Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Compassion, Certainly, but Justice, Too
The first time, Troy Davis came within 24 hours of death. The second time, he came within two.
Last year, it was a Georgia clemency board that stepped in to block his execution. Last month, it was the Supreme Court. Davis, the 39-year-old convicted killer of Mark MacPhail, a Savannah, Ga., police officer, was granted a stay to allow the court to consider whether to hear his appeal for a new trial. A decision is expected on Monday.
When news of Davis' latest reprieve broke, MacPhail's family reacted as you would expect. His mother, Anneliese, 74, told the Associated Press, ''I'm furious, disgusted and disappointed. I want this over with. This has been hanging over us for 19 years.'' She said she'd like to punch Davis in the face. She said she is angry at his entire family. She said her son will not have justice until Davis dies.
Your instinct, faced with such a rawness of agony, is to defer. To have a loved one ripped away as MacPhail's family did -- he was shot three times in 1989 while trying to break up a parking lot altercation -- is to enter into a confederation of suffering any one of us could join in the time it takes to thrust a knife or pull a trigger. Grief of such magnitude confers moral authority that trumps other considerations, and your heart, if you have one, will require you to yield to it as surely as subcompacts do to 18-wheelers.
This is human, this is compassionate. And it is also a mistake, at least where capital punishment is concerned.
For what it's worth, the case against Davis is not exactly airtight. No murder weapon, DNA or other forensic evidence implicated him. Rather, he was convicted solely on the testimony of nine witnesses, seven of whom have since recanted. Two of them say police bullied and intimidated them into fingering Davis. Of the two witnesses who are sticking to their stories, one is a man named Sylvester Coles, nicknamed Redd. Some of the other witnesses now say he's the one who shot MacPhail.
This all means nothing to the MacPhail family and that's understandable. But the question here is: Should it mean something to us?
I submit that it must.
Last year, Brandon Garrett, a professor of law at the University of Virginia, studied 200 cases in which people were freed from prison after DNA evidence proved them innocent. He found that erroneous eyewitness identifications were the leading cause of wrongful convictions, occurring in 79 percent of the cases he studied. And in one out of every four, those IDs were the only direct evidence against the accused.
Not that you need a study to prove the unreliability of eyewitnesses. Just try to remember and describe the woman who cut you off in traffic this morning or the UPS guy who made a delivery to your home. Now imagine doing it with someone dead and your blood pounding and police demanding answers.
Yet on this flimsy basis we make decisions about someone's life or death?
That's ridiculous and obscene.
And it is evidence of moral cowardice that we countenance the ridiculous and the obscene so complacently and complaisantly, never daring to look too closely at what is happening here because if we look we might accidentally see, and then, by God, we might be compelled to act, to admit that capital punishment is incompatible with justice and to gather the courage to say to families like the MacPhails, Look, we feel your grief and our hearts break for you, but what you're demanding we do is wrong, if for no other reason than that we, being human, just may, conceivably, make mistakes.
Yes, we owe the MacPhail family our compassion and understanding. But you know what?
We owe Troy Davis' family something, too.
- Posted in
28 Comments so far
Show AllI have always supported the death penalty for certain cases and crimes, but it is way more than obvious to me now that this system is so fucked up that there is no way it is just. We need to join the other real democratic nations in abolishing it.
The death penalty is acceptable only as long as none are executed by the state. Some crimes are nasty enough that the only punishment acceptable is to keep the perp in a box until he/she dies, then bury the box behind prison walls. But to kill someone to show others that killing people is wrong? That's just f'd up.
Yes, Zach. I used to support hanging for murder too. It was events rather than arguments that turned me around - particularly the case of an 11 year old girl Lesley Molseed, raped and murdered in 1975, for which Stefan Kiszko did 16 years in prison.
It was found that he couldn't have done the deed, because he was impotent, whereas Lesley's assailant was a sexually active man. This evidence was sat upon by Police for 16 years. It was only last November that the real killer, Ronald Castree, was convicted of the crime on the basis of DNA evidence. This is but one of many, many other instances, including potentially Troy Davis', of how fallible human justice can be.
There is one disgusting fact about sexual assault--it is an act of violence. The fact is, that most rapists do not ejaculate at all.
That is why castration is a silly option. I THINK I saw a show on IFC about the case you mention. They found out he was innocent, right? YOu can never repay a person for such a thing.
I agree with you on Troy Davis . I signed the petition for a new trial. I dont believe in the death penalty in any case. I agree that there are enough holes in this case to drive a truck through.
Remember when the governor of Wisconsin suspended all death penatlty cases to life, because, once they did the DNA, he found that a good 40% of them were innocent.
No civilized country stil uses the deathpenalty. The US and Sudan are the only UN countries that stil execute minors, and the mentally retarded. When W became governor of Texas, he said he "couldnt wait to clear of death row", and proceeded with a record numbwer of executions for the entire country.
