I wanted to believe the Georgia Parole Board would grant clemency to Troy Davis, who is scheduled to be executed tomorrow for a crime he says he did not commit, but I didn’t believe it would …and it didn’t.
For some, Davis’ execution is the right thing; those people will applaud the fact that another “bad guy” has been taken out. That is justice in the eyes of many: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
I believe that those who do wrong need to be punished, but what I am concerned with is what I see as an apparent disconnect in our justice system, a system which is apparently deaf to the possibility that prosecutors, judges, juries and eyewitnesses can be wrong, and its unwillingness to entertain error on its part.
What if Troy Davis is innocent? What if he didn’t shoot the person he has been convicted of shooting? What if “the system” is dead wrong?”
I just finished reading False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent” by Jim and Nancy Petro. Earlier this year I read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I had always had issues with “the justice system” because of things I have seen happen and instances of injustice perpetrated by and through the justice system that I have read about over the years.
Many people would tend to disregard the books I just mentioned, labeling the authors as bleeding heart liberals. Not so. Jim and Nancy Petro are bona fide, card-carrying Conservatives, and Petro is the former Attorney General for the State of Ohio. Alexander is a professor of law at The Ohio State University.
The books are different in their purposes, but both point to the holes and issues in and of the American justice system. People don’t want to hear that. We seem to need to believe in myths, and, in this case, the myth that “the justice system” is right and just all of the time.
But that is not true. It is not nor has it ever been. The Petro book lists, as the title suggests, eight myths that convict innocent people, including things like “only guilty people confess,” “our system almost never convicts an innocent person,” “an eyewitness is the best evidence.” Both Petro and Alexander describe how people who are being interrogated will often break down and say they are guilty because they think “the truth” will eventually prevail, or that if convicted, they’ll get an easier sentence. Those beliefs do not play out, and results in innocent people being incarcerated and sometimes killed, for things they really did not do.
Both Petro and Alexander talk about prosecutors who are more interested in “being right” and in getting convictions than they are in making sure justice is done. The descriptions of how evidence is too often suppressed, or how, after a conviction, it is so difficult to get prosecutors and judges to consider exculpatory evidence, is disheartening.
Appeals are often exercises in futility as well. It is as though once convicted, a person might as well accept his or her fate, no matter what comes up that proves the conviction was wrong.
In the Davis case, all but two witnesses who said he shot his victim recanted their testimony. Recantations are common, yet not very much respected. What makes me have serious issues with our justice system is that the “reasonable doubt” phrase, while nice to hear, only seems to have power and presence in the courtroom. If such reasonable doubt comes to light after the conviction, it seems that it is virtually ignored.
I don’t think that is justice.
The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. There is something uncomfortably wrong with that. Petro says that Americans ought to be connected to the justice system, get to know its strengths and weaknesses, and advocate for changes. Were it not for a few individuals, and organizations like The Innocent Project, who knows how many people would have no hope at all?
In a report which I read on an NPR (National Public Radio) site last week, the author cited the belief that the American criminal justice system, with its high incarceration rate and support of capital punishment, is actually an extension of American slavery, and is a means to keep people, specifically African Americans, “in their place.” Our criminal justice system, in other words, is a tool of control, not a tool of and for justice.
Its “deaf ear” approach to post conviction reasonable doubt, however, extends to and affects people of all colors, though that affectation is higher for people of color. America, seriously? We’re fighting (and are in tremendous debt) trying to assure justice for people in other countries while we are denying real justice to our own people? Something is wrong with that.
I cannot imagine being Troy Davis, sitting in prison, knowing that tomorrow, he will die, for something he swears he did not do. The thought of it woke me several times last night. From what I have come to understand about this case, justice has not been done.
Petro says that the public needs to be aware of the weaknesses of the justice system and “demand improved outcomes.” We need to be a little more diligent in electing prosecutors. Petro says that we, the American public, “have placed on prosecutors a mandate to win convictions,” but we need to also place on them a mandate to secure justice, and be able and willing to admit error, when there is “reasonable doubt” that serious errors have been made.
I am sick about Troy Davis, and others, some who have already been killed via capital punishment for crimes they did not commit, and others who are scheduled to be executed. There is something seriously wrong, and we need to become aware. It is Troy Davis today; it could be any of our children at a later time.
That is…a candid observation.