Osler's Razor

I understand that our justice system should never completely turn away from mercy or be deliberate, but this Davis execution fails to invoke either one of these virtues.

First, Mr. Davis case was given much deliberation before his execution last night. He was given a jury trial, was convicted, exhausted his State appeals, exhuasted his State habeas remedies, filed a federal habeas petition, and was given the extraordinary hearing as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2009 to allow him one more time to conclusively establish his innocence. (certainly we can agree that the burden is appropriately placed on a defendant to prove his innocence after he has been afforded the due proces of a jury trial).

Only after all of these procedural steps and a federal judge listening to testimony from the witnesses who testified, reviewing evidence that was presented at trial, and from evidence outside of that trial (as habeas allows) did the federal judge conclude there was minimal doubt that Davis was innocent.

Interestingly enough Davis last comments before he was executed was that he wasn't the gunman. Davis didn't state I wasn't involved. Not that a defendant proclaiming his innocence long after he has been convicted and sentenced to death is any evidence that he is innocent.

On to mercy. Mercy is a two-way street. Is it merciful that Officer MacPhail's family has had to wait 22 years for a jury's sentence to be carried out. That his son who was less than a year old grew up without a father because of Davis' actions. That he had to grow up and become a man before last night finally occurred. That each time an appellate court reviewed the case they had to worry about another trial, having to remember about their loss.

Finally, why is there not any discussion of the white supremacist who was executed last night for his actions in Jasper, Texas, back in 1998? Willing to talk about mercy and deliberation on this case as well, particularly because he also kept saying he was innocent.

- Houston ADA
 

ADA-- this was a different case than most, and certainly different than the Texas case.

A 500 word piece does not give one time to delve into the specific problems with deliberation-- especially the AEDPA (which I mention, at least).

Finally, speaking as a Christian (and this is consistent with most other faith traditions), mercy certainly is not a two-way street. We are called to consider mercy on those who do not deserve it based on their own actions. Here, that is a secondary point though; the evidence of innocence is primary.
 

I brought up the Texas case not to show there were similarities, but to wonder why some death penalty opponents pick and choose which cases they want to stand up for. The Jasper killer, Timothy McVeigh, and other notorious killers aren't as popular and the death penalty opponents stay away from those cases, and i find it interesting.

Back to the Davis case. The "innocence" that you mention is where the rubber hits the road. Davis was given more than enough hearings to establish he was innocent and failed to do so. Think of all of the people who listened to his pleas and found time and time again that he is not innocent. A jury, a state appellate court, a state district court in habeas, the Georgia Supreme Court, and a federal district judge.

Now if you want to assert a rule that we shouldn't sentence anyone to the death penalty without conclusive forensic proof, then that's a worthy discussion, but to claim that in the absence of such evidence that a convicted killer is innocent is disingenuous.

Finally, your definition of mercy then assumes that harsh punishments are never warranted because everyone (including family members of murder victims) should always be merciful. I guess seeing on a day to day basis of what murder does and how some people don't appreciate the value of a life, i don't believe infinite mercy is warranted when too many good people are taken out of this world way too soon.

- Houston ADA
 

I'm with Houston ADA. Davis had his chance to prove actual innocence. He didn't. Burdens mean something under the law. The Amnesty International crowd misled people about the nature of his claims. Read the Supreme Court's opinion: those recantations aren't really recantations. And Davis did confess.

It sucks to execute someone, but that's what a jury of his peers decided was the appropriate punishment. Until the people of Georgia feel differently about the death penalty, I support their right to determine how to punish capital crimes.
 

First, I must say that I am a death penalty opponent. I am principally so because I believe that the state should not wield the power to put a person to death; life in prision without the possibility of parole for horrifice crimes, certainly, but death no. With that said, however, Houston ADA makes a compelling argument. Specifically, he makes a rather salient point when he references the white supremacist in Jasper, TX and McVeigh.
 

As for Tim McVeigh... I didn't have a family member killed in that awful act. But I do know someone who did-- Bud Welch, who lost his daughter Julie. His story is compelling.
 

Mr. Welch's story is without a doubt compelling. But what about the hundreds of other victims, including the ten victim's representatives that watched McVeigh be executed in person or the 200 bombing survivors and victims' relatives that wached McVeigh die on closed-circuit television in Oklahoma City.

And if the argument always falls on, we can't bring the murdered back, then i guess we shouldn't punish anyone too harshly? When/where do we sacrifice justice for mercy? Is a life sentence too harsh? 60 years? 40 years? Mercy and forgiveness are admirable qualities for individuals to have, but there is something to be said of punishing (even for its own sake) those who commit the ultimate crime of murder.

