The most incredible (and damning) quote I have ever heard about the US "justice" system

[DFW]

In an article about the situation of Death Row inmate Troy Davis, whose conviction was based on
the testimony of witnesses, most of whom have now recanted their testimony, the following was noted:

"The law is unresolved on whether a showing of innocence would allow Davis to escape the death penalty
if his original trial met constitutional standards for prosecution."

"THE LAW IS UNRESOLVED ON WHETHER A SHOWING OF INNOCENCE WOULD ALLOW DAVIS TO ESCAPE THE DEATH PENALTY"

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LAW IS THAT? A showing of innocence is insufficient to void
a conviction, much less cancel an execution? How bloodthirsty are we, anyway?

What are they waiting for, divine intervention?

Uh-oh. Wait--don't answer that.........

Full article here:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0623/lies-troy-davis-death-row-hearing/

[BzaDem]

1. Believe it or not, that is entirely accurate due to the Supreme Court. Scalia was OUTRAGED

that Davis even be given a CHANCE to prove his innocence.

http://mpomy.com/wordpress/?p=737

Scalia's view is that once appeals are exhausted, NO ONE is entitled to a new hearing to present new evidence.

Thomas joined his opinion. Luckily, Roberts/Alito/Kennedy did not join his opinion (and at least two of them voted to give Davis a hearing).

The Supreme Court has not held that there is any way for a factually innocent person to obtain judicial relief. Fortunately, however, it also has not held that there is NO way to obtain relief. It has left the question unresolved (though it did say that if there were a way, the showing of innocence would have to be almost undisputable).

Hopefully the Supreme Court will craft a decision that makes it clear that Scalia's view is the exact opposite of the law.

[Heywood J]

18. Of course Thomas agreed with Scalia.

Were the fingers showing in the back of his mouth this time?

[aikoaiko]

2. I'm fairly confident Davis won't be executed if this judge finds him innocent.

But I think the raw story article is correct that the law is not clear whether that a finding of innocence will prevent the sentence from being completed because this is relatively new ground. What's happening now in Savannah is outside the usually appeal process that has already been exhausted.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. WTF?! K&R.

:crazy: :banghead:

[Radical Activist]

4. This is common. The law and justice are often strangers to eachother.

[depakid]

5. On one matter the law is resolved: claims of factual innocence aren't grounds for Habeas Corpus

provided that due process has already run its course.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins">Herrera v. Collins

In other words, execution of innocent people isn't cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.

[tkmorris]

7. Which is a ridiculous interpretation of the law

If executing an INNOCENT person isn't cruel and unusual punishment, what is?

[BzaDem]

8. The summary you link to is unfortunately written in a confusing way.

The opinion of the court did hold that actual innocence was not grounds for federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to raise the claim.

But for the more general question, of was it constitutional to execute an innocent person (assuming there was no state remedy), they did not reach it. They simply said Herrera's claim of innocence was nonsense, so there was no need to rule on what would happen if the claim of innocence was definitive and there were no state remedy.

So basically, the court didn't answer yes or no to the question of the constitutionality of executing an innocent person, though it strongly hinted that if it were unconstitutional to execute an innocent person that the standard of innocence must be extraordinarily high.

[depakid]

9. THe court reached specific holdings on matters of law

The actual case is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=506&invol=390

Keynotes would be helpful- but a summary helps to explain the import of the decision:

On February 16, 1992, Applicant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He showed that he had important and compelling evidence of his innocence and argued that because of his innocence it would violate the United States Constitution to execute him. ... Collins v. Herrera, 754 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1992). The Fifth Circuit held that, based upon Supreme Court precedent, innocence did not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.

In 1993, the court ruled in Herrera vs. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) that a prisoner cannot simply argue in federal court that new evidence points to his innocence. He first must prove that his trial contained procedural errors (the technicalities that may free the guilty but also protect the innocent). In this case, Leonel Herrera had been convicted of shooting two police officers.

Ten years later, he submitted affidavits from witnesses who said that his now-dead brother had been the killer (one witness was his brother's son, who says he saw the murders). Without considering the statements, the court told Herrera to sit down and shut up. "Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact but to ensure the individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution," it said. In other words, being falsely imprisoned is not a violation of your rights. Herrera was executed four months after the ruling.

