On Thursday night the State of Georgia likely executed a man who was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.
Carlton Gary died after suffering a lethal overdose of compounded pentobarbital at the hands of the state.
In 1986, Mr. Gary was convicted of the 1977 murders and rapes of three elderly white women in Columbus, Georgia. He was suspected of seven murders and rapes during an 8-month period between September 1977 and April 1978. He was dubbed the Stocking Strangler.
One of the witnesses against him was 71 year-old Gertrude Miller who was raped in her house but someone survived the attempted strangling. She testified that Mr. Gary turned on the light in her bedroom while raping her and that allowed her to identify him. It turns out that in Ms. Miller's first account of the rape there was nothing said about the light being turned on. She told police she didn't know if her rapist was white or black. She later identified another man as her rapist before trial.
Even though he was not charged with the rape of Ms. Miller, then District Attorney, Bill Smith, told the jury that the same man had committed all seven rapes. He told the jury that the reason Mr. Gary was charged with only three of the murders is because there were only three houses in which his fingerprints were (supposedly) found. As it turned out, this was a very dubious claim.
However, when, years after his conviction, the sheets from Ms. Miller's bed were tested, the DNA recovered from those sheets was not a match for Mr. Gary. So, if we believe the state's theory of the case, either Carlton Gary wasn't the stocking strangler or the stocking strangler didn't rape Ms. Miller.
But that's okay, said the state. You see, Mr. Gary wasn't on trial for raping Ms. Miller so whether it was his semen on her sheets or not, it didn't prove his innocence.
Oh, but then there was that semen sample taken from the sheets of one of the women whom Mr. Gary was convicted of raping and murdering that had never been tested. But in 2010 it turns out that the lab analyst who was tasked with testing the sample to determine if it was a match to Mr. Gary's DNA did something that can only be described as bizarre. Using his own semen as a "control," he smeared it over the sample to be tested -- and the test equipment.
I don't know. Maybe he got off on forensic science and came all over the lab at the mere thought of testing such an important piece of evidence. Or maybe he didn't want it tested for whatever reason. Now I can think of a lot of ways to get around the sticky situation of having a sample that doesn't match the DNA specimen you want it to, but smearing your own semen over the slide is a new one to me.
Prior to that episode, in 2009, when Mr. Gary was first scheduled to be killed, his attorneys sought a court order to test biological evidence from the original trial only to be told by prosecutors that all such evidence had been destroyed because it was a biohazard. But that didn't exactly turn out to be true.
After the "discovery" of the evidence, the state fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being tested. And why might the state object to the testing of evidence? Maybe because they are more interested in maintaining a conviction that seeing to it that justice is done? Maybe because once that floodgate opens, there would be more convictions that could be questioned with DNA testing? Maybe because the courtroom isn't the crucible of the truth that we are taught in civics class.
I could also mention that footprints found outside the window of one of the victims were too small to be Mr. Gary's and that bite mark evidence found on one of the victims didn't match his teeth.
But none of this matters anymore, because the State of Georgia said fuck it, we're killing him anyway -- and so they did.
There is no greater tragedy in our criminal (in)justice system than executing an innocent man. It's happened before. It will happen again. And it very likely just happened in Georgia.
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2018
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Will Georgia murder an innocent man?
Troy Davis' life rests in the hands of the four men and one woman who make up Georgia's Board of Pardons and Parole. They will make a decision today that will either result in life or death. A thumbs up and the life of an innocent man is spared. A thumbs down and the State of Georgia will be guilty of murder.
It has been pointed out endlessly that all but two witnesses from Mr. Davis' trial have recanted their testimony that Mr. Davis was the man who shot Savannah (GA) police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989. One of the two clinging to their story is the man whom Mr. Davis has steadfastly claimed pulled the trigger.
The gun was never recovered.
There were no forensics.
Just the eyewitness testimony of nine people.
