Troy Davis Execution
 

Quote:

oh boy indeed. BTW, I agree with you on the Troy Davis case, and if you started a thread about it, I would bet most US respondents would agree as well. Maybe you can learn something from them.

If you notice I have made no judgements on Troy Davis' innocence or guilt. I haven't studied the case.

My posts (2) do not even discuss his case and I offer no opinions about it, except "it's the tip of a very big iceberg".

I did post about it as a reminder about (the reported) lack of evidence, lack of credible witnesses and reasonable doubt.

And as a counterpoint to the "it could never happen here " posts.

Take from it what you will.

And if you want to start a thread about him ...well, why not?

But like most of you, I have little interest in the case.

I just somehow doubt the thread will get much traction.

Re: Troy Davis.

I really have to laugh (what else can you do). Take a look at this gem of a quote from today's NYTimes:

"But in June, a federal district judge in Savannah said Mr. Davis’s legal team had failed to demonstrate his innocence, setting the stage for the new date."

LOL.

Could you IMAGINE if this had been the quote:

"But in June, a federal district judge in Perugia said Ms. Knox's legal team had failed to demonstrate her innocence..."

Jesus Christ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us...n-georgia.html

btw: Tonight the State of Georgia has put the Troy Davis execution on hold while the case is considered by the State and the US Supreme Court.

Apparently that changed, because I just read he was executed tonight.

Yep, delayed the execution for 4 hours. Then we killed him.

Posts moved from Amanda Knox thread

To clear up an error:

The constitutional argument that Diocletian mentioned in the Knox thread is called a substantive claim of innocence. It has nothing to do with a trial proceeding. The above comparison is meaningless.

And after TWENTY YEARS.

Unconscionably obscene and sickeningly pointless.

WTF happened to reasonable doubt? If there hadn't been any, surely the sentence should have been carried out in 1991, not 2011.

Yeah, I know, it's not that simple, but for the death penalty to have any credibility at all as an appropriate form of punishment, surely it should, and could, be?

(That said, I still totally oppose the death penalty. IMO, it is NOT appropriate. EVER.)

Actually Merry, being unfamiliar with the case, I can see where they did proceed with the sentence. (Strictly speaking, there might still been enough to uphold the original conviction. If the 7 that recanted were not integral to the conviction, kind of "Yeah, he did it" people, then removing them from the case might not be pivotal).

OTOH, the way that, after 20 years, that the parents are still bitter and calling for "justice served" is just sad.

No matter how much we say we are evolved, we seem to have this primordial viciousness that refuses to die. Eye for an eye, blood for blood, no matter who is really "at fault" or what the end result may be.

Before conviction, the gov't has the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once convicted, the burden of proof transfers to the convict making tha appeal. There's nothing wrong with that.

All I can say about the Troy Davis case is that it had been reviewed by numerous courts and other legal entities (ie the Georgia Pardons Board.) None of them, who had the ability to investigate, supoena witnesses, etc., either vacated the conviction or commuted the sentance. To me that says something about the actual strength of the case that the media doesn't want to acknowledge.

Also, I will note that one of the murderers in the Jasper, TX dragging murder case was executed yesterday. I'm not hearing any protests about that.

I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that the standard for appeal should be based on a reason to question evidence or witnesses that influenced the original verdict. In this case, 7 witnesses who testitifed against Davis recanted their testimony. If these 7 witnesses were instrumental the guilty verdict, one would think a new trial would have been warranted. I am not saying that is how it is (frankly, I don't know), but that is how it should be.

Suggesting he must be guilty because numerous courts or legal entities failed to vacate the sentenace is weak. The sentance is almost always not vacated, especially it seems in the south. I do not know much about this particular case, but the whole appeals process seems flawed to me.

Also, I will note that one of the murderers in the Jasper, TX dragging murder case was executed yesterday. I'm not hearing any protests about that.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why the appeal process required he establish his innoncence. According to this Fox News article seemed to be specific to this case (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22...aim-injustice/) and is not the normal benchmark to vacate a verdict.

Again, I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that if his team could reasonably challange the evidence and witnesses that lead to his conclusion, a reasonable appeal process would lead to a new trial. In this case, 7 witnesses recanted their testimonly, and several jurors indicated they should have voted the other way. I would not want that on my head.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Troy Davis Executed After Stay Denied by Supreme Court

Supreme Court Delayed Execution of Troy Davis, but Ultimately Denied a Stay

By COLLEEN CURRY and MICHAEL S. JAMESSept. 21, 2011—

Troy Davis was executed this evening for the murder of an off-duty policeman after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay of execution amid widespread public doubts about his guilt.

