Here are two stories for you to consider.
One man, 20 years ago, was convicted of murdering an off-duty police officer. The conviction was based on the testimony of nine eyewitnesses, one of whom was also considered a suspect in the killing. There was no forensic or DNA evidence linking the accused to the murder, and later, seven of the nine eyewitnesses would recant their testimony.
Another man, 23 years ago, was convicted of killing a lumber company store manager, beating him with a crowbar and a pot of paint and shooting him three times. He confessed to the murder.
Both were sentenced to death, and both were scheduled to be executed this week. The first story is that of Troy Davis, who was executed last night, maintaining his innocence until the last. The other is Samuel David Crowe, who was spared by the same Board of Pardons and Paroles that refused to spare Troy Davis. Note: Crowe was granted clemency in 2008. My apologies for missing this fact.
I’m glad that Crowe will not be executed. I don’t think that the state should be executing anyone, regardless of how airtight the case against them seems to be, because the chances are too great that we will execute someone who is innocent. Indeed, this case and the case of Cameron Todd Willingham suggest that we already have.
You should also read Jelani Cobb’s reporting in The Atlantic watch this segment from The Ed Show last night where Rachel Maddow describes the great lengths the state of Georgia has gone to in order to continue putting prisoners to death by means of lethal injection.
3 responses
But even if he *did* do it. What is the point of capital punishment, again? Doesn’t the evidence all point to it not working? I.e., it costs more, it’s not a deterrent to crime, and it doesn’t make victims feel better. What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything, so far as I can tell. I think it comes down to a desire for revenge more than anything else, because the system certainly isn’t just.
The real problem we’re having as a society, I think, is that too many people aren’t actually thinking the issue through. They’re going on gut feelings, or they’re looking at people like serial killers or terrorists and saying “those fuckers deserve it and so I’m glad we can fry them,” and they have an inordinate trust in law enforcement because they’ve never been on the really shitty end of that or known anyone who has. Sorry, I’m rambling here.
It comes down to being easier to simply accept the situation than it is to think through the ethical implications of a system that results in the execution of innocent people. And maybe some of those people are willing to accept the occasional death of an innocent person (as long as it isn’t them or someone they care about) as long as it means they get to exercise their righteous indignation muscle at someone like Timothy McVeigh. I’m the opposite. I’m willing to let the monsters die of old age as long as it means that we don’t murder innocent people.
I think the “gut feelings” problem is behind the pro-life movement too (well, that and misogyny). Killing near-babies may feel wrong, but they’re not thinking through to the logical conclusion of all those extra babies: unsupportable costs, needless suffering.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.