustice may have occurred ... but if it is necessary that there be an overwhelming people on the bandwagon in order to prevent a possible injustice from happening, even though they may have based their decision to join the bandwagon on partial information, then I am okay with them being on the bandwagon- because let's be honest about it, if the bandwagon hadn't become as big as it has, nothing would have been done and Troy would have already been executed.

And I must say again that I think there are far more people who have decided to join the bandwagon after some serious thought on the matter than you may believe to be. Granted, it may not have been over a long period of thought in terms of time, but it's not always quantity, but quality, of the thought that matters.

...it is far more important to determine if he was treated fairly and put the innocent or guilty verdict on the back burner.

Agreed.

You can have collateral damage but that damage can be unacceptable.

Yes, I agree.

The difference lies in the perception of the terms.

Yes, perception always plays a part in how we define things.

You're seeing 'acceptable loss' as something synonymous with 'collateral damage' (I think), becuase you feel Troy has a greater chance of being innocent, so Troy's death would be the damage done by a broken system or a system with a glaring hole having allowed injustice.

Yes, except that I don't really feel he has a greater chance of being innocent than guilty, but actually that- until it is proven one way or another on all the information, not just partial information- he is neither in fact innocent or guilty, but is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, which is applicable not just to Troy but to all those accused of a crime. As I said before, I really don't know if he is innocent or guilty. However, I will discuss his case in a way that indicates a presumption of innocence, but not a likelihood of innocence.

...from my position where changing the system would allow others to escape their befitting justice, Troy could be seen as an 'acceptable loss'.

I think this may be where we disagree the most, because it is hard for me to accept that ANYONE should be allowed to be the sacrificial lamb when there is the possibility that the same thing could have been accomplished by making some changes which could have the same effect of ensuring justice for both the guilty and the innocent.

Look, I read your position as being that the system has problems, but that the system can't be ameliorated without having the negative effect of allowing an untold number of other injustices, such as the guilty going free, from occurring just to prevent the one injustice- in essence, making the system worse than it was before the attempt was made to fix it- so, while you don't like it, you are ready to accept that some people are going to have to be wrongly imprisoned and/or executed in order to keep the system from becoming worse than it is already. Am I close to stating a paraphrase of your position?

My position, however, is that the system has problems, and that they not only can but should be ameliorated because the changes made will not only prevent the current injustice that is in the process of occurring, but will also prevent future ones. Changes made to correct the system will not automatically result in such things as the guilty going free, especially in cases where the change is applicable only to the case under review and not to all cases, because each case in which the innocent is no longer unjustly punished results in a case that remains open, a case where the police will continue to search and apprehend the actual person who committed the crime instead of settling for the first suspect that can be accused of the crime on weak evidence, and therefore actually leads to a case where the evidence is stronger. Stronger cases lead to higher clearance and conviction rates, more guilty people being punished for their crimes, and less innocent people being punished for crimes they did not commit.

But, I've never given a concrete stance as to his guilt or innocence and I think you misread me on that. I'll make it clear. I don't feel he's one or the other. It is not my primary concern at this point.

Actually, you did state your position on his guilt or innocence in a previous posting, so I have known it since then. I DID think, at first, that you were assuming he was guilty based on partial information, and in my first writings to you, I might have taken that tone with you a little more strongly than I should have. But I submit this serves to verify that I, too, have a problem with basing decisions upon false information, and I daresay that I think I understand your view better now than I did at first.

See, you're going on with a belief that he's most likely innocent.

Actually, I'm not, as I explained here earlier.

I cannot in the good of my heart, pronounce the moral status of a person without facts and observation. At some point I'll have more information and I'll form a personal opinion about Troy Davis as a person, but again... I'm not ready to 'know' Troy, I just want to know what placed him there in the legal system and if there was a problem within that system (I sound like a broken record). I did give speculation as to what may need to happen in order to determine this and what could occur if certain criteria were met with in the plans and ideas presented by a few of the thread comments.

I am thinking along those very same lines, too, as I have stated here earlier, and I will elaborate a little more by repeating again that I am not declaring Troy innocent by any means. I know some people on the bandwagon have, and that is up to them if they wish to do so or not. I don't think I personally have ever actually claimed his moral status as though it were a fact such as by stating 'Troy is innocent!', but I know that I HAVE stated something like 'Troy may be innocent', which is quite a bit different.

One observation I would like to make is that you say you want to know if there is a problem with the system- yet you have also said that you don't want to do anything about it if you do find a problem with the system. How do you reconcile this? And why bother finding the problem if you would do nothing about it? If you have already decided not to do anything about it, then wouldn't it be better to just not bother? [this is not rhetorical unless you don't want to answer, but this is something that I really would like to understand better]

...we both know that in the legal system you can't provide a single person with special treatment because it corrupts the whole idea of fair.

A single person cannot receive special treatment, but he can get treatment that applies only to his case in order that he is not denied his right to due process. Because due process is applied on a case-by-case basis, and so is never the same, the treatment that one person gets will not be exactly the same as the treatment another person gets. To some it may appear to be unfair, but it is fair if we perceive it from the angle of whether he has had his right to due process. And that is really all that I am asking for in Troy's case- a fair application of due process, for a person that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

... I think that the problem isn't the system as an entity that failed but certain people within the system who failed to uphold their end of the bargain.

Actually, I tend to agree. I know some people are going to say that 'it's the South, this kind of problem is rampant, and the whole system needs to be overhauled', but I am not prepared, on what is known now, to blame the entire state system- though I am ready to encourage state-wide changes if an investigation should show the problem is state-wide.

Yes, maybe it is just one part of a police department, or maybe an entire police department, but not every police department in the state uses coercion. Yes, perhaps it is just the one defense team that was incompetent and not all of them in the state. Yes, it might be just one prosecutor that decided to go ahead and prosecute with the apparently weak evidence they had to work with, when another person as prosecutor would have decided to not go forward with the case. And yes, it may be one parole board that either cannot see or refuses to see that any or all of these factors led to a conviction that may not hold up under the evidence as it stands today.

...I believe that it is on the grounds that the example was for the decision process involved not the subjects or definition of the subjects... If what you are arguing is that life is life and in a strive for fairness rules should apply across the board to reflect this, then it shouldnt' matter if the people on the plane were innocent, the concern is mainly for the people on the ground in the populated area, right?...

Well, I see what you're trying to say, and I still think your example may not be the best for the point you are trying to make, but okay I can go with it. Yes, it doesn't matter if the people were innocent. Any plane that is carrying a bomb to a city nowadays is always going to get shot down, and the innocent people will be killed- UNLESS it can be diverted away from the city, or the bomb can be defused before reaching the city, or the passengers on the plane can somehow be rescued from the plane mid-air while in flight. Doubtful, I know, but if it's even possible, it has to be considered in this kind of situation with innocent lives at stake. So it isn't that we shouldn't be concerned for the people on the plane, but it's usually that we just can't do anything to help them. If we can help them, we would. Likewise, an innocent person that is wrongfully convicted of a crime is always going to get imprisoned and/or executed- unless there is something about the case which may indicate that he may have been wrongfully convicted, and unless something is done to point out the mistake that was made which got the innocent person wrongfully convicted, because, just as with the plane passengers, If we can help him, we would.

Though, it necessitates another trial becuase if it is shown that the first trial was done without due process or had lack of fairness, then Troy would deserve a fair trial irrespective of innocence or guilt.

Actually, I meant to say that it wouldn't necessitate a 3rd trial to prove the coercion. The 2nd trial would still be necessary if it is shown that he was deprived of his due process right. My mistake for not being clear about it.

...You can take the nation and form a pyramid image of the political power structure ... someone will have to lead and some others will have to follow. That leader takes the role and has the power vested in them by their peers to be that elite...This is why the Supreme Court Justice is charged with interpreting the Constitution and not the social body of this country. This is why the President is the one to go before the people and make the choices - we grant them that power ... I'd think that to some degree (not to the extent that Mills speaks of) you'd agree in an elite governing body.

I agree that the power is vested in them by their peers, by their fellow countrymen- but this does not make them elite. It does makes them our representatives to act in our stead and for our best interests, the interests of the American people, not their own personal best interests. The only reason that they are where they are, in governmental positions, is not because they are elite, but because we allow them to be there through the social contract we follow as American citizens.

No. The Supreme Court Justices WERE lawyers...Some of the Supreme Court Justices were never lawyers, but have experience in law and researching law - so they are not laymen.

I expected you wouldn't let that one slip past you, because I hadn't given further clarification, so I shall do so now. There have also been some Justices in the past that were not lawyers at all, and had no law experience. So any U.S. citizen, even a layman who has never been a lawyer and has absolutely no background in law whatsoever, can be a Justice, as long as they meet the Constitutional qualifications. So we don't leave the interpretation to the lawyers. As I recall, you were the one who wanted to leave all the interpretation up to the Supreme Court, which I am not really arguing against per se, but my point, which I realize now that I should have explained in more detail, was that since anyone can potentially be in the Supreme Court, and because the Supreme Court are our representatives in interpretation who we choose through the President that we vote for [because of the social contract], and because we are all choosing to either tacitly accept the current interpretation of the law each day [again because of the social contract] or to not accept the current interpretation of the law by speaking out and/or taking appropriate action to change it, we are all, in essence, interpreting the law.

Now, there is a difference between a Judge and a Justice, though the terms are used interchangeably...

Right, no argument there, I realize there's a difference, and I may have been a little too loose with using the terms interchangeably.

No. Anyone CAN be wrong. It's not an issue of possibly being wrong, it's an issue of ACTUALLY being wrong or ACTUALLY being right. Just as with semantics - its' not about right or wrong, it's about correct or incorrect (proper / improper).

Although Merriam-Webster's definition of 'wrong' includes 'improper' and incorrect', I won't argue the point and simply say that it was a poor choice of words on my part to say 'wrong' when I should have gone into greater detail to say that the Board acted... what was the word, 'incorrectly'? .... in their decision that they saw no legal reason to stop the execution from continuing. And I use the word 'possibly' because I am trying to show that I am not absolutely saying without any doubt at all that an injustice has definitely and unequivocally occurred without any room for argument or debate. But I can stop using the word 'possibly' if it causes me to be misunderstood.

The Supreme Court should not rule on Troy's fate, but rule on the fairness in which Troy received. It would have direct impact on Troy's fate, but the ruling would not be strictly upon the fate of Troy. We only agree on the idea that the Supreme Court should review the case and the procedural aspects of it.

I thought it was clear from everything else that I had already said that the Supreme Court's ruling should be about whether Troy had received his due process rights. So when I say 'Troy's fate', I meant it as an extension or consequence of their ruling. I guess I liked the way that 'Troy's fate' read in that sentence, but I see now that I shouldn't have used it because it was taken too literally. Ok, no more 'Troy's fate'. Ah, semantics again.

You just finished saying Judges can be wrong, and then follow up with saying that people who are not judges can be wrong.

Wow, you are really wanting to hammer me on the Justice/Judge thing. It's my own fault. All right, yes, again, my incorrect interchangeability of 'Justice' and 'Judge' has gotten me into trouble, and I see that I used the word 'wrong' again. Please allow me to restate with an attempt to use the appropriate words:

So then, we are in agreement that the decision made by those who are not Justices can be wrong [incorrect, improper]. Does this include the Board of Probation and Paroles? Yes, because they [clarification: the people on the Board of Probation and Paroles] are not Justices, and their denial for a retrial may very well be wrong [incorrect, improper].

Having restated my original badly-worded statement, I will reiterate that, as you stated, 'the Federal Supreme Court has final say', which I will agree with. Because the Supreme Court has the final say, this has the effect of making their interpretation of the law right according to the United States government and, by tacit acceptance of the American citizens and as representatives of the American citizens, according to the American citizens themselves. So United States Supreme Court Justices are right about interpreting the law. The people on the Board of Probation and Paroles are not United States Supreme Court Justices, and as you stated, they are not even in the judicial branch, so they can interpret law incorrectly. Because they can interpret law incorrectly, they may have interpreted the law regarding due process incorrectly in the case of Troy Davis. Therefore, the Board's denial for retrial may have been based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

This means everyone can be wrong,(which I agree with), but if something CAN be wrong ("can" meaning "able") they equally CAN be right.

Yes, I will agree with this, and so yes, the Board can be wrong, or it can be right.

One sticking-point that I see, however, is that, if the Supreme Court has the final say in the interpretation of the law, is it always right? Well, it is ALWAYS right in one sense, because it has the final say and so that makes it right, but it can be right OR it can be wrong in another sense, in that the American people have to agree it is right through the social contract. When enough of the American people don't agree, there is the prospect that the American people will change the American government's current interpretation of law.

So the Supreme Court could decide one way or another on Troy's case, and whichever way it decides, it will be right as far as the American government interprets the law, but it could be wrong according to [some of] the American people. However, since the Court is the only interpreter of the law, and the American people are in disagreement as to whether the Board did what it was supposed to do, then the Court SHOULD rule on the procedural aspects of Troy's case.

Now you take it further and state that,

The Board of Probation and Parole is part of the executive branch. Its role in regards to the judicial branch is to execute the law in accordance with the instructions from the judicial branch. Nothing more, nothing less - so no, this doesn't include the Board since they only do what they're told. The Board would be free of guilt...

All right, if we follow your argument, that ONLY the Supreme Court interprets law, which my earlier statements here will show that I don't entirely agree with [though I do agree that the Supreme Court has the final say in interpretation], then the Board at any time could have decided that Troy had not received a fair trial, if they believed that they were doing what they were told by the Supreme Court. Under your argument, the Board can't be right or wrong whichever way they act.

We're laymen to the law in respects to judges and justices... we have a greater opportunity to be wrong.

Since only the Supreme Court is right, which we can agree with [though I would say it is for different reasons], and since we are not in the judicial branch- then, according to your exclusion of all others from interpretation of the law except for those in the judicial branch, then it seems to me that your line of reasoning would more likely conclude that we laymen can't be right or wrong with interpreting the law, because we are not in the judicial branch. But then it would fit that we have greater opportunity to be wrong, as you say, because only the Supreme Court can be right.

...but if you were to ask if the Police (since they're part of the executive branch as well) would be wrong, then yes - possibly. The Police also act in accordance with the instructions from the judicial branch, but in a very different fashion.

How can the police be wrong if they are only doing what they are told by the Supreme Court? Because your view is that all interpretation is limited to the judicial branch, the police cannot be right or wrong. Because my view is that interpretation is always occurring by all Americans, the police can be right or wrong. And in Troy's case, they may have been wrong. But if I am not mistaken, I think we are both saying, but for different reasons, that the Supreme court SHOULD rule on the procedural aspects of Troy's case.

Holy Jesus on a stick... give me a day to process that... not just read and respond, but I've got work tomorrow... let me comprehend and formulate a response. Check again on Thursday

Take as long as you need shawn. lol

Do Shawn and Don get the Oscar for greatest debating? WOW!

One has to admire talent where it's at, and it is certainly right here. What cogent arguments! I suddenly feel terribly inadequate in the face of all this.

Go, Guys, go!! You're doing great! We definitely do get smarter here. :o)

If it goes by sheer bulk well.....

"Holy Jesus on a stick... give me a day to process that... not just read and respond, but I've got work tomorrow... let me comprehend and formulate a response. Check again on Thursday"

I can`t wait till thursday. lmao

Awww...come on, Jbdaad, give credit where it's due. Those are much more than just 'sheer bulk'. They have some great nuggets of information in them. Now don't be churlish, here. We don't want to start another debate between us (*she says ominously, sharpening her pen*)..LOL

No disrespect at all intended. Very thorough. Those two have in writing what a atom looks like in a microscope. Very awesome.

@QD

except that one bandwagon, the state of Georgia, has decided to take a man's life, based on partial information. The 'Free Troy' bandwagon, based on partial information, wants him to not be executed. I get it that to you, there's no difference, but I see an imbalance in what can result based on partial information. It's noble to stand on principles and say, 'both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is, but [for me] the principle that 'it is wrong to execute someone that innocent' supersedes the goal of allowing the execution to continue because those who say he is innocent are basing it on partial information.

Hm... I see your point but respectfully disagree. First, most can deduce that partial information will slant a decision that is supposed to be impartial. Second, what is the defense and prosecution other than partial sides of the same argument presented before an audience previously ignorant to the facts? I do not feel as though I've illustrated or projected the sentiment that the the groups using partial information to base their intentions shoudl remain as they are, after all, I'm adamantly attempting to say that if Troy did not get a fair trial - irrespective of how or why the trial was unfair but only that it is found to be in any way unfair, Troy should be given the opportunity to be found guilty or innocent with the same dignity, respect and humanity as any other American citizen. As such, I think it is hard to at the same time also say : "both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is". I think at some point either I've grossly miscommunicated or youv'e grossly misinterpreted my thoughts. I did say something along those lines int eh context of purgered witnesses - not in a way that is to say things shoudl stay the same, but in a way that is saying purgery discredits future credibility and diminished the integrity the defense desperately would need once we get to the hypothetical stage of innocence / guilt - and in THAT old and new testimony from the same witnesses would cancel each other out. But, all of that was base on hypothetical situations. In my opinion, we should stay as far away from hypothetical as possible and focus more on determining if there was negligent error in the initial proceedings.