Davis, 42, died at 11:08 p.m. ET, according to a Georgia Department of Corrections official. His death by lethal injection came after an approximately four-hour delay for legal review.

Eyewitnesses described the mood in the execution chamber as "somber" as Davis was wheeled in strapped to a gurney. He declared his innocence a final time in the 1989 murder as witnesses and relatives of the victim -- off-duty Savannah, Ga., policeman Mark MacPhail -- looked on.

"I'd like to address the MacPhail family," Davis said, according to The Associated Press. "Let you know, despite the situation you are in, I'm not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.

"The incident that happened that night is not my fault," he added. "I did not have a gun. All I can ask ... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth.

"I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight," he said. "For those about to take my life, God have mercy on your souls. And may God bless your souls."

Witnesses said Davis' eyes fluttered as he received his first injection and lost consciousness, and that the entire process of lethal injection lasted about 15 minutes.

"Justice has been served for Officer Mark MacPhail and his family," state Attorney General Sam Olens said in a statement.

Joan MacPhail-Harris, the widow of Mark MacPhail, told The Associated Press that "it's a time for healing" now that Davis' execution has occurred, that she saw "nothing to rejoice" over in Davis' death and that she was praying for his family.

"I will grieve for the Davis family because now they're going to understand our pain and our hurt," she told the AP in a telephone interview from Jackson.

"I'm kind of numb. I can't believe that it's really happened," MacPhail's mother, Anneliese MacPhail, told the AP in a telephone interview from her home in Columbus, Ga. "All the feelings of relief and peace I've been waiting for all these years, they will come later. I certainly do want some peace."

Members of the MacPhail family are convinced Davis was guilty, but many other observers are not.

Davis had his execution stayed four times over the course of his 22 years on death row, but multiple legal appeals during that time failed to prove his innocencePublic support grew for Davis based on the recanted testimony of seven witnesses from his trial and the possible confession of another suspect, which his defense team claimed cast too much doubt on Davis' guilt to follow through with an execution.

A growing tide of celebrities, politicians and social media users called for the execution to be delayed because of "too much doubt" present in his case.

Up to and beyond the moments of execution, the criticism continued. "Strange Fruit," a classic song about lynching, trended on Twitter, celebrities tweeted their disapproval and, after it was over, an Amnesty International official released a written statement condemning the execution.

"Killing a man under this enormous cloud of doubt is horrific and amounts to a catastrophic failure of the justice system," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International AIUSA. "Our hearts are heavy, but we have not lost our spirit of defiance. Millions of people around the world now know of Troy Davis and see the fallibility of the U.S. justice system."

The execution was delayed more than four hours as the U.S. Supreme Court weighed last-minute arguments from Davis' legal team and the state of Georgia over whether his execution should be blocked.

The court's decision to deny the stay came without comment after 10 p.m. ET.

Troy Davis Backers in Frantic Last Minute Efforts to Stop Execution

At 7:05 p.m. ET, five minutes after his scheduled death, Davis' supporters erupted in cheers, hugs and tears outside the jail in Jackson, Ga., as supporters believed Davis had been saved from the death penalty. But Davis was granted only a temporary reprieve as the Supreme Court considered the decision.

At a protest in front of the White House today, at least 12 Howard University students were arrested for failing to move off the White House sidewalk, according to ABC News affiliate WJLA. The protest there was expected to last until 7 p.m.


A flurry of messages on Twitter using the hashtags #TroyDavis and #TooMuchDoubt showed thousands of supporters of Davis were intent on flooding the Jackson District Attorney's Office, Georgia Judge Penny Freezeman's office, and the U.S. Attorney General's Office with phone calls and e-mails to beg for a stay on the execution.

Some users accused Twitter of blocking the topic from trending on Tuesday, though a representative from Twitter told ABC News there was no such action taken. The hashtags were trending today in cities around the U.S. as well as Germany, the U.K., Sweden and France. Many tweets called the case a symbol of a return to Jim Crow laws and racial inequalities in the justice system.

