Two federal death row inmates, Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, have refused to accept President Biden’s commutation of their death sentences to life imprisonment without parole. The inmates argue that the commutations could undermine their ongoing legal appeals and efforts to address alleged miscarriages of justice.
Who Are the Inmates?
- Shannon Agofsky: Convicted for the brutal 1989 murder of an Oklahoma bank president, Agofsky was later sentenced to death for killing a fellow inmate in 2001. His case has long been a focus of legal contention, with his defense alleging prosecutorial misconduct and insufficient evidence.
- Len Davis: A former New Orleans police officer, Davis was sentenced to death for orchestrating the 1994 murder of Kim Groves, a woman who filed a police brutality complaint against him. His case has highlighted systemic issues within law enforcement and raised questions about his trial’s fairness.
Why Are They Refusing Commutation?
Both inmates argue that accepting the commutations could harm their legal positions. In death penalty cases, heightened scrutiny is applied during appeals, which can increase the likelihood of overturning convictions or exposing procedural errors. By accepting life sentences, they fear losing this advantage.
Agofsky and Davis maintain that the presidential commutations would effectively close the door on their ability to seek further judicial review of their cases.
Can They Refuse Clemency?
Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that presidential clemency does not require the consent of the individual. In Biddle v. Perovich (1927), the Court clarified that clemency is an act of grace that can be imposed regardless of an inmate’s acceptance. This precedent suggests that the inmates’ refusal may not halt the commutations.
Biden’s Stance on Capital Punishment
President Biden recently commuted the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates, part of his administration’s broader effort to end capital punishment. While Biden has made exceptions for terrorism and hate crimes, his actions reflect a consistent commitment to reducing the use of the death penalty.
The administration has faced criticism from both sides—some arguing that clemency undermines justice for victims, while others feel it doesn’t address broader systemic issues in the criminal justice system.
Implications of Their Refusal
The decision by Agofsky and Davis underscores the complexities surrounding clemency. It highlights a unique paradox: inmates on death row rejecting what many see as a reprieve, fearing it could limit their legal rights and appeals.
This situation raises broader questions about the fairness and efficacy of the U.S. justice system, particularly in death penalty cases where significant resources are spent on appeals and clemency reviews.
Conclusion
As President Biden’s anti-death penalty policies continue to shape the national conversation, the refusal of these inmates to accept commutation adds a new dimension to the debate. Their cases emphasize the tension between justice, mercy, and the legal strategies employed in capital punishment cases.