Wow at the police officer's mother's statement... I get that this is hard for her to go through, but...

"I think very unfair to us."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21...ion/?hpt=hp_t1

I don't blame her. I would feel the same way if I felt the correct person was convicted of the crime.

The prosecutors keep saying they have the right person for the crime.

I don't know - I'm less concerned about fairness to the victim's family when you consider the finality of an execution. Saying that it's tiring to go through this again and again? Sure. Saying something is unfair to you because his lawyers are doing their jobs? Yeah, I'm really not so concerned with fairness for them.

The thing that also irritated me was that she used "feel" a lot. ("I feel he is guilty". "We feel he is guilty").

For this type of absolute punishment, you need an absolute certainty. You can't kill people you "feel" are guilty.

Yes, I know he went to trial and yes, I know he was found guilty. BUT, the American Justice system (especially in a case with doubt as rampant as this one) is not an absolute.

Besides, if he isn't guilty, don't you want to know what really happened? People just fixate too much on a comfortable truth, without any regard as to if it is the actual truth.

Yeah well that is why there is always more than two sides to a story. I understand why the victim's family feels as they do. It is not their fault that this is happening. If they believe he is guilty, they believe he is guilty. It is painful for everyone involved.

No, I get that. It's hard to feel that the evil guilty person who stole your son/brother/etc. from you is "getting off" scot free. (Look at random people with Casey Anthony.....).

I just don't ever think another death justifies, rectifies, or amends the first. I don't think it can really soothe the heartache of having a loved one stolen from you.

This case is ridiculous.

Some many of the people who took the stand during Davis' trial have come back and said that were "coerced" or something along those lines. The American Justice system is extremely flawed. Casey Anthony got off, the jury citing a "lack of evidence" and Troy Davis is just days away from his death when there is an even greater lack of it? I don't want to turn this into a racial debate, but it's obvious that it's playing a big role here...

While the justice system is flawed and there are strong racial and social class issues (and other demographicsa and dynamics), I find it interesting that many people only highlight these issues when they personally disagree with a particular outcome. That is what happened when people were crying over Casey Anthony. The flaws of the justice system don't conveniently appear and disappear based on people's personal opinions.

If he is indeed innocent, I hope for justice for Troy Davis and for the families involved. No one is to blame for this perceived miscarriage of justice except for those who are accused of the perceived miscarriage of justice.

I agree with you 100% on this.

This, and while I can certainly find fault with a lawyer, police officer or whoever saying "we feel he his guilty," I won't criticize the victim's family for saying it.

And this. I also find it interesting that the system is "extremely flawed" based on these few "celebrity" examples that are a very small percentage of the trials held every year.

The system certainly has flaws, and one of those flaws is that the system relies on people, who make mistakes. Without question, we need to work to make the system better and fairer, but we can't ever think that there is a perfect system.

And this, except for the last bit. If Troy Davis is indeed innocent, isn't it also possible that those "accused of the perceived miscarriage of justice" may be wrongly accused? No one is to blame except for those who are actually responsible.

Exactly. This is all perceived and accused until proven otherwise.

I don't think any sane person would disagree with you on this point. From my perspective, there is no clear picture of who is being wrongfully accused. After all, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he is guilty and the length of the SCOTUS debate alone makes me think they have failed to do so.

(Of course, I am as far from a lawyer as you can get so I am probably wrong on many of these points, and I will of course concede to GC's resident lawyer.)

I also don't believe he should be executed, as I don't believe anyone should every be put to death, but that is something I personally feel and believe. (I even include the white supremacist in Texas who was put to death today in Texas's 11th execution this year.)

It is the jury that has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not SCOTUS. The role of an appellate court is not to re-examine the evidence, but to ensure that a trial was fair (in terms of constitutional rights, proper legal procedure, etc.) and free of error that might have prejudiced the defendant. While an appellate court can find the there was not evidence from which a reasonable jury could have determined guilt, an appellate court cannot substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's.

See I knew I had something incorrect. Thank you!

So (just to make sure I am understanding this), SCOTUS will be able to evaluate if there was coercion, a mistrial, falsified evidence, etc. but not be able to evaluate if the prosecution actually proved guilt?