Shouldn't Innocence Matter?

by David C. Fathi, director of the US program
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
September 24, 2009

On August 17, the US Supreme Court ordered a lower federal court in Georgia to conduct a hearing in the case of Troy Anthony Davis. Davis has been on Georgia's death row for 18 years, sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of an off-duty Savannah police officer, Mark Allen MacPhail.

The prosecution's case rested almost entirely on testimony from eyewitnesses, but seven of the nine who testified against Davis at his trial recanted and now say they are not sure who shot MacPhail. Three people now say that another man has confessed to the crime. However, because of strict rules limiting consideration of new evidence, no court has held a hearing on the evidence of Davis' innocence, and he has come within hours of execution.

The Supreme Court directed the lower court to hear testimony and determine "whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence." This is a welcome result. But the shocking truth is that even if the court concludes that Davis is innocent, that may not be enough to save him from the death chamber.

As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissenting from the Court's order, the Supreme Court has never ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person. Many Americans will be surprised to learn that their Constitution might permit such a monstrous result. But when US courts review criminal convictions, they are focused on procedure, not on outcome - on whether the defendant received a fair trial, not whether he is factually guilty or innocent. If the trial was free from serious defects - a sleeping defense lawyer, a biased judge, a prosecutor who suppressed exculpatory evidence - the conviction and sentence will stand.

In 1993, the Supreme Court considered the case of Leonel Herrera, a prisoner on death row in Texas. Herrera produced new evidence tending to show that he was innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced to die, and argued that, since he was innocent, his execution would violate the Constitution. The Court avoided deciding that question, concluding instead that, even assuming that the execution of an innocent person would be unconstitutional, Herrera had not met the "extraordinarily high" threshold to establish such a claim. Herrera was executed a few months later.

A constitution that does not prohibit the execution of innocent people is, to say the least, seriously deficient. And it's not as if an innocent person reaching death row were a hypothetical problem. Since 1973, 135 people in 26 states have been released from death rows because of evidence that they were innocent. Some, like Davis, had come within days of execution. Several others have been executed despite strong evidence of innocence.

It's true that executive clemency can save innocent persons from execution when the courts will not, and some innocent persons on death row have received this form of relief. But in many states, a prisoner's hope of executive clemency can be largely illusory, as governors eyeing re-election are loathe to intervene on behalf of someone convicted of murder. For example, Texas has carried out 441 executions since 1976, including several in which there was serious doubt about the defendant's guilt. In that same period, only one person on Texas' death row has received clemency based on his possible innocence.

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and finality, but even death penalty supporters must shudder at the prospect of putting an innocent person to death. Most of the United States' closest allies abolished the death penalty decades ago; in many cases, abolition was prompted in large part by concern about the risk of executing the innocent.

Unfortunately, abolition does not seem imminent in the United States. But for now, Troy Davis will get his day in court. And his case may become the vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally make clear that, in the words of Justice Stevens, it would be "an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based" to execute an innocent person.

Shockingly, (at least to me) I recently found out that IN ALL MOST ALL CASES/jurisdictions , Innocence is NOT a defense!?!?!?!

The more i understand the system, the more i realize innocence and guilt have VERY LITTLE to do with the outcome in many cases.

__________________
If you are compassionate in your approach to all tasks in life, believing that all "problems" contain valuable lessons, you will find peace of mind.
~Dr. Lee Jampolsky

I understand that nowhere exists a really error-free judicial system, errors happen wherever humans do work. But to imagine an innocent person could be killed and the whole mess could be constitutional - this is a horror vision. It causes dislike.

__________________
Guess who i will see soon live in action.

The odd twist to all this, some who are the worse of the worse and are guilty, even inmates themselves seem to have their own justiice inside as too some murders, like Dahmer, and I hear they have to keep Scott Peterson away from the flow, many inside want to kill him.

Another odd twist as this pro and anti battle is going on. many are already also working toward, how long is to long to be sentenced, "no one" should be incarcerated over so many years, against human rights.

Then the DR groupies who form for the truely guilty, are doing more harm then good to the anti DP as well as this human rights thing goes way over the line too.
The debate will never end, due to you give an inch and they take a mile, it will go on and on. so where is the line?

If a DP remains it needs to be only for certain category and few should really be sitting on DR, yet many are too truely guilty should never see the light of day.

Life is the most important given gift and right, way too many innocents have lost that.
I have to keep in mind that precious gift taken, before I take all off DR due to an innocent lost at the other end of all this, lost in the maddness is an much lower count atleast.

Shouldn't innocence matter for all killed the thousands of victims hell yes no one mentions them much, should innocence matter on the justice side of sentencing hell yes.
Does not mean we need to do away totally with the DP? Not to me anymore. no matter how we try with terrorist or mass murderers, some will never change,hard wired that way. just to dangerous to even be incarcerated.

Sorry , I see the title of this thread, think of how crime has grown the numbers of innocents, kids, people just trying to work die and slaughtered comes to mind, terrorist attacks across the world etc. That screams out to me first, emotional yes, but rational too, enough is enough much higher count of bodies and unimaginable pain endured for no logical reason in the end of it all.

