For the vast majority of human history people were executed by the most fair and just legal systems with ZERO physical evidence. Why don't you show me the law or Constitutional provision that sets out the evidentary requirements for a captial conviction?


Nor should it. Their testimony was offered in a court of law and cross-examined by the defense and it failed to sway the jurors. There is no evidence that the trial was conducted improperly and the failure of multiple appeals suggests that it was, in fact, not. The recantations are not given in any detail, nor are the circumstances of them set forth. The testimony was given in the most fair circumstances possible and the jurors had the chance to ignore it, but chose not to. The defense had the chance to get the testimony dismissed but failed to do so. The convicting testimony was offered much closer to the actual occasion of the crime than the recantations, and so was much more likely to be accurate. Any number of things could have effected the witnesses, including memory diminishing or even pressure from the defense and other advocates of Davis. No one bothers to ensure AFTER the trial that witnesses and jurors are no longer tampered with or influenced.

On what evidence do you base these "facts"? This is a one-sided article offering no support for those claims, beyond the assertions of the people paid to get him off. The supreme irony here is that you are denouncing the justice system for allowing an execution on insufficient evidence or proof of guilt, yet you offer no evidence to the contrary, beyond an article that only lists a very partial and suspect source for those claims, and headlines the article with the absurdly fallacious argument from authority, by citing famous people who supported Davis (and many of those listed are notoriously the sort who would not be remotely interested in the facts of the case, and would have supported him even with a conviction and multiple angles of video footage showing him commit the crime - they are racial advocates and opponents of the death penalty, regardless of the certainty of guilt). In other words, you are committing the exact same error you accuse the legal system of committing. Unlike you, however, the jurors actually heard the testimony of those eyewitnesses and had the opportunity to hear both sides of the case and weigh the evidence. You have a very short and factually-deficient article that offers no support for any of the claims made therein, beyond the FACT that multiple courts heard the case and upheld it, despite a system strongly weighted in favor of the defendant.