Testimony of Troy Davis, on death row in Georgia
Damian from Amnesty UK sez, "Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed in Georgia at 7pm local time on 23 September. He has been on death row for 17 years for a murder he maintains he did not commit. His appeal for clemency was deined on 12 September. In March 2008, the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, joined by two other Justices on the Court, wrote that,:
In this case, nearly every witness who identified Davis as the shooter at trial has now disclaimed his or her ability to do so reliably. Three persons have stated that Sylvester Coles confessed to being the shooter. Two witnesses have stated that Sylvester Coles, contrary to his trial testimony, possessed a handgun immediately after the murder. Another witness has provided a description of the crimes that might indicate that Sylvester Coles was the shooter.Hear Troy Davis (Thanks, Damian!)
the latest
latest episodes
What? I had thought your law-n-order loving politicians had abolished all appeals from death sentences....what a modern country! ( Poster spits on the ground in disgust at idea of politicians using the tragedies of their fellow citizens as fodder for election campaigns )
Seriously, give this man a new trial.
17 years. Where's Dylan now?
Cory, thank you for posting this. For Boing Boing readers who are moved by Troy Davis's testimony, and want to know what you can do: Amnesty International USA (where I work) is organizing solidarity rallies for Troy tonight, Thursday September 18, at 6 p.m. in Atlanta and in D.C. And you can write the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles to urge clemency at amnestyusa.org/troy. Thanks all ...
I am curious as to what the rural Georgia witnesses said for their reason to all change their stories?
"Well, they all.. you know... they all look.. sorta.. WELL HE JUST HAS ONE OF THOSE FACES."
Seriously though, why the changes of heart?
EMERGENCY RALLY/MARCH
Thursday, September 18, 6pm
Convene: Edgewood Ave. and Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA
Good luck guys.
Seriously? I'd rather ten murderers walk free than one innocent man gets put to death.
Here's more on the Atlanta rally that Backlikeclap mentions. And there's a solidarity rally in D.C., also tonight, Thursday September 18, at 6 p.m. Amnesty International USA (where I work) is helping organize both events.
You can also write the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles to urge clemency at amnestyusa.org/troy. Thanks all ...
@ Connie-- Why is that, exactly? Assuming that at least one of those ten murderers goes on to do it again, you're going to have a dead innocent person anyhow. Trying to keep your hands the cleanest may actually result in a worse outcome.
Look, the fact is he *may* have committed the crime. We have a reasonable doubt that he's innocent, and I for one think that's enough for him to warrant death row.
Sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or happen to have the wrong color skin. It's a tragedy, sure, but you really can't take a chance. He had a reasonably fair trial -- close enough, anyway -- and that's that.
Gosh, if we allowed new evidence to be introduced in these trials we'd never get to execute *anyone*. Sheesh!
Many of the witnesses say they were pressured at the original trial by police. Some of them were facing sentences for other crimes and copped pleas and submitted bogus testimony. This is not unusual.
It should be noted, as well, that coming forward and changing their stories is no small thing. They're admitting to committing perjury in a capital case, which is punishable by jail time. These people are coming forward knowing they might very well be punished for changing their testimony. So I think that gives these witnesses some further credibility.
@cicada - the odds that any one of ten convicted murderers will attempt to kill again are astonishingly low. Despite Hollywood and TV, serial killers are actually quite rare, and most murders are one-off events. Seriously, look up the numbers.
Thus, your comment "Assuming that at least one of those ten murderers goes on to do it again," is nearly a non sequitur, and certainly an unreasonable assumption to make. You're also making an implicit assumption that murderers usually succeed in killing people - that's also false, more people are attacked with intent to kill than are actually killed. In the unlikely case that a person escapes a murder rap and then attempts to kill again, the odds favor that person failing on the second go round.
And anyway, nobody gets out of here alive. There are far worse things than death - for example, being an integral part of a system of injustice.
"
Look, the fact is he *may* have committed the crime. We have a reasonable doubt that he's innocent, and I for one think that's enough for him to warrant death row.
"
I thought that the reasonable doubt worked the other way around (and that it was a sign of advanced civilisation that it did so)
"
Sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or happen to have the wrong color skin. It's a tragedy, sure, but you really can't take a chance. He had a reasonably fair trial -- close enough, anyway -- and that's that.
