Countdown to death

By KATHLEEN PARKER   Sunday, Sept. 25, 2011
ADVERTISEMENT
 

I stayed up late Wednesday night in hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court would call off the execution of Troy Davis. Instead, at 11:08 p.m., he was pronounced dead.

One minute he was lifting his head from the death gurney, pleading his innocence in the killing of a police officer 22 years ago and beseeching God to bless the souls of his executioners. Then the drugs entered his veins, he blinked a few times, appeared to yawn, according to witnesses, and entered the sleep from which there is no waking.

Over. Next?

Would that there were no next. I'm no wimp when it comes to justice and spent the first few decades of my life backstroking in the Old Testament. An eye-for-an-eye was fine by me. But I have matured and these days wear glibness -- and righteousness -- like a hair shirt. Satisfaction can never come from the termination of a human life except to protect one's own and that of one's dependents. Thus, our barbaric practice of capital punishment, premeditated and coldblooded, is, since we're in a biblical mood, an abomination. That we grant the state the power to end a citizen's life is a harrowing-enough thought. That we do so even when we know with certainty that sometimes innocents are killed is beyond comprehension.

In Davis' case, opinions clearly differed. Seven of the nine witnesses who once identified him as the shooter have since recanted. Even so, a federal judge ruled last year that the recantation testimony cast "minimal doubt" on Davis' conviction.

Minimal? Isn't any level of doubt enough?

Apparently, even the Supreme Court didn't think so. After delaying Davis' execution for four hours on Wednesday, the court allowed the execution to proceed.

The fact of those recantations surely should create sufficient doubt, not to exonerate Davis but at least not to kill him -- even if you support the death penalty, as many sane and lovely Americans do. That said, I'm not so sure a sane and lovely person would or should cheer the death penalty, as audience members did recently upon Texas Gov. Rick Perry's expression of pride in his administration of ultimate justice. More convicted individuals have died in Texas under Perry's watch than in any other state.

Though death is nothing to celebrate, I understand the desire for justice. I've experienced the horror of murder up close. Three members of my extended family have died at the hands of others and I wish the perpetrators a toasty eternity. But my killing them doesn't restore anyone's life. It merely makes me a killer.

Nevertheless, I don't judge those for whom the ultimate justice brings solace or that most prosaic of catharsis -- closure. Everyone understands the reflex to destroy the destroyer. But I do judge us. This nation. This society. This culture. The urge for justice and its close relative, revenge, is human, which is by definition also to err.

For justice to have any meaning, it must also mean that no innocent person should ever be executed. Some argue that the relatively rare and unintentional death of an innocent, if not justifiable, is at least tolerable toward the greater end of punishing the guilty, which is most often the case. During years of covering criminal courts, I was mostly surprised that anyone ever is convicted given the strict standards of proof.

Thanks to DNA testing, we also know that scores have been on death row who shouldn't have been. Extrapolating, we can safely conclude that some innocents have been wrongfully executed. These facts alone should be all we need to retire the guillotine in hopes that we might yet evolve to a higher level of humanity. Never mind the other factual arguments that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent and that, given our appeals process, executing someone is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life.

When we join together to administer death, we become something other than a civilized community of men and women. No matter how we frame the arguments or justifications, we become executioners. Where there is doubt, as there seems to have been in Davis' case, we become murderers.

No one is recommending that Davis should have been given a free pass. Life without parole is no picnic. But we might sleep easier had we not participated in killing a man without the moral certainty that he was guilty.

Kathleen Parker's email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(8)
jaf2
Sep 26, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal

I just wonder why the original discussion thread on this very article was wiped out in its entirety and started anew?

Did the gazette give the original thread the death penalty?

O well...in a nutshell, someone posted his own wikipedia-like definition that killing another human being is murder no matter how you look at it.

Except that murder is defined as "the unlawful killing", also usually accompanied with "with malice aforethought"

Since it is legal, then it is NOT an unlawful killing. Steeerike ONE.

Since we have all the pathetic lunatics worried about the well-being of the most worthless, we unfortunately have to put them to nighty-night so they can't feel anything or suffer. Therefore no malice. Steeeerike TWO.

Death by lethal injection is considered "humane" for animals (i.e., euthanasia). How can it be that it is "humane" for four-legged animals (pets), but "violent" for two-legged animals (murderers)?

HEEEEEEEEEEEE struck them out swinging!.

NoLeftist
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal

Using the same logic, we shouldn't fine people for not paying taxes, or imprison them for kidnapping people. Do you really believe such simple thoughts? If so, how do you people get through a day?

dg468
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal

I wish I had the answer, nomoreres.

nomoreres
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal

dg468, You make a fair philosophical argument about violence. What is your suggestion for producing peace from violence, in particular murder? Slapping one's sister is a little easier to handle.

NoLeftist
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal

34 eye witnesses, several of them his own friends, testified to Troy Davis killing a police officer.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

The court specifically warned Davis that his refusal to call his only two genuinely recanting witnesses would make their affidavits worthless. But Davis still refused to call them -- suggesting, as the court said, that their lawyer-drafted affidavits would not have held up under cross-examination.

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis' race -- he's black -- it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell.

Interesting how none of these facts made it into the article. Also interesting how there's no similar complaints about the simultaneous execution of the white supremacist who dragged a black guy to death. Leftist hypocrisy knows no bounds!

KLC
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal

I am troubled that (in general) the same people who claim that the government rarely gets anything right are the same people who tend to believe the government can get this right...

redder
Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal

You know as much as I have supported the death penalty over the years, and I admitt adimantly. I too have a problem with this execution. I guess my problem is that we get it wrong far too many times. If we can be 100% certain that General Kuster did it in the library with a candlestick at 12:01 am, then I get it but any reasonable question then the death penalty needs to come off the table, or we are no better than those who committ the crimes to begin with.

dg468
Sep 26, 2011 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal

I agree with this article. Killing someone as a consequence for murder is like slapping a child for hitting his sister. Similarly, I never understood how anyone can rationalize that violence in response to violence would produce peace. It really just doubles the violence. 1+1=2

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT