Dan Sweeney 9/25/09 Politics of Law

JUSTICE RATIONAL CHOICE, concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia for hearing and determination. The court is instructed to review the case and determine whether the petitioners claim of actual innocence has validity. The issue at hand here is whether the court should allow the state of Georgia to operate without any outside involvement, or whether the court should intervene if the situation calls for it. In this particular case, the situation certainly calls for the courts intervention. When analyzing this particular case, it is important to weigh the costs against the benefits. Anthony Davis was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by the state of Georgia; however seven of the States key witnesses have recanted their trial testimony and several individuals are now claiming that another witness was the actual killer. The execution of a man that is likely innocent most certainly warrants involvement of the court. In fact, it can be argued

that this type of situation is precisely what the highest court in the land should concern itself with. Justice Scalia is making the error of putting a legitimate actual innocence claim on the same level as a mere legal technicality. Scalia is acting on legal positivism and is interested in systemizing the legal system, so there is little room for ambiguity, but this can sometimes undermine legitimacy, which the legal system is built upon. Here again the question can be asked; do the costs outweigh the benefits? A system which acts upon strict, rigid rules is certainly more efficient than a more flexible system, but an efficient system is worthless when it compromises the very principles upon which it was built. While Scalias dissent is rational and well argued, it ultimately falls short because the matter at hand calls for a bending of the rules so to speak, with the purpose of upholding legitimacy. As Justice Stevens said, it would be an atrocious violation of our Constitution and the principles upon which it is based to execute an innocent person.

JUSTICE CRITICAL RACE, concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia for hearing and determination. The court is instructed to review the case and determine whether the petitioners claim of actual innocence has validity. Troy Anthony Davis is an African-American man that was sentenced to death by the state of Georgia for the murder of Mark MacPhail, a police officer. Seven of the nine key witnesses of the murder have recanted their testimony, and another key witness is being identified by some as the actual killer. To top it off, the state is refusing to hold an evidentiary trial even though it would likely acquit Davis. The execution of an innocent man is an absolute travesty of justice, and if the state court cannot act justly, than it leaves the Supreme Court of the United States no choice but to get involved. The issue of race is very eminent in cases dealing with capital punishment; almost sixty percent of all inmates on death row are racial or ethnic minorities. Researchers at the University of Maryland conducted a study in 2003 showing that defendants are much more likely to be sentenced to death if they have killed a white person; which Mark MacPhail was. And this is just one of numerous studies that show racial inequality in the legal system, and especially

capital cases. One obvious solution to the problem of racial equality in capital cases is to do away with capital punishment. A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American. If there is going to be a system to execute citizens then it must, at the very least, do so equally, with no regard to race or economic status; but realistically this will never be the case, and the best solution is to scrap the whole process. The case of James Anthony Davis is another reminder that there are still grave injustices in the legal system; and without outside intervention, the states will continue to perpetuate this. There is an underlying theme of racial inequality embedded into the criminal justice system, but it is subtle because the structure on the surface seems to be neutral to race, but this neutrality is exactly why prejudice, most notably racism continues to exist. Those in power would rather stay there, even if it means that certain principles are trumped. The goal of the Supreme Court is to look beyond all the politics and legal technicalities and see that an innocent mans life is in jeopardy.

JUSTICE LEGAL REALISM, concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia for hearing and determination. The court is instructed to review the case and determine whether the petitioners claim of actual innocence has validity. The facts of this case are as follows: Troy Anthony Davis, a black man from Georgia, is found guilty of murdering police officer Mark MacPhail and is sentenced to die by the state of Georgia. After being convicted, seven of the nine key witnesses of the state have recounted their testimony. Georgia is refusing to look at the new evidence and has basically closed the book on the case. Troys lawyers, in a last ditch effort, have filed their case to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. What it all boils down to is that Troy Anthony Davis is probably innocent, but the state of Georgia did a proper trial and found him guilty. Georgia is sticking to their guns and plans on carrying out its verdict of execution, but Davis is claiming new evidence shows actual innocence. Both sides have a valid claim, but at the end of the day, executing an innocent man is far worse than side stepping certain legal procedures. There should be a better system set in

place to retry cases when new evidence or testimony becomes available. Since there is not, the Supreme Court is deciding to get involved. Scalias dissent is rational, perhaps, but the bleak nature and judgmental tone of it are, frankly, disturbing. Following the letter of the law is important, no doubt, but to say there are not extraordinary cases that warrant mediation is preposterous. Scalia may be a Supreme Court Justice, but before that he is a man, and a man should be more open-minded and empathetic when a dire situation calls for it. The mission of the court is to uphold justice, and there is no better example than this case to do so. In closing, the decision is simple: an innocent man should never be punished for something he did not do, and by all accounts it appears Troy Anthony Davis did not commit the crime for which he is sentenced to die. A new trial is in order.

Feminist Legal Theory: concurring Critical Legal Studies: concurring Sociological Jurisprudence: concurring Natural Law Theorist: concurring