Troy Anthony Davis will, in all likelihood, die. I don't know what to say. I'm against the death penalty on basic principle--the math says we'll eventually execute (and likely already have executed) someone whose innocent. That just seems morally repugnant to me. Moreover, I don't believe in law as a tool of vengeance. And often that's all the death penalty is--societal vengeance.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I switched to opposing the death penalty when they started reversing convictions on dna evidence. A very chilling case from somewhere in the south where the dna evidence didn't match the man on death row, but the man whose testimony put him there. A second man was convicted of a similar rape/murder by the same guy's evidence, but there was no dna that time.
Evidently some crimes are so severe we want to be sure someone pays, even if it's not the guilty person.
and you can bet that clarence thomas, one of the worst excuses for a human being out there, did everything he could to make certain the man got executed as soon as possible.
This is depressing and enraging.
I've written over 200 letters to congressional representatives and senators in my lifetime in an attempt to abolish the death penalty. Ten of those letters were about the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), mentioned in this article, which has obstructed juctice in many death penalty cases. This must be repealed. You can help.
To learn more about AEDPA, visit http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/content/new_abolitionist.php?issue_id=7&story_id=82
And write your representatives! We need to get rid of this law, at the very least, so men like Troy Anthony Davis are given a fair opportunity to receive justice.
I started opposing the death penalty when I watched an episode of Geraldo ( the evening show, not the afternoon) and he went on and on about how he wanted Carla Faye Tucker spared simply because of her gender. It just kind of hit me at how arbitrary it is(slow learner). I was never that comfortable with executions, but you seen enough murder victims' pictures in the paper and you sometimes lose your patience.
I still believe someone who commits murder deserves to die, I just don't have faith in government or mankind to do it fairly.
I used to be one of those who thought the idea behind capital punishment was sound, that it was the way it was carried out that was the problem, but not any more. It's wrong--the system can't be made fool proof and it doesn't do anything to deter future crime and it reduces the government to the level of avenger, and as long as we're laboring under the notion that the government is the representative of the people, I'd just as soon that I wasn't representing that particular action.
And of course Scalia will be denied communion for this.
Did anyone else watch The Last Lynching, the Ted Koppel documentary on the Discovery Channel last night? Against the ugly, grim facts of racism, injustice, and lynching in the South, gains in civil rights and hope for the future was presented.
Today I feel no hope. Justice denied. Innocence denied. Troy Davis will be lynched with a lethal injection.
My problem with the death penalty is that it refuses to allow for the possibility of redemption. Are we more concerned with holding people accountable for mistakes made than we are for what they may do in the future? I can see executing serial killers or even repeat sex offenders, people who are almost certainly going to repeat their crimes...
But not people who have genuinely reformed. Like that man a few years ago who was writing books, helping kids avoid getting into gangs.
I can think of no way a government can get "bigger" than by holding on to the right to decide who lives and dies. For those who truly support "small government" no amount of due-process should justify concession.
I go the other way. It's life imprisonment that I don't believe in. If we believe, as a society, that some crimes are so heinous, and rehabilitation so unlikely, that we intend to lock a man in a cage -- with other similar men --until he dies, then I say we should have the courage of our convictions and simply kill him.
Not just for murder. For rape. For attempted murder. For repeat armed robbery. Essentially for anything that would merit a 20-year or more prison term.
The alternative, what we have actually done, is to create a sort of "shadow society" of killers and rapists. Into that toxic society we then throw such minor criminals as petty thieves and drug users. The minor criminals have little choice but to accept the culture of the society we have thrown them into -- and behold, we have now created the next generation of killers once they're released from prison.
Prisons are evil, horrific places precisely because we put evil, horrific people in them.
And yes, I get the "but we could make a mistake" argument. Doesn't sway me for two reasons.
One, because to me it's no more awful to put a man down than to lock him in one of our modern prisons for the rest of his life.
And two, and more importantly, if you think of crimes and criminals as forming a pyramid, with the vast majority of crimes being non-violent petty crimes at the bottom, it's just statistically inevitable that you're going to convict more innocent people for petty crimes than you are for really awful murders. Because there just aren't that many really awful murders every year. And under the existing system, if you accept that premise, we are putting lots and lots of innocent people into this shadow society after convicting them of petty crimes, and putting only one or two in there for crimes that would get the death penalty. My system protects a much larger number of innocent people -- by eliminating the awful prisons altogether -- while, yes, condemning one or two innocents to death.
But you don't have to worry -- nobody's going to listen to me on this one. :-)
"One, because to me it's no more awful to put a man down than to lock him in one of our modern prisons for the rest of his life."
Based on the amount of appeals convicts attempt while on death row to save their own lives, I would guess your opinion doesn't mean much in this case.
"And under the existing system, if you accept that premise, we are putting lots and lots of innocent people into this shadow society after convicting them of petty crimes..."
While I probably agree with this in principle, its missing one important fact. DA's don't feel the same pressure to put somebody, anybody, behind bars for petty crimes. That's the main reason that so many death row inmates are later found to be innocent. Our justice system cares more about closing a case than actually exacting real justice.