Big Boi, a member of the group Outkast, tweeted to his followers to go to the Georgia state prison in Jackson to protest the decision. The Roots' Questlove tweeted a similar message.

The NAACP and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson held a news conference today calling for the execution to be halted.

Amnesty International, which has been fighting on behalf of Davis, encouraged supporters to attend a vigil at the church across the street from the prison at 5:30 p.m. and a protest at 6 p.m., and asked participants to wear a black armband and write on it, "Not in my name!"

Wendy Gozen Brown, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, said that Davis would want the protests to remain peaceful.
"In this type of situation, there's always the potential for it to go awry, with certain groups, angry rhetoric," Brown said. "But Troy Davis would want people to keep fighting peacefully, for him and for, as he would put it, all of the other Troy Davises out there."
Others who have voiced support for Davis include former President Jimmy Carter, the pope and a former FBI director.

Davis's execution was stayed four times for appeals since his conviction in 1991, and the Supreme Court gave him a rare chance to prove his innocence last year, but rejected his plea.

A Georgia board of pardons and paroles rejected Davis's plea for clemency on Tuesday.
ABC News' Arianne de Vogue and Steve Osunsami and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=14571862

Copyright © 2011 ABC News Internet Ventures

How does it serve society to kill those who are convicted, no matter the crime?

Morally it makes no sense. And even less financially.

Clearly the SCOTUS had something to talk over yesterday evening. The four hour delay indicates it wasn't just idle chatter. I was hoping (foolishly) for a wide-ranging ruling, ending the practice of Capital Punishment.

Perhaps someone on the inside will give a written account of what the Justices were discussing. We'd all be the better off if given that information.

Includes commentary on the judge's requirement for the defense to provide clear and compellng proof of his innocence. Despite BBMW's claims otherwise, this is a test that is beyond the normal course for appeals; i.e. is specific to this case alone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikk...arge_thumb.jpghttp://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...of-troy-davis/


The Innocence of Troy Davis

John Rudolf has a long piece up on Troy Davis in the Huffington Post. Davis was convicted in 1991 for the shooting death of a Georgia policeman. Since then, many doubts have been raised about the case and the way it was handled by police and prosecutors:Since the original trial in 1991, seven of nine prosecution witnesses that linked Davis to the shooting have either recanted or materially altered the stories they told the jury, but Davis’ attempts to secure a retrial have been persistently rebuffed by state and federal courts.

In an extraordinary hearing in June 2010 ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court, Davis’ attorneys were finally allowed to present evidence of his innocence to a federal judge. In statement after statement, witnesses from the original trial avowed that they had been coerced by police to implicate Davis in the shooting or had lied in order to secure lenience for their own troubles with the law.
This is a serious problem with eyewitness testimony, and especially with using criminals as witnesses who might cut deals of their own to conform their testimony to what police and prosecutors want to hear. Unfortunately for Davis, the judge overseeing the case – William T Moore Jr. – demanded that the defense provide “clear and compelling” proof of Davis’s innocence. Proving that the state was negligent in making its case, proving that there is a serious reasonable doubt about Davis’s guilt, these are apparently not enough. This strikes me as a pretty high threshold given that for a jury to convict there should evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

The holes in the prosecution’s case against Davis are pretty deep:
At the original trial, for instance, several eyewitnesses that prosecutors used to identify Davis as the shooter had actually seen pictures identifying him as a suspect before being asked to select the shooter from an array of photos, according to Moore’s 172-page decision. Another key eyewitness originally told police that he had not seen the shooter’s face; at the trial, two years later, he told the jury he was confident Davis was the killer.

I’ve written about the problems with eyewitness testimony before. Suffice to say, people are lousy witnesses most of the time, but it gets much worse at night, in a chaotic situation, or when bad incentives like leniency toward criminals are introduced into the mix. The state’s case against Davis is flimsy. It fell apart years ago. As Bob Barr rightly phrased it, “imposing an irreversible sentence of death on the skimpiest of evidence will not serve the interest of justice.”

The issue here is - even if you accept the appropriateness of the death penalty - the standard by which it's applied. It should be at the level of certainty.

The force of the protests is about the death penalty, and it's better to have an innocent as the central figure; but that seems to confuse any discussion. I've read statements by the sister of Troy Davis that the brother she knows would not have done this. But Davis was also convicted of another shooting earlier that evening.

