Folsom's 93

The Lives and Crimes of Folsom Prison's Executed Men


Leave a comment

Is an Innocent Man Going to Die Tomorrow?

You may have been following the story of Troy Davis, or at least the story that has developed over his pending execution. Davis was refused clemency this morning and is schedule to die of lethal injection tomorrow in Georgia. He is accused of shooting off-duty police officer, Mark MacPhail in 1989. His defense has strongly maintained that this is a case of mistaken identity and seven of the nine witnesses from the 1991 trial have recanted their statements and one man, who did not testify, claims another man admitted to the shooting. In fact, no physical evidence linked Davis to the crime. The case is based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Davis has the support of high-profile figures such as former President Jimmy Carter, ex-FBI Director William Sessions, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr. Even three jurors from his trial are now in support of clemency.

In 2010, Davis was given a hearing to convince the U.S. Supreme Court of his innocence—an opportunity that the high court has not dealt out to any condemned prisoner in 50 years. He was unable to sway the justices who found, “minimal doubt on his conviction.” The judge, however, admitted that the state’s case was not ironclad.

There is doubt. His defense team said:

“The death penalty should not be exercised where doubt exists about the guilt of the accused. The Board did not follow that standard here. The state’s case against Mr. Davis, based largely on discredited eyewitness testimony and an inaccurate ballistics report, cannot resolve the significant, lingering doubts that exist here.”

Larry Cox of Amnesty International called the pardon board’s denial “unconscionable,” and said, “Should Troy Davis be executed, Georgia may well have executed an innocent man and in so doing discredited the justice system.”

So what do you think? Is the death penalty serving the purpose it was intended to? What happens where a case is shrouded in doubt? The death penalty has ridded the world of some pretty heinous individuals, but it’s impossible to deny that it has also taken innocent people from the world, too.

From Troy Davis, via Amnesty International:

“The struggle for justice doesn’t end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me. I’m in good spirits and I’m prayerful and at peace. But I will not stop fighting until I’ve taken my last breath. Georgia is prepared to snuff out the life of an innocent man.”

You can read more about Davis’ case HERE. Be sure to click on “Watch Videos” under “Ger Involved” and learn about Davis’ case and why there is too much doubt. It will leave you completely baffled as to why the parole board has denied him clemency.


3 Comments

So you say you’re innocent, huh?

Image

I’m often asked if I believe any of Folsom’s 93 were innocent. “Absolutely,” I usually reply, but can I prove it? Possibly, but when we’re talking about crimes from well over a hundred years ago, original evidence is long gone. Early investigation methods didn’t include the use of crime scene tape, latex gloves, or handy Ziploc bags to preserve and protect evidence. And DNA? Forgetaboutit! That technology came in the mid-1970s. Universal fingerprinting didn’t come along until the 1940s and before that, correctly identifying suspects by their prints oftentimes proved to be unreliable and inaccurate. At the turn of the 20th century, “beyond a reasonable doubt” didn’t exist and a few of the 93 hung by the threads of circumstantial evidence.

Little could separate the guilty from the innocent: a strand of hair resembling the victim found on or near the suspect, association with known criminals, or the color of your skin . . .

Not surprising, many of Folsom’s condemned minorities were doomed the moment of arrest; referred to in the newspapers as the N-word, half-breeds, or ignorant. Even their court-appointed attorney didn’t always have their client’s best interests at hand, or they themselves experienced backlash over representing a minority. The language barrier provided another opportunity for the law to take advantage of a foreign-born suspect, especially since interpreters were few and far between. Investigators easily manipulated an interrogation or testimony by using words the accused couldn’t comprehend.

Judges also didn’t sequester juries to the extent they do today, nor were the juries protected from “tampering.” After the selection of the 12 peers, newspapermen often printed the full names of the jurors in the next day’s issue. Jurors were even often caught dozing off, or snoring away during the trial. Did the judge reprimand the sleepy juror? No.

For some, the appeals process didn’t offer much hope either. Defense attorneys often bowed out after a jury found their court-appointed client guilty. The condemned man had only the hope that the governor would heed his plea for clemency or pardon.

Image

Throughout the course of my research, I struggled to see how some of these men could be found guilty. I think it’s ignorant to assume they each received a fair trial and due process of the law. Today, technology has aided investigators when solving crimes and in many cases, free the wrongfully convicted.

 The Innocence Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to proving the innocence of those convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. Since its start in 1992, the organization has exonerated 268 people, including 17 who sat on death row. Despite the advances in crime investigation, it’s apparent these methods can’t always stop innocent people from going to prison and for some of Folsom’s 93, this potentially life-saving technology came too late.