Friday, September 23, 2011

The Killing of Troy Davis

Now, my thoughts on the death penalty are on record, and there is nothing in the events surrounding the state-sanctioned murder of Troy Davis that has changed my mind in any way. In fact, the opposite is true. It isn't just the moral case against the death penalty that is brought into sharp relief by this execution, but also the extent to which the decision to execute, the run-up to any execution and the implementation of that execution all highlight how the death penalty is not about the emotionless and dispassionate administration of justice, but rather as tangled a mess as any system created and run by fallible humans inevitably ends up being.

Let's look at the evidence that led Davis - or more properly meant that Davis was led - into the execution chamber. The lack of a gun and of any DNA evidence meant the case against him at his original trial was far from conclusive. The fact that the vast majority of those witnesses who led to his conviction have recanted their testimony makes that evidence even less conclusive. And the fact that one of those two remaining witnesses who have not recanted is also a suspect in the murder that earned Davis the death penality is yet another indicator that all is not right in the conviction that led to the execution of Davis. Had I been on the jury at Davis' initial trial, I probably wouldn't have convicted. I certainly wouldn't based on the evidence (of lack thereof) floating around just before he got the needle. It appears a man who was most likely innocent was put to death in the state of Georgia. Of course, I can't know for certain that he was innocent - indeed, that level of knowledge is arguably impossible except for the murderer and the murdered. But we've not talking here about a sentence that can be reversed. Davis died. He was killed by the state. There is no going back on this. Now, I understand that it is perfectly possible that we will never come up with a justice system that can guarantee that it is not convicting the innocent. But that is precisely why we shouldn't have the death penalty - an innocent in prison can be released. An innocent in the ground can't.

Yet there are other reasons some argue should make us ok with the death penalty. After all, with the introduction of the lethal injection, it surely became just a case of putting people to sleep. Of course, the idea that humans should just be put to sleep, like sick dogs, is inhumane to some - even if they are (apparently) guilty of the most heinous crimes. But even the supposedly painless lethal injection can end up being anything but. Take the execution that had to be abandoned as the executioners couldn't get the IV line into their victim's veins. Or the prisoner whose execution lasted for 90 minutes. Or the condemned man who had to be given a double dose of the lethal chemical cocktail. Or even the poor sod whose execution went on for so long that he had to be given a toilet break*. I think all of these could be seen to be cruel and unusual punishments, but they also highlight that the notion of the clean, sterile, painless execution is a myth. And that's before we get onto whether the lethal injection is actually painless. Or the fact that its creator argues that it is flawed because he never realised when he helped to set up the execution method that "complete idiots" would be "administering the drugs." As for the deterrence argument, the research is far from conclusive. The experts can't agree. And when it comes to taking the lives of potentially innocent people, is a little consensus on the wider implications on society too much to ask?

So to summarise, we have a system that executes people who are almost certainly innocent. It isn't, at least in its existing forms, painless or humane - not least because it is implemented by people incapable of doing so properly. And is it a deterrent? Fuck knows. Yet it is something that doesn't make sense that can also carry an appalling cost, as the Troy Davis case shows. And as a result I can't help but think that we shouldn't be debating the potential reintroduction of the death penalty on this side of the Atlantic - rather, they should be debating it's abolition on the other side of that ocean.

*And isn't that a good indicator of the total insanity of executions? They pump the victim full of lethal drugs, but he get's a bathroom break so he doesn't piss himself.

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

At 8:29 pm , Blogger James Higham said...

Really on the fence on this one. See one side then the other. Hell.

 
At 9:04 pm , Blogger asquith said...

Some EXCELLENT shite from Hitchens C. here:

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/christopher-hitchens-staking-a-life.php

Forgive me for not offering any views of my own, my mind is exhausted by this week!

 
At 11:57 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Asquith - great article, thanks for that.

James - If the moral argument that we shouldn't let the state kill its own citizens in our name doesn't win you over to the anti-death penalty side then ask yourself this - do you want the British state, an incompetent, idiotic and already extremely controlling bureaucracy, to have the power to murder its own citizens? There's a great quote in that article Asquith links to from a former French foreign minister that encapsulates much of my thinking on the death penalty: it represents “a totalitarian concept of the relationship between the citizen and the state.”

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home