Talk:Georgia (U.S. state)
Information on Joey Watkins should not be here
I am inclined to the view that the recent insertion of info on Watkins in this article should not be here. Rather, the article that was also added on Watkins should be expanded.
It also looks like it was written by a drive-by single-issue poster. They tend to get banned. --Crew (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Responses
Poster was me. I realize I look single issue atm. Give me time. I certainly encourage expanding the article on Watkins. I'm new with the rules around here, so forgive me; but my info *is* factual, which I understood was the bottom line.
Relevance -- yeah, I get it, it seems like a small issue in the scheme of things. But is it? If someone is provably innocent, in a sane world they would be freed. If a state can't do that, that's a problem. And if they would do it once, it is reasonable to assume they would do it again. I view it as per se proof of corruption. You may or may not agree.
It also leads in turn to all kinds of further problems, such as the minor detail that the actual murderer is free to do it again. If I were considering moving to Georgia, that's something I would want to know.
If you think I'm an anti-Republican crusader, it's safe to say you are dead wrong.
On a related note, I notice a lot of things around here on the issue of race. It may or may not be factual -- I haven't looked. But is it really a good way to start a replacement for Wikipedia? WrongfulConviction (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that. Recommend creating as many articles as possible about other subjects to fill up the Recent Changes page.--Jack-arcalon (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, I just want to say, I hope Crew returns to this discussion. My purpose is not to start a war with the admin.WrongfulConviction (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Further comments
I notice that there was also a section added to the page on the specific county in Georgia as well. It is perhaps more relevant there as an example of a notable event in that county, but at the state level there are likely other wrongful convictions as well. In the section on the county it should go under a section on controversies or something like that in the body.
The article on Joey Watkins, as it stands is a stub and need to be expanded quite a bit. The first references I found were to the Innocence Project (http://www.georgiainnocenceproject.org/undisclosed/), which makes for good quoting and references, so there is plenty of material out there. It also needs an {{infobox person ... }} section and there are photos of Watkins to be found out there.
However, in the context of the state of Georgia, unless there are similar sections in the articles on other states, eg Tennessee, it would seem out of place. I notice that there is nothing in the Tennessee entry on Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome and nothing in the Kansas page on the Wichita Massacres. In addition the article on Troy, New York makes no mention of Adrian P Thomas (exonerated of killing his son.) Now, while that might reflect the biases of the Wikipedia editors the entries were derived from, we cannot burden main articles on states, cities, etc, with every notable event that happened in those states or cities. That is, entries on notable events stand on their own, as should the entry on Joey Watkins.
In addition, Watkins should be added to the List of wrongful convictions in the United States.
Finally, I am not arguing against an article on Joey Watkins, and see a place for references to him in several existing articles and a separate article on him. It, does seem incorrect to place such at the state level.
-- Crew (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I will not edit war any removal. I will, however, explain here my reasons for disagreement. Most critically, this is a case where it is publicly known to a significant number of people, and also provably true, that the defendant is innocent, yet nothing is being done, and a State appellate court has in fact ruled that the County court does not have to release the tapes of the trial(!!); that's on appeal to their Supreme Court. Additionally, while the County is responsible for the initial conviction, the State has the power to commute the sentence (via the Governor), and the State courts, with the Supreme Court at the top, could, if they so chose, find a way to overturn the conviction. The State's Attorney General could presumably also ask for some kind of reconsideration (I'm guessing here; I don't know that), but it hasn't happened.
You could argue that it's "just one conviction", and therefore should not be at the State level. If the state had, after Watkins' innocence became public knowledge, acted to release him, I would agree with that. But they didn't. And that's the rub. I am not familiar with the other cases you mention. If the provably innocent person is still in prison, and the proof is as strong as it is here, I would argue that it belongs at the state level. If they act to free the person, that's another matter entirely. In other words, I consider it far worse for a State to fail to act once it has to know, than to find out, belatedly, then act.
I have expanded the article. It is frankly not possible for me to do the case full justice, but I've tried.WrongfulConviction (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
