The idea of “justice” as the correct application of legal proceedings is one that has retarded the development of the American court and penal system for well over a century. Troy Davis was “guilty” in the sense that a jury found him so, despite the overwhelming evidence against the verdict: Seven of the nine witnesses recanted their testimony, and the hard evidence of the case was tremendously suspect.
Despite this, the Supreme Court allowed Davis’ execution to go through. “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached” is a quote frequently attributed to Justice Antonin Scalia (despite no evidence he actually said it). Though the factual origin of that quote is controversial, I find it quite accurately captures the sentiment expressed by so many judges, politicians, police and even just normal folks on the street. The law, according to them, exists to be followed.
The fact that this case was brought before the Supreme Court and the appeal for clemency was denied shows a problem with the idea that laws written at the start of the United States by incredibly wealthy slave-owning aristocrats should carry any sort of moral weight and power. Yes, the death penalty was legal then and considered morally proper. That was also in 1787.
More than two centuries of moral and legal philosophy has developed in the intervening period, yet America still clings to original documents and allows a select group of authoritarian conservatives to dictate meanings. This quote is so often misattributed to Scalia because it’s genuinely how the courts perceive the law. What is important to them is not the search for the truth; it’s the process of the system itself. When a man can be proved factually innocent and still executed, it’s an absolute travesty of actual justice.
Such legalism is a practice that only serves to entrench institutions that quite possibly may only be acting in their own interests instead of the intended reason for their existence (the protection of the people).
Additionally, although Davis was executed, the Supreme Court granted a reprieve to Cleve Foster, a former Army recruiter with absolutely enormous amounts of evidence against him, including evidence brought forward after the trial. There is no consistency here, unless one wants to consider that Foster is white and Davis is black — but that’s for another time.
In any case, the inconsistent application of its own rules shows such a tremendous bias from the Supreme Court that it should call into question its legal authority. In spite of this, people continue to accept laws and precedents accepted and reinforced by the court system as a moral code, instead of actually looking at the personal biases and legal gymnastics that go into the creation of such a system.
Did you know it was perfectly legal to try Rennie Gibbs, a woman who had a miscarriage, for murder because she had used illicit drugs during her pregnancy, despite no proof said drugs actually resulted in miscarriage? While I wouldn’t condone her unsafe habit, the fact that she was charged based on inconclusive evidence about the relation between her drug use and her child’s death is a less than stellar example of legal morality. But when the law allows it, there is a tendency by most to accept such actions because of some sense of duty to uphold the system – even if it has proven itself prone to injustice.
My question is, “Why?” Does the fact that it’s legal make it right? My answer is no.
Tom Bradtke is a senior history major. He can be reached at bradtke@umdbk.com.
