PDA

View Full Version : Another Nail in the Death Penalty Coffin, or can we Fry Newt instead?


Gibby
July 13th, 2007, 8:46:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070713/us_time/willgeorgiakillaninnocentman

The pending execution of Troy Anthony Davis, scheduled to take place on July 17, is raising serious questions about his guilt - and about the Newt Gingrich-era federal law that has limited his appeals options and prevented him, say his supporters, from getting a fair shake.
ADVERTISEMENT

Davis, 38, a former coach in the Savannah Police Athletic League who had signed up for the Marines, was convicted in the 1989 murder of Mark Allen MacPhail, a Savannah, Ga., police officer. MacPhail was off-duty when he was shot dead in a Savannah parking lot while responding to an assault. Davis was at the scene of the crime, and an acquaintance who was there with him accused Davis of being the shooter. Since his conviction in 1991, Davis has seen each of his state and federal appeals fail. But in the court of public opinion, Davis presents a compelling argument. Seven of the nine main witnesses whose testimony led to his conviction have since recanted. The murder weapon has never been found, and there is no physical evidence linking the crime to Davis, who has asserted his innocence throughout.

Earlier this month, two of the jurors who sentenced Davis to death signed sworn affidavits saying that based on the recanted testimony, he should not be executed. "In light of this new evidence," wrote one juror, "I have genuine concerns about the fairness of Mr. Davis' death sentence."

One of Davis' major obstacles has been the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), legislation championed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of his Contract with America and signed by former president Bill Clinton. The act was passed in 1996 as a way of reforming what Gingrich called "the current interminable, frivolous appeals process." Its major provisions reduced new trials for convicted criminals and sped up their sentences by restricting a federal court's ability to judge whether a state court had correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution.

Facing political pressure one year after the Oklahoma City bombing and seven months before the presidential election, Clinton signed the bill, but inserted a somewhat incongruous signing statement that called for the federal courts to continue their oversight role.

That was wishful thinking, say many legal experts. "President Clinton was trying to have his cake and eat it, too," said George Kendall, senior counsel at Holland and Knight and a board member of the Death Penalty Information Center. The reality since 1996, legal analysts say, has been a U.S. Supreme Court that has narrowly interpreted the act, further restraining the ability of federal courts to grant new trials (on June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to give Davis one last hearing). "The bottom line," said Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender in Arizona, "is that the AEDPA is very harsh and unforgiving."

So now there are serious questions whether, as Gingrich famously said, justice delayed is justice denied. The system of appeals can still stretch out over decades, but in Davis' case, many of those appeals are now being denied for procedural reasons. In his 2004 petition to the federal district court in Savannah, Davis presented recanted testimony, most of which involves witnesses who say police coercion caused them to wrongly implicate Davis. He also presented nine individuals' affidavits that suggested that the real murderer was actually the former acquaintance who first accused Davis of the crime.

more...

This is a stupid law and needs to be overturned along with this man's death sentence.

TigerJ
July 13th, 2007, 9:04:12 PM
This is exactly the kind of case that helps me come down against the death penalty. JLB referenced a case in South Dakota where during the course of committing a robbery, the perpetrator tortured his victim for two hours, finally killing him by forcing him to drink hydrochloric acid. While that guy turns my stomach and makes me want to do horrible things to him, the reasons to abolish the death penalty outweigh the reasons to keep it.

sukie
July 13th, 2007, 11:57:22 PM
How many freaking appeals do you want?

35Pete
July 14th, 2007, 1:58:51 AM
How many freaking appeals do you want?

If you are going to kill someone then EVERY "t" must be crossed, and EVERY "i" must be dotted. Remember, once convicted you are now presumed GUILTY and must PROVE your innocence. That's not easy and must often require multiple appeals.

Is expediency so important that you lose no sleep over the certainty that you're gonna kill an innocent guy here and there?

Here's 205 post-DNA exonerations from one advocacy group alone.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

Let me remind you. Most were in prison 10-20 years. If you're impatience were allowed to rule then these innocent men would be in the grave.

For just post-DNA, and this group alone you'd have the blood on your hands of 205 murder victims of the state cause' some tough guys wanted to be "tough on crime".

Bravo.

Gibby
July 14th, 2007, 6:54:19 AM
How many freaking appeals do you want?

as many as it takes for him to prove his case. Come on all but 2 of nine witnesses for the prosecution recant, they can't find the murder weapon, and no physical evidence links him to the crime. Lets really be honest Sukie, I'll try to make this simple enough for a Pollack to understand, we are talking about a man's life here. Pro death or not, do you not at least want to make absolutely sure that you are not frying an innocent man? The case is full of holes, and it comes from a state that sends a kid to prison for ten years because his girlfriend gives him a blowjob with her consent.

Personally I am strongly against the death penalty and this case is part of the reason why. You know I am sorry that this story makes your man Newt Stinkgrinch look like an arsehole but I stick by what I say in that this is an unjust law and killing this man would be unjust. Give him a new trial.

Bonus fact: I would never have voted for Newt Stink Grinch before and I certainly would not vote for the bastard now.