Death Penalty Update

On July 11th, South Dakota executed the volunteer Elijah Page. This was the first execution of the modern era for South Dakota and reduced to four, Kansas, New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire, the number of states with death penalty statutes that have never used them.

Page’s execution brings the number of executions in 2007 to 30, 18 of which have been in Texas. There are 26 still scheduled through the end of the year, including 12 in Texas.

One of the pending executions is scheduled in Georgia tomorrow, July 17th. Troy Anthony Davis was convicted more than 20 years ago of killing an off duty police officer in Savannah Georgia. There was no physical evidence against Davis. His conviction was based upon the testimony of nine eyewitnesses.

Since then seven of the nine have either recanted or changed their testimony. Some are now saying that their original statements were given only after police harassed them and pressured them to lie under oath. Some are even saying that another man, who testified against Davis during his trial, is actually guilty of the crime.

There is a hearing today, July 16th, before Georgia’s Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider clemency for Davis.

Sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone doesn’t it? Seven of the nine witnesses have recanted, but Davis is still scheduled for execution tomorrow? How is that possible you ask? It’s possible because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), passed in 1996 to streamline the legal process in death penalty cases, says that it’s too late in the appeals process to introduce new evidence. As a result the courts have refused to consider Davis’ innocence claim.

My only reaction to this is you have got to be kidding! So much for the idea that the law is merely an imperfect means for bringing about justice. When the law becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, we’re all in trouble. When a potentially innocent man can be executed simply because we’d like to be more efficient and save some time and money on the guilty ones, we’ve lost our way. I can’t think of a more telling argument for eliminating the death penalty. The only way we can think of to make it financially efficient is to ignore evidence of innocence? What’s wrong with this picture?

You want to talk about moral values? Here's a moral value that I'd like to talk about. Potentially innocent men shouldn't be executed so we can save a little time, a little money and a little inconvenience.