Davis, Knox, and al-Awlaki

A number of prominent news stories in the past few weeks have featured murder cases and killings at the hands of governments. One was the execution of Troy Davis by the US state of Georgia despite doubts about his guilt and many pleas and protests on his behalf. From what I read of this case, there were indeed many reasons to question his conviction. Many of the witnesses on whose testimony his conviction depended recanted or changed their testimony, and at least one and maybe two (I can't remember for certain) of the jurors who found him guilty in the first place were quoted as saying they now had doubts. Since those speaking on his behalf were not even for the most part asking that his conviction be overturned but just that his execution be halted and the case be reopened, I also signed a number of petitions on his behalf, but all to no avail.

While I know many people who work actively to end the death penalty, I haven't entirely made up my mind about it myself. When I read about some particularly heinous crimes (including those committed by agents of governments), I find it hard to argue that the individuals who do such things deserve to live. However, I can appreciate the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, and if it is wrong for individuals to kill, it is wrong for governments to do so as well. I certainly don't buy the widely held belief that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (it clearly isn't, if nothing else because those that commit such crimes are rarely thinking about the possibility of being caught). But the biggest problem with capital punishment is cases like that of Troy Davis, where the person executed may not even be guilty, and the obvious biases in its application (in the US a hugely disproportionate number of those executed are minorities, and in both the US and Taiwan, those from less affluent backgrounds are far more likely to get the death penalty).

Another murder case that received a lot of attention (rather too much in my opinion) was that of British student Meredith Kercher, whose roommate Amanda Knox was originally convicted of taking part in the murder before having her conviction overturned by Italian appeals court last week (of course she hadn't received the death penalty, which Italy along with most of Europe has banned as barbaric, but she faced the prospect of many years in prison on top of those she'd already spent there). I didn't read many of the excessive number of articles on this case, but one of the few I did read had some quotes from Kercher's family, which I found quite sensible. For one thing, they were concerned that the victim was being forgotten in all the media hype about Knox's trial, but more importantly, they wanted the real culprit to be found. What was instructive about this was that unlike, for instance, the family of the off-duty cop Troy Davis was accused of killing or many members of the families of murder victims in Taiwan that make media statements, they did not insist that the people originally convicted must have been guilty. The latter type of response I have always found strange and rather disturbing. While I can certainly understand the desire to see someone pay for the death of a loved one, if there is any reason at all to think the person originally accused was not guilty, by nevertheless insisting on the guilt of the accused the victim's family may well be ensuring that the true guilty party will never be caught. If it were me, I would want to be absolutely sure that the real guilty party received some sort of punishment, rather than seeking a false sense of closure from the conviction and even execution of a person who may or may not be guilty at the cost of possibly letting the real perpetrator get away. In this sense, I found the Kercher family's reaction to be quite refreshing, and I hope they get what they desire.

Another, rather different case of the killing of an individual at the hands of a government was the targeted killing of prominent al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki by a US government drone attack. The reason this was more controversial in the US itself than the mission to kill Osama bin Laden or other attacks by the US military on al-Qaeda leaders is al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and many have argued that the president should not be able to simply target a US citizen for death, thereby acting as judge, jury and executioner. For my part, I would say the implications of an American president or other top official targeting any individual for death are somewhat problematic, regardless of nationality, as in principle I think the rights of all people should be equally respected. On the other hand, I think it's also fair to say that someone who not only openly advocates murder (in this case of Americans) but even (supposedly) actively facilitates such murders makes it easy for those who are in danger to claim self-defense. In other words, I am somewhat disturbed by President Obama's seeming willingness to sign off on such a mission without any obvious soul-searching with respect to the moral implications, but I feel similarly in a case such as bin Ladin's when the person targeted for death is not American, and overall, despite such reservations, I'm inclined to accept the necessity of such missions in order to prevent those killed from killing innocent people. Basically, while I can accept that there are a few circumstances where killing may be necessary, I don't think it should ever be done casually or when there is any doubt at all about its necessity.