I thought in Georgia the governor couldn't grant clemency? Perhaps in the grand scheme of things it is best that one person can't impose their will on proper procedure, but unfortunately in this case there was nothing proper about it.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
With all the public outrage over this particular case, I wonder if the outcome would've been any different if he did have that power. Probably not. The right seems to forget their pro-life stance in matters like this.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
In Georgia the Governor cannot grant clemency. The only authority that could have stopped it was the state's parole board, which had already refused to do so.
The US President has no power to intervene. The US Supreme Court really doesn't either as it's not a Federal case (states rights).
Many states in the US do not have the death penalty. Do not indict them. Take your anger out on those who support and still have the death penalty - and do it when your outrage can affect change, not years too late into a lost case.
Jay and Yawp, in law school I wrote papers on this issue and marched a few times and made calls for the ACLU, but the bottom line is few care. (Except in Illinois - we have NO death penalty) Maybe my calls 20 years ago mattered!) LOL.
It just makes me sick to think that in the 21st century in America a seemingly innocent person would be murdered by the state of Georgia!
"The Supreme Court took the rare step in 2009 of allowing the defense to present its case to an evidentiary hearing but a federal judge in Savannah said it cast 'minimal doubt' on the conviction."
I don't think there should be ANY kind of doubt in a situation involving the death penalty, whether you approve of it or not.
LOL at Illini bragging about not having death penalty as if they're the first when it was just eliminated this year. Sixteen states in total have abolished the death penalty, starting with Michigan in 1846 (the first English speaking jurisdiction in the modern world to do so).
Among the many problems with our justice system is the fallacy that justice is blind. There's no way a white man or a wealthy man gets overrun by the system like Troy Davis did.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I worked on a book a few years back about our jury system. It used studies of fake trials to show that juries presented with the exact same set of circumstances, but switching a black defendant for a white one, were overwhelmingly more likely to convict the black defendant. (Interestingly, the racial makeup of the jury didn't seem to have much effect, as I recall.)
This is funny Reg - it sounds like a lesson I was taught in Jr. High. As a class we were given identical crimes, similar histories of minor shenanigans and two almost identical defendants - except one was white and one was black.
The black defendant got time, and the white defendants got probation. Then we discussed all of our biases and assumptions that went into a disparate penalty.
It was one of the best lessons I ever learned, and I use it as a cautionary tale when I start making assumptions about folks (well, I make assumptions, but usually it is not about race...).
Y, the first step in Illinois was by the jailed Republican Governor who commuted all death sentences. It takes courage for any governor to make any step against the death penalty. Quinn had to go back on his previous campaign stance when he signed the bill abolishing the death penalty.
While Obama has no power over a state case, he could have delayed the execution by demanding an investigation into witness tampering, etc. Although the White House statement was that it is inappropriate for him to weigh-in on a state case. Of course, that didn't stop him from doing so in the Texas case, when he felt a Mexican citizen's right may have been violated. The Supreme Court allowed that execution, as well. It seems to me that many people with a say have had a hand in reviewing the known facts of this case, and no one was willing to find fault with the jury's verdict. I have to believe that there is much more to the facts, than advocates have presented. I find the execution repugnant, because I find any execution repugnant. Rather than scream-on about this person's (on any person's) innocence, it would seem to me that people should be trying to abolish this barbaric practice, regardless of the person's guilt. Otherwise, you are just second-guessing our judicial system, which would result in chaos, and gets you nowhere.
The only reason Obama commented on the Mexican citizen case was because it involved foreign relations, which is a Federal domain. No demand Obama might have made in the Davis case would have had any legal weight.
Everybody needs to stop looking to the Feds for what was a Georgia case.
Additionally, the core issue is really the quality of legal counsel provided at the trial level. If you have indadequate representation, it is very, very, difficult to overcome that burden. I have read cases where lead defense counsel was sleeping through trials, and convinctions were not overturned/new trials were not granted.
Once you get a conviction, it is really an uphill battle to change a verdict. At trial, the state must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, here, without any physical evidence and no murder weapon, a jury believed it did, based solely on eyewitness testimony, which is VERY unreliable, especially if witnesses are of a different race (I don't know if that was the case here).
On appeal, you must prove your innocence by clear and convincing evidence. That is a tremendously high threshhold to overcome. Proving innocence is almost like proving a negative. Even when you have 7 of 9 witnesses recanting, you still had 2 that did not.
I have no idea whether Mr. Davis was guilty or innocent. But I am pretty confident that he did suffer from inadequate represenatation at the time it was most important.