Nine people asked to remember what happened in the blink of an eye. Nine people asked to testify, in detail, about the chaos unfolding around them. Nine people who were "reminded" by the prosecutors and police many times over that Mr. Davis was the bad guy.
The taking of a life by the state is the single most intrusive act the government can perform. It is the ultimate punishment. You can take away a man's money. You can take away his time. But when you take his life - he ceases to exist.
If there is ever a time to err on the side of caution, it is when we're talking about the murder of a person by the state. What could be more cruel that taking the life of an innocent man in the name of "finality?"
As I have stated many times here (and will state many more times to come), killing Troy Davis will not bring Mark MacPhail back to life. Killing Troy Davis won't fill the void in the MacPhail family. Killing Troy Davis will only mean that Mr. MacPhail's killer will never be brought to justice.
It's time to do the right thing. The only question is whether or not four men and one woman in Georgia have the strength to do it.
See also:
"Troy Davis to learn execution fate as protests continue in Georgia," The Guardian (Sept. 19, 2011)
"Thumbs up/thumbs down," Gamso for the Defense (Sept. 18, 2011)
"It's not cruel or unusual to execute an innocent man," The Defense Rests (Oct. 15, 2008)
It has been pointed out endlessly that all but two witnesses from Mr. Davis' trial have recanted their testimony that Mr. Davis was the man who shot Savannah (GA) police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989. One of the two clinging to their story is the man whom Mr. Davis has steadfastly claimed pulled the trigger.
The gun was never recovered.
There were no forensics.
Just the eyewitness testimony of nine people.
Nine people asked to remember what happened in the blink of an eye. Nine people asked to testify, in detail, about the chaos unfolding around them. Nine people who were "reminded" by the prosecutors and police many times over that Mr. Davis was the bad guy.
The taking of a life by the state is the single most intrusive act the government can perform. It is the ultimate punishment. You can take away a man's money. You can take away his time. But when you take his life - he ceases to exist.
If there is ever a time to err on the side of caution, it is when we're talking about the murder of a person by the state. What could be more cruel that taking the life of an innocent man in the name of "finality?"
As I have stated many times here (and will state many more times to come), killing Troy Davis will not bring Mark MacPhail back to life. Killing Troy Davis won't fill the void in the MacPhail family. Killing Troy Davis will only mean that Mr. MacPhail's killer will never be brought to justice.
It's time to do the right thing. The only question is whether or not four men and one woman in Georgia have the strength to do it.
See also:
"Troy Davis to learn execution fate as protests continue in Georgia," The Guardian (Sept. 19, 2011)
"Thumbs up/thumbs down," Gamso for the Defense (Sept. 18, 2011)
"It's not cruel or unusual to execute an innocent man," The Defense Rests (Oct. 15, 2008)
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The execution shall not be televised
So what was the big brouhaha over a Georgia inmate who wanted to have his execution videotaped? We see much worse every night on cable or on the big screen. Why didn't the state want his execution captured for all posterity?
It used to be that executions were all scheduled for a minute after midnight. Nothing like a good killing in the middle of the night when all law-abiding citizens were tucked away safely in bed. Probably best not to let the decent folk see just how violent a death one suffered in the electric chair or in the gas chamber.
At some point legislators decided that Ol' Sparky might have been a bit too barbaric for our tastes. Someone decided that killing people by lethal injection was a cleaner, more sanitized method of murder. The condemned man is strapped to a gurney - just as if it were an ordinary medical procedure.
The three drug "cocktail" consists of a sedative, a muscle relaxer and a drug to induce cardiac arrest. In theory the condemned man should drift into unconsciousness before he is paralyzed and his heart is stopped. Of course since the inmate is paralyzed we don't know whether or not he's suffering as the last of the drugs is pumped into his body. We can't even be certain that the first drug puts him in unconscious state.
Is that what the state's afraid of? Were Georgia officials worried that their killing device wasn't as sterile as advertised?
