STAR/TRIBUNE
JACKSON, Ga. - Strapped to a gurney in Georgia's death chamber, Troy Davis lifted his head and declared one last time that he did not kill police officer Mark MacPhail. Just a few feet away behind a glass window, MacPhail's son and brother watched in silence.
Outside the prison, a crowd of more than 500 demonstrators cried, hugged, prayed and held candles. They represented hundreds of thousands of supporters worldwide who took up the anti-death penalty cause as Davis' final days ticked away.
"I am innocent," Davis said moments before he was executed Wednesday night. "All I can ask ... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth. I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight."
Prosecutors and MacPhail's family said justice had finally been served. "I'm kind of numb. I can't believe that it's really happened," MacPhail's mother, Anneliese MacPhail, said in a telephone interview from her home in Columbus, Ga. "All the feelings of relief and peace I've been waiting for all these years, they will come later. I certainly do want some peace." She dismissed Davis' claims of innocence. "He's been telling himself that for 22 years. You know how it is, he can talk himself into anything."
Davis was scheduled to die at 7 p.m., but the hour came and went as the U.S. Supreme Court apparently weighed the case. More than three hours later, the high court said it wouldn't intervene. The justices did not comment on their order rejecting Davis' request for a stay.
Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions on Davis' behalf and he had prominent supporters. His attorneys said seven of nine key witnesses against him disputed all or parts of their testimony, but state and federal judges repeatedly ruled against him — three times on Wednesday alone.
When asked Thursday on NBC's "Today" show if he thought the state had executed an innocent man, civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton said: "I believe that they did, but even beyond my belief, they clearly executed a man who had established much, much reasonable doubt."
Davis' execution had been halted three times since 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court even gave Davis an unusual opportunity to prove his innocence in a lower court last year. While the nation's top court didn't hear the case, they did set a tough standard for Davis to exonerate himself, ruling that his attorneys must "clearly establish" Davis' innocence — a higher bar to meet than prosecutors having to prove guilt. After the hearing, a lower court judge ruled in prosecutors' favor, and the justices didn't take up the case.
His attorney Stephen Marsh said Davis would have spent part of Wednesday taking a polygraph test if pardons officials had taken his offer seriously. But they, too, said they wouldn't reconsider their decision. Georgia's governor does not have the power to grant condemned inmates clemency.
Davis' supporters included former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, a former FBI director, the NAACP, several conservative figures and many celebrities, including hip-hop star Sean "P. Diddy" Combs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Georgia, a man named Troy Davis is captured as suspected to kill police. Almost, judges are right and do a good job, but they are not always right. If Davis really commit crime, he would be sick of fight against it for years. Supreme Court should go over it again seriously to find out real person who killed Mark MacPhail, the police.
ReplyDeleteI am in complete disagree with the text. I mean that NO ONE can decide if someone can live or die. I think that only God can decide that. I think that if a juzge is not 100% sure that the person is guilty he cannot send it to kill. I think he should send it to a jail, but not to kill because then can happen things like this. I hope that the police find the person who killed Mark MacPhail and then he spend all his live in a jail.
ReplyDeleteThis is Sid Moorhead hour 7...
ReplyDeleteI think the police and the crime scene investigators shoud have spent more time studying the case and the police innterrogate more people. The case should be reviewed and the man should have had more time in court to argue the desicion. If there was even a little doubt about the case it should be reviewed.
I think the case should have gotten more attention. But the law is the law. one thing I disagree with is how tthey did not allow him to take a polygraph test, therefore he might have been able to prove his innocence.
ReplyDeleteBlayke Nelson 7 hour
I think that the death penalty is an outrageous way to punish sonmeone for a crime. It is one of the most humane ways too exucute someone for a murder or serious crime, but then they never have to LIVE with what they did. In saying that, I am not imposing that the man was guilty. In my oppinion, they killed an innocent man. The death penalty should only be used if the crime is absolutely 100% provable under all circumstances. For example; when Dru Sjodin was killed and they sentanced Alfonso Rodriguez to the death penalty, I think he got off easy. It's also true that you can only hold someone in prison for so long; providing them with food, shelter, and a bed. Even though i think Alfonso Rodriguez had no sympathy to any of his victims. They should have made more sure that Troy Davis was truly a guilty man.
