Troy Davis

I'm not really much of a death penalty abolitionist, insofar as I don't see it as necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances. One circumstance in which it's a really bad idea to execute someone, though, is when he's being set up to take the fall for a crime he didn't commit. This certainly appears to be the problem with the looming execution of Troy Davis who, it seems, isn't allowed to present evidence of his innocence -- including the fact that three of the four witnesses against him (and there was no physical evidence) have recanted their testimony -- because of something called the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which, I guess, rebuilt the Democratic Party's credibility on the crime issue at the cost of the lives of an unknown number of innocent people.

UPDATE: To clarify, "Not much of a death penalty abolitionist" means I am, in fact, a death penalty abolitionist. I think of the "real" abolitionists as making sanctity of life appeals, which I wouldn't do, but I'd certainly vote against the death penalty in a referendum.

Comments

Yep, there are two things I'll never be able to forgive Bill Clinton for, despite the fact that he looks awfully good now -- the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and DOMA--the Defense of Marriage Act. Both were utter betrayals of Democratic principles in an attempt to "triangulate" or whatever bullshit name you want to give to it.

Posted by Glenn | July 16, 2007 10:18 AM

"I'm not really much of a death penalty abolitionist, insofar as I don't see it as necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances."

The reason for being a death penalty abolitionist is not that it's necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances.

The reason for being a death penalty abolitionist is that the sentence is destined to be used in the wrong circumstances.

Similarly, I don't think most folks have a problem with torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, but think that legalized torture will result in it being frequently used in inappropriate cases.

-----

All that said, I have a similar position on the death penalty as I do on gun control: until the public comes around, which may take quite a while, I don't want the Democratic Party hobbling itself over this particular issue.

Posted by Petey | July 16, 2007 10:32 AM

"Both were utter betrayals of Democratic principles in an attempt to "triangulate" or whatever bullshit name you want to give to it."

The "bullshit" name I'd want to give to them is correct political strategery.

Clinton's centrism was correct political strategy for 1995, just as Edward's progressivism is correct political strategy for 2008.

Sometimes you need to play defense, and sometimes you need to play offense.

Posted by Petey | July 16, 2007 10:36 AM

It is tribalism and collective punishment, because if they can't find the right guy, they will find someone from the black community to pay for it.

Posted by stm177 | July 16, 2007 10:37 AM

"I'm not really much of a death penalty abolitionist, insofar as I don't see it as necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances."

This is a shockingly stupid statement, the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. You cannot pick and choose which executions to support. Either you support the death penalty or you don't, you either support a flawed system run by flawed people or you don't, and if you support it, then you support the killing of people whom you don't think deserve it, including innocent people. Do you really think you know how to design a "good" dealth penalty, one that that kills only those whom Yglesias thinks deserves it? Of course you can't; that's why Blackmun gave up trying to tinker "with the machinery of death."

This isn't false surprise, here. I'm sincerely shocked that a self-avowed progressive, one who sometimes shows a pretty good awareness of the dangers of concentrated power, would cede to the government the power to kill people.

The first thing the post-Aparteid government in South Africa did was to abolish the death penalty, because Mandela et al knew that the death penalty is an instrument of tyranny.

Posted by david mizner | July 16, 2007 10:44 AM

A similar situation happened on Law & Order once, and the New York Court of Appeals ultimately overturned the ruling after Jack McCoy made an impassioned speech. In real life, I don't see how the courts are supposed to step in after the appeals process has been exhausted without declaring a mistrial if we still want the Fifth Amendment to mean something.

The solution in such cases is a pardon. If Scooter Libby deserved one, I can't imagine Troy Davis doesn't.

Posted by Alexander Dietz | July 16, 2007 10:47 AM

AEDPA aside, I think that insufficient attention and criticism is given to prosecutors who stubbornly refuse to address these problems on their own. Fixing obvious injustices like this should not only be the responsibility of the federal courts. Prosecutors and governors (to the extent prisoners seek clemency) have an obligation in the first instance to make sure that justice is done. The court exercising habeas powers should be the absolute last resort. I think there is long term political value to trying to make this an issue about executive misconduct.

Posted by Led | July 16, 2007 10:52 AM

Repugnant execution scenario #2: Administering the death penaty to a person with an IQ of 63. Someone when asked "Where are you right now?" says "I'm in a big, ugly house full of mean people and they never let me out for any play time." Illiterate, wholly unable to capably assist in their own defense and yet still sentenced to death. Everyone, including appeals courts, are deathly afraid of appearing soft on crime. So, it's off to the gallows with you!

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2007 10:53 AM

David, does the same logic apply to any other punishment? You can't pick and choose which imprisonments to support? If you support imprisonment of anyone, then you support the flawed system we have, with all its unfairness and abuses?

Posted by KCinDC | July 16, 2007 10:54 AM

The death penalty in America has just turned into a way to kill off poor Southern black men based on flimsy evidence. A black man who kills a white man is five times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white man who kills a black man. I wonder why that is?

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2007 10:55 AM

This is a shockingly stupid statement, the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

I doubt you can back this statement up.

Posted by jerry | July 16, 2007 11:09 AM

The reason for being a death penalty abolitionist is not that it's necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances.

I'm pretty sure most death penalty abolitionists think otherwise.