We have no problem watching make believe carnage in which people are gunned down, stabbed, slashed, decapitated, drowned and burned alive. We have no problem promoting violence and blood in the name of making money. Hell, the military releases video showing bombs destroying buildings - and the people inside - when it suits their political needs. The media has replayed the 9/11 attacks endlessly. But, for some reason, the state has a problem with the public seeing what it does in the people's name behind closed doors.
So what if someone wants an execution videotaped for use in a legal proceeding to argue that the death penalty constituted cruel or unusual punishment. Of course state sponsored murder is cruel. Death is cruel. There are no two ways about it. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a damn pig.
Just as everyone accused of breaking the law in Texas has the right to have their case heard in an open courtroom, those sentenced to death should have the right to have their execution videotaped. As long as states resist demands to record executions, I continue to wonder what they have to hide.
See also:
It used to be that executions were all scheduled for a minute after midnight. Nothing like a good killing in the middle of the night when all law-abiding citizens were tucked away safely in bed. Probably best not to let the decent folk see just how violent a death one suffered in the electric chair or in the gas chamber.
At some point legislators decided that Ol' Sparky might have been a bit too barbaric for our tastes. Someone decided that killing people by lethal injection was a cleaner, more sanitized method of murder. The condemned man is strapped to a gurney - just as if it were an ordinary medical procedure.
The three drug "cocktail" consists of a sedative, a muscle relaxer and a drug to induce cardiac arrest. In theory the condemned man should drift into unconsciousness before he is paralyzed and his heart is stopped. Of course since the inmate is paralyzed we don't know whether or not he's suffering as the last of the drugs is pumped into his body. We can't even be certain that the first drug puts him in unconscious state.
Is that what the state's afraid of? Were Georgia officials worried that their killing device wasn't as sterile as advertised?
We have no problem watching make believe carnage in which people are gunned down, stabbed, slashed, decapitated, drowned and burned alive. We have no problem promoting violence and blood in the name of making money. Hell, the military releases video showing bombs destroying buildings - and the people inside - when it suits their political needs. The media has replayed the 9/11 attacks endlessly. But, for some reason, the state has a problem with the public seeing what it does in the people's name behind closed doors.
So what if someone wants an execution videotaped for use in a legal proceeding to argue that the death penalty constituted cruel or unusual punishment. Of course state sponsored murder is cruel. Death is cruel. There are no two ways about it. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a damn pig.
Just as everyone accused of breaking the law in Texas has the right to have their case heard in an open courtroom, those sentenced to death should have the right to have their execution videotaped. As long as states resist demands to record executions, I continue to wonder what they have to hide.
See also:
- "Truth. Fairness. Transparency," Gamso For the Defense (July 26, 2011)
- "Video of a lethal injection reopens questions on the privacy of executions," Sentencing Law and Policy (July 24, 2011)
- "Are there any compelling arguments against now recording all executions?" Sentencing Law and Policy (July 23, 2011)
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
It's not cruel or unusual to execute an innocent man
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it is okay for a state to execute a citizen who has a strong claim of innocence. Troy Anthony Davis of Georgia was sentenced to death for the 1999 murder of a Savannah, GA police officer. In the meantime, all but two of the prosecution's witnesses who linked Mr. Davis to the murder have recanted their testimony claiming that they were coerced by the police. Five newly discovered witnesses have identified an individual other than Mr. Davis as the murderer.
Mr. Davis' attorneys sought a ruling that, under the Eighth Amendment, it is cruel and unusual to execute a man who has a strong claim of innocence.
The Court denied review without comment. The Court's denial lifts the stay of execution and frees Georgia to murder Mr. Davis.
Once again the Court has sacrificed substance for form. Must I point out again that just because a citizen was given a fair trial doesn't mean that the verdict is correct? When it comes to deciding whether or not a fellow citizen's life is to be taken away by the state, the very least we can do is make certain that the state is killing the right person.
See also:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)