Important names:
Troy Davis
Redd Coles
Michael Cooper
Larry Young

Also:
Cloverdale
White shirt
Yellow shirt

This account was copied from the petition for writ of habeas corpus in US District Court, Savannah, GA:
This case involves the shooting of Savannah Police Department ("SPD") Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. In the early hours of August 19, 1989, Officer MacPhail was working a parttime security job when he came to the assistance of a homeless man, whom had been assaulted in the parking lot of a Burger King restaurant. As Officer MacPhajl neared the commotion, one of the three men responsible for the assault gunned him down.

An earlier shooting at a party in the Cloverdale neighborhood of Savannah also plays a role in this case. Here, an individual shot at a car as it was leaving the party,
striking one of its occupants in the face. Because this case centers on eyewitness testimony, the Court presents the facts in the manner in which they were provided by those who witnessed these events.

I. THE INVESTIGATIONS

At 11:29 p.m. on August 18, 1989, the SPD received a 911 call from a resident in the Cloverdale neighborhood informing them that several shots had been fired. (Resp. Ex. 30, Disk 1 at 00:14.) The police received several more reports of gunfire, and an officer was dispatched to investigate. At 12:17 a.m. on August 19, 1989, an officer was informed that a local hospital had admitted Mr. Michael Cooper to treat a gunshot wound he received in the Cloverdale neighborhood. (Id. at 03:37,09:12.) The police visited Mr. Cooper in the hospital and obtained a description of the shooter: a young, tall, African-American male wearing a white batman shirt, a black hat, and shorts. (Id. at 11:01.)

At 1:09 a.m. on August 19, 2010, the SPD received a 911 call from an employee at the Thunderbird Inn, located across the Street from the Burger King on Oglethorpe Avenue.3 (Id. at 22:56.) The caller informed the police that an individual had been shot in the Burger King parking lot and that she saw two African-American males running from the scene in the direction of the Trust Company Bank building. One minute later, the SPD received another 911 call informing the police that the shooting victim was a police officer. (Id. at 24:13.) At 1:16 a.m., the SPD received a second call from the Thunderbird employee, informing them that she saw two men run from the Burger King parking lot towards the Trust Company Bank building, that both were wearing shorts, and that one was wearing a tank top tshirt. (Id. at 30:38.) The caller did not identify the color of the shorts or the tank top. The limited description was quickly relayed to the responding officers, who immediately began searching for similarly dressed individuals. (Id. at 38:03.) Meanwhile, the officers at the scene secured the area and began interviewing potential witnesses. (Resp. Ex. 30 at 13-14.) The following relevant witness statements were secured during the investigations.


A. Harriett Murray's First Statement

At 2:27 a.m. on August 19, 1989, Ms. Harriett Murray provided the police with a statement concerning the MacPhail shooting. (Pet. Ex. 32-U at 1.) In the early hours of August 19, 1989, Ms. Murray was sitting in front of the Burger King restaurant with Mr. Larry Young. (Id.) Mr. Young went to the nearby convenience store to purchase cigarettes and beer. (Id.) While Mr. Young was returning from the store to the Burger King parking lot, Ms. Murray noticed that he was arguing with another individual, who was following him. (Id.) Ms. Murray also noticed two other individuals, approaching from the direction of the Trust Company Bank building, who were following Mr. Young.

Walking away from the individuals, Mr. Young repeatedly told the group that he was not going to fight them. (Id.) Ms. Murray heard one individual tell Mr. Young not to walk away and threaten to shoot him. (Id.) The individual then started digging down his shirt. (Id.) As the three individuals converged on Mr. Young, one produced a gun. (Id.) Unaware of the weapon, Mr. Young continued to walk away from the trio. (Id.) As Mr. Young approached a van parked at the Burger King drive-through window, the armed individual struck Mr. Young in the head with what Ms. Murray believed was the butt of the weapon. (Id. at 1-2.) Mr. Young then fled toward the drivethrough window, and began beating on the van and the window, asking for someone to call the police. (Id. at I.)

Next, Ms. Murray observed a police officer approaching the three individuals, who were now fleeing, telling them to 'hold it." (Id. at 1-2.) As the officer closed to within five feet, the individual with the firearm turned and aimed the weapon at the officer. (Id. at 2.) The weapon did not discharge when the individual first pulled the trigger. (Id.) As the officer reached for his gun, the individual shot him in the face. Wounded, the officer fell to the ground, at which point the gunman fired two or three additional rounds at the officer and then continued running. (Id.) Ms. Murray then found Mr. Young and assisted him in tending to his head wound.

