As I don't have much time to check sources and write a thorough piece about Troy Davis, his alleged crime and the execution of him last night, I'll just write a simple op-ed-style piece.
I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty. At one time, I thought I supported, but as of my sophomore year in high school when I was 15 years old and writing a research paper on it, I realized my viewpoint was vastly different than what I had though previously.
Given that, I can understand how some people feel differently, as they like to reiterate the phrase "an eye for an eye" or a life for a life. However, in the court of law, doesn't it claim that one is innocent until proven guilty and that there must me no reasonable doubt to convict the person alleged of doing the crime? Why didn't that apply to the execution of Troy Davis? There were many doubters, some as high up as the FBI, and yet the man was executed? The man was not permitted to take a polygraph, the DNA evidence wasn't sufficient and several witnesses whom claimed Davis was the murderer later refuted their statements. There was reasonable doubt to this man's guilt, so again, why execute a potentially innocent man? I don't care what one's opinion is on the death penalty, but to kill a potentially innocent individual? I'm not sure how anyone could support that.
I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty. At one time, I thought I supported, but as of my sophomore year in high school when I was 15 years old and writing a research paper on it, I realized my viewpoint was vastly different than what I had though previously.
Given that, I can understand how some people feel differently, as they like to reiterate the phrase "an eye for an eye" or a life for a life. However, in the court of law, doesn't it claim that one is innocent until proven guilty and that there must me no reasonable doubt to convict the person alleged of doing the crime? Why didn't that apply to the execution of Troy Davis? There were many doubters, some as high up as the FBI, and yet the man was executed? The man was not permitted to take a polygraph, the DNA evidence wasn't sufficient and several witnesses whom claimed Davis was the murderer later refuted their statements. There was reasonable doubt to this man's guilt, so again, why execute a potentially innocent man? I don't care what one's opinion is on the death penalty, but to kill a potentially innocent individual? I'm not sure how anyone could support that.
Comments
Post a Comment