I guess that's where i'm separated. Mercy is a personal quality and a fantastic goal, but when it comes to intentional murder, it's not something the State/Government should be concerned with. Maybe in other cases such as drugs, DWI, etc..., but not with intentional violent crimes.

And can we not agree that justice was done when McVeigh was executed? Can we actually agree that McVeigh got a lot more mercy and justice than he truly deserved for the act he did. Same with the Jasper, Texas, white supremacist who stated he wouldn't change anything that happened, which necessarily included the chaining and dismembering of an innocent man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry, life in prison, isn't sufficient for these types of pepole (and i use that word "person/people" loosely when referring to at least these individuals).

In the end, i just think that the Davis execution is getting way too much publicity, considering he was never proven innocent and there still was almost complete media silence about the Jasper execution. Then again, maybe the media has given up on caring about Texas executions??? Nah, it must be that that execution isn't soap box worthy.

- Houston ADA
 

I read an interview with a texas anti-dp type the other day. He admitted that there was no way to lie and gin up support against the dp with a guy like Lawrence Brewer.

It amazes me that liberals who hate racial violence don't just admit that some criminals, like white supremacist murderers, need to be executed.
 

I am not as eloquent or knowledgeable about the law as most of the people who comment here, but, simply speaking, killing someone who killed someone is the extreme analogy of spanking a child who hit another child. It sickens my heart that our country still finds it acceptable to do what barbaric nations do.

So, I feel the same way about both executions that took place yesterday. Troy Davis may have been innocent and Lawrence Brewer may have confessed. I don't think either man should have been put to death (killed) last night.

MMM
 

Why stop at watching McVeigh being put to death on closed circuit TV? Why not make a it picnic, a day celebrating good extirpating evil, a true medieval festivity in perfect harmony with this kind of event.
 

When serial killer John Wayne Gacy was executed in Illinois, there was a picnic: people tailgated, with beer and food and celebratory signs. Many of them brought their children (the execution was at midnight), who witnessed the spectacle strapped in their strollers.

Houston ADA 7:04: The long ordeal of the MacPhail family illustrates precisely why the death penalty is so bad for victims' families: the long, drawn-out process, the endless motions and appeals, the waiting for justice. The sentence of life without parole delivers justice instantly: the sentence begins the moment it is uttered. Victims' families have finality, and there is room to fix the error if an innocent person has been convicted of the crime. No victim's family member wants the wrong person to pay for the crime which took their loved one's life.

I agree we should look at the case of the white supremacist who dragged a helpless man to death. The victim's son, Ross Byrd, has spoken eloquently about why he opposed the killer's execution: not because of who the killer was, but because of who his father was, what he believed in and stood for.
 

Wonderful job on CNN. I am so glad I got to see it.
MMM
 

To Seraphim:

Ask a State habeas or a federal habeas attorney (on either the State or the defense side) about life sentences and how they don't provide immediate justice. That's simply a falsehood.

Time is always a friend to the defense and not the State after a conviction occurs. New case law can come out (see Padilla v. Kentucky); witnesses recant (for a plethora of reasons); upon a reversal the State has to hope that State's witnesses haven't died or evidence has been destroyed. Thus, it's the defense who want the process to be drawn out as long as possible.


- Houston ADA
 

Anon 11:59:

Simply put, no, it's not astonishing that some people simply want to do the right thing and not stoop down to the level of these killers by engaging in murder themselves. Killing the murderer won't bring the victims back, nor will it fix anything.
 

When John Wesley gave the General Rules to the people called Methodists the first thing he told them was to do no harm. In order to show evidence that we are a people who are being saved by God we should do no harm.

On moral grounds alone, I cannot justify the execution of the perpetrator of even the most reprehensible of crimes. Even if it is constitutionally permissible, it is not supportable by me, on moral grounds.

The only moral justification I can find for it is that it might serve as a deterrent to future capital crimes. Based on logic and statistical evidence, it appears to me that it is not effective as a deterrent.

I understand how ADA and any prosecutor has to steel himself to the morality of the death penalty, and I understand how a justice of a court would find constitutional permission for killing convicted criminals.

I cannot support it on moral grounds. It does harm to one of God's children, even those who have committed horrific crimes. May we all enjoy grace--in the end, it is our only hope.
 

Here's Judge Moore's (a Clinton appointee) opinion from Aug 2010, issued after the Supreme Court directed the U.S. District Court in Savannah to examine the supposed "new" evidence:

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf
 

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf
 

Davis Opinion
 

Mr. Olser,

Your piece for CNN was one of the best written articles I have read in a long time. I too am dissapointed by our legal system as so many are around the world. I believe in an eye for an eye but in this case it seems the eyes of the courts were also affected, as they were closed.

I am fascinated by the law; however, I do not understand how the burden was placed on Mr. Davis to prove his innocence.