3 ms·
Well, we don't know that he is innocent. Just that he didn't receive a fair trial.
by mulmen 4y ago
Well, we don't know that he is innocent. Just that he didn't receive a fair trial.
- brookst 4y agoRead the article, and others. All indications are actual innocence. Literally no evidence links him to the crime.
- mulmen 4y agoI'm being pedantic. The trial already happened. We don't know what the outcome would have been if the witness' shortcomings were known to the jury.
- brookst 4y agoYou're right that we can't know. But I think it's fair to say, in hindsight, that someone was sentenced to death entirely based solely on evidence that no reasonable person would consider beyond a doubt. But, assuming they go ahead and kill him, I'm sure that will be the rationale: we can't be sure he was innocent, and someone has to die.
- mulmen 4y agoThe governor can decide to not execute him. This just isn't something the courts can remedy.
- brookst 4y agoSure. I just would have expected the courts to be interested in justice. The complaint here is that the courts, in this case at least, have embraced bureaucracy and process even when in conflict with justice. Not a great look for a "justice system".
- mulmen 4y agoThe courts have no mechanism by which they can act. I really don’t understand what they could or should have done differently. They have no choice here.