Gee, and here I thought that I was the one that was persuading you. ;-)

Well, now you know I'm not so foolish as to take a single source for information. Facets decorate every story and the fewer the sources, the more narrow the outlook. I haven't looked down a paper towel tube since I was about.... 10, that was 21 years ago. No... I made my son a Kaleidoscope... so I looked down one... a week or so ago but it was full of evolving and ever changing scenery so I guess I'm safe on that one :P

but if it is necessary that there be an overwhelming people on the bandwagon in order to prevent a possible injustice from happening, even though they may have based their decision to join the bandwagon on partial information, then I am okay with them being on the bandwagon- because let's be honest about it, if the bandwagon hadn't become as big as it has, nothing would have been done and Troy would have already been executed.

At the same time, this off center weight in principle is what caused the problem. People, specificlaly the system can't be unfair when it suits them. As you said, the imbalance brought about by the 'guilty' bandwagon brought about the imbalance by the 'innocent' bandwagon - but remind me of when two wrongs made a right? How is it we can preach impartiality of the system when we use social partiality enforce it? Are you really arguing against: "both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is" in one statement and then turning back around and justifying it with the life of man who has the POTENTIAL to be EQUALLY innocent or guilty? There is a heavy price for neutrality my friend, heavy indeed. You don't have to pay it, nor do I - not right now, but someone somewhere does and I think in this context the price is making things right fairly, impartially. My ills are from the people who just make a second hand opinion about the guilt or innocence about Troy, which stems from my desire to get more information outside of a couple of sources (credibility aside).

I am thinking along those very same lines, too, as I have stated here earlier, and I will elaborate a little more by repeating again that I am not declaring Troy innocent by any means. I know some people on the bandwagon have, and that is up to them if they wish to do so or not. I don't think I personally have ever actually claimed his moral status as though it were a fact such as by stating 'Troy is innocent!', but I know that I HAVE stated something like 'Troy may be innocent', which is quite a bit different.

I understand that and have been watchful of you to see if there is underlying bias - as you say, so far there isn't anything direct, I think I may have misspoken or assumed a bit out of my bounds in my statement as to my thoughts of you feeling he may be innocent - almost sort of like "hot bating" but without the disingenuous-ness

So it isn't that we shouldn't be concerned for the people on the plane, but it's usually that we just can't do anything to help them. If we can help them, we would. Likewise, an innocent person that is wrongfully convicted of a crime is always going to get imprisoned and/or executed- unless there is something about the case which may indicate that he may have been wrongfully convicted, and unless something is done to point out the mistake that was made which got the innocent person wrongfully convicted, because, just as with the plane passengers, If we can help him, we would.

I see your point and I do not disagree but sometimes, we can't do anything and no matter how much it downright sucks, there is nothing more we can do except watch and become more preventative and forward thinking / looking. This too carries a price (i.e. the Patriot Act), but where do we draw the line on what is an "acceptable loss"? Does ths line shift with the times or on a case by case basis? if on a case by case, are you, we, I , or they prepared to devote this much time and energy to every single person with injust treatment in an allegedly just system? Are we going to change the system for every case by case project that is found? These are all questions that should things be permanently changed, will be asked from here on out. Now, I'm not insinuating that Troy is less of a person or human and deserves less - that would mean I'm biased against his innocence and I'm not, but I'm biased against, to some degree, making a change that would let an equal amount of injustice occur in the opposite direction. Again, neutrality has a price to pay and unfortunately it is not always the neutral party who pays. Again, I think if there was lack of fair treatment, Troy should be retried, but going beyond that now, as I said, isn't going to resolve anything - maybe after October 6.

I agree that the power is vested in them by their peers, by their fellow countrymen- but this does not make them elite. It does makes them our representatives to act in our stead and for our best interests, the interests of the American people, not their own personal best interests. The only reason that they are where they are, in governmental positions, is not because they are elite, but because we allow them to be there through the social contract we follow as American citizens.

SEMANTIC RESPONSE: By elite, I assumed you meant, "at the top", not "better than their peers"... since you meant "better than their peers" I agree with your current explanation. However, MIlls, I do not believe or I did not take his theory as meaning "better than their peers" either, which I think added to my assumption as to what you implied. I apologize.

Yes, except that I don't really feel he has a greater chance of being innocent than guilty, but actually that- until it is proven one way or another on all the information, not just partial information- he is neither in fact innocent or guilty, but is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, which is applicable not just to Troy but to all those accused of a crime

Okay, again - I assumed your stance. I think we see this similarly then, now that I better understand your actual position.

One sticking-point that I see, however, is that, if the Supreme Court has the final say in the interpretation of the law, is it always right? Well, it is ALWAYS right in one sense, because it has the final say and so that makes it right, but it can be right OR it can be wrong in another sense, in that the American people have to agree it is right through the social contract. When enough of the American people don't agree, there is the prospect that the American people will change the American government's current interpretation of law.

there's circular logic in there at some point, well.... more like 'mobius strip logic'. I again, respectfully disagree. No Constitutional Amendment can be repealed outright, but amended to negate. An example of this is the big debate over the need (and to some extent desire) for the adherence of the Second Amendment, the small debate over the Fifth Amendment, and the controversy over the context and limitations of the First Amendment. And, again I bring up the Patriot Act and the limitations it implicitly placed on some of our Constitutional Rights (thought this is also highly debatable), specifically the Fourth Amendment (as some feel it isn't really an issue and completely necessary in the context of its implementation).

All right, if we follow your argument, that ONLY the Supreme Court interprets law

OKay, this is my fault. What I mean when I say that is that the Supreme Court is the ONLY interpreter of the law in such a way that if THEY say it is law, then it is law. Anyone can disagree, but they've got final say. I got ahead of myself and assumed that what I implied was understood. Sometimes my propensity for semantics works against me.

Since only the Supreme Court is right, which we can agree with [though I would say it is for different reasons], and since we are not in the judicial branch- then, according to your exclusion of all others from interpretation of the law except for those in the judicial branch, then it seems to me that your line of reasoning would more likely conclude that we laymen can't be right or wrong with interpreting the law, because we are not in the judicial branch. But then it would fit that we have greater opportunity to be wrong, as you say, because only the Supreme Court can be right.

Hmm... No. then it seems to me that your line of reasoning would more likely conclude that we laymen can't be right or wrong with interpreting the law, because we are not in the judicial branch. we laymen aren't, not can't be, right or wrong with interpreting the law. The way laws are written have a very specific language and must be enacted in a specific format - the legislative branch writes and votes on enacting a bill to become law. The judicial branch interprets that bill or law impartially and the executive branch executes and upholds those laws. Yet, only the judicial branch is supposed to be impartial, so in a sense, if it remains impartial it really isn't right or wrong - it is neutral. We laymen are not neutral in our interpretations becuase we lack knowledge and experience with law and have little to no knowledge or resources to draw upon in our conclusion. For example, Brown v Board of Education or Miranda v Arizona - these and every case in every level of court are published and cataloged yearly in case citations and law reports which state Legal Opinion. Opinions are usually published at the direction of the court, and to the extent they contain pronouncements about what the law is and how it should be interpreted, they reinforce, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent. Clearly not something that laymen who have no experience in any way with the law shoudl be allowed to do. My brother is not a lawyer - and I wouldn't allow him to represent me in court, nor allow him to ass a judgment becuase he would be wrong based on his lack of neutrality and lack of legal familiarity. Do you see what I'm saying now?

Because your view is that all interpretation is limited to the judicial branch, the police cannot be right or wrong.

Police are part of the executive branch, their opinions on a case do not matter as they are not neutral so their interpretations has greater risk of being wrong based on being partial. Fortunately they do not decide what the law is or how to interpret it, their job is to enforce and uphold, and their actions, inactions, ability to do and inability to do are what make them wrong. Police is to Judge as carrots are to eyeballs.

And in Troy's case, they may have been wrong. But if I am not mistaken, I think we are both saying, but for different reasons, that the Supreme court SHOULD rule on the procedural aspects of Troy's case.

Yes - we're on the same team for different reasons. It's a brief tryst we're having, you and I. As an aside, and before I make a closing summation of points and counter points (read: argument), I'd like to commend you in your tenacity, candor and level of intelligence displayed on your end. You can run with the best of 'em, I'll give you that much. You'd do well with or against users such as Jack Huang, Iarnucon, Vas, Top Jedi, Stacy Malbon and Celestina (those are the only people who I've first hand gone toe to toe with at epic length on controversial topics such as this and not wanted to kick their teeth in at some point). Good show.

Geeez...atta boy, Shawn, you tell him! :o)
(*You can see that she has nothing better to do than to egg people on in a fight!*)

Look out there, Ms CYPRAH, here I am, ready to take Shawn on!  ;-[

[but I know you and many others are ready to take over should I be unable to complete my task, I am most definitely sure of it.] :-)

My response will be here shortly....

OH this "Normal" Mode doesn't seem so normal right now!

@ Shawn,

...First, most can deduce that partial information will slant a decision that is supposed to be impartial.

Agreed, up to a point. Partial information won't ALWAYS slant a decision away from impartiality, but it CAN, and I would not hesitate to say that it probably will.