Gosh, if we allowed new evidence to be introduced in these trials we'd never get to execute *anyone*. Sheesh!
"
So what ? Innocent people have to die for that ?
J.
#8: I'm sure he's being sarcastic.
#8 I think #7 may be being just a little facetious.
@ jathomas: at least a few of the witness clamied they'd been pressured by the police to give false testimony.
@ Cicada: what kind of f'ed-up logic is that - oh yea, the same kind that puts to death many innocent people despite advances in technology that show many death row inmates have been innocent and that eye-witness testimony is quite unreliable and easily subject to external influences.
It really has nothing to do with keeping one's hands clean. This is a simple case where it's not possible to put in place system that doesn't occasionally lock-up innocent people - let's not pretend otherwise - so we should at least be able to undo our mistakes and release those who are innocent. God knows if you were in their shoes, you'd be arguing likewise.
@Cicada, #6: putting an innocent man to death GUARANTEES an innocent victim dies; your scenario guarantees nothing.
I would also rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man receive the death penalty. Being morally correct results in the cleanest hands despite any outcome; and if one of the 10 free murderers does it again, he'll be caught & proven guilty with any luck at all. He would have been the first time, most likely.
The difference, cicada, is that the state--i.e., us--would not be responsible for the death of an innocent person in your latter case. Bad things happen, but the measure of our civility is determined by our compliance in those bad things. Just because we're abstracted from the process of state-sponsored death in this country doesn't mean our hands are washed of the blood--and yes, keeping our hands clean IS important.
But ethics aside, consider the larger pragmatic picture. The hypothetical innocents in your argument are not killed in a vacuum. In the real world, a depraved rule of law which is unconcerned about accuracy (let alone one which sanctions killing as the appropriate response to anything) does great damage to the concept of justice, and civilization, which too can lead to tragic consequences. Think of it as the other side of the 'broken window' theory: if examples exist of the state acting inappropriately--examples in which the social contract fails us or others we know of--we lose faith in all actions of the state, and the social contract falls apart utterly. There are lots of places where the police, and the laws (or the application of them) themselves, are suspect. Those places have not just high crime rates, but a complete loss of respect for the rule of law, which leads to less crime being reported, less reliance on proper channels of communication, and more specifically an active rejection of authority. Does the killing of people considered innocent lead to more murders of more innocents? Hard to identify specific cause and effect in this sort of situation, but hey, the LAPD is certainly convinced that public relations is a key component of their work, so there just might be something to it.
But SRSLY: are you really condoning murder of innocents at the hands of the state in the name of security? WTF, mate?
#9 and #10
I'd wait for him to tell me but I bet that he's the kind to let me stew rather... OK, I'm laughing in the end, at myself, not at his humor, cause he really need to work on his delivery.
@ Various-- the topic of guilt or responsibility keeps coming up here, which is in contrast to actually furthering public safety.
Look at it this way-- the government mandates that airbags go into cars. Generally this saves lives. Occasionally, the airbag itself kills someone. But more lives are saved than are lost, and we don't go around saying that government regulation of automobile safety is a bad thing.
And, looked at another way-- if the government can't protect the citizenry from roaming murderers, does that not undermine the validity of the state's authority?
If the worst punishment were life without parole (LWOP), then at least the false convictions could be reversed, people could be released. As rare and expensive as capital punishment is in the US, LWOP isn't much to ask to be a more civilized country.
#5: you believe 10 dead people is better than one dead person. What? Seriously? I'm not saying that killing an innocent man is justifable or anything, but you might want to think that one throuh a little bit more.
@ Kentl- The US is distinctly not a highly civilized country, nor does a high percentage of its citizenry apparently wish it to be. The value of human life is relatively low here compared to other industrialized countries. This is neither good nor bad, just a choice of the population.
The Scots like kilts, the US likes killing.
"
This is neither good nor bad, just a choice of the population.
The Scots like kilts, the US likes killing.
"
Now I have to ask : is this humor ?
Do people have a right to kill simply because they are a bunch to agree on it ?
@17, Enochrewt,
Connie said no such thing. She said she would rather ten murderers walk free than one innocent man be put to death. You seem to have translated that as, better the victims of ten murderers die than one (other) innocent man. But those people have already died - if they had not, those murderers would not be murderers. Killing one innocent would never protect those ten victims. Their murders have been committed, and under Connie's example, their murderers walk free.
However, there is no guarantee that they will murder again (although obviously no guarantee they won't, and we're better off assuming that they will.) Killing an innocent man in no way lessens the possibility that the guilty will commit further crimes, but it is incontrovertibly wrong. If we execute someone innocent, then we have eleven innocents dead, one of whom we are all responsible for.
Connie's (#5) statement is in some ways offering an impossible choice - we don't get to pick, kill this innocent man, or let ten guilty go free? That's not the choice, in reality. We ALREADY let the guilty man go free when we picked up the innocent and convicted him instead. Killing the innocent one changes nothing about the status of the guilty man, except that one more death is now partly on his head, and partly on ours. He's just as likely to kill again as he was before. The only status which changes is ours, as the guardians and exemplars of our societal decency. Now, we are also guilty.
Hmm, this is less coherent than I'd like. I'll try to clarify later, perhaps.
@ IAMINNOCENT- Of course. Do you have a right to kill in self defense? Some pacifists would say no, but most of us say yes. Do you have a right to kill animals for food? PETA members might say no, but most of us say yes.
Do you ever have a right to make war? How strict should your building codes be? Gun control? Speed limits? Healthcare allocation? What drugs should be legal? All of these things are determined by figuring out how many deaths a culture finds acceptable and for what reasons, because choices made on all of them are going to mean that some people are going to die who wouldn't if you'd decided some other way.
@ ISCAH- If we didn't think that people who had murdered once would be highly likely to do it again, we wouldn't even bother to lock them up. Why would we, if they're not more likely to do so than a random member of the population at large?
#21 so rarely do I see someone arguing the extreme utilitarian position! Interesting. Most people seem to value the concept of inviolable rights, though, and to think that it matters who does the killing of innocents - "us," the government, or "them," the bad guys. I'd rather live in a society with crime and civil rights than an extreme authoritarian police state with neither.
#22 there are many reasons to lock people up other than "incapacitation" - any first-year criminal law textbook will tell you that there are also concerns of specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.
@ CICADA
Would you just stick to the subject please.
Bunching up the killing of innocents with even a thousand of other more defendable topics only blurs the issue.
As for forming an opinion, I'll take my cues from other sources than the mob if you don't mind.
J.
#15: One key difference between government mandated airbags and the death penalty is that there are reputable studies showing airbags save far more lives than they take.
Conversely, nations that do not exercise capital punishment tend to have far lower murder rates than nations that do.
@ Cicada,
Of course we think they're likely to do it again, or at least considerably more so than someone who has never done so before. I never said or suggested that they weren't. I said:
However, there is no guarantee that they will murder again (although obviously no guarantee they won't, and we're better off assuming that they will.)
Better off assuming that they will - that's why we lock them up. Don't miss the point, though - we've _no guarantee_ that they will, and we cannot assume that we KNOW someone will do something, and therefore justify our actions based on that. Assuming that killing an innocent man is better than having a murderer kill again is nonsensical. In the first situation, a man is definitely dead and we're responsible. In the second, a victim is potentially dead - only a possibility, not a certainty - And in any case, _killing the innocent man had no effect on the second situation's likelihood at all._ Killing innocents never prevents further murders. The implication that often comes from the capital punishment camp is that is can and does, and to do so is better than to have more potential murder victims. Not only do they want a possibility to outweigh a certainty, the two are fundamentally unconnected.
There are hundreds of murderers walking free right now in every major city. Anytime you're in a crowd you could be brushing shoulders with a murderer. Go to the wrong nightclub and you could be surrounded.
NYC has roughly 8,000,000 people with roughly 560 murders each year! Most murderers probably only commit one murder in their life, so every 10 yrs. there are another 5,000 murderers walking the streets in NYC alone. There were 17,000 or so murders in 2006. We can safely assume every year as many as 100,000 new murderers are walking the nations streets.
We arrest very few murderers and only convict about two-thirds of those. Murdering murderers is not only a senseless and misused power we have given the state over our lives, but it is ineffectual in preventing crime and is not cost effective.
If any one can add data on arrest and convictions to firm up the est. number of bad guys walking the streets, please do. I ain't got the time.
