Twenty years ago, Troy Davis, a Georgia man, was charged with murdering Mark McPhail, a police officer.
At his trial, nine witnesses testified that they saw Davis commit the murder. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.
In the time since his conviction, seven of those witnesses have recanted their testimonies. Davis is still on death row.
Does something seem horribly wrong here?
In the two decades since his conviction, Davis has appealed several times. In 2008, the Supreme Court granted him a stay of execution and ordered the federal district court to review his case again.
Unfortunately for Davis, the review did not go well. When the district court looked at his case, it ruled that Davis had not done enough to "prove his innocence."
When Davis went to the Supreme Court a second time, it wasn't as kind as before. It rejected his plea without giving any explanation, leaving Davis on death row.
While no new date has been set for Davis' execution, there is still a man sentenced to die even though there's a lot that suggests he could be innocent.
In the simplest terms, this is wrong.
While it's certainly possible that Davis did murder McPhail, there is plenty of reason to believe he could be innocent. The fact that seven of the nine witnesses recanted their testimonies has established a great deal of reasonable doubt.
How could anyone be certain of Davis' guilt when the people who claimed to be there aren't certain themselves?
This would be problematic in any situation, but when capital punishment is involved, it becomes far more egregious. Georgia is planning to take the life of a man who may not have done anything wrong. That is simply unconscionable.
Regardless of how anyone feels about capital punishment, it shouldn't be controversial to say that a man shouldn't be killed if we don't know for sure whether or not he committed the crime. In this case, that standard is not met.
What's really troubling about this issue is that it speaks to the inherent flaws in our country's legal system. Suppose new evidence came out that proved Davis was innocent. Even though that would provide a happy ending to the story, we still would've kept an innocent man in prison for 20 years. The Georgia courts should hope that isn't the case.
Of course, we've already seen that situation occur before, right here in Buffalo. Anthony Capozzi spent 22 years in prison after being convicted of raping two women, only to be exonerated when Altemio Sanchez was revealed to be the true culprit.
Capozzi may have been granted his freedom and awarded $4.25 million, but he lost a huge chunk of his life, and he will never be able to get that back.
When people are convicted of crimes even though evidence against them may be shoddy, it's a very serious problem. Reasonable doubt exists for a reason – to make sure no one has to rot in prison, or in some cases, die, when it's undeserved.
In Davis' case, a new trial should be granted. If seven of the nine witnesses no longer commit to their testimonies, then that trial should be thrown out. Davis is essentially being held on death row for faulty testimony.
At the very least, Davis' sentence should be commuted to life. If a man were to die for a crime he didn't commit, it would be a terrible tragedy. The Georgia courts have a chance to make sure that is not the case.