Ms. Murray described the gunman as having medium-colored skin with a narrow face, high cheekbones, and a fade-away haircut. (Id.) She estimated him to be between twenty-four to thirty years old, four inches taller than the officer, and approximately one hundred and thirty pounds. (Id.) Ms. Murray recalls the gunman as wearing a white shirt and dark colored pants.




B. Larry Young

At 3:10 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police obtained a statement from Mr. Young concerning the MacPhai]. shooting. (Pet. Ex. 32-N at 1.) Mr. Young informed the police that, during the early hours of August 19, 1989, he was sitting in the Burger King parking lot drinking beer with his girlfriend, Ms. Murray. (Id. at 2.) When the couple drank their last beer, Mr. Young went to the Time-Saver4 convenience store to get more beer. (Id.) As Mr. Young was returning, an African-American male wearing a yellow t-shirt began asking him for one of the beers that Mr. Young just purchased. (Id. at 2, 5.) When Mr. Young informed the individual that he could not have a beer, the individual began using foul language toward Mr. Young. (Id. at 2.) As Mr. Young continued walking back toward the Burger King, the individual in the yellow t-shirt followed him, continuing the verbal altercation. (Id.) As he approached the Burger King parking lot, Mr. Young noticed a second African-American male slipping through the fence separating the convenience store parking lot from the Trust Company Bank property. (Id.) Soon, Mr. Young realized that he was being followed by a third individual. (Id.) As Mr. Young entered the Burger King parking lot, he observed Ms. Murray and two gentlemen sitting with her quickly get up and flee the area. (Id.) Mr. Young now realized that he was cornered and resumed arguing with the individual in the yellow t-shirt. (Id.) As Mr. Young was focused on the individual in the yellow t-shirt, he was hit in the head by a second person. (Id. at 2-3.) A stunned and fearful Mr. Young ran toward the Burger King drive-through window, seeking help. (Id. at 3.) When he was at the window, Mr. Young heard one gunshot, which caused him to duck for cover behind a van waiting
at the window. (Id. at 8.) Eventually, he ran to the building's front entrance and entered the building. (Id. at 3..)

Mr. Young informed the police that the individual in the yellow t-shirt was around twenty to twenty-one years old, five feet nine inches tall, and one hundred and fifty-eight pounds. (Id. at 5-6.) The individual had short hair, no facial hair, and lighter brown skin. (Id. at 6.) When describing his clothes, Mr. Young stated that the yellow t-shirt was a tank-top and that the individual was wearing "lam" pants. (Id.) Mr. Young stated that he definitely recognized the individual in the yellow t-shirt.

Mr. Young described the individual who assaulted him as about twenty-two to twenty-three years old, five feet eleven inches tall, and one hundred and seventy-two pounds. (Id. at 7.) Mr. Young could not remember the individual's facial features or skin color (Id.), but believed that he might be able to recognize him if he saw him again (Id. at 5). He did state that the individual was wearing a white hat and a white t-shirt with "some kind of print on it." (Id. at 7.) Mr. Young could not remember anything about the third individual because that person was only in the background and was not directly involved in the altercation.


C. Antoine Williams

At 3:22 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police took a statement from Mr. Antoine Williams concerning the MacPhail shooting. (Pet. Ex. 32-00 at 1.) At about 1:00 a.m. that morning, Mr. Williams was pulling into the Burger King parking lot to begin his shift at the restaurant. (Id.) As he was parking, he noticed three men following one individual, who was walking across Fahm Street toward the Burger King parking lot. (Id.) As they drew closer, Mr. Williams could tell that two of the individuals were arguing. (Id.) He overheard the individual being followed say that he did not want to fight anyone and that the three others should go back to where they
were. (Id.) As the group came between his car and the drivethrough window, one of the individuals ran up and slapped the man being followed in the head with a gun. When Mr. Williams looked the other way, he saw a police officer coming from behind a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window. (Id.) The officer was running towards the individual with the firearm. (Id.) The two unarmed individuals were already running away, and the individual with the gun was trying to stick it back in his pants. (Id.) According to Mr. Williams, the assailant appeared to panic as the officer was approaching and he was unable to conceal the gun. (Id. at 1-2.) When the officer closed to within approximately fifteen feet, the assailant turned and shot the officer. (Id.) After falling to the ground, it appeared that the officer was trying to regain his footing when the gunman shot him three more times. (Id. at 2.) After firing the fourth shot, the gunman fled from the scene.

