Why Obama Did Not Defend Troy Davis
Published in Le Soir
(Belgium) on 22 September 2011
by William Bourton (link to original)
Weakened, the U.S. president was careful not to venture into the “touchy” terrain of the death penalty. An interview with Katya Long, member of the Centre for the Study of Politics (Cevipol) at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, where she teaches U.S. politics.
While the defense team of American Troy Davis, who has become a symbol of the fight against capital punishment, presented on Wednesday a last appeal against his execution (to take place overnight, in Georgia), the condemned man received much support from all over the world: from former American President Jimmy Carter to Pope Benedict XVI, as well as the French and German governments. Barack Obama, on the other hand, took great care not to intervene in the debate, which might have surprised Europe.
How to Explain President Obama’s Silence?
The first reason is one of jurisdiction. The United States is a federalized nation. The death penalty exists at the federal level but also at the level of certain states. As such, Troy Davis was not sentenced by a federal jurisdiction, but by the state of Georgia. The president of the United States therefore has no institutional authority on the matter.
The second element is a political one. In general, it is very difficult for a president to intervene in what is within the jurisdiction of a state’s internal affairs, and even more so at the moment, where very strong tensions exist with the Republicans, who exploit this question of rights and the jurisdiction of states against the central power of Washington.
The third element is the delicate position in which Obama finds himself — as much in terms of domestic as international politics. Externally, it is the week when the Palestinians are going to make their request to become a full member of the U.N. Internally, there is ongoing discussion about debt reduction and tax increases, but it is also the start of the Republican electoral campaign. To give you an example of the “cultural” state of affairs: During a recent debate between Republican candidates, in introducing Rick Perry, the favorite for the primaries, the interviewer signaled that since [Perry] has been governor of Texas, 234 people have been executed in that state — and the public burst into applause! And even though it was a Republican audience, it was not a debate organized by the tea party. The fact that Troy Davis is black could be equally embarrassing for the first black president of the United States.
Finally, fundamentally, at this moment Obama does not have the necessary political capital. His popularity is weak, and he cannot allow himself to risk this weak capital on an issue such as this.
In Principle, Obama Is Not Opposed to Capital Punishment …
No, he has no opposition in principle to the death penalty. In fact, on cultural or social issues, Obama is very “middle of the road,” as they say in English. He is for the right to abortion, but to a limited extent; he is against same-sex marriage; he is for the right to bear arms to a limited extent, etc. On all these issues, he is certainly not a militant: He is very centrist.
One Could Not Say, Then, That on an Issue Such As the Death Penalty, There Is a Distinct Line of Fracture between Democrats and Republicans?
No. In general, the line of fracture between Democrats and Republicans is never simple. Because of their structure and their historical evolution, we see parties that are ideologically weak. That said, with exceptions, Democrats tend to be less favorable toward capital punishment than Republicans. But despite the drama of Troy Davis, it must be noted that the death penalty is on the decline in the United States: Numerous states have established a moratorium or have decided purely and simply to withdraw it from their legislative arsenal.
In 2011, the death penalty is still applied at the federal level and in 34 of the 50 states.
While the defense team of American Troy Davis, who has become a symbol of the fight against capital punishment, presented on Wednesday a last appeal against his execution (to take place overnight, in Georgia), the condemned man received much support from all over the world: from former American President Jimmy Carter to Pope Benedict XVI, as well as the French and German governments. Barack Obama, on the other hand, took great care not to intervene in the debate, which might have surprised Europe.
How to Explain President Obama’s Silence?
The first reason is one of jurisdiction. The United States is a federalized nation. The death penalty exists at the federal level but also at the level of certain states. As such, Troy Davis was not sentenced by a federal jurisdiction, but by the state of Georgia. The president of the United States therefore has no institutional authority on the matter.
The second element is a political one. In general, it is very difficult for a president to intervene in what is within the jurisdiction of a state’s internal affairs, and even more so at the moment, where very strong tensions exist with the Republicans, who exploit this question of rights and the jurisdiction of states against the central power of Washington.
The third element is the delicate position in which Obama finds himself — as much in terms of domestic as international politics. Externally, it is the week when the Palestinians are going to make their request to become a full member of the U.N. Internally, there is ongoing discussion about debt reduction and tax increases, but it is also the start of the Republican electoral campaign. To give you an example of the “cultural” state of affairs: During a recent debate between Republican candidates, in introducing Rick Perry, the favorite for the primaries, the interviewer signaled that since [Perry] has been governor of Texas, 234 people have been executed in that state — and the public burst into applause! And even though it was a Republican audience, it was not a debate organized by the tea party. The fact that Troy Davis is black could be equally embarrassing for the first black president of the United States.
Finally, fundamentally, at this moment Obama does not have the necessary political capital. His popularity is weak, and he cannot allow himself to risk this weak capital on an issue such as this.
In Principle, Obama Is Not Opposed to Capital Punishment …
No, he has no opposition in principle to the death penalty. In fact, on cultural or social issues, Obama is very “middle of the road,” as they say in English. He is for the right to abortion, but to a limited extent; he is against same-sex marriage; he is for the right to bear arms to a limited extent, etc. On all these issues, he is certainly not a militant: He is very centrist.
One Could Not Say, Then, That on an Issue Such As the Death Penalty, There Is a Distinct Line of Fracture between Democrats and Republicans?
No. In general, the line of fracture between Democrats and Republicans is never simple. Because of their structure and their historical evolution, we see parties that are ideologically weak. That said, with exceptions, Democrats tend to be less favorable toward capital punishment than Republicans. But despite the drama of Troy Davis, it must be noted that the death penalty is on the decline in the United States: Numerous states have established a moratorium or have decided purely and simply to withdraw it from their legislative arsenal.
In 2011, the death penalty is still applied at the federal level and in 34 of the 50 states.
Next article![]( "President Urges U.S. Leaders to Revise Their Policies")
