Here's your answer:
Sitting on death row in Georgia, Troy Davis has won a key victory against his own execution. On Aug. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed a federal court in Georgia to consider, for the first time in a formal court proceeding, significant evidence of Davis’ innocence that surfaced after his conviction. This is the first such order from the U.S. Supreme Court in almost 50 years. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
The order read, in part, “The District Court should receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes petitioner’s innocence.” Behind the order lay a stunning array of recantations from those who originally testified as eyewitnesses to the murder of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail on Aug. 19, 1989. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses who originally identified Davis as the murderer of MacPhail have since recanted, some alleging police coercion and intimidation in obtaining their testimony. Of the remaining two witnesses, one, Sylvester “Redd” Coles, is accused by others as the shooter and identified Davis as the perpetrator probably to save himself from arrest.
On the night of the murder, MacPhail was off duty, working as a security guard at a Burger King. A homeless man was being beaten in the parking lot. The altercation drew Davis and others to the scene, along with MacPhail. MacPhail intervened, and was shot fatally with a .38-caliber gun. Later, Coles arrived at the police station, accompanied by a lawyer, and identified Davis as the shooter. The police engaged in a high-profile manhunt, with Davis’ picture splayed across the newspapers and television stations. Davis turned himself in. With no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Davis was convicted and sentenced to death.
Jeffrey Sapp is typical of those in the case who recanted their eyewitness testimony. He said in an affidavit:
“The police ... put a lot of pressure on me to say ‘Troy said this’ or ‘Troy said that.’ They wanted me to tell them that Troy confessed to me about killing that officer ... they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I told them what they wanted to hear.”
Despite the seven recantations, Georgia’s parole commission has refused to commute Davis’ sentence. Courts have refused to hear the evidence, mostly on procedural grounds. Conservatives like former Georgia Congressman and prosecutor Bob Barr and former FBI Director William Sessions have called for justice in his case, along with Pope Benedict XVI, President Jimmy Carter, the NAACP and Amnesty International.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.” Yet conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented (with Justice Clarence Thomas), writing that Davis’ case “is a sure loser,” and “[t]his Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Davis has had three execution dates, and in one instance was within two hours of lethal injection. Now he will finally have his day in court. With the courageous support of his sister, Martina Correia (who has been fighting for his life as well as her own—she has stage 4 breast cancer), and his nephew, Antone De’Jaun Correia, who at 15 is a budding human rights activist, Davis may yet defy death. That could lead to a long-overdue precedent in U.S. law: It is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.

When did you stop trying?




.
Attachments:

It's silly to say the court didn't rule on whether it is constitutional to execute an innocent man.

Legally, this innocent man is guilty. As far as the fact that he was convicted.

The question before the court was under what circumstances should the case be retried if new evidence appears that could exonerate the person, or change the circumstances of sentencing.

The article was slanted to begin with. I mean yes, it is wrong when (in hindsight) it is determined an innocent man is put to death for any reason. Even on the street when they are minding their own business.

I have always been of mixed feelings on executions. But until we can come up with something that is NOT electroshock therapy/torture to try and "re-program" some of these folks, we either make them a permanent ward of the State (expensive), or execute them. Each one has advantages/disadvantages and morality issues. At some point though, you have to say "enough" on what will get you in front of an appeal court - besides their ability to be subjective or objective in reviewing the merits of the case.

You never know what will make someone go off the deep end though. Lack of medication, feral upbringing, too much illegal drug use, or maybe they have just always been assholes and finally decide to show the world their feelings about the rest of humanity. Just hope you don't run into a "wrong place, wrong time" moment if you are truly innocent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2009 10:26AM by Registered Voter.

It would be unconstitutional to execute a man who was found innocent by a court of law. However, if a court of law finds a man guilty of murder, even though he may in reality be innocent of the crime, it is totally constitutional to execute him. That's why I believe we need to do away with the death penalty, because there is ample evidence that the state is occasionally executing innocent people regardless of what our courts are deciding.

It is unconstitutional to execute an innocent man. However, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and this man was found guilty. Whether or not he actually committed the crime is, sadly, irrelevant at this point.

The justice system is not perfect, and anyone that thinks it is or thinks it can be is naive. It's made up of people, and anything involving people is inherently imperfect.

Even if he has another trial and is again judged guilty, people will still claim he's innocent, and that they're making a mistake with the execution, etc.

Of course, ask anyone on death row if they're guilty, and they'll tell you "no."

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.