This is not about GP inmates' this is about DR and the DP. GP is a whole different issue, and many even there are killed too by other inmates. Many did not even belong there, or for the long sentence they got. Rehab/education could have been and should be the reasonable solution.

__________________

A judicial or law system should have two major guidelines: the human life and dignity are invulnerable and innocent to be proven guilty.
Under such a premise you will have to make (as a judge) very difficult decisions, especially when your own emotions speak a different language as the law. For instance: for November this year is the execution of John Allen Muhammad scheduled. I have no doubt that Muhammad is guilty and i have no doubt that it was very devious and evil what this person has done. To name him a terrorist is not wrong, because what he did was a kind of terror. He had a co-defendant who also killed victims. He got no DP. Which victims relatives are now more satisfied ? Those who will see Muhammad being put to death or those who can´t see the same for Lee Boyd Malvo ? Or are they both satisfied because the society did all to catch those individuals and make the society safe again ?
Would the society become damaged when Muhammad would stay alive ? He can´t endanger anyone in the free world, it means the main task of the authorities is fullfilled or am i wrong ?

__________________
Guess who i will see soon live in action.

Andreas, what are the details as to why the court did not give the DP to the co-defendent?
There has to be a reason.

They kill inside prison too, so they are a danger to society still, prisons a society too, other inmates and staff. Its not about which victims are more satisfied. From inside prison the hard wired kill people in the free worldl, with help of course from the inside and outside.

__________________

Peanut, Muhammad and Malvo were known as "The Washington Snipers". They shot people and even school kids randomly, their killing spree lasted for some weeks.

That inmates can stay a menace for the COs or other prison staff has reasons and those reasons have something to do with the philosophy of the american penal system. My first impression (when i saw first time a documentary about american prisons) was that the punishment herself stands in foreground. When a convict is nothing worth for the prison staff, then i believe this philosophy is wrong. I remember Sheriff Arpaios words "you´re nothing, your a.. is mine" (or something like this). When every method is allowed to break the inmates will or self-esteem, do you know what you establish on that way ? Do you know what you establish when you isolate humans with no possibility of social contacts ? Do you know what you establish with overcrowding of the prisons ? You establish sources of violence, you produce people which are ready to use violence for whatever reason. You endanger your own people, your COs. Vice versa can you see how to prevent those circumstances.
I really believe that it is very important to give long sentenced inmates a job, a task, to have a senseful life and to earn some money (for the time after the release or for a better life in prison). Under such a premise will the number of violent inmates decrease.
You are right, behind prison walls did i see people which are really dangerous. On a second view i recognized that they are almost mentally disturbed, ill or emotionally stunted. They need psychological help to decrease their violence readiness. To try to break their will is dangerous, a violent offender can become under such a premise a real menace and this is what we should prevent. In our own interests.
It was more than one time that i heard COs speak how dangerous their vocational allday life is and that they feel and deal as a big family. I understand this but i wonder why our COs do not need the same security precautions. To understand what kind of penal system i prefer as the better one you could read this. It´s google-translated but maybe you can understand what i try to say. By the way, this prison is in my hometown.

__________________
Guess who i will see soon live in action.

Philosophy of the Amer system is not what brought them there to DR.

The types we are talking about here, many do not want to be helped first, they love killing no remorse. Nothing we do will change that.Nice to think we can change things yet reality is they will have to be isolated, no job no nothing.

I still look at the title of this thread and for the worse of the worse the guilty, "should innocent matter" what about them? Anti is trying to eliminate all DP's using an innocent left off DR or given the DP, bad angle to go for the anti cause.
How do you tell a pro hey this inmate suffered undue pain being executed, when he was definitely guilty and with much pain,heinously murdered 13 kids with slow torcher and lots of fear and pain. Yes, we are the civilized ones but, the lame stuff antis do, like poor baby felt pain is not going over well to win gettting rid of the DP, nor are these groupies who hug them yes the reall guilty ones. Or refusing to recognize the victims pain by saying they are too emotional so are the judges.... looks kinda pro crime in the big pic to many.

The many victims in millions, thousands by killimg machines and many on DR are really guilty for heinous and many killings.
If one dies by DP for something he did not do, that real murderer has himself taken yet another victimby proxy not care no remorse, not just the justice system.


GP I agree, we so not want to make a more dangerous inmate, and isolation is and can cause one to go mad, as well as abuse inside.

__________________

Peanut, i view the whole issue rationally. To detest what a guilty offender has done is one thing. To see the victims (relatives) pain is another thing. Both do i also like you do. Victims relatives are never too emotional. But they do not pronounce any sentence.
When someone would prefer the DP for all heinous crimes, please try to explain why it is in certain cases possible to make a deal with the criminal, to prevent his possible DP and (for instance) to find the victims body. What counts more ? The DP for the offender or a (then possible) mourning place for the relatives ? Why is DP not in the same way important in such cases ? It´s a bit hard to understand.

__________________
Guess who i will see soon live in action.