Second, what is the defense and prosecution other than partial sides of the same argument presented before an audience previously ignorant to the facts?

Okay, yes ... but then, because neither side presents all the information, does this mean that the entire amount of information is ever presented? And does this then mean that every decision is based on partial information?

I'm adamantly attempting to say that if Troy did not get a fair trial - irrespective of how or why the trial was unfair but only that it is found to be in any way unfair, Troy should be given the opportunity to be found guilty or innocent with the same dignity, respect and humanity as any other American citizen.

Hear, hear!! I second that!! That's all I've been trying to say, too.

I did say something along those lines int eh context of purgered witnesses - not in a way that is to say things shoudl stay the same, but in a way that is saying purgery discredits future credibility and diminished the integrity the defense desperately would need once we get to the hypothetical stage of innocence / guilt- and in THAT old and new testimony from the same witnesses would cancel each other out.

Ah, this is where I misunderstood/you miscommunicated/a little of both. I had been under the impression that you didn't think recanting witnesses is a sufficient-enough reason for stopping the execution and having a retrial. I didn't realize that your main problem with the witnesses had to do with what is now only a hypothetical retrial in the future. My apologies.

Incidentally, I think I have already stated and argued my view that their credibility would NOT be diminished, and therefore their testimony does not get canceled out. But as you say, that is a hypothetical at this time so I will leave it at that.

...this off center weight in principle is what caused the problem. People, specificlaly the system can't be unfair when it suits them.

Yes, the off center weight of the criminal justice system against one man is what caused the problem, because when the system allows injustice in the form of unfairness to occur, the one man does not have the counter-balancing weight to get fairness restored.

As you said, the imbalance brought about by the 'guilty' bandwagon brought about the imbalance by the 'innocent' bandwagon - but remind me of when two wrongs made a right?

Well, 'imbalances' are not, in themselves, 'wrongs'. They have the potential to be wrongs, which is why we should be constantly watching for when an imbalance becomes a wrong,... but imbalances are not inherent wrongs. After all, in a country that has a government where decisions are made by majority, it can be said that imbalances are necessary to get anything done.

Imbalances do become wrongs, however, when those with the imbalance in their favor use it to produce a result that goes against such principles as, among others, justice and fairness.

How is it we can preach impartiality of the system when we use social partiality enforce it? Are you really arguing against: "both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is" in one statement and then turning back around and justifying it with the life of man who has the POTENTIAL to be EQUALLY innocent or guilty?

I am actually arguing against the A therefore B of "both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is". I do not think that B must follow A, that "everything should remain as it is BECAUSE both sides are using partial information", which is one of the points I thought you were arguing for, but as I said, I now know that you were not.

There is a heavy price for neutrality my friend, heavy indeed. You don't have to pay it, nor do I - not right now, but someone somewhere does and I think in this context the price is making things right fairly, impartially. My ills are from the people who just make a second hand opinion about the guilt or innocence about Troy, which stems from my desire to get more information outside of a couple of sources (credibility aside).

Right, I think I get what you're saying, that partial information in the wrong hands can someday cause an innocent person to be declared guilty. This time, some of those with partial information are saying 'Troy is innocent!", but next time, some of those with partial information will say that someone is guilty, when in actuality he is not. And if I'm not mistaken, you're also saying that when people are fully informed, they will always make the proper decision. I must take some issue with both points.

While I would agree that partial information in the wrong hands CAN cause an innocent person to be declared guilty- when it is in the hands of those who tilt the imbalance towards unfairness or injustice- it doesn't necessarily follow that partial information ALWAYS causes an innocent person to be declared guilty. I contend this to be so because it is not partial information alone that is always at the root of what causes an innocent person to be declared guilty, or a guilty person to be declared innocent, but rather that it is the existence of an imbalance, one that leans more toward those who are seeking the unfair or unjust result, which is the root cause of those injustices. Partial information in the wrong hands most definitely MAY play a part in the unfairness or the unjust outcome, but it does not have to play a part in it at all. The imbalance towards unfairness/injustice is necessary, but the partial information is only sufficient for an unfairness or injustice to occur.

As to why I do not think that having full information will always lead to fairness and justice, it is because sometimes- whether it be because of prejudice, hatred, they want to scapegoat 'somebody,anybody!', or they just don't like the accused person- people are simply going to act unfairly or unjustly anyways, even when they are fully informed ... and even in spite of being fully informed. And those are going to be particularly among those times, when the imbalance remains too much on the side of prejudice, hatred, scapegoating, plain dislike, etc., that it will be the most difficult, and maybe even impossible, to stop the unfairness and injustice.

But let me say here that in this case, in Troy's case, I have great hope that this is NOT going to be one of those times.

With Troy's case, I cannot say for certain what the imbalance towards unfairness is based upon. It could just be a simple lack of full information, it could be one or more of those other items I just mentioned, or it could be both. I know that some people here have their own personal opinions about it, and while I have my own suspicions about what has led to an imbalance towards unfairness, about WHY the unfairness was carried out, such as how the need to find a cop-killer quickly may have taken precedence over the need for justice, it isn't really a factor as to HOW the unfairness has been carried out. All that needs to be done to shift the imbalance back towards fairness and justice is that the Supreme Court rule simply that fairness was NOT carried out, and that actions need to be taken, such as a retrial, to ensure that it IS carried out.

I see your point and I do not disagree but sometimes, we can't do anything and no matter how much it downright sucks, there is nothing more we can do except watch and become more preventative and forward thinking / looking.

As I said, I agree that sometimes we can't do anything about it [the plane can't be diverted, the bomb can't be defused, etc.], so this should cause us to become more preventative and forward thinking / looking, but sometimes we CAN do something about it I didn't mean to imply in a past posting that something can always be done, and as I have explained here earlier, it's true that sometimes nothing can be done- which MAY mean that there is some component of the system that still is not quite living up to the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", something about the system that is allowing an imbalance based on prejudice, hatred, scapegoating, plain dislike, etc. to go on. Or maybe it's just because we as people who can see or detect that there is an imbalance towards unfairness or injustice just aren't doing enough to shift the imbalance back towards fairness and justice!

This too carries a price (i.e. the Patriot Act),...

Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act.

...but where do we draw the line on what is an "acceptable loss"? Does ths line shift with the times or on a case by case basis?

As I see it, it's not so much about being an "acceptable loss" as it is an "unstoppable loss", as per the explanation I gave above regarding those instances where prejudice, hatred, scapegoating, plain dislike, etc., are what the imbalance towards unfairness is based upon- and so because each case in which such an imbalance exists can be based on entirely different things, which is further complicated by the case-by-case application of due process, there is no hard-and-fast line where it becomes an unstoppable loss, and thus is on a case-by-case basis.

if on a case by case, are you, we, I , or they prepared to devote this much time and energy to every single person with injust treatment in an allegedly just system?

The goal of correcting all unfair treatment of someone who may be innocent is going to take some devotion of time and energy to reach it. Is every case going to require this much time and energy? No. Some will require more, some less, but to find and correct all the cases in the system where there was unfair treatment of someone who may be innocent would require more time than anyone has.

But does this mean that we shouldn't even try to stop any unjust treatment from happening just because we can't get to all of them?

I say we should do what we can to prevent the unjust treatment of someone who may be innocent! We cannot allow this to happen even one time without doing what we can to stop it, because once we let it happen once, it becomes a little easier to let it happen again, and then again, and again- and before you or I or any of us know it, there will be no such thing as fairness and justice. It will simply no longer exist.

I say we, as individuals, cannot allow fairness and justice to become nonexistent in America! I say that we should each put in some time and effort into achieving the goal of fairness and justice for all, of trying to reach the ideal of a justice system where all are treated justly and fairly... but we each must decide for ourselves how much time and effort we will put into it, and I hesitate to judge harshly those people who do not see the need to work towards those objectives. I think the time and effort used up on being critical towards them would instead be better spent in trying to get them to understand.

Freedom has duties or responsibilities that we, as individuals, must carry out to the best of our ability in order to hold on to that freedom.

My hope is that, at the very least, every American feels that sense of duty or responsibility, and that it includes the responsibility to do what they can to prevent the unfair treatment of those who may be innocent.

Are we going to change the system for every case by case project that is found? These are all questions that should things be permanently changed, will be asked from here on out.

People seem to generally talk about "the criminal justice system" as though it is a fixed, unchanging entity, but I would say that the criminal justice system is not static and certainly does change, because of the case-by-case aspect as previously discussed, because laws change, because interpretation of laws change, because of the effect that one or more factors within and outside the system [such as, say, prison overcrowding] have on other factors of the system, and so on. So, taking this into account, it could be, though it is not a certainty, that the system will change with every case that is taken up as one where there may have been unfair or unjust treatment. But as there is always and already change occurring to the criminal justice system, I don't think it should be considered to be so unusual.

