A few days ago I noted my intense discomfort with the manner in which the Death Penalty is carried out in this country. Now I've come across at least one perverse reason for death sentences: They are procedurally easier to overturn in the case of innocence than life in prison.
How Appealing links to a New Orleanes Times-Picayune story about Travis Hayes. Hayes was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison along with his friend, Ryan Matthews, who recieved the death penalty (they were caught together). However, DNA evidence cleared Matthews of any involvement in the crime, and he was released and exonerated of all charges. Since it was Hayes testimony (which was taken after 6 hours of interrogation in which the mentally retarded Hayes was denied food, sleep, or bathroom breaks) that was the only firm evidence implicating either in the crime, it stood to reason that Hayes would be released as well.
However, the Jefferson County District Attorney's office has opposed Hayes' appeal, arguing that his claims are procedurally barred since he is not a death row inmate. As William Sothern put it, "It is a sad state of affairs that in order to get exonerated, a man first needs to be sentenced to die."
Read the whole article. It presents a very compelling portrait of an innocent man stuck in a legal system that simply doesn't care. Prosecutors need to remember that their job is to achieve justice, not just convictions. When getting "tough on crime" means ignoring clear facts to keep innocents in jail, then our legal system has spun out of control.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment