"For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls. May God bless your souls.
"All I can ask... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth. I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight."
With these words, Troy Davis settled back into his chair and received an injection of a lethal coctail of drugs. He was was pronounced dead at 23:08 in the state of Georgia (04:08 Thursday, our time), 15 minutes after the lethal injection began. A black man convicted of having killed a white policeman in the deep south of the USA on the basis of partial evidence and retracted confessions, Davis could have been the main character of a novel written about racism fifty years ago. But his death is real. You can read more about the case here.
What is your opinion about the death penalty and death row?
Are we barbarians? Have not we evolved over time? I think that things are not working well, that this things arethe ones that make us go back. Because these are very old methods were the people were not highly educated and where they were not as streamlined as we do. A plus is that an inmate sentenced to death does not suffer the same pain as the one suffered by relatives of the victim. My opinion is that the prisoner would have to stay in prison until they die of old age, but not in one of these prisons of 5 stars. In conclusion I am totally against the death penalty.
ReplyDelete-Santi Tortajada
Well, it's obviously a very controversial topic, but we have to take into account that this man's case is exceptional, and does not reflect on the overall effectiveness of the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI support the death penalty, but I believe that for somebody to be sentenced to it the accused has to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and I think we can all agree that Troy Davis' case does in no way fall into that category.
I am astounded and appalled at the fact that they actually imposed the death penalty on this man, and I hope that his case remains open until we can know what exactly happened. It seems extremely sad that a man had to die over an inefficient law system, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.
- Jai Dadlani
As Jai said this is a very controversial topic and I don't think that you can ever be fair enough when you are talking about death penalty.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion death penalty should be the last step ever taken and I would say I am against it except when it can be proved that the person has very severe mental problems is dangerous for society.
Otherwise I think that we should try to avoid such cruelty because as many say no one has the right to take away anyone’s life.
In this case it's surprising how they managed to condemn this man with no evidence. I hope that this unfair death sentence makes people think deeper about this subject and that this death makes a before and after in this law so this man's death is not in vain.
Paula N.
I am totally against the death row. When you murder someone for any injustice made, you are taking their life away. However, the biggest pain is suffered by the families and friends surrounding the sentenced. They will lose a close member suddenly, while, with the long period sentence at prison, the member will not be lost or at least at a less painful rate.
ReplyDeleteAt prison, the criminal can meditate their errors and they will remember each one of them during the rest of their life.
Nevertheless, I do understand death row when the criminal has a mental and serious problem as they will never be able to see the errors he/she has made; as Paula said.
But this case is going to the opposite extreme. Under no circumstances a person should be murdered with no real and stable evidences proving that he/she is guilty. As Jai said, I also hope that this case is completely solved, so that no innocent person has been killed in vain.
PARAGRAPH 1
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I strictly think that death penalty is not an adequate sentence in any circumstance, since in my opinion it is worst to suffer for the rest of your life in prison - to finally die - than to die directly without having suffered. As a result, I think that murderers that ought to be punished should be therefore sentenced to life in prison to consider their acts and be let to die naturally. Not only for this do I consider the last mentioned a better option, but also for the fact that the person that is going to be executed may be innocent. If this is the case, then it is clearly visible that death penalty is not a good idea. I don’t agree with sentencing people to death, and even less in a case like this, were there are doubts about what happened. I think that what has happened in the state of Georgia is a brutality. And yet it’s probably not the first time that such a circumstance has taken place. It’s an act of craziness itself to sentence people to death. I know that if they do this it’s for a reason, to make them suffer or to make them experience what they have made someone experience, but still, anyone who commits an act of murder or any similarity has a problem and needs help. To end up with the life of a murderer is no solution, since it’s performing the simplest and quickest act the government can perform: ending up with the life of this person and therefore not dealing with the problem. Therefore I think that they should be left imprisoned for the rest of their lives, to think about what they have done, which I think is a lot worst. But still, to kill a human being shouldn’t be accepted under any circumstance.
ANA ADÁN
PARAGRAPH 2
ReplyDeleteTherefore and thinking it twice, death penalty actually has no sense to it. This is because one is being killed because of having killed another person. In a way the authorities are acting in the same way as the murderer. What I mean by this is that the authorities (in a way) don’t know how to deal with the murderer and so decide to sentence him to death in order to end up with the conflict. Instead they could make the murderer think about what he has done and educate him, but no, they end up with his life and that’s all. Imagine seeing this through some child’s eyes: a murderer is being punished by being killed (he is being penalized with exactly the same act of violence he has committed – but the authorities are now killing someone....), so if I want to punish someone, how should I do it? Killing? In the same way the law has done it?..
They are resolving the problem with the death of the murderer. Which is what the murderer has done: resolving the problem with the death of the victim. So the authorities kill the murderer in order to finish with the conflict the murderer has created. I think it has no ethic and no logic in it, because the law is killing someone for having killed someone. So in a way the killer castigates a victim by killing it and now the law is doing the same to the killer. And you may think, he receives what he has done to others, but it is not ethic because it has ended up with his life in order to punish him. And yet he is not learning anything of the punishment, because he can’t, since he is dead, and so he can’t consider what he has done right and what he has done wrong. Therefore I think that if he hasn’t learned it has no sense on doing it. The killer hasn’t got the opportunity to consider his acts and regret and feel ashamed of what he has done. He is directly ended up with and then forgotten about. A penalty is done to make the person who deserves it suffer, regret, think and learn. But he is directly killed because death is what frightens us humans most. It’s what terrifies human beings. And so it’s what they decide to do, to sentence him with death penalty. However, I think it is agreeable that it is better to die directly than not to be forty years dying. I think I am not making myself clear here, but what I want to transmit is the fact that death penalty is ending up with someone for having ended up with someone, which in a way is even worst, because it is departing for the quickest and the same solution, not thinking that deeper this is the easiest option for the killer, although it may not look like that. Also, the killer resolved the problem with death, and now the authorities are resolving the problem with death. Isn’t it strange?
ANA ADÁN
PARAGRAPH 3
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Troy Davis case “No gun was found and no DNA evidence conclusively linked Davis to the murder”. I’m stunned by the fact that they actually decided to kill him without being a hundred percent sure about if he had really killed the policeman or not. In addition, in this case they executed Davis as if he were the murderer, giving away the possibilities of him being innocent and of the real murdered being out in the streets. Imagining this is the true situation (which could be), the murderer is still free and may be willing to kill again. What's more, if they were to find out that he was innocent, a huge conflict would take place since they would have executed someone who isn’t guilty, but only suspicious. And there is no replacement, a person cannot be replaced. They would have executed the wrong person and it would be a dreadful situation for his family. This is also a reason for being against death sentence. In many murderers someone may have manipulated everything in order to confuse and make investigators think that it was another person. This is not likely to happen, but if it does and they discover it, then the innocent person cannot redo his life because he has been executed. And so there is no way of going back. Because, humans make mistakes and investigators can make an error and imprison the wrong person, but if this happens, they should be able to fix the situation. But once executed it’s impossible to get the person back. Imagine Davis was sentenced to life penalty. If he was later proved to be innocent, he would be able to redo his life, although he has lost time, the most valuable thing in the world. But he would be able to join his family and find happiness once again. But if he is dead, all this is impossible, which is why I find it extremely appalling that they have executed him without being sure if he was involved directly in the death of the policeman.
ANA ADÁN
I agree with Ana. But this case brings to light some inconsistencies that exist and have always existed.
ReplyDeleteOur society and our judicial system is by no means perfect. This is a fact that we conveniently ignore most of the time: starvation in the 3rd world while we gorge on hamburgers and throw away mini-mountains of imperfect fruit; children educated into crime through discrimination, poor role-models and an inadequate education system; corrupt police, politicians and business who act out of self-interest and shortsightedness, but who are doing no more or less than we do when we avoid taxes or falsify a claims form.
The difference is that in the case or Troy Davis, once he is dead, there is not even a remote chance of improving his situation. Death brings the whole process of change and improvement to an abrupt end - for him and those close to him.
We need to stop and reflect. Is the Judao-Christian concept of an 'eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' suitable or necessary? Is a quick 'clean' solution in the short-term (death) better than a long, drawn-out but ultimately more reliable process (prison)?
Ian.
PS. 'End up with' is not the same as 'Put an end to'.