ReplyDeletePaige F. 7
I agree with Paige on this, It seems as if they didn't give this case very much attention at all, and maybe should have spent a little more time on it, and yes I agree with Blayke on the part about they didn't even give the man a polygraph test, that could have been a big help. How can they be sure that the man really was guilty? They can't! & Alberto is right, You should not be able to kill a man if you are not 100% sure that he did it!, they should of just held him in prison for awhile, while they ACTUALLY looked further into the case.
ReplyDeleteSavannah T. 7
I think that they should have made it clear to every person that he didn't do anything. They could have just executed an innocent man. I agree with Alberto; he should not have been killed. If they didn't have all of the proof they could have gotten, they should not have done anything at all. I agree with Savannah; as well they should have just held him in prison in tell they found out the truth.
ReplyDeleteKyle S. 1
I think that before you sentence a man to death, you should absolutely be sure that he was guilty of his crime. In my opinion, if you sentence an innocent man to death it doesn't set a good example for our justice system. I also agree with Kyle on this one if they didn't have all the proof they needed then they shouldn't have sentenced him to anything.
ReplyDeleteBarrett B. 3
I think that they shouldn't have used the death sentence on him because they didn't even have much proof to accuse him of killing this police officer. Now that they already executed this man what is going to happen if they find out he actually didn't kill the police officer and they find the real killer. If that is what happens but they don't find who really killed the police officer then the person who actually killed the police officer practically gets to live a normal life again because the court pprobably wont ever find out who actually killed the police officer.
ReplyDeleteLindsayF1
To me, this whole situation is just sad. There's not a better word for it. I mean, how can you give some one the right to decide if someone deserves to live or die? You can't, and I don't understand why they still have execution laws. Execution laws are extremely unfair in situialtions like this. An innocent man is dead, and the real killer is alive an running the streets, which to me says there's something wrong, and there definately is. I think due to this situation, and many others like it, that execution laws should be forbiden.
ReplyDeleteMicaela C.7
ReplyDeleteI don't think anybody should be killed for a crime and especially if they weren't proven guilty for what they were being put to death for. I think they really should have looked into this case more because, like Lindsay said, a guilty man could be living a normal life while an innocent man was put to death for something he didn't do. If I was Troy Davis' family, I wouldn't stop fighting even after he has been put to death.
I fully agree with what Alberto said. I don't think this whole execution thing is right. There is no rim or reason for it. It is the same thing as giving someone a "life sentence" but in this case he didn't do it. If he was in jail he would have been able to fight the fact that he was not guilty. No judge should be able to say if you die or not. Like Lindsay was saying this man could be living a wonderful life, but no because they made a mistake, being proven guilty. People make mistakes I understand that but this kind of mistake on our justice system is not okay. The whole execution thing is so ridiculously crazy even if the person has to sit in prison the rest of their life, they still have to live with the crime they commited!
ReplyDeleteCheyenne H. 7
For me it should be the crinimal choice, for the person to be executed. In other words would you spend the rest of your life in prison or just die. In Travis case, his trial wasn't fair there wasn't enough time to prove his innocence.
ReplyDeleteBrendon S.1
I agree with both Cheyenne & Alberto, I don't agree with execution especially when they were not 100% sure he was guilty. No one should be able to say who lives or dies. Humans should not be given the role of god. No matter what crime someone commits death is not the punishment I would choose, They could be put to work in a jail to pay off their debt to society instead of being killed.
ReplyDeleteAbby D. 3
Isabel S. 7
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alberto and Sid. I think nobody should be allowed to decide if a man should live or not. They should have studied the case better until they'd have strong proof, that he did the crime they accused him to do. I think it's irresponsible to just kill him. Especially if so many people protest against it, because they are sure that he's innocent. They should have waited longer and make an better decision, maybe not death but imprisonment for a few years, if they think he did it but don't have enough proof.