Stacy:
Okay, point taken; but you can make a strong argument, I think, that there's little else to do on Death Row. I don't think the frequency of appeals tells us much about the desirable nature of life in prison. YMMV. But I did make some other points as well -- care to comment on those?
Elmo,
I certainly don't disagree with everything you said. Although I want the death penalty abolished, I do agree that our system creates more violent and hardened criminals than it actually reforms. I think we can probably all agree that our penal system is beyond messed up. I don't know if there are any easy answers, but I certainly don't believe we'll see any public officials taking this head on anytime soon.
Gaaaa, I'm sorry, Stacy, mine at 5:33 was responding only to yours of 5:28. Your subsequent post wasn't up when I started typing.
And yours of 5:31 makes an interesting point, but ultimately I think I disagree with it. DAs prosecuting petty crimes are usually those with less experience, and they are just as desperate for resume-boosting convictions as those prosecuting murder. Sez me, based only on instinct and no statistics whatsoever.
"DAs prosecuting petty crimes are usually those with less experience, and they are just as desperate for resume-boosting convictions as those prosecuting murder."
Yeah, you're probably right.
I was going to say that this is sad, but actually I think it qualifies as horrifying and outrageous. I've always supported the death penalty, but no more. I don't object to it morally because it seems no worse than the crime being punished, but it appears to me that prosecutors and judges are afraid of being seen as "soft of crime" so they are unwilling to give a fair hearing to evidence that a person is truly innocent.
I wrote the Georgia appeals board before, now I don't know if there is anything else left to do. I would hope that media exposure might shame the Governor into doing something, but I have to say that is seems like many conservatives have a passive-aggressive streak when it comes to the media. That is, they seem more likely to become entrenched in whatever position just because the media takes the opposite view (witness Sarah Palin). If anyone has a good idea about how to support Mr. Davis, it would be good to hear it.
I'm from Illinois where we put 13 men on Death Row THAT WERE INNOCENT.
Now, these were the ones that we know of; I'm sure there were others that didn't get caught in time.
This is repugnant, and just wrong. Just absolutely WRONG.
When 7 of 9 witness recant
SOMETHING IS ROTTEN WITH THE CASE.
This is legal EVIL we are witnessing.
Rikyrah,
Do you have a link or anything for the 13 men in Illinois? I always like having evidence to send wayward friends who haven't come around on the death penalty.
There are some folk out there that need killin'.
I just don't trust The State to be a good judge. I'd suggest loosening the jury nullification laws but there's a history there (related, sadly, to why "States' Rights" is now an ugly term).
I wish there were another way.
Banishment, maybe? Bentham's Panopticon has turned out to be no solution at all.
The Innocence Project is good for stats, Stacy.
Well, TNC, as someone who is also anti-death penalty, I quite disagree.
The death penalty is about retribution, which is more than just simple vengeance. By retribution I mean the concept that some actions are by themselves wrong and innately unacceptable. You punish because the law produces equality, and equality demands death of mass murderers.
That being said, I am still anti-death penalty. I believe that people are not free enough from error to properly enforce retribution to the degree of revoking someone's life. Too many have been wrongfully convicted to allow the death penalty to continue. Each living judge and every breathing jury is just fallible enough to condemn an innocent man to death.
If I were to rank the issues I find important, this one would probably be in my top 5.
I wish I could count the amount of times Republican Catholics that I know defended the death penalty or even promoted it for child rapists (something that Obama supports as well, I should note). With some of them, Republicanism is their religion, not Catholicism.
I can't really think of any greater abuse of state power than the government killing a person that they already have confined.
Mr. Coates,
You have most definitely understated your case. It is well beyond reasonable certainty that many innocents have been executed. I whole-heartedly endorse the rest of your logic.
Um, also, "who's", not "whose":)
Stacy,
the case that put me off the Death Penalty for good:
Google
Rolando Cruz +Illinois
Elmo, instead of putting them to death, why not put them to work? Construct electrical power grids near the prison and hook up treadmills to it. Then the criminals unable to be rehabilitated can run for a few hours a day while generating energy to be stored on the grid. It's clean, it's sustainable, it pays off their debt to society (literally) and it at the end of the day they're probably too tired to make trouble.
I don't know if Troy Davis is innocent, but I sure as hell don't know that he's guilty either.
I don't know how you can murder a man (that's what it is, murder, straight up) under such circumstances.
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty because it can never seem to be done without hardcore bloodthirst surrounding it. To me it conjures up images of lynch mobs, wanting to kill somebody, anybody. Who cares about guilt? Somebody has to pay.
That said, I'm not entirely against it, if the crime warrants it and there is absolutely zero chance of innocence.
This case, all I see is conflicting evidence and a majority of "witnesses" changing their stories. It's troubling to me that Troy Davis will die, for possibly no reason at all.
I recommend Clarence Darrow's closing argument in the Loeb-Leopold case to anyone who cares about this issue. It's hard to believe that almost a century later the primitive, brutal wingnuts still demand blood in this way.
I hope I live long enough to see this country grow the fuck up.
