High court turns down Ga. death row inmate

The Supreme Court should not be allowed to refuse to hear a case, especially one that determines the life or death of a human being.

If the witnesses recanted their testimony, he should be entitled to a new trial.

Are we seeking justice? DO we not want to know the truth.

This is why I do not support the death penalty.
The Supreme Court has become simply lazy and we should be paying as close attention to their performance as we do to Congress and the Presidency.

Georgia has a rich history of lynchings, especially of black men.

Lance Winslow wrote:

Georgia has a rich history of lynchings, especially of black men.

As does the South as a whole. I love the south. Bred and born here but I am sick of people turning a blind eye to justice, especially in cases of minorities. This was a chance for the Supreme Court to do the right thing and they, again, did not.

So much to say wrote:

This was a chance for the Supreme Court to do the right thing and they, again, did not.

The execution of murderers is always the right thing to do.

Koz wrote:

<quoted text>The execution of murderers is always the right thing to do.

If only it were that simple. The problem is trial error. The witnesses recanted. How can we ever be sure now that he is truly guilty. We can't. Which is why the death penalty should be banned. How many have we released someone deemed guilty when 20-30 years later it is determined they are not guilty?

But at the very least, if witnesses withdrawal their testimony, the case should be heard again. I don't want the government killing people in my name.

Watch a few of those Forensic Shows. I don't mean CSI, I mean reality ones like on TruTV. Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't convict without decent forensic evidence.

If he did indeed killed someone,he should be put to death,no question.

if there is no question evidence that he/she killed someone,death should be done! WHy pay taxpayer dollars to take care of murderers who are guilty without a doubt.
If there is a question,then why are they in jail to start with?

eric wrote:

If he did indeed killed someone,he should be put to death,no question.
if there is no question evidence that he/she killed someone,death should be done! WHy pay taxpayer dollars to take care of murderers who are guilty without a doubt.
If there is a question,then why are they in jail to start with?

There IS doubt in this case. Most of the witnesses have recanted their testimony. This man will die within days if not hours and the question will always be out there. There should NEVER be a question left hanging in a death penalty case. That is LEAST we should demand before the government puts someone to death in OUR name.

So much to say wrote:

There IS doubt in this case. Most of the witnesses have recanted their testimony.

That was all evaluated by the Supreme Court.

Koz wrote:

<quoted text>That was all evaluated by the Supreme Court.

That is the problem. This Supreme Court, imo, is lazy. Sparing a life should be a top priority of potentially innocent citizens who requests a retrial based on the recantings of prosecution witnesses. If the testimony no longer stands, the decision should no longer stand, especially in matters of life and death.

Look at this thread, only 9 comments, and a person's life is on the line. Everyone has become complacent to injustice.

So much to say wrote:

Sparing a life should be a top priority of potentially innocent citizens who requests a retrial based on the recantings of prosecution witnesses.

He is guilty.

Koz wrote:

<quoted text>He is guilty.

Well good to know a person from...Ohio? knows this. Even as the witnesses do not. Huh. I am quite baffled. Excuse me.

And you would base this on?:
He's guilty cause the jury said he was? He's guilty cause the Prosecution said he was? They said he was based on what the witnesses said. Which they have recanted.

He deserved a retrial. He deserved to have his case listened to by the SC.

Iria wrote:

Watch a few of those Forensic Shows. I don't mean CSI, I mean reality ones like on TruTV. Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't convict without decent forensic evidence.

I cab respect that Iria. I just don't know if forensics alone can be trusted in death penalty cases either. I think there needs to be a combination of witnesses and forensics. And at the least the witnesses should stick by their testimony. Thanks for posting this story.

Iria wrote:

Watch a few of those Forensic Shows. I don't mean CSI, I mean reality ones like on TruTV. Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't convict without decent forensic evidence.

Typo...I caN respect that.

So much to say wrote:

Well good to know a person from...Ohio? knows this. Even as the witnesses do not. Huh. I am quite baffled.

Don't you reealize that people in Ohio can read?

He's guilty cause the jury said he was?

No, he's guilty because he did it. The jury and appelate courts simply recognized that there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt.