High court rejects Ga. death row inmate's appeal

Source: Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a Georgia death row inmate who was given a rare chance to argue his innocence but failed to convince a federal judge that he was wrongly convicted of the 1989 murder of a Savannah police officer.

The decision clears the way for state officials to move forward with Troy Davis' execution, but problems with the state's supply of a key lethal injection drug put the timing in doubt. Federal regulators this month seized the entire stockpile of the drug, sodium thiopental, amid questions about how the state obtained it. The move effectively put all executions in Georgia on hold.

The court's rejection of the appeal is the most stinging setback yet for Davis, who has become a cause celebre for the international anti-death penalty movement amid claims that he wasn't the one who killed off-duty Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail — and that he had evidence to prove it.

He's been scheduled for executions three times since 2007, but was spared each time by courts agreeing to take another look at his case. After Monday's ruling, though, even Davis' attorneys acknowledge his options are limited. Defense attorney Jason Ewart said the likeliest route is the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, a five-member board that rarely postpones executions.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_troy_davis

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his "actual innocence."

The justices without comment on Monday turned aside two separate appeals from Troy Davis, likely setting the stage for the state to set another execution date.

Davis has gained international support for his long-standing claim he did not murder an off-duty Savannah police officer more than two decades ago. Monday's ruling is the latest in a case that is procedurally complex but, legally, a simple claim of innocence.

Davis was granted a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death in 2008, and the court in 2009 ordered the federal District Court to take another look at the case.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/28/us.scotus.davis/index.html

Actual innocence is not a compelling reason not to execute someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

..if there were no procedural errors at trial and your rights weren't violated...what sort of sense does that make??

above justice.

While they enjoy their little semantic discourses over cognac and cigars at the club, the rest of us just get to rot in cells or simply die.

Simply ridiculous.

"But Moore concluded in August that several of the witnesses had already backed off their incriminating statements during the 1991 trial — so it wasn't new evidence — and that others simply couldn't be believed. He ruled that while the evidence casts some additional doubt on the conviction, "it is largely smoke and mirrors" and not nearly strong enough to prove Davis' innocence."


WHAT THE FUCK? Are you kidding me?!?!


If it 'casts doubt' it doesn't have to PROVE innocence... it means that guilt was not proven beyond a doubt!

That is the law in a nutshell, thus the Federal Judge's statement amounts to a statement that there is no new evidence, just that some wittinesses backed off their story at his trial (Happens all the time, the courts do NOT consider such recantations as "New Evidence) and what new wittinesses that have come forward, the Judge just did not believe (which is a non-appeal-able Factual finding by the Judge).

Remember once convicted, the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof, not the State. Thus, unless you have evidence that clearly shows the Defendant did NOT commit the crime, the conviction will stand and any sentence based on that conviction will stand. If the new evidence just goes to the issue of a jury's balancing of the evidence (unless it was denied to the Defense by the Prosecution before and during the trial) that is NOT enough to over turn the conviction. You need evidence that clearly shows the Defendant could NOT have committed the crime.

I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that the system is totally fucked up.

The jist of what you're saying is that all kinds of bullshit can be used to convict, then irrefutable proof is required to overturn... not merely the demonstration that the original evidence is flawed.

It's still just plain wrong.

I'm so sick of this country. What a joke. Justice for the poor, freedom for the rich.

Bless Troy Davis.

the court would be hearing the case.

By 2004, 118 countries had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. An average of three countries abolish the death penalty every year. The worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty is reflected in the Africa region, where 24 members of the African Union had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, by 1 October 2004.(1) Here are ten reasons for the total abolition of this degrading and inhuman punishment:

1 - the death penalty violates the right to life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person’s right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral integrity of his person." This view is reinforced by the existence of international and regional treaties providing for the abolition of the death penalty, notably the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989.

2 - the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.

The UDHR categorically states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."All forms of execution are inhuman. No government can guarantee a dignified and painless death to condemned prisoners, who also suffer psychological pain in the period between their sentence and execution.

3 - the death penalty has no dissuasive effect.

No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments. The most recent investigation into the links of cause and effect between capital punishment and the murder rate, was conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002. It came to the following conclusion: "...it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.

By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal. Moreover, studies have shown that the murder rate increases immediately after executions. Researchers have suggested that this increase is similar to that caused by other violent public events, such as massacres and assassinations.

5 - the death penalty is discriminatory in its application.

Throughout the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people. Some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from wealthier sectors of society. In these cases, either the accused are less able to find their way through the maze of the judicial system (because of a lack of knowledge, confidence or financial means), or the system reflects the generally negative attitude of society and the powerful towards them. It has also been proved that certain criminals run a greater risk of being condemned to death if their victims come from higher social classes.

6 - the death penalty denies the capacity of people to mend their ways and become a better person.

Defenders of the death penalty consider that anyone sentenced to death is unable to mend their ways and could re-offend at any time if they are released. However, there are many examples of offenders who have been reintegrated and who have not re-offended. Amnesty International believes that the way to prevent re-offending is to review procedures for conditional release and the psychological monitoring of prisoners during detention, and under no circumstances to increase the number of executions. In addition, the death penalty removes any possibility for the condemned person to repent.

7 - the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.

An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family. Far from reducing the pain, the length of the trial and the appeal procedure often prolong the family’s suffering.

8 - the death penalty denies the fallibility of human institutions.

The risk of executing innocent people remains indissolubly linked to the use of the death penalty. Since 1973, 116 people condemned to death in the United States have been released after proof of their innocence has been established. Some of them have only just escaped execution, after having passed years on death row. These repeated judicial errors have been especially due to irregularities committed by prosecution or police officers, recourse to doubtful evidence, material information or confessions, or the incompetence of defence lawyers. Other prisoners have been sent to their deaths when serious doubts existed about their guilt.

9 - the death penalty is a collective punishment.

This punishment affects all the family, friends and those sympathising with the condemned person. The close relatives of an executed prisoner, who generally do not have anything to do with the crime, could feel, as a result of the death penalty, the same dreadful sense of loss as the victim’s parents felt at the death of their loved one.

10 - the death penalty goes against the religious and humanist values that are common to all humanity.

Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that Amnesty International bases its opposition to the death penalty.