...I'm biased against, to some degree, making a change that would let an equal amount of injustice occur in the opposite direction. Again, neutrality has a price to pay and unfortunately it is not always the neutral party who pays...

You argue that fairness for Troy may result in some guilty people to go free ... but have you considered that to NOT get fairness for Troy could result in other potentially innocent people to be declared guilty? Where is the justice in that? As both points are essentially hypotheticals because we don't know what the actual effect of getting fairness to Troy, or not getting fairness to Troy, is... then I argue that to NOT pursue fairness for Troy on the reasoning that to do so might let the hypothetical guilty would go free essentially means that we are placing a greater importance on the hypothetical guilty who would go free above the hypothetical innocent who would be declared guilty if it had been decided to give Troy fair treatment. This [hypothetically, of course] creates multiple injustices- more innocent people imprisoned and/or executed, less guilty people receiving just punishment for their crimes- as well as multiple court cases that could come under scrutiny for unfairness/injustice. This entire scenario goes against the ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty', which only gives further reinforcement to the argument that it should be determined whether Troy received unfair treatment, and if so, to grant him a retrial in an effort to restore fairness to his case.

there's circular logic in there at some point, well.... more like 'mobius strip logic'. I again, respectfully disagree. No Constitutional Amendment can be repealed outright, but amended to negate...

My point wasn't so much about amending the Constitution as it was about how the Constitution is interpreted. Amending it would obviously change the interpretation, but it can also happen through the Supreme Court.

Mobius strip logic? Heh, heh, that's a good one, I'll have to remember that one. But hey, it's better than boring old circular logic! ;-)

But really, I think it just needs further explanation. The example you gave earlier of the parental notification & consent laws may help to "straighten out" what I was trying to say.

The Supreme Court interpreted the law to be that unless a state passed a law requiring parents to be notified and to give consent before a minor has an abortion, then the minors of the state did not have to bother with parental notification/consent. As far as all executive agencies of the American government are concerned, the Supreme Court is right ... The Supreme Court is ALWAYS right.

Some Americans will agree with the Court's interpretation, some Americans seem to don't really care, so these two groups will take no action to change it. Some people, however, do not agree. They think that the Court's interpretation is wrong, and that the correct interpretation is to make parental notification/consent mandatory. So through the appropriate actions available to them, and by getting people who only care about having a parental notification/consent state law to join the bandwagon, laws get passed in several states requiring parental notification/consent. As more and more states pass these laws, more and more people decide that they think the Court's interpretation is incorrect. The process continues, and if/when it reaches a point where the Court's interpretation can be challenged, then the Court may have to look at the issue once again. So the prospect arises, as I said, that the American people will change the American government's current interpretation of law, if the Court decides to take the challenge, reverses itself, and reinterprets the law to be that parental notification/consent before a minor can have an abortion is always required. It isn't a certainty that the interpretation will change, only the prospect exists that it will.

...we laymen aren't, not can't be, right or wrong with interpreting the law.

I'll agree, we aren't right or wrong, as far as the American government's interpretation of the law is concerned, as it is reflected in the executive agencies of the government ... because while we can make our own personal interpretations of the law all we want, and WE think that we are right, our interpretation has no effect, right or wrong, on how the Supreme Court interprets the law until the Court decides to review a particular law- a law that is only comes up for review in the first place because some American decided that the current interpretation of the law is incorrect.

Yet, only the judicial branch is supposed to be impartial, so in a sense, if it remains impartial it really isn't right or wrong - it is neutral.

Impartiality is one thing, but neutrality is another. It can interpret a law impartially, but once it has interpreted the law, it has 'taken a side', so to speak, of what is the correct interpretation. All other interpretations become incorrect, and only the Court's interpretation is correct. Its neutrality on that law is gone, until it decides to review a challenge to that law sometime in the future.

We laymen are not neutral in our interpretations becuase we lack knowledge and experience with law and have little to no knowledge or resources to draw upon in our conclusion.

Yes I agree.

...Opinions are usually published at the direction of the court, and to the extent they contain pronouncements about what the law is and how it should be interpreted, they reinforce, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent. Clearly not something that laymen who have no experience in any way with the law shoudl be allowed to do. My brother is not a lawyer - and I wouldn't allow him to represent me in court, nor allow him to ass a judgment becuase he would be wrong based on his lack of neutrality and lack of legal familiarity. Do you see what I'm saying now?

Yes, I do see what you're saying, and I think I can see why you're saying it- because of the danger of allowing laws to be interpreted by someone who is not knowledgeable about the law. I definitely acknowledge the danger, it is real, and yet the reason that interpretations ever get either reinforced, changed, establish, or overturned, is because someone has their own interpretation of the law and believes theirs is the correct one- and that is why the only interpretation that is the right one, as far as the executive agencies of the government are concerned, is the Supreme Court's interpretation.

Police are part of the executive branch, their opinions on a case do not matter as they are not neutral so their interpretations has greater risk of being wrong based on being partial. Fortunately they do not decide what the law is or how to interpret it, their job is to enforce and uphold, and their actions, inactions, ability to do and inability to do are what make them wrong. Police is to Judge as carrots are to eyeballs.

I will agree that the executive branch's job is to do act according to the judicial branch's interpretation of the law, but when you say that

"... their opinions on a case do not matter as they are not neutral so their interpretations has greater risk of being wrong based on being partial"

then it sounds like you are saying that every action of the police is essentially an interpretation of the law, which is what I have been saying. Furthermore, if every action is an interpretation of the law, then the actions of the police [their interpretations of the law] should be in total conformity with the Court's interpretation of the law. When they are not, there is a likelihood that someone was treated unfairly.

Yes - we're on the same team for different reasons.

Good to be on the same team with you. I wouldn't want you on the opposing team! ;-)

And may I take this opportunity to thank you for your kind words of respect. I sincerely appreciate it, as well as your articulateness in expressing yourself, your ability to find the weak spot in MY positions, and how you are so formidable in defending your positions! I am still fairly new around here, and I didn't know who I had unintentionally put myself up against, but it all worked out for the best in that in the process of explaining and defending my positions to you, I came to understand my own reasoning on all of this so much better.

Wow, wow, wow! Were you writing a tome, Don! Truly impressive! Great show lads. Time to call it quits yet? :o)

AGAIN!

@ QD

ready to take Shawn on!

Ah Ha! Well... didn't anyone teach you that you shouldn't play with fire?

Agreed, up to a point. Partial information won't ALWAYS slant a decision away from impartiality, but it CAN, and I would not hesitate to say that it probably will.

I agree, and those who need proof need only watch network news, or read 'sources' such as Daily Kos and Townhall. However, I still believe that partial information in mass, which is what has happened with Troy in both directions of innocence / guilt has done a damn good job of swaying a decision. I would even argue that this is so prevalent and factual that there sadly needs to be sites like 'factcheck.org' to keep both presidential nominees honest in their campaign ads, which are designed to give partial information that sways and swoons.

Okay, yes ... but then, because neither side presents all the information, does this mean that the entire amount of information is ever presented? And does this then mean that every decision is based on partial information?

Yes, in a certain context I agree that the information lacks entirety. I would however, also point out that there needs to be allotment for other factors such as time and circumstantial availability. If the Defense Attorney presentes facts to elevate the probability of innocense and the Prosecuting Attorney presents facts the elevate the probability of guilt then yes, partial information has been given in both sense of the word (partial:incomplete and partial:biased), but it is the Judge and Jury who listen to the arguments given and compile the information. From the stance of the Judge, the information is given in entirety because he's impartial and can only make a choice off of what he's given. He may have questions, but it is not his job to ask them - that is the lawyers job. The Jury is supposed to make a decision based on the information and they review that information as if it is all the information available - so... no, all of the information has been given. If a jury feels that information is missing they may hang.

I didn't realize that your main problem with the witnesses had to do with what is now only a hypothetical retrial in the future. My apologies.

It happens. No worries.

Yes, the off center weight of the criminal justice system against one man is what caused the problem, because when the system allows injustice in the form of unfairness to occur, the one man does not have the counter-balancing weight to get fairness restored.

Right, but what I'm asking via statement is given that the system is built upon fair principle, is it right to counter the imbalance by using the same broken principle? I say no. It would be right is the system we changed to disallow the same broken principle relapse, but to utilize and condoe the bandwagon as a counter balance in favor lack principle integrity and that, to me, is just as wrong especially when we want to work to make the system better. Dont' get me wrong, I also believe that when a man has an advantage it is silly to not use it, but that doesn't extend into a system that is founded upon and operates through supposedly rigid rules clearly defining what is and is not fair. If Troy were innocent and had been found innocent in an unfair way, I'd think many people would be trying to equally condemn him with bandwagon weights, and there would be many groups calling out to stop it. Why then is it okay to do this when the outcome is possibly in the positive - that's my point. If you wouldn't do it in one direction, then it evidences the unfairness and lack of ethical judgment to do it in the opposite direction. Of course I'm speaking about the principle alone.

