FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W203413253> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W203413253 startingPage "2" @default.
• W203413253 abstract "What has it come to in this great nation of ours when the entire state and federal judiciary silently stood aside, as did the governor, and allowed Texas last year to execute Jessie Jacobs, a man whose prosecutor even admitted was innocent of the shooting for which he was put to death? You think I exaggerate? Not so. You see, after Mr. Jacobs, conviction for the deadly shooting, the state of Texas conceded that it was Mr. Jacobs' sister, not Mr. Jacobs, who shot the woman. Although Mr. Jacobs forcibly took the female victim to his sister's house so that the two women could settle a dispute, Mr. Jacobs' own prosecutor later told the sister's jury that he now agreed that Mr. Jacobs had no idea the sister had a weapon or that she intended to use it and that Mr. Jacobs stood by in total surprise when she shot the woman to death. For that, our esteemed machinery of justice puts a man to death? How hardboiled and desensitized a society have we become when our courts, with hardly a blink of the eye, behave in such a callous fashion? Jacobs' death must be laid at the feet of all those members of the judiciary - right up to the U.S. Supreme Court - for not stepping in and righting this wrong, thereby saving an innocent life.(1) What I find to be particularly disturbing is when the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans said, It is not for us to when considering the possibility that Mr. Jacobs, jury had made a mistake in convicting him.(2) I say, If not they, then who? U.S. Supreme Court? Sadly, its majority, too, does not believe that it has the responsibility for reviewing new evidence that has emerged indicating that someone who has been convicted and sentenced to death could very well be innocent. Writing for the majority in 1993, Chief Justice Rehnquist held in the Herrera case that a state prisoner, facing execution for a murder he claims not to have done, is not ordinarily entitled to Federal Court review based on new evidence. He said that, because of the very disruptive effect that entertaining claims of actual innocence would have on the need for finality in capital cases ... the threshold showing for such an assumed right would necessarily be extraordinarily high.(3) Referring to the rule that claims of innocence in and of themselves are not grounds for federal review, he also said that [t]his rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to insure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution - not to correct errors of fact.(4) Justice Scalia concurred in Herrera, stating that [t]here is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .., for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.(5) Nastily, he then mocked those whose consciences are shocked by this opinion. Well, I am shocked, and I hope most Americans who have some sense of fairness are, as well, at this absurdity. In another death penalty case this year (Kyles), Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion, stated that, The reality is that responsibility for factual accuracy in capital cases, as in other cases, rests elsewhere.(6) Again, I ask, Where? Justice Rehnquist in Herrera (Herrera by the way was executed in 1993 passes the buck to gubernatorial Executive Clemency as the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted(7) I submit that in today's political climate, it is virtually impossible to find a governor or a state board of pardons (appointed by the governor) through which an innocent person must pass on the way to the governor, who has the courage to grant clemency to an unjustly convicted murderer on death row. Clemency petitions are either dead on arrival or in a terminal state once they land on the governor's desk. A camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle has better odds. …" @default.
• W203413253 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W203413253 creator A5068831824 @default.
• W203413253 date "1996-06-22" @default.
• W203413253 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W203413253 title "The Death Penalty: A Personal View" @default.
• W203413253 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W203413253 type Work @default.
• W203413253 sameAs 203413253 @default.
• W203413253 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W203413253 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W203413253 hasAuthorship W203413253A5068831824 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2777106239 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2778120072 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2778344882 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C38671928 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W203413253 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C11413529 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C138885662 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C144024400 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C17744445 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C178790620 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C185592680 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C199539241 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2776050585 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2776119841 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2777106239 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2777278149 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2778120072 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2778272461 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2778344882 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C2778449503 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C38671928 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C41008148 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C41895202 @default.
• W203413253 hasConceptScore W203413253C48103436 @default.
• W203413253 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W203413253 hasLocation W2034132531 @default.
• W203413253 hasOpenAccess W203413253 @default.
• W203413253 hasPrimaryLocation W2034132531 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1518484786 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1525013921 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1547622979 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1555940954 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1569923809 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1585617792 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W1591607742 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W184668202 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W2199954400 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W219998212 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W2735869765 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W276153736 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W295096621 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W2978822506 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W3184442699 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W322556228 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W323958360 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W324286934 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W349984768 @default.
• W203413253 hasRelatedWork W2597463959 @default.
• W203413253 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W203413253 isParatext "false" @default.
• W203413253 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W203413253 magId "203413253" @default.
• W203413253 workType "article" @default.