Troy Davis fell victim to Anti-Terrorism law
September 24th, 2011
I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on the subject that haven’t totally percolated, so we’re just going to take a running start at this thing and see where we end up.
First off, if you’re upset by this it’s got to be for one of two reasons. Either you think Troy Davis was innocent, or you are ideologically against the death penalty. By luck, or fate, or whatever the universe has provided for us the perfect litmus test. On the same day in Texas white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer was put to death for the murder of James Byrd Jr. in perhaps the most heinous hate crime case in recent memory. Brewer and two of his buddies chained Byrd to the back of a pickup and dragged him for three miles. A few from the anti-death penalty cause gathered at Brewer’s execution as well, but not nearly as many.
So what about the merits of the case? The prosecution asserts that officer MacPhail intervened upon Davis bashing a homeless man in the face with a .38 caliber pistol and Davis responded by shooting him once in the heart and once in the face before he even drew his weapon… allegedly. Now it gets more complicated.
Initially witnesses placed Davis on the scene, identified him as the shooter, and even testified that he had confessed to them. After the conviction seven of the nine key witnesses recanted some or all of their testimony, and some jurors have said they’ve changed their minds about his guilt. Four of the key witnesses who recanted said later that they had been frightened into giving false testimony by strong-arm police tactics, and three implicated one of the original key witnesses for the prosecution, Sylvester Coles. So, the witness testimony is a mess. I find it completely plausible that police would use intimidation to coerce witnesses called to defend a man accused of killing a cop. In fact I would be more shocked if they didn’t.
Here’s the second problem. Both Coles and Davis were in possession of a .38 caliber pistol but neither pistol was ever recovered. Davis was tied to the shooting by a ballistics expert who testified that the .38 caliber bullet casings that were found at the crime scene were similar to casings found at another shooting. The night before Davis allegedly shot Michael Cooper in the face for shouting obscenities at him. Although the ballistics expert admitted doubt about the match. Hard to tell when you don’t have either pistol.
Here’s my problem. As much as I dislike cops I have to admit intervening while a homeless man is being pistol-whipped is something I want them to do. And the fact that MacPhail died with gun holstered tells me he was not the aggressor. But even if Davis wasn’t the one who shot MacPhail, he didn’t go to his grave denying that he shot Cooper. So, even in a best case scenario he doesn’t seem like much of a sympathetic character.
I don’t philosophically have a problem with the death penalty. Murderers, rapists, cannibals… I’m not going to cry for the death of sociopaths. I do however have a problem with the “justice” system. Davis’ execution had been held up three times since 2007, and his case went through a long and complicated appeals process, but during the appeals process he was expected to prove his innocence, rather than merely cast reasonable doubt. Legal experts have argued that the major obstacle to granting Davis a new trial, and thus returning the standard of proof back to reasonable doubt, was the “Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act” which, among other things, bars death row inmates from later presenting evidence that could exonerate them after trial.
What’s that? You’ve never heard of the AEDPA? Or is it that you forgot about it? The AEDPA was the Patriot Act of 1996, passed after the Oklahoma City bombing. Legal experts have criticized the law since it was first passed, pointing out that it prevents wrongfully convicted persons from proving their innocence. I think it’s important to point out that these laws they pass to crack down on terrorists stay on the books long after the herd has settled, and lest we forget, that the State was trying to erode our legal protections long before 9/11.
So, I have no idea whether or not Troy Davis was innocent or not, but I strongly suspect that a functioning system of justice would have acquitted him based on the evidence alone. And I know for damn sure that even if he was guilty of murder he wasn’t guilty of terrorism, so why was anti-terrorism legislation the main legal hurdle for his defense? I think Ron Paul put it best in a recent debate.
“I think she (Bachmann) turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don’t deserve protection under our courts. But therefore, a judgment has to be made. They are ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you have to be tried.”
Well this law rules everyone a terrorist. Its proponents argued that we can’t let terrorists escape the death penalty because of a little thing like “reasonable doubt” so we’ll just have to change the standard…for everyone. I guess when it boils right down to it, even if I don’t philosophically have a problem with the death penalty, the question is always who makes the judgement. In a broken system, where the presumption of innocence is constantly eroded and the common criminal is increasingly treated like a terrorist, why would we want to put the death penalty in the hands of a State that’s constantly trying to make it legally easier to kill us?
Posted by:
