Word: Travesty of death
December 15, 2008 at 10:12 am by Mara Shalhoup in News
Troy Davis
On Dec. 9, a three-judge panel heard the most recent federal appeal of death row inmate Troy Davis, who — according to newly discovered evidence — might have been wrongfully convicted in 1991 of killing a Savannah police officer. Four days later, Brian Nichols — who was convicted last month of killing a judge, a court reporter, a deputy, and a federal agent — was spared the death penalty by a Fulton County jury.
“Our justice system should punish the guilty, free the innocent and have the wisdom to know the difference. I hope the 11th Circuit [Court] will give Davis his day in court.”
— Former FBI Director William Sessions, in an AJC op-ed.
“It’s … possible the real guilty person who shot Officer MacPhail is not being prosecuted.”
— Federal judge Rosemary Barkett, one of the three judges hearing Davis’ appeal, quoted in the AJC.
“He will do it again, and he will do it again, and again, and again, until somebody stops him, until someone puts an end to it, and that someone is you.”
— Fulton prosecutor Clint Rucker, in his three-and-a-half hour closing argument in the death penalty phase of Brian Nichols’ trial.
“I have talked to two jurors and they both say that some people showed up for jury duty with their minds already made up and never entered into a meaningful discussion of a death sentence. That means we don’t get a fair trial.”
— Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard, quoted in the AJC.
(Photo courtesy Georgia Department of Corrections.)
December 16th, 2008 at 8:01 am
The lack of universal standards for sentencing across counties, states and the country eradicates any notion of justice. Are we one nation or not? Varying tax codes make sense to balance out varying resources and needs. But, varying sentencing gives subjective decision making power over life and death. It isn’t right!
December 20th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The “newly discovered evidence” is nothing of the sort. Davis’ attorneys claim that three people have come forward with exonerating statements. Two of the three were already heard from in previous appeals, and are not credible. I do not know who the third is, but more than likely it’s another hearsay “witness” or otherwise non-credible person, since whoever it is must have waited a minimum of ten years after the crime to come forward (otherwise the person would have been mentioned in one of the previous nine or more appeals.)