Sometimes the Law Isn't "an Ass" -Concluded

[The previous post involving Troy Davis was not published in its entirety. This is the conclusion.]

Mr. Davis' attorneys, now augmented by the Innocence Project organization, began a series of habeas corpus procedures through the Federal Courts, presenting all of the evidence that had either been unavailable during the original trial or had been newly discovered. By now, the United States Congress had passed and President Clinton had signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Up and down the Federal court system, all courts essentially ruled that, by law, even if there were a very clear possibility that Troy Davis did not kill anyone, nothing could be done to stop his execution.

Then, in 2008, armed with affidavits and an exhaustive compilation of materials that showed even more proof of innocence, Mr. Davis now represented by volunteer attorneys with vast experience in death cases, began a second set of habeas corpus proceedings in the Federal courts. In a split decision, the Eleventh Circuit denied the petition, the majority holding that the law did not permit any consideration of innocence; as long as the initial trial was procedurally fair, that was it. The dissenting Judge felt otherwise, stating that the statute could not "be applied when to do so would offend the Constitution and the fundamental concept of justice that an innocent man should not be executed."

And then, again, to the United States Supreme Court where an extraordinary thing happened. That Court, in the past week, ordered that a Federal District Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to look into the evidence that was being presented. This bit of common sense justice was strongly opposed by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas who wrote that allowing a review would "serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment."

Then the dissent made a statement that should horrify any person with a modicum of responsibility,

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable.

Alan Dershowitz suggests the following parable:

If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: "Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she's dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you're dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you're innocent."

In the past 25 years, it has been reported that over 135 death row inmates have been exonerated by newly discovered DNA or other evidence. Whatever a person's view as to the death penalty, trials are conducted by humans and humans are capable of mistakes; we are all fallible. Allowing Troy Davis a chance to establish that the correct defendant is being punished is fair, reasonable and, most important, the only just result. If an innocent person is put to death, he will remain dead even if the truth comes out later.

Justices Scalia and Thomas have placed expediency over justice and, if that is not unconstitutional, nothing is.