There is loads more information about Troy Davis on the Amnesty International USA website
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/troy-davis-finality-over-fairness/page.do?id=1011343&n1=3&n2=28&n3=1412
Don't know why BoingBoing always links to the UK Amnesty site for US stories.
Also, please take into account that not all arrests and convictions are for homicide in the first degree. There are probably far more second and third degree murders, and manslaughters. Many of those who are convicted of these lesser charges are eventually released. There is already enough to be cautious of without manipulating people's fear of bad guys to justify state sponsored murder.
this would be why single- murder convictions should never be eligible for the death penalty. save it for your Timothy McVeighs.
Screw the death penalty, it is in all cases an evil, used exclusively to further the desires of the powerful.
Actually, I would rather have those who've committed cold-blooded premeditated murder walking the streets than the typical hothead who kills someone just because they pissed them off.
I am a twenty year veteran correctional officer who has worked with death row inmates. Cases like this show why the death penalty should almost never be used. However, it should not be eliminated completely. There are times when it could be fairly used, such as the killer being caught on video recording, or the killer confesses. Death penalty opponents do themselves a disservice when they take up the causes of persons who are obviously guilty.
Yeah, there are never any coerced confessions.
#34
Aaahhh! Some sense! Although your confidence in confessions may surprise #35 I guess that you meant "confessions that lead to or are corroborated by evidence".
I agree that pitying monsters is asking a bit much of the general population... and myself. What about this though : doesn't the harm that I cause to this person, once he/she is arrested and under control, drag me down somewhat, well maybe even a lot toward his/her level ?
J.
videos can be altered... confessions are often beaten...
i don't think its possible to sentence someone to death unless you have absolute certainty that they committed the crime.
but mankind is not capable of that. we're not all-knowing, we just do our best.
it's up to god to decide (if he exists) or the universe to somehow works things out otherwise.
innocent people have been on death row. some have been executed. the state sponsored executions can't be undone. they're final. they are caused not just by the imperfections of systems in place, but the capabilities of man.
killing someone is wrong - its probably the one thing every religion and non-religion agrees on. state sponsorship doesn't miraculously make that ok.
just because a government or a society claims something to be true doesn't make it true or right -- the history of slavery in the US is a perfect example of that.
we can protect lives - and ourselves from tremendous mistakes - by sentencing people to life in prison with no chance for parole.
that doesn't make streets any less dangerous, or serve a lesser justice -- it merely makes vengeance minded people less excited.
most importantly, it makes it possible to fix mistakes when we make them -- because we're all human and we make mistakes.
Sounds like there's "Reasonable doubt", so I don't see why they actually look into weither he's the right guy or not (new trial). I am for the death penalty for very violent criminals, but only in cases of being absolutely sure of their guilt. If he only "most likely did it." then I'd lean towards jail time at worst and probably look again at another trial.
Those that oppose the death penalty don't care if someone is guilty or innocent. We oppose the death penalty because killing people is wrong.
#34
...Death penalty opponents do themselves a disservice when they take up the causes of persons who are obviously guilty.
Most of the countries we tend to consider "civilized" have abandoned the death penalty even in cases where guilt is not in question. I don't think it's doing a disservice to value life, even the life of someone who did not value that of another.
"I would also rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man receive the death penalty. Being morally correct results in the cleanest hands despite any outcome; and if one of the 10 free murderers does it again, he'll be caught & proven guilty with any luck at all. He would have been the first time, most likely."
Saying you are morally correct doesn't make it so. Hopefully the people who make the laws put more thought into them than you do.
We should never give up justice in pursuit of a convenient substitute. Someone who commits murder deserves to be killed. Killing a murderer is not itself murder because, IMO, a murderer is not a human being. It has forfeited its rights and is nothing more than a bit of chemical sludge. I feel no more qualms at executing a murderer than at chemically dissolving a bacterium.
It's not that I don't believe in the value of human life. It's rather that I believe in it so much that I think anything that dares act against it is so deplorable that we should not countenance its existence.
Look, folks. We're not talking about letting murderers go free. We're talking about not executing a man who might be innocent. We're talking about looking at new evidence about the old evidence that was used to convict and sentence this man. Talk all you want about releasing murderers, but killing this one man serves no good purpose.
