zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should still be killed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinn_v._Ramirez

>>Samoye+Eg
>you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence,

No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence.

>Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial.

The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default' position of the appeals court should be to accept/consider new arguments not made at trial.

It was not suddenly discovered that the convicted might be intellectually disabled.

Which is itself is still quite the leap from suddenly discovering 'exonerating evidence'.

>>beeran+Dp
You missed the second part:

>"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."

>>lumino+Wq
He was already on parole for a previous violent felony. The police literally arrested him at the scene of the murder where he was half naked and covered in the blood of the victims. He also admitted to having committed statutory rape on the 15 year old that he murdered.

Just about every single person on death row will suddenly claim to have found yet another round of evidence proving innocence when their previous appeal doesn’t work out. It’s a classic delaying tactic, and in this case I agree with the Supreme Court.