Troy Davis Gets a Stay of Execution

Troy Davis received a stay of execution today from the Supreme Court, as it ordered a federal judge to"receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence."

Here's Amnesty International's write-up on Mr. Davis:

Restrictions on Federal appeals have prevented Troy Anthony Davis from having a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him, despite the fact that most of the witnesses have since recanted, many alleging they were pressured or coerced by police. Troy Davis remains on Georgia death row, and may be scheduled for execution in the near future.

Troy Davis was sentenced to death for the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail at a Burger King in Savannah, Georgia; a murder he maintains he did not commit. There was no physical evidence against him and the weapon used in the crime was never found. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester "Red" Coles – the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.

How is it possible that we are even contemplating taking this man's life? We are not only contemplating it, we are cruelly waiting until only 3 days before his scheduled execution to give him a stay. This kind of treatment in and of itself should be considered cruel and unusual.

Even more ludicrous is Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion, in which he says:

"Petitioner's claim is a sure loser. Transferring his petition to the [federal] District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment."

Antonin Scalia is so out of touch with reality that he simply has no business being on a court which can decide the fate of a man's life. Here is a quote from his opinion in Hudson:

Another development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations is the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Even as long ago as 1989, we felt it proper to “assume” that unlawful police behavior “would be dealt with appropriately” by the authorities, but we now have increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously. There have been “wide ranging reforms in the education, training, and supervision” of police officers (cite omitted).

[...]

Moreover, modern police forces are staffed with professionals; it is not credible to assert that internal discipline, which can limit successful careers, will not have a deterrent effect. There is also evidence that the increasing use of various forms of citizen review can enhance police accountability.

Rodney Balko scathingly refutes Scalia in a piece which you should read:

Police are certainly more highly trained than they once were, but they aren’t better trained at observing civil liberties. They’re better trained at paramilitary tactics. They’re now trained by former Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. They’re better trained at treating civilians like enemy combatants, at taking over and “clearing” rooms in private homes, not at treating the people inside as citizens with rights.

...

Internal affairs investigations are notoriously inept. Even in cases in which police officers were found to have committed egregious offenses, those cases were uncovered during federal investigations or during civil trials, or by journalists, or by mere happenstance — not by “internal police discipline.”

Is Scalia oblivious to “the blue wall of silence?” “Internal discipline,” as he calls it, certainly does “limit successful careers,” but not in the way Scalia portrays it. You are “disciplined” to keep quiet when it comes to abuse, excessive force, and corruption. It’s the officers who talk who eventually find their careers “severely limited.” How many examples do we need before they stop being considered anomalies?

In my research on this issue, I’ve never — not once — seen a police officer convicted of even a misdemeanor for shooting an innocent civilian in a botched raid. Very few are even subject to internal discipline. (Consider the recent case of Sal Culosi.) And it’s happened (”it” being the death of innocent as the resut of a botched raid) about three dozen times. As Justice Breyer notes in his dissent, even the state of Michigan in its brief couldn’t cite a single time a police officer has successfully been sued for conducting an illegal no-knock raid. On my personal website, I’ve kept a running list of SWAT-like raids gone bad. It’s a depressingly long list.

In sum, police aren’t better trained at respecting civil liberties, they’re better trained at finding ways to get around them. The ratcheting up of the drug war in the early 1980s has made police abuse of civil liberties routine. And let’s be clear: It is bad policy that has created this mess. Bad policy from politicians, regulators, and judges who continue to cling to the belief that if we give police just a few more drug-fighting tools, we’ll lick this “drug war” thing for good — despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

In a country where, as Senator Jim Webb said on the floor of Congress

African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us...

and where African Americans have been executed at similarly outlandish rates, and where innocent African Americans have been both convicted and executed for crimes that they did not commit, Scalia's views can only be described as stupid or inhuman.

This matters because it is this system which he assumes is infallible; so infallible, in fact, that is no point considering new, and potentially exculpatory evidence before the state murders one of it's citizens.

He assumes that the criminal system is being run fairly, because there must be people who are paying attention, while ignoring the fact that ultimately, HE is the one who is supposed to oversee it.

If Troy Davis' conviction is overturned, do you think Scalia will offer an apology? Do you think the state of Georgia could ever do anything to make this wrong right?

This is not just about whether the United States should continue to be the only civilized western nation to put its citizens to death. This debate must start by questioning our entire criminal system, which can longer possibly be considered just. Troy Davis is only the latest victim.