The board stated that it would not put him to death unless they had no doubt of his guilt. Yet they refuse to consider evidence that their own supreme court believes throws his conviction into question. How is this justice? Even if you do support the death penalty, is this how you want it to be applied?
Oh, and as far as potential innocence goes, the problem is that once a sentence is commuted, it can't be reinstituted. If we took this guy off of death row, he could turn right around and say, "Ha ha, suckers! Gotcha, I did it!" and we couldn't execute him.
"Hopefully the people who make the laws put more thought into them than you do."
I'm sure they do. I'm not by any means sure I like what they're thinking though. Are you?
I would rather my taxes go to pay for health care than the death and torture of people.
#46: By that logic, we should execute anyone who might be guilty of a capital offense whether we can prove it or not. You make it sound like executing the guilty is more important than protecting the rights of the innocent.
#40 (me): Oops. "I don't see why the *don't* look into a new trial." Kind of changes meaning when I leave out words, though I think my second part clarifies what I meant.
#45: I agree.
#46: Yes, but what if he's innocent and is executed and the people go "oops, our bad."? Wouldn't it be far better to keep him locked up until either his guilt is proven (stays in jail most likely for life) or innocent (let go and given an apology)? It's far better to give a lesser punishment for a guilty person than to unjustly punish irreversibly a innocent one.
What purpose does the death penalty serve?
No pat answers please. It does not deter crime, it does not prevent murder, it can not be undone. It is not applied fairly, and no amount of reform will change the fact that the rich and pitiful get life with parole, or walk. And the big one: it makes a complete mockery of Christianity's claim on Jesus, either turns you all into hypocrites or exposes the ugly truth and shallowness of your religion.
Does talking tuff make you feel strong? Does it make you feel good to punish? How many people have any of you killed? Do you no anyone that has been murdered?Ever even pointed a gun at someone pointing a gun at you? Don't bore me with your war stories, I've already heard them.
Since 1976, 1,107 people have been put to death. How many people committed murder? Saying 15,000 murders were created every year since 1976, almost 500,000 victims. There are over 400,000 murderers in this country. Killing one bad guy every ten minutes means you'll be done in 2, 777 years. Have fun in the slaughter house!
You'll have to build a death camp; you'll need trucks or better yet trains, holding pens, conveyor belts, crematoriums, and bone crushers.
Working three shifts, if you kill 100 people every ten minutes, 24/7, you'll be done in 27 yrs. But I'm sure you could increase throughput without to much extra effort and at considerable savings.
Killing is bad. It is always bad. Unless god says it's ok. Right?
No death as a penalty is always bad.
FlamingPhoneBook, you're terrifying. Genuinely, deeply, you're the stuff of my nightmares. Forgiveness is possibly the greatest gift one can ever give, and you reject it out of hand.
The justice system is never concerned with 'potential innocence', only potential guilt.
"We have a reasonable doubt that he's innocent, and I for one think that's enough for him to warrant death row."
So you also have reasonable doubt that he's guilty. Part of the legal system is to ensure that a person if guilty -beyond- reasonable doubt: clearly that's not the case here.
The death penalty is a pointless, expensive, immoral punishment. State sanctioned murder is still murder. To take the life of someone who poses no threat to you or anyone else is disgusting.
No death penalty. Never. It must never be an option. Killing someone after the act is pointless. It doesn't bring the dead back, it can give no real relief to a family assaulted by hatred. It leaves another family as a victim.
Funny that the people braying for blood are the ones who will never get their hands dirty. They are the same people who love to send people off to war, but never fight themselves.
Why not try being at the mercy of a system that wants to kill you? Or better yet, why not try shooting a prisoner in the back of the skull who has been in jail longer than it takes to put a kid through high school? Why not televise the whole thing?
No death penalty. Never.
The supporters of the death penalty put themselves in an interesting paradox. They are supporting the murder of innocent people (as there have been and always will be innocent people wrongly convicted), and so are guilty of first degree murder (as the innocent person was killed as a direct result of their support of the death penalty), and thus by their logic should themselves be sentenced to death.
@ THELIBRARIAN
- and paradoxically I'm all for that.
Except the catch 22 part where I just supported the death penalty.
I'm not confident that the testimony of a convicted murderer and a paragraph about how he is innocent is enough to make me think a full legal trial with evidence and lawyers and a lot more information was flawed.
