THE WAGES OF DISGRACEFUL COMPROMISE. I recently posited elsewhere that the exceptionally odious Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was the worst legislation signed by Bill Clinton, although there are many more candidates for the title than a Democratic President should allow. At any rate, a man who is very likely innocent is about to be railroaded to the death chamber because he's now statutorily barred from presenting evidence that 7 out of the 9 witnesses -- essentially the entire case against him -- have recanted, a tragic absurdity that underscores the appalling nature of the habeas corpus restrictions Clinton signed. Amazingly, this case has attracted relatively little attention from people making (stupid and offensive) analogies between the Duke lacrosse players and the Scottsboro Boys, although this case is rather more analogous. Of course, even had Congress not effectively barred Davis's evidence of innocence, it's not clear the Supreme Court would sustain relief from the federal courts anyway. Mark Kleiman reminds us of Scalia and Thomas's remarkable concurrence in Herrera v. Collins, arguing that "there is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction." And while Alito and Roberts wouldn't explicitly endorse this position, they would undoubtedly find that no evidence of actual innocence was ever enough to justify overturning a Sacred State Conviction. So would you trust that Kennedy's conscience was capable of being shocked in this case? Me neither, but if I were Davis I'd rather bet my life on that than not have the chance at all. Instructions for contacting the Georgia parole board which is Davis's last chance here. --Scott Lemieux