More: http://truthinjustice.org/lastwords.htm

[BzaDem]

10. That isn't exactly what the court said though.

The court basically goes on and on (in dicta) saying that federal habeas probably should not be available even if there is a clear and persuasive case for innocence. But in the end, it specifically does not reach the question, because in this case there wasn't even a clear and persuasive showing of a case for innocence. It left the full question unresolved until it gets a case where there is a clear and persuasive showing of innocence. Then, it will be forced to actually decide the question of whether that matters (instead of demurring due to the lack of a persuasive case).

Scalia (in the same case) writes a concurring opinion whining that the Court should have just decided NO no matter how persuasive the case of innocence.

It is very confusing though, and I have seen many summaries that are slightly incorrect on this point.

[depakid]

6. dupe

[midnight]

11. K&R

[localroger]

12. Laws are stupid things

And believe it or not, that's by design.

The reason the justice system works the way it does is so that Mr. Bigshot won't get a pass because he's "obviously a fine upstanding member of the community" and so Mr. Homeless Guy won't get railroaded just because he doesn't talk fancy or own a business. In real life of course this ideal isn't reached; the differential rates of conviction and death penalty sentencing for white and black defendants is enough to tell you that.

But that IS the ideal, and the way the system tries to achieve it is by ruling or cancelling out human emotions at as many turns as possible, reducing it all to a set of rules which may seem arbitrary but are crafted to force consistent results. And of course that machine isn't perfect, both because human emotions do sneak in and because, having ruled out and cancelled out not just human emotions but human common sense, it's capable of reaching conclusions that seem totally insane.

THIS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS NOT OF MEN reads the inscription above the door of the 5th circuit court of appeals building here in NOLA. And laws say that when the law has made a decision, that decision must be respected; that in fact it must be given greater respect than the opinion of any individual human being. It is possible to look at that sentence and see it as the basis of total insanity, but that would be to forget why the men who crafted the Magna Carta set us down this path -- the alternative is the King deciding he doesn't like your aftershave and saying "that guy wearing the Old Spice, feed him to the moat alligators." Which was about what the situation was before the Magna Carta, and how it was for non-landed people for many centuries after.

So the system sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as not having a system. A perfect system is probably impossible and a system that isn't respected won't function. Welcome to Earth.

[DFW]

13. That only works as long as the laws are respected

When they are circumvented or perverted for the benefit of career enhancement on the part of a zealous prosecutor or police
departments who haven't had their quota of capital murders solved, then it is NO LONGER a government of laws, but of corrupt
men hiding behind laws they selectively enforce or ignore at their pleasure. At that point, we are no more a government of laws
than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany was a government of laws, but a government where laws apply only to those not in a position
to defend themselves against those in power, who interpret those laws to their own convenience.

Laws ignored are laws that do not govern. They have to be respected more than just on paper, and without exception, not just
at the whim of those who supposedly enforce them (and can refuse to when it serves their purpose).

[Heywood J]

19. It's an argument for a civil law system.

People always forget that alternative to common law. Seems to work well enough in many other countries we admire.

[treestar]

14. I could not believe it when I read of a case a few years ago

that technicalities could come into play to enforce the death penalty.

Now if there is ever a case for not letting technicalities trump real facts, it would be the death penalty.

[JoeyT]

15. Yeah, that's pretty insane.

The "Law and Order" conservatives lose their minds when a possessor of pot walks on a technicality, even when the technicality was a complete violation of constitutional rights. They don't much seem to mind when a possibly innocent person is killed on a technicality, though.

[treestar]

17. Hell I ran into one that was fine with some innocent people getting executed

Admitted that some innocent people would invariably die, but that it was worth it to have the death penalty.

And I'm pretty sure they felt pretty safe that it was not going to be them or their family.

[MattBaggins]

16. Hell we have people on this very board that

that are proud that their states "enjoy" the death penalty.

I say this again; death penalty fans are cut from the same cloth as those they wish to put to death.