On what I've been able to find out:
(1) There's no physical evidence of Troy Davis' involvement in the offence - which means the case against him is largely circumstantial. Shell casings have been found, and the link made to another offence for which Davis was convicted... but that doesn't exclude the possibility that another person with a similar firearm could not have been involved.
(2) Several witnesses have recanted their statements, and of the two who have not, one is suspected of having been involved in the murder. Without knowing more, this doesn't seem like strong enough evidence to support a unanimous verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) The victim was an off-duty police officer working as a security guard. IMO, the victim's occupation cannot be a justification for imposing a higher sentence unless they were killed either in the course of their duties, or *because* of their occupation. Yes, it's awful that Mr McPhail was killed. However, I believe that the fact that he was a police officer is immaterial to the facts of this case and can't justify a higher sentence on that basis.
(4) The parole board gave more time to the victim's family than Mr Davis's advocates in the last round of hearings. When the principal argument being made appears to be that "we're sure it's him" and "we need justice", you lose any objectivity in regard to what is appropriate. Vengeance is not justice - especially if there are doubts about the evidence used to convict a person.
Leaving aside my personal and absolute objection to the death penalty (which is not the topic), I fail to see how this matter can warrant a sentence of execution.
There are genuine doubts about the evidence which was presented at trial, although I accept that this is not as clear-cut as a lot of Davis's supporters allege. Although it's improper to reopen the case on the basis of an argument that the jury placed weight on the wrong evidence, I hardly see how it can be justifiable to refuse to grant a stay of execution pending argument concerning whether that evidence should even have been presented. I'm astonished that the US Supreme Court held that Davis had to establish his actual innocence to succeed at appeal when the basis of criminal prosecution is that the state needs to prove its case.
Were I more cynical, I might suggest that the reluctance to grant executive clemency (even to commute the sentence to life imprisonment) is politically motivated ahead of an election year.
(1) There's no physical evidence of Troy Davis' involvement in the offence - which means the case against him is largely circumstantial. Shell casings have been found, and the link made to another offence for which Davis was convicted... but that doesn't exclude the possibility that another person with a similar firearm could not have been involved.
(2) Several witnesses have recanted their statements, and of the two who have not, one is suspected of having been involved in the murder. Without knowing more, this doesn't seem like strong enough evidence to support a unanimous verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) The victim was an off-duty police officer working as a security guard. IMO, the victim's occupation cannot be a justification for imposing a higher sentence unless they were killed either in the course of their duties, or *because* of their occupation. Yes, it's awful that Mr McPhail was killed. However, I believe that the fact that he was a police officer is immaterial to the facts of this case and can't justify a higher sentence on that basis.
(4) The parole board gave more time to the victim's family than Mr Davis's advocates in the last round of hearings. When the principal argument being made appears to be that "we're sure it's him" and "we need justice", you lose any objectivity in regard to what is appropriate. Vengeance is not justice - especially if there are doubts about the evidence used to convict a person.
Leaving aside my personal and absolute objection to the death penalty (which is not the topic), I fail to see how this matter can warrant a sentence of execution.
There are genuine doubts about the evidence which was presented at trial, although I accept that this is not as clear-cut as a lot of Davis's supporters allege. Although it's improper to reopen the case on the basis of an argument that the jury placed weight on the wrong evidence, I hardly see how it can be justifiable to refuse to grant a stay of execution pending argument concerning whether that evidence should even have been presented. I'm astonished that the US Supreme Court held that Davis had to establish his actual innocence to succeed at appeal when the basis of criminal prosecution is that the state needs to prove its case.
Were I more cynical, I might suggest that the reluctance to grant executive clemency (even to commute the sentence to life imprisonment) is politically motivated ahead of an election year.