Maybe it was, and there are certainly cases of such a thing happening, but if the story is 100% true then they would have heard the appeals. It just doesn't add up. When all your witnesses come back and say they lied, you get another trial.
Jurors are only to convict people if they are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
@ 44 FLAMINGPHONEBOOK
So your imagining that a person is not a person, not a human being is enough to make it real ?
Wow, that's is some power over reality !
J.
She asked the same question over and over, "How could people do this to people?" The answer is simple, you were not considered people. She probably knew this, but was understandably at a loss to come to terms with this inhuman ugliness. Been there done that, you know.
I've always imagined a hard working employee, rushing home after a long day monitoring and recording the deaths of thousands. They're in a hurry to get home for their child's birthday party. As they leave the prison, he or she is proud of their ability to perform this difficult and important job.
Would you gas your child, if they were a murderer? I guess they wouldn't be your child any more or would they?
These thoughts leave me cold.
#59:
...if the story is 100% true then they would have heard the appeals. It just doesn't add up. When all your witnesses come back and say they lied, you get another trial.
What the heck do you think we're arguing about here? That's the way it's supposed to happen, but the system is very fallible. Which is one reason I don't think we should give it the power to take lives.
Jurors are only to convict people if they are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt...
That's not true. They are supposed to convict people whose guilt is established beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and history is filled with examples of times that trials got it wrong.
Thought experiment ...
"I'd rather have 10 innocent people executed than 1 murderer go free." This will drop the murder rate to zero. When you are certain you will get caught, nobody will commit murder anymore. Interestingly, this also means we will not execute any innocent people.
Of course it doesn't quite work out that way. Certain death tomorrow may not be sufficient to prevent some people committing a crime today, "I don't care if I'm hanged tomorrow. I'm going to kill you now". Or they may consider their cause worthy even if they themselves die. If 10 people conspired to kill one prominent politician, do we then pick up 100 suspects and execute them all because the guilty is somewhere in there? (Think Saddam's trial).
The main problem is that the state loses all respect. When the community knows that most of those punished by the state is not guilty, they will not help the state in arrests and prosecution.
How about a change in the legal system? Instead of having 12 people voting yes/no on guilt or innocence, and all of them having veto power; how about everyone voting 0% - 100% on what they think is the probability that the accused is guilty or innocent? We add this up and average it out. Above 0.95, death (very few people will get the death penalty). Between 0.8 and 0.95, life in prison without parole. Between 0.5 and 0.8 various length of prison terms. Between 0.25 and 0.5, parole without any jail term. Below 0.25, you go home with appologies from the court (very few people will go free too). You can change the various cut off levels - depending on whether you want avoid executing innocents, or want to avoid letting the guilty go free. You could also put those you suspect of being guilty in jail.
This article is a little confusing to me. It says that three Justices agreed that his case was very fishy, but then later he was denied clemency. Were they the minority opinion? Who actually denied the clemency? What was the reasoning behind denying the clemency given what the Justices said?
Please help Troy - go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/troydavis for online action and to learn more of this terrible miscarriage of justice.
Briefly, this March the GA Supreme Court, in a 4/3 split decision, denied Troy the right for a new trial, (4 against, 3 for). On September 12, The GA Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Troy clemency - no one knows why. They do not have to give any reason, because it is somehow a state secret. They made the decision in 30 minutes, after they had said in July 2007, that they would not refuse clemency if there were any doubts.
Troy Davis has several facebook groups, info also at troyanthonydavis.org, and reports by Joe Windish are at themoderatevoice.com.
The clock is ticking, folks. Troy's only remaining hope now is that the flood of emails, faxes, and phone calls to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles will make them understand that the whole world is watching, and the whole world will hold the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and their personnel in scorn and contempt for the murder of an innocent man if they actually go through with Troy's murder as they are planning to do. There are petitions on both the Amnesty International website and the ACLU website. Make sure you have used them both.
the problem is that the entire world ALREADY thinks Georgia murders non-whites at every opportunity. The rest of the problem is that Georgia revels in this.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gray01022008.html
Where is the justice of political power if it executes the murderer and jails the plunderer, and then itself marches upon neighboring lands, killing thousands and pillaging the very hills?
Kahlil Gibran
Supreme Court Allows Troy Davis Execution
UPDATE: Court issues stay of execution for Troy Davis