The imbalance towards unfairness/injustice is necessary, but the partial information is only sufficient for an unfairness or injustice to occur.

If partial information contributes to injustice and unfairness, then it is wrong. it can not at the same time be needed to make it right is it is wrong simultaneously.

Well, 'imbalances' are not, in themselves, 'wrongs'.

Remember, we're talking about principle alone. Anything else I'd agree with your assertions about them being 'potential wrongs', but principles in a fair system, in my opinion tend to be very black and white.

You argue that fairness for Troy may result in some guilty people to go free ... but have you considered that to NOT get fairness for Troy could result in other potentially innocent people to be declared guilty? Where is the justice in that?

Yes I have, and it is a possibility that bears the same weight. Context here, is perception. As much as it sort of sucks to say it in this fashion, I would argue that trapping an innocent man hurts one person while freeing a guilty man hurts many. Again we're facing "acceptable loss" territory and the willingness of some to pay that price. The question then become who is willing, why are they willing and would they be willing should they face such circumstance. I think no man (read:person) would willingly face a sentence such as Troy is if they were innocent, nor should they, but how willing would the majority be to accept the greater prospect (and I say greater becuase there are more guilty men in prison than innocent who find themselves imprisoned based on fair trials) of guilty men to go free and repeat their offense (but that's hypothetical in that 'would they repeat the offense?' and 'does setting a guilty man free advocate, facilitate, or encourage repeat offending?' - all things that should be ventured into no further based on the degree of conjecture)

I am actually arguing against the A therefore B of "both sides are using partial information and so everything should remain as it is". I do not think that B must follow A, that "everything should remain as it is BECAUSE both sides are using partial information", which is one of the points I thought you were arguing for, but as I said, I now know that you were not.

Okay.... well, normally I'm pretty epistemic, but in this debate I felt searching for the relevant alternatives was by far more important to combat the bandwagoning that had been happening. I feel you too were doing this.

People seem to generally talk about "the criminal justice system" as though it is a fixed, unchanging entity, but I would say that the criminal justice system is not static and certainly does change, because of the case-by-case aspect as previously discussed, because laws change, because interpretation of laws change, because of the effect that one or more factors within and outside the system [such as, say, prison overcrowding] have on other factors of the system, and so on. So, taking this into account, it could be, though it is not a certainty, that the system will change with every case that is taken up as one where there may have been unfair or unjust treatment. But as there is always and already change occurring to the criminal justice system, I don't think it should be considered to be so unusual.

Okay. I see what you're saying. I may have underrepresented my view in an over complex manner. I'll restate for clarity.
"Let's not be knee jerk with it." I'm a Moderate Conservative Republican, so I'm not against progression, but I am against progressing without careful thought to consequence and being prompt in decisions to the point of recklessness. I hope you can appreciate that line of thinking, and I understand that terms such as "reckless" and "careful"... even "consequence" vary in definition because of how subjective the context of the terms are. I don't know your political alignment, and so far I don't think it's been a integral part of our debates, but I also feel that it might help you understand WHY I feel some of the things I do without making blanket assumptions.

Impartiality is one thing, but neutrality is another. It can interpret a law impartially, but once it has interpreted the law, it has 'taken a side', so to speak, of what is the correct interpretation. All other interpretations become incorrect, and only the Court's interpretation is correct. Its neutrality on that law is gone, until it decides to review a challenge to that law sometime in the future.

Hmm.... damn.... Your kung fu is good, now try mine

According to Bernard Gert, "A is impartial in respect R with regard to group G if and only if A's actions in respect R are not influenced at all by which member(s) of G benefit or are harmed by these actions."

-source I'd argue that while "neutral" and "impartial" are not strictly synonymous, they are laterally intrinsic. This however, does need clarification as to whether we're tlaking about moral position or philosophical position. In this case I'd say we're both right depending on the context. My context is philosophical (not to be correct or more correct), and that has been my platform through most of this debate - philosophy and principal. I've aired on the side of morality here and there but morals are subjective, in my opinion. I hold this opinion because morals are endlessly contentious ideas and not scientific since they do not exist independent of human preconception and do not have universal standard such a does the rate of gravity (9.6m/s^2). Conversely, philosophy is not scientific, and also subjective but more in line with the system in which we live. Also, I can sense that this may spur a debate over guilt / shame society... and unless we want to drag on off topic for days on end, I'll leave it at that.

The Supreme Court interpreted the law to be that unless a state passed a law requiring parents to be notified and to give consent before a minor has an abortion, then the minors of the state did not have to bother with parental notification/consent. As far as all executive agencies of the American government are concerned, the Supreme Court is right ... The Supreme Court is ALWAYS right.

Yes, but the catch here is that the Supreme Court;s rule and opinion on Roe V Wade makes passing a State law that requires a minor to report an abortion to legal guardian, unconstitutional (violates right to privacy - the basis for the Roe V Wade ruling). So, the Supreme court is always right, but our interpretation nd feels on the rulings are what make us feel is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we don't have to do it . Let's not confuse thought and action.

then it sounds like you are saying that every action of the police is essentially an interpretation of the law, which is what I have been saying. Furthermore, if every action is an interpretation of the law, then the actions of the police [their interpretations of the law] should be in total conformity with the Court's interpretation of the law. When they are not, there is a likelihood that someone was treated unfairly.

Hmm... No. Actions of the Police are not interpretations of the law. Each cop should act the same in the same situations. All speeders observed speeding shoudl get a ticket. If they do not, it is not because the cop misinterpreted the law, it is because they did not act upon the law. Just as you note that neutral and impartial do not mean the same thing, note that interpretations and actions are not he same (and not close to interchangeable) - they are intrinsic. It seems as though you're using the same line of thought "I think therefore I am". I disagree with that thought becuase it directly opposes "guilty until proven innocent". A rapist is only a rapist if he rapes, not if he thinks about raping, just as a cop is not unjust if he misinterprets that which he has not acted upon.

and I didn't know who I had unintentionally put myself up against

Dude - I'm just some guy. I'm not a well known super special 'followed' person. I like it that way.

Good to be on the same team with you. I wouldn't want you on the opposing team! ;-)

On the contrary, I'd rather enjoy being amicably against you. I firmly believe that we learn the most form those whom we oppose.

I came to understand my own reasoning on all of this so much better.

Welcome to Newsvine, enlightened one.

On the contrary, I'd rather enjoy being amicably against you. I firmly believe that we learn the most form those whom we oppose.

Excellent! Don?

@Shawn;

First of all, I see I need to make something more clear about actions as they relate to interpretation of the law. Words in brackets are mine:

...our interpretation ... on the [Supreme Court] rulings are what make us feel is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we don't have to do it . Let's not confuse thought and action.

...Actions of the Police are not interpretations of the law. Each cop should act the same in the same situations. All speeders observed speeding shoudl get a ticket. If they do not, it is not because the cop misinterpreted the law, it is because they did not act upon the law....interpretations and actions are not he same (and not close to interchangeable) - they are intrinsic.

I won't disagree with you that interpretations and actions are not the same, and so actions of the police are not interpretations of the law. The actions of the police, or really of anyone, are, in relation to the law, outward expressions of either a) the individual's personal interpretation of the law is in total agreement with the Court's interpretation of the law, b) the person's willingness to act in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law even though his or her own personal interpretation does not totally agree with the Court's interpretation, or c) the person's unwillingness to act in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law because his or her own personal interpretation does not totally agree with the Court's interpretation.

So even though every speeder a police officer observes should be ticketed, they aren't, because the officer's personal interpretation of the law does not agree with the Court's interpretation of the law that every observed speeder should be ticketed. Maybe the officer just thinks that only the speeders in red cars should be ticketed , or only the speeders who are black are ticketed, or a myriad of other possible ways in which the officer does not totally agree with the Court's interpretation of the law. The point is, the officer's personal interpretation is not in total agreement with the Court's interpretation of the law, and so he or she has acted in a way that expresses this, by not ticketing every observed speeder.

----

Two things you stated really stood out to me. (emphasis mine)

...to utilize and condone the bandwagon as a counter balance in favor lack principle integrity...

and

...philosophy is not scientific, and also subjective but more in line with the system in which we live.

Your point about the bandwagon and the lack of principle integrity certainly calls into question whether the integrity of the principle called fairness has been affected, but as you said, "...principles in a fair system ...tend to be very black and white", so this would indicate that the principle itself, as an ideal that we try to attain, is unchanging, and consequently if it can't be changed, then either it's followed or it isn't, yes?

This begs the question: Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness? What follows is an attempt to answer this question...

If Troy were innocent and had been found innocent in an unfair way, I'd think many people would be trying to equally condemn him with bandwagon weights, and there would be many groups calling out to stop it. Why then is it okay to do this when the outcome is possibly in the positive - that's my point. If you wouldn't do it in one direction, then it evidences the unfairness and lack of ethical judgment to do it in the opposite direction. Of course I'm speaking about the principle alone.

