It's not cruel or unusual to execute an innocent man

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it is okay for a state to execute a citizen who has a strong claim of innocence.  

Troy Anthony Davis of Georgia was sentenced to death for the 1999 murder of a Savannah, GA police officer.  In the meantime, all but two of the prosecution's witnesses who linked Mr. Davis to the murder have recanted their testimony claiming that they were coerced by the police.  Five newly discovered witnesses have identified an individual other than Mr. Davis as the murderer.

Mr. Davis' attorneys sought a ruling that, under the Eighth Amendment, it is cruel and unusual to execute a man who has a strong claim of innocence.

The Court denied review without comment.  The Court's denial lifts the stay of execution and frees Georgia to murder Mr. Davis.

Once again the Court has sacrificed substance for form.  Must I point out again that just because a citizen was given a fair trial doesn't mean that the verdict is correct?  When it comes to deciding whether or not a fellow citizen's life is to be taken away by the state, the very least we can do is make certain that the state is killing the right person.

See also:

1. Opinion of Georgia Supreme Court

2. Petition for Writ of Certiorari

3. State of Georgia's Brief in Opposition