Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Death Penalty Club
It's a hard time for those who care about the fate of Georgia death row prisoner Troy Davis.
On April 16, Davis received the most recent blow to his case; the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Davis's appeal based on innocence heard in court. Davis was convicted for the 1989 murder of off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail in Savannah. A great deal of possibly exonerating evidence has come to light since Davis's original trial, including affidavits by seven of the nine non-police witnesses, recanting or contradicting their trial testimonies, with claims of police coercion and intimidation further tainting the original testimonies. This is particularly significant as there was never any physical evidence linking Davis to the crime and of the two witnesses who did not recant, one is another potential suspect. No court has held a trial or hearing based on the new evidence. Nevertheless, the panel of three 11th Circuit judges rejected Davis's petition on procedural grounds in a 2-1 vote.
"To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence," wrote dissenting Judge Rosemary Barkett "is unconscionable and unconstitutional."
The Court granted Davis a thirty-day stay of his execution, which ends on May 15th.
Davis's case has become a lightening rod for debate, most of it focused on the impending execution of a possibly innocent man whom the system won't permit a second day in court. Even pro-death penalty advocates have spoken out against executing Davis. Former federal judge and FBI Director William Sessions, a supporter of capital punishment, wrote, "I believe that there is no more serious offense than the murder of a police officer. However, crucial unanswered questions surround claims of Davis' responsibility for this terrible crime, and I believe that the execution should not go forward until the courts address them and determine whether he is in fact guilty... To send a man to his death because procedural obstacles prevent the courts from considering the merits of his claim of innocence would, in my view, be a travesty."
There are, as Sessions writes, crucial unanswered questions surrounding claims of Davis's responsibility for the murder of MacPhail. And equally crucial is an examination of the practice of execution itself, in a national and international context too often sorely missing from the discourse.
From 1972-1976, the US Supreme Court suspended the death penalty as the Court examined whether capital punishment constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and is, therefore, unconstitutional. New death penalty laws were passed in 1976. The reliability of convictions that end in capital punishment remains highly contested; since the new laws were approved, 131 death row inmates have been exonerated. In fact, a Columbia Law School study in 2000 concluded that death sentences in the United States are "persistently and systematically fraught with error." Yet even with the overwhelming evidence that scores of innocent people end up on death row, some only exonerated posthumously, as well as substantial flaws in the argument that capital punishment is an effective deterrent, the majority of the country still accepts execution as a reasonable form of punishment. Capital punishment is currently legal in 35 states and there are over 3,000 prisoners on death row throughout the country.
Recently, however, there has been some light.
On March 18th, New Mexico became the fifteenth state in the US to abolish capital punishment.
And on April 21, the Colorado State Congress passed a measure to abolish the death penalty by a single vote. The bill now goes to the Colorado State Senate.
Unfortunately, these glimmers offer little comfort to current death-row prisoners, even ones in New Mexico, as the new law signed by Richardson is not retroactive. There is also little hope to grasp when considering the US's record in the international arena as well. The United States tries to portray itself as a global leader concerning human rights, but when stacked up against the rest of the international community, our record on this issue is abysmal.
The majority of the world has been moving towards abolishing the death penalty. Two thirds of all countries have abolished it in law or in practice-the most recent being Burundi . In all of Europe, Belarus is the only country that still practices capital punishment.
Even with the trend towards abolition, capital punishment remains a crucial global human rights issue, mostly due to a handful of egregious offender nations. In 2008, 2,390 prisoners were executed in twenty-five countries. 93% of those executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States and Pakistan.
There are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the UN Convention prohibiting the execution of children. They are Somalia and the United States. There are currently over sixty prisoners on death row in the US for crimes they committed as juveniles.
In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed its second Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium on Executions, calling on countries which still practice capital punishment to restrict its use and not apply it to juveniles. Ten countries--including China, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and the US--voted against the Resolution. A similar resolution was adopted by a large majority at the United Nations General Assembly in 2007, and once again this past December. Both times the USA was part of the small minority in dissent.
I don't know if Troy Davis ponders the fact that our global colleagues regarding capital punishment include China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia. But our membership in this infamous club should give all of us much pause.
There will all always be another Troy Davis, more and more possibly innocent prisoners on the chopping block, until the United States follows the lead of two-thirds of the world and fully abolishes the death penalty.
12 Comments so far
Show All"The royals should have simply been put to work under guard, perhaps at skills they could be taught in a short time - like cleaning toilets. That would have been truly exemplary."
Ha!! Agreed; a deeply satisfying image! Update it to the current era and consider Dick Cheney with toilet brush in hand. Now there's something to sneer about! :D
There another part of this article that raises a number of questions.
Firstly let me preface this that I do not support the death penatly, even for the most henious of crimes.
To the article again and the mention of all the Juveniles in the USA on death row wherein the State is waiting until they become adults so that they can be executed.
This coupled with the recent article on the 17 year old executed in Iran.
I find the justifications in either case as abhorrent. How is one any "better" then the other?
Locking a child up so that they grow to an age where they can be executed seems as demented, if not more so , then executing a child.
I fully agree; the Amerikan justice "system" has indeed become demented in its philosophy toward juvenile criminals.
For instance, over the past several years it's become commonplace for local prosecutors to IMMEDIATELY declare an intention to try some juvenile "as an adult" if the crime seems heinous enough, e.g. homicide.
My point isn't to diminish the culpability and evil inherent in homicide and comparable crimes of violence, or to suggest that juveniles should be excused from legal consequences for such crimes.
