Troy Davis executed in Georgia

[Awesome Wells]

Death row inmate Troy Davis has been executed in the US state of Georgia for the fatal shooting of policeman Mark MacPhail in 1989.
Davis' death was delayed for hours while the US Supreme Court considered an 11th-hour appeal for clemency.
The 42-year-old's case was heavily disputed after most of the witnesses recanted or changed their testimony.
Outside the jail in Jackson, Georgia, there was a heavy police presence earlier as his supporters demonstrated.
Davis was convicted in 1991 of killing MacPhail, an off-duty police officer, but maintained he was innocent.
The US Supreme Court judges took more than four hours to issue their rejection of the final appeal, an unusually long time for such a ruling.
"The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice [Clarence] Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied," it read.
Davis continued to protest his innocence in the death chamber.
"I did not have a gun," he said, "For those about to take my life, may God have mercy on your souls. May God bless your souls."
Davis was pronounced dead at 23:08 (03:08 GMT Thursday), 15 minutes after the lethal injection began.
MacPhail was shot dead in July 1989 as he tried to help a homeless man who was being attacked in a Burger King car park.
Prosecutors said Davis was beating the man with a gun after demanding a beer from him.
No gun was found and no DNA evidence conclusively linked Davis to the murder.
On Wednesday morning, Davis' lawyers appealed to the county court responsible for Georgia's death row, but that was also rejected.
The legal team had argued that ballistic testing from the case was flawed.
The pardons board also dismissed an appeal to reconsider their decision on Monday to deny Davis clemency.
Prosecutors said they had no doubts as to his guilt.
"He had all the chances in the world," Anneliese MacPhail, the mother of the murdered policeman, said earlier in a phone interview with the Associated Press news agency.
"It has got to come to an end."
Davis counted among his supporters Pope Benedict XVI and former US President Jimmy Carter, as well as US conservative figures like representative Bob Barr and former FBI director William Sessions.
Outside the prison, hundreds of people gathered chanting: "They say, death row; we say, hell no".
Around 10 counter-demonstrators were also present, voicing support for the death penalty and for the family of MacPhail.
There was a heavy police presence, including large numbers of riot police, but no disturbances were reported.
International protests
Davis' execution date had already been halted three times.
Protests had taken on an international dimension since Monday's decision to deny clemency by the Georgia pardons board.
The Council of Europe had also called for Davis' sentence to be commuted.
Amnesty International and other groups organised protests at the US embassy in Paris, where 150 people gathered in Place de la Concorde, holding signs bearing Davis' image.
"We strongly deplore that the numerous appeals for clemency were not heeded," the French foreign ministry said after the execution.
In Washington DC dozens gathered outside the White House, in the hope that President Barack Obama might intervene at the last-minute.
But White House press secretary Jay Carney said it would not be appropriate for the president to interfere in specific cases of state prosecution, such as this one.
Reports suggested around a dozen people were arrested for refusing to co-operate with police.
Meanwhile in the US state of Texas another death row inmate, Lawrence Russell Brewer, was executed on Wednesday evening - in a very different case.
In 1998, white supremacist gang member Brewer, 44, dragged a black man chained to the back of a pick-up truck along a road until he died.

God bless America.

The point is: innocent or guilty, Davis shouldn't have been killed by the state; the scumbag supremacist Brewer shouldn't have been killed by the state, even though he clearly was guilty; nobody should. In a supposedly civilised democracy, the execution of citizens is barbaric and monstrous.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I kind of hate this subject - I've always been very anti-execution.

But then again I do believe for murder, the sentence should often be life, and not just 10-20 years.

[Anthony Williams]

I absolutely agree. As a resident of the State of Georgia, I find this to be absolutely abhorrent.

Is it ever right to take someone's life? I don't think so. Not even in the most clear-cut cases - and this certainly wasn't one of them.

As both Dave and Mike have said, whether Davis was guilty or not, the death penalty isn't right.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Is it ever right to take someone's life? I don't think so. Not even in the most clear-cut cases - and this certainly wasn't one of them.

I think that's part of the problem. I think there have been too many times when people have been executed on the basis of very dubious evidence, just to be found innocent later on. You can't then give them back their life.

