The Death Penalty Revisited-Again
If it were an art to overcome heresy with fire, the executioners would be the most learned doctors on earth.
-- Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German States
If it were an art to overcome heresy with fire, the executioners would be the most learned doctors on earth.
-- Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German States
Some innocent dead men walking can now take hope. Two cases have been decided in the last four months that suggest that in the United States, at last, it may actually make a difference whether or not the prospective visitor to the death chamber is guilty or innocent. A New York case decided in November may give some guidance to other courts considering the question, if not to the Clarence Thomas-Antonin Scalia duo for whom innocence is less important than finality. The two friends most recently expressed themselves in the case of Troy Anthony Davis.
Troy was convicted by a jury of murdering an off-duty police officer in Savannah in 1989 and sentenced to death. Following his conviction some of the witnesses against him recanted their testimony and implicated the prosecution's chief witness. After his state remedies to obtain reversal of his conviction were exhausted, Troy took the unusual step of filing an original writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Supreme Court hoping to get relief on the grounds that he was in fact innocent as shown by evidence that was unavailable at the time he was convicted. Over the dissent of Messrs. Thomas and Scalia the Justices referred the case to a Federal District Court and ordered it to "receive testimony and make findings of fact" as to whether the proffered evidence establishes Troy's innocence.
The Scalia-Thomas duo objected to the referral. They wanted finality irrespective of Troy's guilt or innocence. Ever a stickler for procedural propriety, Justice Scalia observed at the outset of his objection to the Court's action, that it had been almost 50 years since the Court had favorably acted on a petition like Troy's. He did not stop there, however. He explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed limits on the ability of Federal Courts to release Troy because that Act says "An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the judgment offended (my words-not the statute's) federal law in a manner that Justice Scalia believes Troy's conviction clearly did not. He believes that an "actual-innocence claim" asserted by a "dead man walking" should be treated no differently from any other claim that asserts a conviction was wrongfully obtained because of, for example, a minor procedural error. To prove he is not some nut off in right field, Justice Scalia observed: "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." The results of Troy's referral to a Federal District court are not yet known. What is known is that people in New York are considerably more concerned with claims of "actual innocence" than the Scalia-Thomases.
In the case of The people of the State of New York against Fernando Bermudez Justice John Cataldo of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that in considering whether to reverse a conviction he would, among other things, consider whether Mr. Bermudez had "demonstrated his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." Mr. Bermudez spent 18 years in prison for a murder Justice Cataldo concluded he had not committed. In Judge Cataldo's 73-page opinion he identified several errors committed by the lower court that by themselves, he said, would warrant a new trial. He concluded, however, by saying the defendant has "demonstrated his actual innocence" by clear and convincing evidence and therefore vacated Mr. Bermudez's conviction.
Commenting on Judge Cataldo's ruling, New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman said the ruling "dramatizes the need to ensure that actual innocence is established as a legitimate ground for a hearing." Senator Schneiderman is one of the sponsors of legislation introduced in the New York State Senate known as the "actual innocence justice act of 2009." It says a motion to vacate a judgment would be appropriate if the defendant is "actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which he or she was convicted."
As Mr. Bermudez left Sing Sing in November he was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "This is a day for other people to have hope that justice is possible in this country." If Justice Scalia were asked to comment on Justice Cataldo's ruling, on the other hand, he would lament the sacrifice of finality on the altar of innocence.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
If it were an art to overcome heresy with fire, the executioners would be the most learned doctors on earth.
-- Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German States
Some innocent dead men walking can now take hope. Two cases have been decided in the last four months that suggest that in the United States, at last, it may actually make a difference whether or not the prospective visitor to the death chamber is guilty or innocent. A New York case decided in November may give some guidance to other courts considering the question, if not to the Clarence Thomas-Antonin Scalia duo for whom innocence is less important than finality. The two friends most recently expressed themselves in the case of Troy Anthony Davis.
Troy was convicted by a jury of murdering an off-duty police officer in Savannah in 1989 and sentenced to death. Following his conviction some of the witnesses against him recanted their testimony and implicated the prosecution's chief witness. After his state remedies to obtain reversal of his conviction were exhausted, Troy took the unusual step of filing an original writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Supreme Court hoping to get relief on the grounds that he was in fact innocent as shown by evidence that was unavailable at the time he was convicted. Over the dissent of Messrs. Thomas and Scalia the Justices referred the case to a Federal District Court and ordered it to "receive testimony and make findings of fact" as to whether the proffered evidence establishes Troy's innocence.