I have never been for the death penalty. As long as there's not absolute and concrete proof of a person's guilt, those found guilty should be caged instead of killed. And it's pretty obvious in this day and age that a whole lot of innocent people have been killed. Of course a look at the millions of innocent people we've killed in the past five years shows how unimportant a matter of innocence is in this great country of ours.
"As long as there's not absolute and concrete proof of a person's guilt, those found guilty should be caged instead of killed. And it's pretty obvious in this day and age that a whole lot of innocent people have been killed."
and caged? what are you attempting to say? is a life of imprisonment for a crime not commited better than death? i assume that you're posit is that the system is flawed?
"The death penalty is acceptable only as long as none are executed by the state."
is the length of time the determining factor? being caged until death by the state (who else would cage them?...anything else is kidnapping) is different than years on death row followed by an injection? an easy out if they just die on their own.
You can undo a "caging". You cannot undo a death.
If an innocent person is found guilty - in the manner that so many are, as related in above posts, and as have been proven, being caged = locked up, behind bars, it's still being caged - they at least then have the time and hope to be eventually proven innocent, and freed. Granted, some might prefer death to that.
The US needs to join the civilized world on this one. A mistake with the death penalty is irrevocable. It has been demonstrated over and over again that our justice system is rife with mistakes. I do not believe that a civilized society puts innocent people to death.
Although I favor the death penalty for serial killers and other narrow categories of criminals where the evidence is beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, I consider eyewitness "identification" the flimsiest of all evidence, and to condemn someone to death on the basis of that alone is an utter travesty of justice.
Proof positive of this is a case taken up several years ago by the Innocence Project, in which a rape victim was convinced she was correctly identifying her attacker (talk about up close and personal -- how could she possibly have been mistaken?). The IP finally got a court order for a DNA test, which proved that the man convicted and jailed was NOT guilty -- instead, it was someone who vaguely resembled him and was already in prison for another crime. But here's the kicker. Even after hearing of that irrefutable proof of her mistake, the victim continued to insist that the INNOCENT man was the rapist!
I think we need a constitutional amendment declaring an eyewitness "identification" as simply a peripheral fact which is not evidence in itself -- perhaps with an exception for some very unusual birthmarks/tattoos etc. which might have some evidentiary value.
Let me guess. The police officer was white and the murderer is black. Otherwise "progressives" would not care.
real world-I assume that you're white. The railroading of Troy Davis could happen to you also. It could happen to any of us. Whenever something happens to a cop, other cops want blood, and thus justice becomes expedient and sloppy.
Did he do it? I don't know, but Troy Davis at the very least deserves a new and fair trial.
"The railroading of Troy Davis could happen to you also"
That's pretty unlikely but not because I'm white but because I don't go out acting like an ass and attracting police attention. When the police start dragging black youths out of the library where they are studying let me know and I will jump on the bandwagon with the "progressives".
Let me guess: you don't give a damn about due process or principle when the delicious prospect of insulting people to the left of Bob Dole arises.
"real world" is generally divorced from reality. He's often a Limbaugh zombie obsessed with his gas guzzler to the point of saying "I'm going to punish Hugo Chavez by giving him more money to fill up my gas guzzler with his oil !" He's a sociopath.
I'm no fan of Limbaugh as you say. Rush is correct at least 50% of the time as opposed to Limbaugh wanna' be Ed Schultz who is correct about 20% of the time.
And I don't want to send any gas money to hugo chavez. I want to safely drill here or buy from Canada where environmental safeguards are much more stringent than foreign countries.
Have you stopped driving and heating your home yet? If all "progressives" gave up their cars and used public transit we could save billions of barrels of oil!
"I'm no fan of Limbaugh as you say. Rush is correct at least 50% of the time..."
Oooh man. You need to check out mediamatters.org or fair.org. Wow.
"Let me guess: you don't give a damn about due process"
Let me guess. 19 years of trials and appeals don't count unless they find him innocent? What if they had 29 years of trials and appeals?
As before, you guess incorrectly, preferring to put ideology at the foreground and preferring to address the merits of the case not at all.
You are not a serious discussant.
"You are not a serious discussant."
Think of me as a dissenting opinion, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I am against the death penalty but not for the same reasons as most "progressives". I just get sick of liberals thinking the police are always wrong and the poor defendant is always noble and innocent.
"Think of me as a dissenting opinion, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I am against the death penalty but not for the same reasons as most 'progressives'. I just get sick of liberals thinking the police are always wrong and the poor defendant is always noble and innocent."
I don't think the police are always wrong. You have a point. I don't like seeing the police demonized wholesale either. But the cops have to be held accountable, and we have to make sure the system is working. It's pretty obvious here that Troy Davis wasn't treated fairly. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, he deserves a fair trial.