At the same time I say that, I do feel people who have committed murder have crossed a very serious line, and should not really be released, probably ever, back into society.

[Wayne]

A sad day for many Americans.
I tend to have a fairly hard line on murder and violent crime, but i've never advocated the death penalty. And for it to be implimented in a case so riddled with holes, is a genuine crime in itself.

As Amnesty International reminds us - American prisons are among the most inhumane in the world. Some, especially in Colorado, are strange privatised, automated, netherworlds in which prisoners are removed from human contact and are under 24-hour electronic surveillance in these ideological death camps.

To me, Troy Davis' own message to those who supported him speaks volumes:

"The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I'm in good spirits and I'm prayerful and at peace."

[Jason Thompson]

The most absurd thing about the death penalty in the US is that it takes so long to implement. Troy Davis has already served 20 years, about as much time in prison as a person convicted of a similar crime would in this country. But whereas our convict would be possibly released on parole or whatever depending on nature of the crime and his conduct in prison, in the US he gets a life imprisonment sentence and then gets killed at the end of it.

[Rob McCow]

The question to ask is 'Will this guy kill anybody else if we let him out?'. I think in this case, the answer is 'No chance in hell.'

Protecting society is the only possible reason to justify the death penalty; revenge isn't really acceptable as a motive in any civilisation. If he's not going to harm anyone, then the sentence should never be the termination of his life.

Being a complete bloody liberal, I believe that no-one is beyond redemption - but prison is a pretty crappy way to reform someone's character. It doesn't work that brilliantly as a deterrent either, most people who commit crimes don't think they're going to get caught.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

God bless America.

The point is: innocent or guilty, Davis shouldn't have been killed by the state; the scumbag supremacist Brewer shouldn't have been killed by the state, even though he clearly was guilty; nobody should. In a supposedly civilised democracy, the execution of citizens is barbaric and monstrous*.

*in my opinion

[Awesome Wells]

You disagree?

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I disagree in general with the sentiment that "in a democracy, everything would be done the way I like it". It seems to misunderstand the concept of democracy somewhat. And given that, whenever this debate pops up, there never seems to be any problem in finding supporters for the death penalty, I certainly would feel on shaky ground if I confidently stated that it had no part in a democratic society. Obviously I don't know the real numbers, but it seems to me it's more than just a very vocal minority. Democracy means all the people who hold views you disagree with, or even find abhorrent, have a voice as loud as yours.

[Awesome Wells]

I disagree in general with the sentiment that "in a democracy, everything would be done the way I like it".

So do I. I hope, if you're implying that this is somehow my view, you can provide an example of me saying so.

given that, whenever this debate pops up, there never seems to be any problem in finding supporters for the death penalty, I certainly would feel on shaky ground if I confidently stated that it had no part in a democratic society.

This is patently ridiculous. Are you stating that in a democracy, we should have the death penalty for those who want it and abolish it for those who don't?

Democracy means all the people who hold views you disagree with, or even find abhorrent, have a voice as loud as yours.

It means allowing everyone a voice within the law; it doesn't mean trying to find room for things that are morally or legally wrong. Some people believe that rape, robbery, murder and racial hatred are acceptable; should they be allowed a voice, or laws passed to incorporate their views, simply because we live in a democratic society? Obviously not - yet this seems to be what you're arguing.

You haven't answered my question yet, either. Do you or do you not think that the death penalty has no place within a democratic society?

[Anthony Williams]

You haven't answered my question yet, either. Do you or do you not think that the death penalty has no place within a democratic society?

I think that what Mr Hamson is saying that in a true democracy (which no country in the world has), is that if over 50% of the population wanted the death penalty, then there would be the death penalty.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

This is patently ridiculous. Are you stating that in a democracy, we should have the death penalty for those who want it and abolish it for those who don't?

You haven't answered my question yet, either. Do you or do you not think that the death penalty has no place within a democratic society?

No... I am not saying that, particularly since we can't abolish it since we don't have it. I'm saying that there seems to be a large number of people who would be quite happy to have a death penalty. Whether or not it has a place in a democratic society depends on just how large that number of people is. As I said, I don't know how large that number is, but it seems more than just a vocal minority.