Mr. Williams described the gunman as approximately twenty to twenty-three years old, six feet two inches to six feet four inches tall, and one hundred and eighty pounds. (Id.) Mr. Williams believed that the gunman was wearing a blue or white tshirt, and dark jeans. (Id.) He explained that the dark shade of tint on his car's windows may have affected his ability to distinguish the exact color of the gunman's t-shirt. (Id. at 23.) Mr. Williams then described the gun used in the shooting as
a rusty, brownish colored revolver. (Id. at 3.) Mr. Williams did state that he believed he could identify the gunman if he saw him again. (Id.) When asked to describe the other three individuals, Mr. Williams could not provide any details because he was focused on the gunman.


D. Dorothy Ferrell's First Statement

At 4:14 a.m. on August 19, 1989, Ms. Dorothy Ferrell provided a statement to the police concerning the MacPhail shooting. (Pet. Ex. 32-Y at 1.) Ms. Ferrell informed the police that, during the early hours of August 19, 1989, she was descending the stairs at the Thunderbird Inn, located directly across Oglethorpe Avenue from the Burger King, when she saw a bloodied individual in the Burger King parking lot. (Id.) Next, Ms. Ferrell observed a police officer walk across the parking lot, yelling at a group of people. (Id.) While two of the individuals fled, one reached into his shorts, produced a firearm, and shot the officer. (Id.) The wounded officer fell to the ground, at which point the gunman fired three additional shots and then fled the scene.

Ms. Ferrell also recalls that, at around 6:00 p.m. on August 18, 1989, the same officer directed the gunman to leave the Burger King property. (Id.) The gunman was wearing the same clothes during both incidents—a white t-shirt with writing, dark colored shorts, and a white hat. (Id. at 1-2.) She described the shooter as approximately six feet tall with a slender build and medium-light colored skin. (id. at 2.) Ms. Ferrell was pretty sure that she could identify the gunman if she saw him again. Complete document here: http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/me...ling082410.pdf

I haven't found any reports to the matter, but the two shootings were linked to the same handgun by analysis of shell casings found at both scenes.

Both Coles and Davis were at the murder scene. Each took the stand and accused the other.

After weighing everything out, I've begun to feel that he was innocent.

And I'm so surprised or maybe even not surprised at all, that the State of Georgia seemed so quick to ice the guy.

I mean, the guy was alive for 22 years after the murder, and they just friggen couldn't wait a little bit longer, like maybe another week or even a month?! He could have at least gotten an apeal for a retrial to prove his innocence. I don't condone innocent people being shot down, but I also don't like it when immates are put to death.

What if it comes down later on that the guy actually WAS innocent and that he was telling the truth? Then what? "Oh, we are so sorry that an innocent man was executed. We deeply apoligise to the family and we are deeply saddened by their loss of a loved one." Sorry won't bring him back. I'm not buying it.

So you can lock someone up for life without under reasonable doubt, but you need certainty to execute them? Sorry, don't buy it. Either they're guilty or not guilty. The standards have to be the same.

In point of fact, if you're falsely convicted of murder, you're better off getting a death sentence, since that will put more people, resources, and access behind your appeals. If Troy Davis had been given life (and especially if it wasn't life without), we'd never have heard of him, guilty or innocent.

Why do the standards have to be the same?

Are the sentences the same? Or is one reversible?

In point of fact, if you're falsely convicted of murder, you're better off getting a death sentence, since that will put more people, resources, and access behind your appeals. This is a ridiculous argument that you'll never read in any legal document; only hear it in bars. The reason there are more resources, the reason that a person convicted to death gets an automatic appeal whether he wants it or not, is because of the irreversibility of an execution.

If that irreversibility is recognized in the appeal process, than it should also be recognized in the standard for proof.

I am not even sure they met the standard of reasonable doubt in this instance. 7 of 9 witnessess recanted, and one of the others is an alternative suspect. Several of the jurors indicated they were swayed byt those witnesses and should have voted the other way.