Troy Davis

I've been watching this story with growing dread over the past month, knowing his chance of dodging state-sanctioned murder was low and dwindling fast. What an utterly heartbreaking, soul-wearying crime.

If he fails, execute him?

Democracy Now! Special Report From Troy Davis Execution: Did Georgia Kill An Innocent Man?

What is a fail?  The reason we don't use the stupid test in our criminal cases is because of its inherent unreliability.  A large component of the test is the tester themselves and how they interpret the readings.  Most lie detector tests result in a finding that it the results are inconclusive. As well of course real sociopaths and people with other personality disorders can beat the test while really nervous honest people can fail. 

State sanctioned murder will always result in the murder of innocent people.  It always has and it always will.  

So what if it is allowed in some state courts?  In US military courts they allow testimony derived from accused who have been subjected to torture. That doesn't make torture any more acceptable to me.  In this case the unreliabilty of eyewitnessses is central to the injustice.  Adding in another process that is almost as unreliable as eyewitness accounts wil not further the cause of justice.  

Murder is murder whether the state does it or an individaul does it. 

No one in that state making life and death decisions from the boards to the Governor seems to believe that showing mercy is a good thing. I am cynical and believe that intellectually all the officials know they routinely incarcerate innocent people and sometimes even murder them and despite that knowledge they still support the system.  Therefore the facts of any case cannot outweigh their concern to save face by sticking to their guns on principal.  If they buy the arguments in this case they would be forced to look at the system itself and they will not do that because they are true believers.

This was one of the most egregious cases of executions, but the struggle to ban capital punishment must continue unabated.  And Canadians must be on guard for when the Herpetics* try to bring it back, currying the support of fundamentalists of all stripes.  My bet is it will first be introduced against "terrorists", then for cop-killing, then ....

The second  huge battle in the US is against solitary confinement and other forms of torture in all prisons.

The other huge battle is ours, here, to maintain some semblance of humanity in our prison system.  The new crime bill is the first step toward importing the U.S. model.  We've already had the insane elimination of prison farms -- probably because now private corporations can sell millions of $$ of dairy and substandard meats and some vegetables to prisons that formerly raised their own cattle and grew their own produce.  And so it goes. 

*I don't know what else to call the Cons in charge with their 35% of the vote.  Venomous snakes.  Viruses. Whatever fits. 

Oh this is hard to read.

A message from Troy Davis

Thank you, Catchfire, for posting that.

Capital punishment is an abhorrent practice that needs to be prohibited.

The guilt or "evilness" of the criminal is irrelevant.

It made me think of a couple of things, N.R. KISSED, and in case you were wondering, I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases.

If for no other reason, it is interesting that two men were executed on the same night in cases that are charged with racism. 

I also think the L.A. Times article is interesting because is shows how people reacted to the two cases. 

As well, since there is hope that Davis's case will spark some reform to the justice system, it is interesting that Brewer's crime led to hate crimes legslation in Texas and at the federal level, and it also caused a swift change in policy this morning.

And on the matter of last meals, a couple of things - the comment in the article contrasting the last meal with the act of execution is telling, as are some of the things which various condemned prisoners asked for. 

And finally, there was the demonstration this morning that the corrections system can change pretty fucking fast when they decide they want to do something.

ANy problem with that? I didn't think I had to lead anyone about by the nose because I assume you can read and draw your own conclusions.

(edit)

For that matter, Brewer's odd choice for a last meal made me think too. I certainly don't begrudge him the request, and who knows if it was his way of saying "fuck you" or if he just wanted to make sure he had enough to choose from, and then just couldn't face it. 

But something about the way he spent his last hours, the grim nature of a "last wish" and the fact that it all went to waste - especially  in contrast to Davis's last actions - made me think even more about how fucked up that whole system of an eye for an eye is.  

I just want to echo what Maysie said:

Capital punishment is an abhorrent practice that needs to be prohibited.

The guilt or "evilness" of the criminal is irrelevant.

The sentiment certainly isn't limited to the U.S., and it isn't even strictly "eye for an eye" .

When the accused in the recent child abduction case in Sparwood B.C. was taken to court he was greeted by at least one person with a sign calling for his execution, and she was even given airtime to explain her views that people who commit crimes against children do not deserve to live.

Likewise, after the horrible incident on that greyhound bus some years back, there was a lot of coverage - some of it extremely emotional -  given to the victim's family's campaign that the accused should somehow be made to "pay" - with allusions to death -  even though he was schizophrenic. 

The campaign was so great that the provincial government actually interfered with his medical care.

I think this is an issue where some people are always going to disagree with our law prohibiting capital punishment because it is such a painful issue, and of course, there are plenty of places where that unjust punishment is going to be used in especially unjust ways.

There was a very good interview this morning on CBC Radio with Justice Murray Sinclair, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He spoke to judges in Regina yesterday and told them that they are not equipped and do not understand the rage in aboriginal Canada because of the residential system. It was a very good interview, and I agree with what he said. 

THe only problem I had with it is that the whole interview, seemed to take the line that the problem and the pathology lay with accused people who wind up in court. 

Looking at some of these cases I think the far greater sickness is with members of the public and government who think that things they disagree with should not be dealt with, but should simply disappear, be locked away, or be killed.

And also, that some (not all) people who are the victims of crime seem to think the solution is in limitless suffering or death for those convicted.

In any case, I think we can expect that sickness to grow in our country.

I'm not against Caissa and Maysie. laine. 

My point is that I don't think we are much more enlightened than the Americans, and I expect it is only going to get worse. And I think no matter how progressive our society becomes we are always going to have to deal with a significant portion of society who don't understand that execution is wrong, and who want to make convicts suffer.

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. On the whole, I thought the interview with Justice Sinclair was very good - particularly his pointing out that judges don't understand

And also to be clear, "rage" was Justice Sinclair's term. And given the context I don't think it was an overstatement.

What I had a problem with is the tone in the interview (and probably more a fault of the interviewer) that this was somehow a "sickness" of accused people (my term, but I use it because the question had to do with judges being qualified to "diagnose", even though Sinclair's whole point had been about judges' bias).

My point, as I said, is that the real sickness is not on the part of aboriginal people, since rage is a perfectly understandable response. It is on the part of people who think the response to crime and criminals is to make it disappear, and to inflict limitless punishment.

And given how our current federal government has used fear and punishment as a big part of its marketing scheme. I am truly afraid of where this argument is probably going on this side of the border.

I wish it were only certain members of the public in certain sensationalized cases. I think it is a much bigger problem than that.

They're trying to use the impending death of Clifford Olson to further their cause.