I'm noting the knee-jerk reflex of district attorneys to rush to "assure" the public that the perpetrator will be "tried as an adult".
See, the thing is, the juvenile ISN'T "an adult". So you can try the juvenile as TWO adults, if it makes the mass of reactionary, vengeful troglodyte yahoos happy. But that doesn't make it so.
The only reason for this prosecutorial habit is to reassure reactionary troglodytes that Amerika is prepared to take a harsh and vengeful approach by pretending that a juvenile who commits a felonious crime of violence IS an adult, because the crime is as bad, wrong, and horrific as any adult crime.
But, again... the juvenile ISN'T an adult. There may be a need to adjust the legal system to more effectively cope with an increasing number of juveniles who commit violent felonies, but simply waving a prosecutorial wand over them and "presto!", they're "adults", is not an enlightened response or a solution of any kind.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The American 'justice system' is not about justice - it's all about punishment. And it really doesn't matter who gets punished - it doesn't matter if they are actually guilty or innocent. This is a perversion of what justice is really all about - protecting every member of society from abuse. Punishment is an archaic remnant of the Dark Ages - and religious nonsense. There can be no real 'justice' until the whole idea of 'punishment' is removed from the equation. Any society has to ask 'why' a member would want to harm another - and then figure out how to solve this problem. No punishment can ever prevent a act of violence - punishment is an after-the-fact element that makes no logical sense to a reasonable person. It is a superstitious practice, just as stupid as burning witches.
"There are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the UN Convention prohibiting the execution of children. They are Somalia* and the United States. There are currently over sixty prisoners on death row in the US for crimes they committed as juveniles."
*NB. Somalia doesn't even have a government and so is not in a position to ratify anything.
Ours is the only supposedly organized country in the world that determinedly executes children and people convicted of crimes committed as children. And we call our selves civilized. We call ourselves the "leader of the free world."
Some leader; some civilized.
Rainborowe
Death penalty advocates should consider the following:
To support capital punishment, one must either believe that the court system is infallible (which is demonstrably false), or that it is acceptable to occasionally execute innocent persons.
Imagine going to the death chamber for a crime you didn’t commit. Imagine your child going there.
To be just in a fallible world, punishment must not be irrevocable. Life imprisonment without parole is a severe but revocable punishment. It protects society and punishes the perpetrator.
Unfortunately, nothing will bring a murder victim back. Compensation for the victim’s family may be appropriate, but the state should not be an agent for revenge.
The whole vengeance system in the US needs an overhaul. (I refuse to use the word justice to describe it; if justice is occasionally served, it is by accident). But that’s another discussion.
I might add that the abolition of the death penalty in Europe only came about via peer pressure.
You wanted to be a member of the Council of Europe (a kind of European UN)? Well, you had to at least suspend the death penalty.
You wanted to become a member of the European Union? Without abolition of capital punishment, you could list this wish as "my favourite pipe dream".
BTW: Only(!!!) the USA and Somalia did NOT ratify the ILO Convention against child labour either.
Araquin--
This was only true of the countries of the former Soviet Union. The countries of Western Europe had abandoned the death penalty long before, in many cases long before they joined the EU. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, hasn't had a death penalty in at least since WW2 and neither has Sweden.
The USA routinely shows up well below some pretty wretched states on indicators of national population well-being. It would be embarrassing but for the well-cultivated sense of exceptionalism in the American public. That and their ignorance of anything going on outside.
Rainborowe
I agree with most of the comments as well as the article. However, there may be something those of us opposed to the death penalty overlook. I say this in part because I know many people who favor the death penalty and don't consider them bloodthirsty troglodytes. In other words, the problem lies in our system, not in our genes.
In the U.S., our media is probably more effective than the media elsewhere in hyping in the most graphic details the crimes we classify as capital. We also have more media outlets, and broader access to them.
We also have a more diverse society than many other countries; the people executed here seldom resemble the people who celebrate executions. This factor, however, doesn't stop homogeneous societies like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The absence of cultural and religious humanitarianism of those countries makes up for the lack of diversity.
After discussing the matter in forums and otherwise, it's hard for me to see any value to capital punishment in the U.S. other than as entertainment for those who support it. They cackle and crow over the fate of the prisoners, much as the Romans must have reacted to Christians facing the lions. The media obliges by recounting ad infinitum and in great detail the crimes, including the suffering of victims and survivors (but seldom mentioning the suffering of the prisoner's families caused by the execution process), with emphasis on the similarities of the victims to their readers or viewers. Those who enjoy the grisly story of the crime get to see it end with a grisly coda, including the last meal, comments by the prisoner as he or she is strapped onto the gurney, and the death throes.
Our legal system caters to those who enjoy capital punishment. In a capital case, you can't get on the jury unless you're willing to see the defendant executed under laws slanted toward allowing executions. To become a judge, you have to swear to uphold capital punishment laws. Many capital prosecutions result in convictions of the innocent because jurors and judges who favor capital punishment are more inclined to convict on flimsy or even no evidence, especially when emotional flames are fanned by prosecutors more interested in their conviction records, and in entertainment, than in justice.
It's interesting that our president, a constitutional law professor, supports the death penalty for murderers and even some rapists. However, he has vowed to protect CIA interrogators who tortured people to death in dozens of cases; not only will they not be tried, they will remain in their sensitive jobs, collect their federal paychecks and enjoy their perks and retirement pensions.
These judges sound like the "Rescue Committee" in the Life of Brian and every bit as effective.