Off-Topic

I can understand being against the death penalty but legally he is as guilty as he can be. Again I'm fine with people being against the death penalty but the amount of idiots on FB/Twitter saying he is innocent is sad

You're friends with Stephen Colbert?!?

Yeah now that I think back you are right, I remember reading about this and the cost goes into dedicating so much law enforcement/lawyers fees/etc over such a long period of time to gain a conviction with death sentence, and then it takes forever to "close the deal."

Here is one person's opinion:

"Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost."

You shouldn't read twitter and take it as fact. I posted the actual case procedural history for you to read......I know I know....it's long. Reading some twit's twitter posting takes seconds.

His trial had a TON of hard evidence. State put on 34 witnesses. He had a trial in which the state had a burden. He as convicted by a jury (majority black the way....so he couldn't use race bias very well.....but that's often made an issue) that took less than 2 hours because the evidence was so overwhelming

The recantations stuff is VERY misleading. Many of them didn't appear at trial....and signed half baked affidavits. (these don't hold much weight....because some people can be coerced into signing anything.....you can't cross examine a piece of paper). Even still...many of them didn't recant everything...or even the most important thing....they changed aspects of their story. Some more importnant than others to be sure.

At the end....your final point is the sum of all this. You don't believe their should be a death penalty if there is ".01% doubt". That's a legit point to have......but it's not our legal system. It's not what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

That's exactly what I was looking for. I figured the evidence of his innocence was exaggerated and that's what it seems to be.

He will be forgotten by next week.

The family believes after 22 years he was able to 'convince himself' he was innocent too

I agree, but I think some people have an issue with him needing to prove his actual innocence -- a concept which, I think we can generally agree, has some tension with out traditional notions of criminal law and procedure. Put differently, he may have been "legally" executed yesterday, but (ignoring the morons on twitter and facebook) there may be many who question whether the existing legal standard is the appropriate one.

I'm not sure why there is an issue with proving his innocence. Have to remember where we are in the process. State already proved its case - with 34 witnesses - beyond a reasonable doubt. He was convicted in two hours by a jury of his peers (for those that care...I believe the makeup of the jury was 7 blacks and 5 whites). He had all his appeals. He had all his habeas corpus reviews. This was yet another kitchen sink appeal. The burden isn't on the state any longer be accused had been heard and reheard. The actual innocence isn't a "new trial" nor should it be. It's those rare instances....very very rare..in which new evidence clearly proves innocence. ( likeDNA evidence showing he was in another country at the time if the crime or something.)

what's amazing is these guys get built up to be some innocent lamb. This dude's street name was RAH. .rough as hell.

No. He brought both an "actual innocence" claim and procedural claims. That's part of the reason it's been to the Supreme Court and back. And at this stage of the process, he functionally would have to prove his actual innocence (although at least some members of the Supreme Court -- perhaps correctly -- believe that even THAT wouldn't have been enough to grant him relief).

The language below is from Scalia's dissent, which I include only as food for thought. I don't feel too strongly about it, but I think as a policy matter, many would find troubling the notion that arguably our most well-known and influential Supreme Court justice believes that (i) even if a district court was persuaded by a defendant's claims of innocence, it would have no power to grant relief under federal law, (ii) our Constitution does not forbid the execution of a person who is actually innocent, and (iii) a claim based on actual innocence is not even cognizable.

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

Emphasis added:

Even if the District Court were to be persuaded by Davis’s affidavits, it would have no power to grant relief. Federal courts may order the release of convicted stateprisoners only in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

...

Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as deter-mined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” It most assuredly was not. 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. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 400–401, 416–417 (1993); see also House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518, 555 (2006); District Attorney’s Office for Third Judi-cial Dist. v. Osborne, ante, at 18.

Due to legal costs the death penalty is more expensive