I would address the first part where you're suggesting I was putting words in your mouth, but since you seem to have put ten times as many words in my mouth I don't think I will

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I think that what Mr Hamson is saying that in a true democracy (which no country in the world has), is that if over 50% of the population wanted the death penalty, then there would be the death penalty.

Yep.

[Anthony Williams]

There's an excellent article by Anglican blogger Cranmer on the various rights and wrongs of the death penalty, with particular reference to the Troy Davis case. It can be read here: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.c...o-take-my.html

[Darren]

What would being on Death Row for 20 years do to a person mentally and physically? And why such a long time span? Is there a back log?

[Anthony Williams]

The length of time that one is on death row is normally due to the extremely lengthy and complicated appeals process. Providing the convict decides to appeal, of course.

Perhaps it is unsurprising to know that 25% of people on death row in the USA die of natural causes before they are executed.

Personally, I believe that Troy Davis was guilty. But, I don't think that the death penalty is right, regardless of the circumstances.

[Rob McCow]

Whether or not it has a place in a democratic society

It has no place in a civilised society, no matter how they choose their leaders.

Death sentences are basically the way of the animal. They might have been useful when mankind lived in tribes and there was not enough manpower to incacerate those who were dangerous to society. In the modern day, I think we can do better than murder.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I still maintain that that's a matter of opinion, not a universal truth.

[Anthony Williams]

I agree with Zbigniev - I don't personally support the death penalty. However, one thing I learnt in academic writing for a subject like history is that in general, you shouldn't cast moral judgement on such things.

After all, how can one define civilised society? Many would say that the Ancient Greeks were "civilised", yet they certainly had the death penalty - Socrates was sentenced to death. Many would describe the Ancient Romans as civilized -yet, these were the same people who rampaged across Europe, their mission statement was "to conquer and civilize".

Definitions of civilization change not only with time, but with geographic location, too.

[SiHart]

Perhaps it's more that it's an ideal we should aspire to?

[Awesome Wells]

Ancient Greece and Rome may have been considered civilised in comparison with what preceded them, but nobody - I'm sure - looks back and holds them up as models of civilised society in comparison with what came after.

1. Bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced: "a civilised society".

Western society in 2011, for all its faults, is more culturally advanced than any civilisation preceding it - and, I would hope, a large part of that is down to a belief that killing people, even (or particularly) in state-sponsored executions, is wrong, and that we as human beings are better than that.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

All of those things (culture, morality and... er... socialness) are subjective concepts that evolve over time though. I can't see what's so inherently immoral about "do unto others as you would have done to yourself" though, which is the corollary of "an eye for an eye". To some eyes it may seem barbaric and no better than "revenge", to other eyes it may seem the purest form of justice that could possibly be. I find it hard to see either point of view as so obviously wrong that either side can legitimately claim outright superiority without even engaging in an argument.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

A civilised society of course is one with good PR. The Greeks and Romans have it - you just skim over the fact they were societies built on "civilised" slavery.

That said it does seem a bit that civilisation is a yardstick of some sorts. When you compare the societies who came after the fall of the Roman civilisation with that of Rome, it does seem more backwards

[Jason Thompson]

I agree with Zbigniev, largely. I don't support the death penalty, but there is such a wide variety of views on the issue that it is hard to say 'it's uncivilised'.

Many people think terminating the life of someone is wrong under any circumstances. Many people think that someone who has done something so unspeakable as murder or rape or child abuse or whatever no longer deserves to live. Others think that execution is an 'easy way out', because they're done humanely so the convicted have not had to suffer the way their victims did. Still others compain that the treatement paedophiles and murders get in some prisons violates their human rights, so we should lock them up but treat them nicely. And all of those views come from the population of what we would describe as a 'civilised' society, so how do we decide what is the 'civilised' way to deal with criminals?

I don't think the death penalty is a good thing, not so much because I don't think execution is morally right, but largely because a) the judicial system is run by people who make mistakes, and an execution is a rather difficult mistake to rectify, and b) because it clearly is not a deterrent, judging by the crime rates in places that use it.