It shouldn't be okay if fairness is to be followed by the criminal justice system. And yet it happens. Ah, but I have not answered the question yet. Keep reading...

...I also believe that when a man has an advantage it is silly to not use it, but that doesn't extend into a system that is founded upon and operates through supposedly rigid rules clearly defining what is and is not fair.

The rules may be rigid, but the application of those rules are not, as we see with due process.

Due process, when done right, is applied on a case-by-case basis either to ensure that an innocent person is not found guilty. When it is not done right, due process is applied so as to make it harder or impossible for an innocent person to be found not guilty. The latter happens when those who are applying the rules are part of an imbalance that purposely weighs towards making it harder or impossible for an innocent person to be found not guilty because of prejudice, scapegoating, etc.

I know, I still haven't answered the question I specifically stated earlier: Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness? Read on....

...From the stance of the Judge, the information is given in entirety because he's impartial and can only make a choice off of what he's given.

...The Jury is supposed to make a decision based on the information and they review that information as if it is all the information available - so... no, all of the information has been given. If a jury feels that information is missing they may hang.

Okay, barring any occurrence of a hung jury, the trial goes on and a decision is reached. But if the decision is 'guilty',... what if an appeal will reveal that information was not given in its entirety, that the jury did not get to see all the information available, information that could have exonerated the defendant? In the interests of preventing someone who may be innocent from being found guilty, the appeals Judge should grant a retrial.

If partial information contributes to injustice and unfairness, then it is wrong. it can not at the same time be needed to make it right is it is wrong simultaneously.

As you said previously, both the prosecution and the defense use partial information, yes? So then, partial information can be simultaneously right and wrong. The system allows it, because if the defendant is found guilty, there is the possibility of appeal on the basis that not all the exonerating information was presented.

According to Bernard Gert, "A is impartial in respect R with regard to group G if and only if A's actions in respect R are not influenced at all by which member(s) of G benefit or are harmed by these actions."

Then I would say that a Judge, or in fact the entire system, is not always impartial in terms of its decisions on due process, because it is not likely to be found that a defendant was not given due process, even if true, if the finding could lead to a potential reversal from innocence to guilt on appeal. It is more likely it will be made if the appeal can lead to a potential reversal from guilt to innocence.

Although, your same citation goes on to explain Ronald Dworkin's thoughts on impartiality...

Impartiality does not require, however, that individuals be treated equally under all circumstances. People or groups should be treated differently if they merit different treatment according to external and objective morality. For example, most legal systems seek to treat murderers differently than innocent persons. This is not a result of partiality, however, because it appeals to an external, objective standard – the law -- rather than bias or prejudice.

Thus, what impartiality requires is not that everyone receive equal treatment, but rather that everyone be treated as an equal (Dworkin 1977, p. 227).

So, per Dworkin, perhaps Judges are impartial in the sense that while an action may appear unequal, it has the overall effect of ensuring that all persons are treated equally in the system?

However, whichever way we look at this issue of impartiality, it doesn't sound like the principle of fairness is being exactly followed, does it?

One more time: Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness? I think you may already have your own answer, but mine will follow here shortly.

A summary of the points presented here:

*The notion that bandwagons are fine for working to change an outcome from guilty to innocent, but it is treated as a witch-hunt when it aims to change an outcome from innocent to guilty.

*Rules that involve due process are applied so that the innocent person will not be found guilty, and not applied to make it harder for an innocent person to be found not guilty, even when it would be the fair thing to do.

*Retrials are done in order to prevent someone who may be innocent from being found guilty, but not so much to have someone who was already declared innocent to now be found guilty.

*The system allows partial information, because it can be appealed that the full information be brought out in a retrial if the defendant was found guilty in the original trial.

*Decisions on due process are not always impartial because they are more likely to be decided in a way that will prevent the defendant from being found guilty (not counting those times when there is an imbalance based on discrimination, scapegoating, etc.)

There is a common thread to all of these points, something that is part of all of them. For one thing, something NOT found in any of them, at least as far as a reason to account for why they are as described, was 'fairness'. But something that IS found in all of them are indications that the system is intended to function, when it is properly functioning, in a way that can reduce the likelihood of an innocent person to be found guilty and also not impede the innocent person's potential to be found not guilty.

This clearly is in keeping with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", which I have been inferring throughout this entire conversation is a very important principle that is followed by the criminal justice system. Of course, we all know this, but I consider it to be much more important than what is generally believed. I say this because of how the examples here show that the criminal justice system employs justice with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" as a practical means of following the ideal principle of fairness.

Therefore in answer to the question, Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness?, I say yes, through the practical means of "innocent until proven guilty".

...{to NOT get fairness for Troy could result in other potentially innocent people to be declared guilty} ....is a possibility that bears the same weight.

I would have to disagree. Under the practical means of "innocent until proven guilty", it would bear more weight.

... trapping an innocent man hurts one person while freeing a guilty man hurts many.

How is it hurting many? The victim or victims? They have already been hurt before he was freed. The hypothetical victims that the guilty man will harm in the future? There is no way of knowing this will happen. There is no way we can take ANY person, convicted criminal or not, and know for certain that he or she is going to commit a crime in the future. Should an innocent man be guilty just to prevent something that is hypothetical and that may or may not happen at all? And should we as a country be willing to do such a thing? But as you say, this is conjecture.

I'm a Moderate Conservative Republican, so I'm not against progression, but I am against progressing without careful thought to consequence and being prompt in decisions to the point of recklessness.

I think you can generally tell where someone tends to stand when he goes by the name of Quixote Don! Not to steal anyone's spotlight, but you could think of me as a 21st century evocation of the Original Maverick! ;-)

I hope you can appreciate that line of thinking, and I understand that terms such as "reckless" and "careful"... even "consequence" vary in definition because of how subjective the context of the terms are. I don't know your political alignment, and so far I don't think it's been a integral part of our debates, but I also feel that it might help you understand WHY I feel some of the things I do without making blanket assumptions.

Yes I do appreciate your line of thinking, I truly do, and I do not take your use of those terms in an extreme sense. And why I feel that there are times when something needs to be done to rectify or correct a wrong that has been done, I am fully aware that prudence, restraint, and discretion need to be part of deciding what needs to be done.

The actions of the police, or really of anyone, are, in relation to the law, outward expressions of either a) the individual's personal interpretation of the law is in total agreement with the Court's interpretation of the law, b) the person's willingness to act in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law even though his or her own personal interpretation does not totally agree with the Court's interpretation, or c) the person's unwillingness to act in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law because his or her own personal interpretation does not totally agree with the Court's interpretation.

But the Police has the choice removed by law to not act in accordance with how the Law in interpreted therefore the point become much less moot. "Person" would be anyone, as you've pointed out, but like military soldiers, Police are not citizens. Certain rights and actions are barred to them voluntarily.

Still... I stand by:

A rapist is only a rapist if he rapes, not if he thinks about raping, just as a cop is not unjust if he misinterprets that which he has not acted upon.

Given that we're talking about ideals, then ideally the Police wont act upon what is misinterpreted. This begs the question:

In order to be inactive upon a misinterpretation, one must make an interpretation to begin with, which isn't what cops do. Though, for a cop see a misinterpretation, he or she must have already made an interpretation of their own prior to deciding to act or remain inactive. I'll grant you that much, but again... we're talking about ideal situations and the attainment of an ideal. It is quite possible for a cop to simply do with out interpretation given that we've agreed upon:

principles in a fair system ...tend to be very black and white

So even though every speeder a police officer observes should be ticketed, they aren't, because the officer's personal interpretation of the law does not agree with the Court's interpretation of the law that every observed speeder should be ticketed.

No, and I thought I clarified this. Every speeder not getting ticketed has absolutely nothing to do with Police interpretation, but does ahve everything to do with action or inaction. A cop who, by your assertion, interprets the law as being too strict chooses to not give a ticket - then the inaction would be a direct reflection of the interpretation. I get that, however the cops do not interpret the law, and they know that the ticket should be given. Irrespective of what the cop thinks, he or she understands his or her job is to give a ticket to the aforementioned speeder. Failure to do so, is inaction alone. Your statement implies that the reason speeders are not ticketed is for the sole reason of Cope being in disagreement with the interpretation or an alternate personal interpretation and this is false. I revert back to the job of Police is not interpretation and if interpretation occurs the Police have overstepped their bounds unjustly.

We'll have to just disagree on this one.

so this would indicate that the principle itself, as an ideal that we try to attain, is unchanging, and consequently if it can't be changed, then either it's followed or it isn't, yes?

In this context, yes. Principles do change, and as I said before - in 1950 principle is was not proper for females to wear booty shorts with "JUICY" on the ass, today, that principle is close to gone since it happens. Again, in the context we're talking, the principle of fairness - yes, it doesn't change.

Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness?

Yes. That is the entire purpose.

So, per Dworkin, perhaps Judges are impartial in the sense that while an action may appear unequal, it has the overall effect of ensuring that all persons are treated equally in the system?

Yes.

However, whichever way we look at this issue of impartiality, it doesn't sound like the principle of fairness is being exactly followed, does it?

No, but that is why we say "try to attain" the ideal rather than "achieved" the ideal.

I get what you're saying here. You're saying that fairness is subjective even to impartial groups. Again, that is why we try to attain or say we try to attain instead of claiming we've achieved it. I also see your other point in that becuase it is not achieved then we shoudl allow the system to change to better work towards that ideal. I've had no issue with that much.

It shouldn't be okay if fairness is to be followed by the criminal justice system. And yet it happens.

Primarily from an outside source such as media. Case in point - the Current OJ case.

How is it hurting many? The victim or victims?

- answered in order they were asked. I said potential, not actual. Both

@Shawn;

In regards to the actions in relation to interpretations of the law, I actually think we both are saying that the police can do wrong actions, but we each arrive at this conclusion differently. I argue that action involves personal interpretation of the law, while you argue that action is without interpretation.

Ok, I agree to disagree.

Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness?blockquote>

Once again we agree, though I qualify it by saying the system follows it through the practical means of "innocent until proven guilty". On that point, I agree to disagree.

I get what you're saying here. You're saying that fairness is subjective even to impartial groups.

Again, that is why we try to attain or say we try to attain instead of claiming we've achieved it. I also see your other point in that becuase it is not achieved then we shoudl allow the system to change to better work towards that ideal. I've had no issue with that much.

I don't have issue with it either.

@Shawn;

In regards to the actions in relation to interpretations of the law, I actually think we both are saying that the police can do wrong actions, but we each arrive at this conclusion differently. I argue that action involves personal interpretation of the law, while you argue that action is without interpretation.

Ok, I agree to disagree.

Does the criminal justice system follow the ideal principle of fairness?

Yes. That is the entire purpose.

Once again we agree, though I qualify it by saying the system follows it through the practical means of "innocent until proven guilty".

On that point, I agree to disagree.

I get what you're saying here. You're saying that fairness is subjective even to impartial groups.

Again, that is why we try to attain or say we try to attain instead of claiming we've achieved it. I also see your other point in that becuase it is not achieved then we shoudl allow the system to change to better work towards that ideal. I've had no issue with that much.

I don't have issue with it either.

Disregard 7.48.  Had trouble with the new posting system [obviously].

KyanaBelle, please delete it if you like.

In the last few days, I have been witness to people from ALL walks of life, right wing, left wing, and no wing, come together in a common cause to save an innocent man.

I would have thought that, apart from getting that reprieve, the collaboration is the most important result of this action. That is a very important part of life: coming together on behalf of others. Are you saying that if Troy was a relative of yours, you wouldn't want Newsvine to do something about his plight, caroaber?

Normally, something like this wouldn't be given such attention. But this man is probably innocent. That is the only thing that matters: that he gets a chance to prove that innocence and get to keep his life. Surely, that comes above every other silly news item any day?

This case is special because so many "witnesses" have since recanted, with some claiming they were coerced. No one wants to see an innocent man executed, and I'm glad the Supreme Court got involved (though I wish it hadn't gone to a mere two hours before the execution). In ordinary circumstances, it doesn't take some 19 years for reasonable doubt to surface.

Like Kyana Belle, I serve in law enforcement. I sympathize with the family of Officer MacPhail, a man who got no reprieve.

By all means, let the courts review this case. Maybe the conviction will be overturned. (There's more doubt here than there is in the Pennsylvania case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of Officer Faulkner. Abu-Jamal's defenders, like the actor Ed Asner, aren't even concerned with his apparent guilt. They thumb their noses at Faulkner's widow.)

I don't see why the Davis case is being championed on a journalism site, that's all. I won't be changing my avatar to his photo, and I am not Troy Davis.

I don't see why the Davis case is being championed on a journalism site, that's all. I won't be changing my avatar to his photo, and I am not Troy Davis.

That is your right, caroaber, and as far as I can see, no one was coercing anyone to do anything. Every person who did something did it entirely freely. I wrote a couple of encouraging articles, for instance, and those who wanted to respoond, did so. I am sure there were tons who didn't. That's their right too.

Someone wrote me a polite email to ask if I would change my avatar in solidarity. I considered it and did it. The issue at stake was too important for me to wonder whether it should be happening on a news site or not. I think the day we put things before people and their lives is the day we really lose sight of why we are all here. Thanks for your input.

I don't see why the Davis case is being championed on a journalism site

It's been well established that Newsvine is not a journalism site. For the most part at least. If you don't believe me, I'd like to see you get the founders to publicly make that claim.

How different is the activism that took place to champion justice than all the argumentation that takes place incessantly everyday on Newsvine to champion a particular political position or candidate? I'm not just talking about in the comments, but in all the seeding and writing.

I and many veteran viners argued for a long time (nearly 2 years) that Newsvine should be more journalistic, or at least separate all the journalism from all the opinion. We failed. So many left. I've had one foot out the door for a long time. The foot that has stayed in accepts Newsvine for what it is now. In fact, using Newsvine for this effort was because of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Congratulations on your RAV nomination, Vas.

I am opposed to the death penalty, and I hope Mr. Davis gets more than one extra week.

Yes, NV is a community, but even though all who've read me know that I am opinionated, I noted a lack of objectivity concerning this matter.

But what could be more important than saving a life, quite possibly an innocent man's life?

Your efforts are appreciated.

Thanks, caroaber.

If anyone deserves a RAV, it is the entire group of people who heard the call and took action. The Newsviners who worked hard were one group out of many across the nation: large groups like Amnesty and the ACLU; medium groups like the Innocence Project and Innocence Matters; and lots of small spontaneous groups and friend networks. So I think we should be careful about claiming that "we saved Troy", unless "we" includes all of those groups and people, and recognizes that many have actually devoted years to this cause.

Great grassroots things happen only because enough individuals reject the thought, "Oh, someone else is on it, I won't make a difference." It gives my soul great joy to see so many people right here on our community deciding to act.

I and many veteran viners argued for a long time (nearly 2 years) that Newsvine should be more journalistic, or at least separate all the journalism from all the opinion. We failed. So many left. I've had one foot out the door for a long time. The foot that has stayed in accepts Newsvine for what it is now. In fact, using Newsvine for this effort was because of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Youuuu go vas. I and I`m sure Troy are very glad you stayed.

Thanks, jbdaad.

I don't see why the Davis case is being championed on a journalism site, that's all. I won't be changing my avatar to his photo, and I am not Troy Davis.

Well, if you figure that on the "intertubes" an untold number of people can pass by and read about a topic where with TV you have to get a group of people collective at a specific time that in the end will not get publicly cataloged - the odds of someone picking up this ball and running with it is... favorably innumerable.

I wouldn't say this is being championed, but I would say it's being explained and debated from various angles by those who have power to actually be cohesive with a plan to action of some kind. It's far superior to listening bad anchors make side comments about the "odd 'news' " segments between serial rapists and economic downturns.

@vas

So many left. I've had one foot out the door for a long time. The foot that has stayed in accepts Newsvine for what it is now. In fact, using Newsvine for this effort was because of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Mmmm... perception is context. I use it how I feel I want to at that time. In turn you should and can use it how you feel. Nothing stopped those who left from being journalistic and no one made them leave. Glad you stayed. Me, I come and go depending on my mood... but I do always come back.

I don't agree with being obligated as anything to do anything. I'm a firm believer in tryng to urge sympathy and action, but forcing it I am not an advocate of. If you tell me I have to care I wont. This is whY iget mad at a lot of interest groups. Believe what you like, do as you like, but do not tell me I'm obligated to care about anyone. It's not a law of anything to care, and therefore I feel I have the option to NOT care. I'm not saying that I dont care, obviously I do, but the point remains that at no point should anyone be forced to care - or not care - or b placed in a position where they feel compelled to care because of the repercussions from society for not caring.

Shawn,
No, unless...you say yes.  ; )

Even then maybe.

I agree with you, Shawn. [that's going to be a shock to some people!]

We shouldn't be forced to have to do anything. As I have stated earlier [in ONE of those posts!], I personally feel that Americans have duties and responsibilities, but as I also said, I believe we shouldn't be critical of those who don't share that feeling. To do so would go against American freedoms.

We can think how we want to think in America. At least we're supposed to be able to.

We can think how we want to think in America. At least we're supposed to be able to.

Too often that is not the case. Moral, social, legal, racial, etc., are rstrictions that a judge cannot afford. Ideally <----he will make the right choice.

How do you turn the blockquote of when your done and leave the quote?grrrrr