Moreover, I don't believe in law as a tool of vengeance. And often that's all the death penalty is--societal vengeance.
This famous passage from Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest philosopher of the past millennium, and someone who certainly wasn't a supporter of 'societal vengeance,' may interest you.
"But whoever has committed murder, must die. There is, in this case, no juridical substitute or surrogate, that can be given or taken for the satisfaction of justice. There is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and death; and therefore there is no equality between the crime of murder and the retaliation of it but what is judicially accomplished by the execution of the criminal... Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members- as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world- the last murderer lying in the prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice."
Interesting take Elmo.
I'm still against the death penalty but your argument certainly makes the need for penal system reform all the more urgent.
Again, I have to say that this is one of the better forums for exchange of ideas so thank you Mr. Coates and thank you all.
Asher writes: "This famous passage from Immanuel Kant, probably the greatest philosopher of the past millennium, and someone who certainly wasn't a supporter of 'societal vengeance,' may interest you."
And he then proceeds to repeat a quote that shows Kant to have been a proponent of "societal vengeance."
Shorter Asher: Asher supports the death penalty, therefore Kant is "probably the greatest philosopher of the past millennium."
The argument from authority - one of the lamest and most obvious fallacies. Kant would be ashamed of Asher.
So i was just watching "Singing in the Rain" on TCM and every time the Lina Lamont character opened her mouth she reminded me of Sarah Palin. Yes this woman will probably get better at what she does (God help us all!) and will probably become a leading light in the right wing of the GOP (can't wait to see the throw down between her and Huckabee) but not in time for this election. My biggest fear especially after the CBS/NYTimes poll today is complacency. My second biggest fear (well not really) is the McCain campaign using Barack's fundraising and spending against him. Lots of posts talking about Obama's out spending McCain by a lot--as well he should! Why the hell did we send him this lucre unless it was to use it to win! Spend it all and spend it smart--which he seems to be doing.
Every time I discuss this issue with those who are in favor of the death penalty, the conversation inevitably turns to how I, as an opponent, would feel if someone killed a member of my family. And, of course, I would want that person to die. But this emotional argument deliberately excludes the realities of the death penalty in America.
First the fact, already mentioned, that we are undoubtedly executing innocent people. It amazes me that folks who deride the government's ability, or even authority, to properly run our schools, regulate our economy, etc. etc., nevertheless feel comfortable putting the power of life and death in said governments hands.
It further amazes me that the culture of life excludes so many fully formed, if imperfect, adults.
But now, let us truly deconstuct the emotional appeal set forth above (didn't this same question derail Dukakis in one of his debates?)
Let's say a white man kills my wife, who is black. I may very well wish that person put to death, but I probably will never have the choice. One of the greatest predictors of whether a perpetrator will face the death penalty is the race of the victim. Of course, race of the perpetrator has an influence as well. And, the particular locality in which the crime occurs. So, based on easily verifiable statistics, the hypothetical murderer in this case has a vanishingly small chance of facing execution at all. If we change the race of the murderer to black, the odds increase somewhat. If we then change the race of the victim to white, they increase dramatically. If I move to Texas first, all bets are off.
So, to recap, we execute people in this country somewhat randomly, based more on the race of the victim and the state and county in which the crime is committed more than any other factor. Add to this the fact that most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim well, and it becomes clear that the odds are heavily tilted against African Americans- big surprise there.
The death penalty has nothing to do with preventing murders- it doesn't. And it has nothing to do with the nature of the crime it penalizes. Thus, it is immoral to continue to pursue it.
And have you looked at the countries that still practice it?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
We (the US) are not in good company.
I'm not against the death penalty in all cases. There are certain times when the charges against a person are so awful, so abhorrent, and so undeniably true, that they merit execution. There are Tim McVeighs and Osama Bin Ladens and Ratko Mladics out there. That sort of person is a proud enemy of justice, civilization, and human decency; and encourages their followers to be the same. I would find nothing wrong with a swift execution after a fair trial for such people.
99% of the people on death row are not those kinds of cases.
ML&J - Kant was the most important philosopher of the last thousand, or really for that matter the last couple thousand years, though he certainly may have been wrong on this issue. I'm not saying that just because Kant said so it's so, he was wrong about a great deal. However, he does make a respectable argument that has nothing to do with societal vengeance. There are very important differences between retributivism and flat-out vengeance, and he's a retributivist.
I used to be ambivalent about the death penalty, until I was on the jury for a murder trial.
While it was highly likely that the defendant was involved in the death of the victim, the mere fact that the 2 eye witnesses were his "friends" who had been offered deals in exchange for their testimony made me highly suspicious.
I know what I would do if I were in their place and offered the choice of life in prison or 5 years for testimony against my buddy - sorry buddy!
Tel, I agree that there are crimes and criminals that deserve death as punishment. The problem is in writing a law that will separate them from others; and more importantly, the proving of it. The more heinous the crime, the more difficult it is to see the subtle distinctions between being linked to the crime and being responsible for it; or between being a creep or petty thug and being a terrorist (as are all of your examples). Our human legal system's wisdom is overwhelmed by giant crimes.