I agree with Barrett, If they had executed a innocent man it does look bad on our Justice system. If they did not have all the proof I would atleast think prison would have been enough. I think after this we should investigate more or longer into the crimes like this one.
ReplyDeleteCarly L.3
Although I think capital punishment is right(in some cases) I don't think it was here. There was too much pointing towards his innocence, and it was highly doubtful that he was guilty. You should't sentance anyone to anything for a crime that they didn't commit.
ReplyDeleteAlex H. 3
The fact that they executed a man who possibly could have been innocent is definitely questionable to say the least. You would think if he had actually done it he would've came to terms with his murder over 22 years. I'm curious to see what they actually put into the investigation of his case. Even if he didn't have enough evidence to prove his innocence, they didn't have enough to prove him guilty either. They owe to his family to look into his case further and find the truth, even if its an ugly truth to the justice system.
ReplyDeleteIsaac A.3
The government in no way should have the right to kill people convicted of crimes even if there is solid evidence. There have been many cases were inosent men who pled not guilty, whos cases were not looked at again and were sentenced to death, to later be found not guilty. There are many flaws in the government, but this is a big one. Killing men even if they were caught in the act is unconstitutional. There are many other ways to solve problem instead of killing people, because that is against there right as American Citizens.
ReplyDeleteI am totally opposed to the death penalty. Of course the death penalty is an incentive to not do bad things, however, how can you end someones life if you aren't completely sure that they have even committed the crime? I truely think that it is disgusting that Troy Davis recieved the death penalty even though there was clearly not enough information to prove that without a doubt he killed the police officer. I believe with Nick when he said that killing people is unconstitutional. I believe that as Amercians we have rights. It even says we have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can we have the right of life if the government is taking that from us?
ReplyDeleteAnna C 3
Chris Chandler Hour 7...
ReplyDeleteIf the man said he didn't do it, review the case more. The investigators could have spent more time examining evidence. They could have had him take a lie detector test. The police should have interviewed more people.
That's dumb that they executed that guy. Would if he was innocent. It's just messed up they didn't listen to him.
ReplyDeleteThanousay k 7
They should have kept going on the investigation until they couldn't go any further to see if the guy was innocent or not. They should have let him go because they didn't have enough evidence against him. They should have had another trial because the witnesses changed their stories. They should have let him take a polygraph test before they killed him.
ReplyDeleteTim M7
The death penalty shouldn't have been used in this case, in my opinion. Maybe it would be more understandable if they had proof, or if he had confessed, but neither happened. It wasn't fair to the man killed to not be 100% sure that he committed the crime. There is a possibility he didn't do it, and aren't we going to feel bad in the future if we find out he really didn't do the crime? I think the death penalty should be used only in cases where we have complete proof.
ReplyDeleteShannel D 3
I agree with Shannel. He should not have been sent to the death penalty if they weren't sure of his innocence. If you don't have the proof he shouldn't have had any thing done to him.
ReplyDeleteGretta B3
Im goin to have to kind of disagree with nick. if you killed and man and theres 100% proof that you did it. you should get the death penlty. its an eye for an eye, but if you didn't do it and theres reasonable doubt you didn't, and there wasn't enough time to prove your innocent. there should be no way you should get the death penlty
ReplyDeleteEthan A. 3
LAST COMMENT
ReplyDeleteI feel they should have not executed him because he may have been innocent. I know the man had 22 years to think about the case and what he should say. As for the officers family i am sure they feel that justice has been served. I cant help but wonder if Troy Davis really was innocent. If they find him innocent, after his death, justice was not served, and how do you bring the life back of an innocent man.
ReplyDeleteCam K.1
i think he was inisent. he even said hel take a lie detecter test. but thay woodent let him. 7 out of 9 witnises took back thar tesimony. so only two of than thout he was gilty
ReplyDeletekyle e 7