#RIPTROYDAVIS

According to Amnesty International, 2/3 of the world has abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Guess where the United States is? We are among the 58 countries that 'retain' the death penalty for 'ordinary crimes.' Our friends in the capital punishment world include: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Syria, Sierra Leone and plenty more. It's nice to think that we are among countries that really value human rights. 


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."


The right to life is a common thread not only in our Declaration of Independence but in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Bible, (since we are in Oklahoma I feel it is my duty to add a nugget of religion into my argument), while it does not forbid or restrict capital punishment, it does say that only a higher power can judge. What about this forgiveness stuff as well?  Lets pull some philosophy in here just for good measure, the Golden Rule, treat others the way you would have others treat you. The Golden Rule pops up in every major religion so that has some weight behind right? 


Troy Davis was executed last night after being charged with the 1989 murder of a police officer in Georgia. I remember coming to OU my freshman year and joining Amnesty International. The very first thing that was discussed was Troy Davis. This was four years ago. The battle to prove Troy Davis' innocence and abolish the death penalty has been going on for quite sometime. Despite the national and international protest against his execution, the U.S. Supreme Court denied clemency to Troy Davis yesterday and as a result, possibly an innocent man was executed. 

His final words before he was executed was, "The incident that night was not my fault.  I did not have a gun.  I did not personally kill your son, father or brother.  I am innocent.  Look deeper into this case, so you can really find the truth.  For those who are about to take my life, may god have mercy upon your souls and may god bless your souls."


I think last night marked an important change in the United States.

Troy Davis' case made it painfully obvious about the injustices in the world. The evidence against Davis was weak at best. There was no DNA linking Davis. The gun was never found. 7 witnesses recanted. According to the Guardian, "Davis had said he wanted his case to set an example "that the death penalty in this country needs to end. They call it execution; we call it murder." 

What can we expect?

Almost a year ago, El Diario de Jaurez, published a question pointed to drug cartels in Mexico.

 What do you want from us?

This simple question had my mind spinning. Why were these journalists dedicated to exposing the truth of their city asking what these criminals wanted? I was immediately conflicted. I have family in Mexico that have seen the violence that the drug cartels and government have caused. Reading stories written by Mexican journalists I saw them as the bravest and most dedicated of people so when I read the headline I was confused. These journalists knew what they signed on for. They knew going into it that the drug cartels spare no one, so how could they expect no retaliation? 

Honestly though, what level of protection can we as journalists expect? How can we expect powerful and accurate pieces to be produced for the public if the pressures of death are looming over their heads? 

Mexico's reaction to this was to create an agreement between media outlets. This agreement outlines what journalists covering drug cartels must follow.

"1) Take a stance against violence: […] the media should never, under any circumstance, justify actions and arguments of organized crime and terrorism […].
2) Do not become an involuntary spokesman for organized crime: […] the media should avoid using the language used by delinquents […]. Prevent that delinquents or presumed ones turn into victims or public heroes […].
3) Provide context for information: Present information in its correct context and in perspective […]
4) Specifically attribute responsibility for crimes: […] In the event that any State action to combat organized crime falls into excesses, is outside the law or violates human rights, it should always be recorded […] when the State action is performed within the law, it should be clear that violence is the product of criminal groups."

In nation's that human rights are being denied and there is constant conflict, journalists are facing oppression and violence. Journalists are faced with the decision to do their job but with constraints in limits. Journalists across the world are facing this problem. In this past year alone we've lost great reporters and photographers. 

I guess what I'm trying to say (and in turn work out how I feel), as journalists we have a duty to report the facts, but does that mean whatever the costs? Where do we draw the line and do we ASK the group that is destroying not only how journalists work but a society as a whole what they expect and want from us? How can journalists ask that and still fulfill their job as reporters of the facts?  


I still haven't decided how I feel about the situation. There is no real answer except that journalists will continue doing their job despite the risks. Mexico has proved that. Libya has proved that. Pakistan has proved that. So many other countries have proved that when faced with a human rights dilemma that silences the voices of it's media and country(wo)men, people will continue to spread the message. 

Loopholes

Congress, The White House Blog

             International Human Rights law was created in 1945 with the birth of the United Nations. Since it’s creation, hundreds of treaties have been created dealing with human rights issues across the world.  The process of creating treaties is often very time consuming. Even when the treaty has been created, a country or state can create a list of reservations, meaning that the country or state will not follow certain articles of a treaty. The United States is one of those nations that almost always has a list of reservations in regards to human rights treaties. It is common knowledge that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme document in law. Nothing can contradict it or change it unless an amendment is passed. Some reservations created for treaties are done so to uphold the Constitution above any law ratified through treaties. An example of this is a reservation made when the U.S. was adopting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

            “The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

            Article 20 in the ICCPR is not intended to limit freedom of speech, well it is but against speech that is discriminatory.

            Article 20 of the ICCPR:

1.     Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2.     Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

           

            This is one reservation that I agree with. Limiting speech and expression will only lead to more problems. Unfortunately we have to deal with the crazies now, but at least everyone has the right.

            The part that gets me about creating reservations, declarations and understandings for treaties is that the United States is making a loophole for itself, well mainly a loophole for congress. The point of ratifying a human rights treaty is a) to protect our rights and liberties, and b) for the courts to interpret and uphold the laws. When a reservation is made its congress that is interpreting and changing the laws. An example of this is the reservation made against another article of the ICCPR.

      

Loophole Hunters
Stoppaydaypredators.org

            “That the United States considers itself bound by Article 7 to the extent that “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” means the cruel and unusual treatment of punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

            What Congress is doing though that reservation is adopting the article but under the terms of the Constitution, meaning the original intent and purpose of the treaty is void. So when someone goes to court and calls upon the ICCPR as evidence of inhumane treatment, it is then judged in terms of what domestic law states and not the practice of what every other nation that adopted the ICCPR. Also it should be noted that every human rights treaty that the United States enters into is non self-executing. This means that it does not automatically go into domestic law and if Congress doesn’t enact it then the courts cannot uphold the laws. Again, this transfers the power to congress, which does not keep the treaty’s intentions pure or independent from political factions.

What do you think?