Similarly, I don't think most folks have a problem with torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

I do, and happen to think that supporting torture is immoral. This 'wink, wink we'll let the CIA, Egypt or Syria do it, while we deny it officially' attitude, is exactly what got us into the present mess in there first place.

until the public comes around, which may take quite a while, I don't want the Democratic Party hobbling itself over this particular issue.

Since polls in countries that have abolished the death penalty show that in most cases a majority of the population tends to be pro-death penalty, you'll probably be waiting forever. It'll have to be abolished by lawmakers with guts.

Posted by novakant | July 16, 2007 11:29 AM

"David, does the same logic apply to any other punishment? You can't pick and choose which imprisonments to support? If you support imprisonment of anyone, then you support the flawed system we have, with all its unfairness and abuses?"

Yes, I believe it does, which strikes me as a pretty good argument for a more humane and sane criminal justice system. One of the problems, for example, with the WOD is that for the few big-time drug dealers it punishes, it punishes thousands of people who don't deserve it, and turns them into actual criminals. The more power we give government authorities via criminal justice policies, the more harm they will do. I don't why liberals or conservatives who are otherwise aware of the government's tendency to abuse its power make it relatively easy for it to imprison us and kill us.

Posted by david mizner | July 16, 2007 11:47 AM

The much-maligned, well-deserved-maligning Catholic Church opposes the death penalty except in instances where keeping the miscreant alive would lead to the possibility of worse later, i.e. a Saddam-like figure who has a loyal following. I think that's a defensible and excellent exception. We aren't in the business of vengeance, and reeking vengeance does harm to the person who pursues it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 16, 2007 12:01 PM

So a sane and humane criminal justice system cannot include imprisonment for anyone? No true progressive can support any imprisonment at all?

How about fines? If you support fining of anyone, does that also mean you support the flawed system we have?

What does your ideal criminal justice system look like? Any criminal justice system gives power to the government and carries with it the possibility of abuse.

Posted by KCinDC | July 16, 2007 12:02 PM

The Washington Post article doesn't make clear the actual legal issue in the case, but without doing any additional checking it seems like the problem may be that Davis couldn't find a lawyer to file his habeas petition based on evidence that he is actually innocent of the offense until after the 1-year statute of limitations enacted by AEDPA.

If that's the issue, it's actually an open question in the Supreme Court whether evidence of actual innocence that satisfies a certain threshold of plausibility can overcome the AEDPA's one-year bar on habeas appeals. This would seem like a good case to test that question, if Georgia officials will stay the execution to allow the process to go forward.

Posted by UN Plaza | July 16, 2007 12:15 PM

I'm pretty much a Death Penalty Abolutionist if the person in question did not actually commit the crime for which they were convicted. Yeah, pretty much, I should CYA here, I think.

Posted by ed | July 16, 2007 12:21 PM

The reason for being a death penalty abolitionist is not that it's necessarily wrong to execute people in all circumstances.

There are many compelling pragmatic reasons for the death penalty to be abolished that don't stem from an absolutist stance on executions. I frequently argue from just such a position, because those that don't feel a particular moral revulsion towards the death penalty are unlikely to be persuaded by appeals to pure morality. That said, I am an absolutist, and I do believe that a state sponsored execution is a moral travesty. But the pragmatic argument has to be made, because it's correct and because it is generally more effective in creating change.

Posted by Freddie | July 16, 2007 1:00 PM

I think that insufficient attention and criticism is given to prosecutors who stubbornly refuse to address these problems on their own. Fixing obvious injustices like this should not only be the responsibility of the federal courts. Prosecutors and governors (to the extent prisoners seek clemency) have an obligation in the first instance to make sure that justice is done. The court exercising habeas powers should be the absolute last resort.

This seems exactly right. In the first instance, the problem in this case is with local prosecutors who are unwilling to do anything but defend what appears to be a flawed prosecution. In the second instance, there would appear to be serious flaws with Georgia's criminal justice system, in that there should be ways to get the new evidence before the courts there. Third, the Governor of the state presumably has the authority to do something a miscarriage of justice, and evidently takes a Bushean approach to those duties. Any problems with the federal habeas regime would be moot but not for all of these things.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 16, 2007 1:24 PM

"So a sane and humane criminal justice system cannot include imprisonment for anyone? No true progressive can support any imprisonment at all?"

I didn't say that. Howzabout prison for people who, as best as we can tell, are dangerous?

And howzabout allowing for the possibility of parole for even dangerous people?

Posted by david mizner | July 16, 2007 2:09 PM

Petey,

The reason for being a death penalty abolitionist is that the sentence is destined to be used in the wrong circumstances.

Any criminal sentence is destined to be used in the wrong circumstances sometimes.

Freddie,

That said, I am an absolutist, and I do believe that a state sponsored execution is a moral travesty.

Why? What about say, imprisonment for life. Do you also believe that's a moral travesty?

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2007 7:23 PM

David, you said the same logic applies to imprisonment that you used for the death penalty, so you did say that. Apparently you've since realized it is possible to support imprisonment in some circumstances without supporting the current system. I'd still like to hear why the same logic wouldn't apply to the death penalty -- that it might be possible to support it in some circumstances without endorsing the seriously flawed system we have now. I'm not trying to cause trouble -- just seeking clarification of your position.

I think we're in agreement on the rest of your last comment -- except that I hope you mean parole for people who were once dangerous but we don't think are now.

Posted by KCinDC | July 16, 2007 10:05 PM