The Scalia-Thomas duo objected to the referral. They wanted finality irrespective of Troy's guilt or innocence. Ever a stickler for procedural propriety, Justice Scalia observed at the outset of his objection to the Court's action, that it had been almost 50 years since the Court had favorably acted on a petition like Troy's. He did not stop there, however. He explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed limits on the ability of Federal Courts to release Troy because that Act says "An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the judgment offended (my words-not the statute's) federal law in a manner that Justice Scalia believes Troy's conviction clearly did not. He believes that an "actual-innocence claim" asserted by a "dead man walking" should be treated no differently from any other claim that asserts a conviction was wrongfully obtained because of, for example, a minor procedural error. To prove he is not some nut off in right field, Justice Scalia observed: "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." The results of Troy's referral to a Federal District court are not yet known. What is known is that people in New York are considerably more concerned with claims of "actual innocence" than the Scalia-Thomases.
In the case of The people of the State of New York against Fernando Bermudez Justice John Cataldo of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that in considering whether to reverse a conviction he would, among other things, consider whether Mr. Bermudez had "demonstrated his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." Mr. Bermudez spent 18 years in prison for a murder Justice Cataldo concluded he had not committed. In Judge Cataldo's 73-page opinion he identified several errors committed by the lower court that by themselves, he said, would warrant a new trial. He concluded, however, by saying the defendant has "demonstrated his actual innocence" by clear and convincing evidence and therefore vacated Mr. Bermudez's conviction.
Commenting on Judge Cataldo's ruling, New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman said the ruling "dramatizes the need to ensure that actual innocence is established as a legitimate ground for a hearing." Senator Schneiderman is one of the sponsors of legislation introduced in the New York State Senate known as the "actual innocence justice act of 2009." It says a motion to vacate a judgment would be appropriate if the defendant is "actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which he or she was convicted."
As Mr. Bermudez left Sing Sing in November he was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "This is a day for other people to have hope that justice is possible in this country." If Justice Scalia were asked to comment on Justice Cataldo's ruling, on the other hand, he would lament the sacrifice of finality on the altar of innocence.
If it were an art to overcome heresy with fire, the executioners would be the most learned doctors on earth.
-- Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German States
Some innocent dead men walking can now take hope. Two cases have been decided in the last four months that suggest that in the United States, at last, it may actually make a difference whether or not the prospective visitor to the death chamber is guilty or innocent. A New York case decided in November may give some guidance to other courts considering the question, if not to the Clarence Thomas-Antonin Scalia duo for whom innocence is less important than finality. The two friends most recently expressed themselves in the case of Troy Anthony Davis.
Troy was convicted by a jury of murdering an off-duty police officer in Savannah in 1989 and sentenced to death. Following his conviction some of the witnesses against him recanted their testimony and implicated the prosecution's chief witness. After his state remedies to obtain reversal of his conviction were exhausted, Troy took the unusual step of filing an original writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Supreme Court hoping to get relief on the grounds that he was in fact innocent as shown by evidence that was unavailable at the time he was convicted. Over the dissent of Messrs. Thomas and Scalia the Justices referred the case to a Federal District Court and ordered it to "receive testimony and make findings of fact" as to whether the proffered evidence establishes Troy's innocence.
The Scalia-Thomas duo objected to the referral. They wanted finality irrespective of Troy's guilt or innocence. Ever a stickler for procedural propriety, Justice Scalia observed at the outset of his objection to the Court's action, that it had been almost 50 years since the Court had favorably acted on a petition like Troy's. He did not stop there, however. He explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposed limits on the ability of Federal Courts to release Troy because that Act says "An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the judgment offended (my words-not the statute's) federal law in a manner that Justice Scalia believes Troy's conviction clearly did not. He believes that an "actual-innocence claim" asserted by a "dead man walking" should be treated no differently from any other claim that asserts a conviction was wrongfully obtained because of, for example, a minor procedural error. To prove he is not some nut off in right field, Justice Scalia observed: "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." The results of Troy's referral to a Federal District court are not yet known. What is known is that people in New York are considerably more concerned with claims of "actual innocence" than the Scalia-Thomases.
In the case of The people of the State of New York against Fernando Bermudez Justice John Cataldo of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that in considering whether to reverse a conviction he would, among other things, consider whether Mr. Bermudez had "demonstrated his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." Mr. Bermudez spent 18 years in prison for a murder Justice Cataldo concluded he had not committed. In Judge Cataldo's 73-page opinion he identified several errors committed by the lower court that by themselves, he said, would warrant a new trial. He concluded, however, by saying the defendant has "demonstrated his actual innocence" by clear and convincing evidence and therefore vacated Mr. Bermudez's conviction.
Commenting on Judge Cataldo's ruling, New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman said the ruling "dramatizes the need to ensure that actual innocence is established as a legitimate ground for a hearing." Senator Schneiderman is one of the sponsors of legislation introduced in the New York State Senate known as the "actual innocence justice act of 2009." It says a motion to vacate a judgment would be appropriate if the defendant is "actually innocent of the crime or crimes of which he or she was convicted."
As Mr. Bermudez left Sing Sing in November he was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "This is a day for other people to have hope that justice is possible in this country." If Justice Scalia were asked to comment on Justice Cataldo's ruling, on the other hand, he would lament the sacrifice of finality on the altar of innocence.