"That's pretty unlikely but not because I'm white but because I don't go out acting like an ass and attracting police attention."
You never know when a cop will decide to club you with a nightstick or shoot you. You could get a broken tail light on your car without you knowing, and get pulled over. A cop who's wound tight could misinterpret your body language, and the rest is in the papers.
"When the police start dragging black youths out of the library where they are studying let me know and I will jump on the bandwagon with the 'progressives.'"
Well again, the way things are going that could happen. Your opposition to the death penalty could cause you to be branded as a "dangerous subversive."
Think of it all as enlightened self-interest.
As a matter of fact, there were those who stepped up to the plate and actually confessed that not only did he not do it but that it was a different suspect who did it. This reminds me of the Gary Condit vs Chandra Levy case. For a year, people thought that Condit had everything to do with the disappearance of Levy. A year later, the real killer was not only found but he openly confessed. Condit was persecuted anyway even after that.
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2008/09/11/guilty-or-likely-not-troy-davis-must-die
The death penalty smacks of vengeance.....rather than of justice. The victim of a crime gains nothing by the death of the person who committed that crime, nor does his or her family. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord" to quote the King James version of the bible those who most strongly tend to support the death penalty, war and intolerance and hate love to thump and quote. That should very clear..... it is to me anyway. We have a duty to do "justice" but that duty does not include vengeance..... vengeance belongs to a higher power. There is no deterrent value to the death penalty... as has been shown again and again, nor is there any economic benefit..... the process which must accompany so drastic a penalty is far more costly than simply keeping the perpetrator behind bars for life...... so what purpose is served? We all have the instinctive reaction of wanting to snuff the life out of these kinds of criminals.... it is human nature. But to give in as a society to these urges moves us down one rung closer to the criminals themselves...... it further brutalizes our already brutal society. There is nothing positive that can be said about the death penalty..... and much to be said against it.
I would be a liar if I pretended any compassion for the convicted killer who was guilty of his crime and about to die....... I have none. But I do have compassion for my poor nation reaching back into the barbaric past and keeping alive this practice. It is NOT the practice of civilized men, but the practice of barbarians. In the past it was a necessity to put men to death for their crimes....... we did not have the current social structure with it's institutions..... there was no alternative but to put a man to death or risk having him commit another crime. This is no longer the case.
Howard
As has been amply pointed out by the responses and Pitts' article, the biggest problem with the death penalty is the grossly negligent incompetence of prosecutions of murder cases. Some "mistakes" can only be made once and are irreversable-death penalties are just such "mistakes".
Recently CBS 60 minutes did a story on how the first African-American DA in Dallas TX had been able to clear 19 murder convictions (18 or which were African American men--surprise, surprise!)based on DNA evidence. The only reason he was able to do this is that Dallas County kept DNA evidence from all crimes. The evidence was there all along and except for an honest and dilligent DA these people might still be rotting in prison (or executed).
My idea is that they ought to look up the incompetent police and prosecuters for each one of those exhonerated men and put these guys and gals in prison (in the general population too so they can get to know and be at one with all the boyz and girlz there). It wouldn't take long before law enforcement got a lot more careful about their murder prosecutions.
Poet
You mean, "...they ought to lock up...", instead of 'look' up.
Sioux Rose
STONE TOOL: Thank you for your posting. It amazes me that not too many on CD get the point! How tragically ironic is it that in the South certain courthouses insisted on posting the Ten Commandments while themselves advocating FOR the death penalty: i.e. a direct violation of "Thou shalt not kill." This irony is at the root of religious delusion and plays a significant role in our foreign policy. Death is seen as enacting the JUSTICE of "the Lord." The same schizophrenia shows up in the way the right wing "right to lifers" protest abortion while supporting every heinous weapon system under the sun, too many used on innocent living beings, babies among them.
OURS has become a spiritually sick society. Those who are considered experts are so thoroughly programmed by the system as to not see outside the paradigm of madness they help to maintain. Luckily there are a few voices of spiritual sanity who have been published, are being heard, and slowly are bringing about an awakening. The problems of civlization as Einstein related cannot be solved from the level of thinking/belief that brought them about. In this respect far too many have been held hostage to the old gods of mammon, militarism and materialism. NONE of these will serve mankind in coming decades as the supply lines to each will be starved.
As someone who has had a loved one murdered, I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. While wanting revenge/blood from the murderer I still don't want blood on my hands. Putting a murderer to death does nothing to bring back the murdered person. Closure comes from accepting God's will not by killing the murderer.
The risk of putting an innocent person is too great.
I still call for abolishing the death penalty.
Life without parole is sufficient punishment.
I really worked hard for Troy.
It never ends.
^^^^I need a great country as soon as possible^^^^^^
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of Totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.
Mohandas Gandhi
BillofRights