How sure should we be
Last week the court denied relief for Troy Davis. His case has bounced back and forth in the courts. Since his original conviction, he has obtained recantation's from several of the government's witnesses, as well as an admission from someone that they actually committed the offense. Needless to say, the litigation has focused on whether Davis is innocent or not.
The court affirmed the conviction and corresponding death sentence, by a vote of 2 to 1. As a result, there is a very real possibility that he will be executed even in light of evidence that at least raises questions about his guilt.
The legal system is not designed to judge shades of guilt or innocence. You are either guilty or not. In most cases that may be sufficient.Many people are willing to live with the possibility that guilt may not be firmly and clearly established (i.e. beyond all doubt as prosecutors are fond of reminding jurors). However, where death is involved, there should be an alternative approach.
No one can seriously argue at this point that juries never make mistakes. They do the best they can, with the evidence presented. In many cases there may be new evidence developed during the post-conviction process. What a jury would do with that is nothing more than a guess; a guess that's not being made by jurors, but instead by courts. In those cases, they are making life and death decisions, based entirely on what they THINK a jury would do.
Troy Davis's case represents the problem with establishing innocence. Once a jury finds a person guilty, a presumption of guilt is created. Overcoming that presumption is difficult, if not impossible to do. As in Davis's case, many times a defendant may obtain a recantation from a witness. While most people would think that's significant, courts look at recantations skeptically. Especially when it occurs long after the trial, courts place little faith in them. Seldom will someone obtain relief if all they have is a recantation.
Admissions of guilt are also looked at step typically, especially if the person can no longer be prosecuted for the offense. Recently, a defendant in Dallas was released after being exonerated through DNA evidence. Another person had claimed credit for the offense years earlier. Had the authorities taken that seriously, they could have ensured the right person was convicted. As it turned out, limitations had run, and no one was ultimately prosecuted for the crime. I can understand why prosecutors look at such claims with skepticism. However, they must do more than dismiss them outright. Somehow they must at least consider the possibility that they may be credible, and at least do some type of investigation.
In the end, I do not see how can be comfortable with executing someone when there is at least an arguable claim of innocence. Perhaps it's my own personal beliefs, but before the ultimate penalty is imposed, I would expect there to be no doubt whatsoever about guilt. Frankly, I do not see how anyone could live with the decision to carry out an execution when there is at least an arguable claim of innocence.
The case of Troy Davis demonstrates where the legal system breaks down. We need to address it, especially if we are going to insist on carrying out the death penalty.
