Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent.

[TM7]

FYI..Constitution is officially history?...you decide...fyi...TM7

Scalia says there’s nothing unconstitutional about executing the innocent

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anocent.thony Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to die. Since then, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and some have even implicated Sylvester “Redd” Coles, a witness who testified that Davis was the shooter. In light of the very real evidence that Davis could be innocent of the crime that placed him on death row, the Supreme Court today invoked a rarely used procedure giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die.  One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/17/scalia-actual-innocence
.
.

[Hooker]

This is what happens when supreme powers are given for life.
Some day hopefully folks will have had enough of these self appointed demi gods and they will drag then kicking and screaming in to the streets and hang them all.


Pat

[Pat/Rick]

+1 Hooker.

[teamnelson]

Before we go buying rope (which I'm passing no judgment on its usefulness in this or any other case) ...

Consider that we have the Judges our Presidents nominated, with the approval of our Congress ... all of whom were ostensibly elected by we the people. And we the people are less and less Constitutionally literate, and more and more self-absorbed. If our great great great grandparents knew how we voted, they'd take us to the woodshed. Their great great great grandparents dragged Blackstone and the Bible across the prarie; how many people here have read Blackstone? The Constitution is an amazing work, clearly articulating the deontological natural law beliefs of our founder, but it only works if the people today share those beliefs. Otherwise it becomes irrelevant, and we elect Presidents and Congressmen for whom the document is meaningless, and they nominate and approve Justices for who the document is meaningless. And people only complain when their pet project is threatened. ("Who needs more than 5 rounds in a rifle anyways? Quoth the hunter.")

Scalia's position reminds me of Micro$oft Technical Support - accurate, but useless. It is accurate to say that the Constitution does not address this specific case; its a document to protect the rights of the people. It would've been assumed, under natural law, that at any time innocence was determined, man's inherent right to life would trump everything else. The Constitution was not a collection of laws, it was a body of limits against the usurpation of natural laws - the right to life being the most basic. So yes, it doesn't say what to do when innocence is determined by a habeas court, but it shouldn't have to Mr. Scalia. Were we not at one time a nation that believed  its "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (which is called the Blackstone Ratio)

[teamnelson]

Sorry, one more thought ...

Maimonides (a legal theorist from the 12th century), expounding on Genesis 18:23-32, and Exodus 23:7 argued "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." He argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely according to the judge's caprice. "Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, making the deontological argument for the role of natural law. The reason its so hard for progressive lawyers to interpret the constitution is because they lack the a priori understanding. Law has digressed to tort or case law; the absolutes of life & liberty are left in the hall, and most quickly slaughtered on the altar of correctness as opposed to right-ness.

[skarke]

Scalia is legally and constitutionally correct.  It is precisely this fact (that in effect after conviction, one becomes guilty until PROVEN innocent) that has driven me from the ranks of rabidly pro-capital punishment to an avowed fence walker on the issue.  Sometimes being correct is anathema to being just.

[skarke]

The Constitution is an amazing work, clearly articulating the deontological natural law beliefs of our founder, but it only works if the people today share those beliefs. Otherwise it becomes irrelevant, and we elect Presidents and Congressmen for whom the document is meaningless, and they nominate and approve Justices for who the document is meaningless. ... under natural law, that at any time innocence was determined, man's inherent right to life would trump everything else. (Intuitive, but unfortunately, very hard to codify) The Constitution was not a collection of laws, it was a body of limits against the usurpation of natural laws - the right to life being the most basic. So yes, it doesn't say what to do when innocence is determined by a habeas court, but it shouldn't have to Mr. Scalia. Were we not at one time a nation that believed  its "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (which is called the Blackstone Ratio)

+1 on the bold italicized stuff Team N, and I agree with the rest with my heart, but I struggle with the logic of law.

[teamnelson]

Skarke, and this is the issue that kept me from proceeding to law school as I had once planned ... is it necessary to codify natural law? If we say that only that which can be codified is law, then we make what is "right" the beggar of the articulate. Was not Hammurabi's post merely an articulation of an idea that predated the ability to write/codify? Did we not know it was wrong to steal, lie and commit murder before someone told us? I believe so, and so did the authors. I believe there is much "missing" from the Constitution because it was not believed it would be necessary to codify a law that is innate to a rational moral human being.

Why do we have elections or juries? Because the consensus of rational moral human beings will reflect that natural law, and overwhelm the expected irrational immoral voice.

By way of illustration, I'm a newly converted fan of Stargate Universe. In the show there is ancient technology that is vastly superior to our own, which has limitless potential, and may solve all our problems, etc. The catch is, you have to be an ancient to use it - it'll overwhelm and possibly destroy anyone or anything else that tries to use it. I am afraid that our nation is like that - an ancient idea that is vastly superior to our modern one, but you have to be like the founders to use it.

[teamnelson]

Scalia is legally and constitutionally correct.  It is precisely this fact (that in effect after conviction, one becomes guilty until PROVEN innocent) that has driven me from the ranks of rabidly pro-capital punishment to an avowed fence walker on the issue.  Sometimes being correct is anathema to being just.

.
Me too.

When it comes to Law, esp. Constitutional Law, there are two operative factors...the Letter of the Law, and the Spirit of the Law. Scalia seems to have misplaced his Spirit.

But need to look into this more.....TM7
.

Ok, so this is a thread close to my heart ...

I'm all for capital punishment ... I just don't think we have a justice system in place to support its moral application. I'd be all for corporal punishment in lieu of lengthy prison terms ... but again, we don't have a moral justice system. I'm all for anger ... but no one is righteous enough to have it without sin.

[skarke]

Skarke, and this is the issue that kept me from proceeding to law school as I had once planned ... is it necessary to codify natural law? If we say that only that which can be codified is law, then we make what is "right" the beggar of the articulate.

Team N,

While I agree with you, hammerabi, Cicero, and a whole bunch of other dead guys, the challenge that an absence of codification presents is that it leaves "natural law" open to interpretation by those with a set of learned social norms that are today varied and differing.  That said, I am becoming pretty much a dyed in the wool libertarian, wholely sold out to the concept of nature, and law.  There is my conundrum.

Help, my brain is melting

 

[skarke]

A point of clarification, I should say that I agree, Team N, that Natural Law preceded any codification, not that I agree or disagree with any particular code or statute on its merit as a code or statute alone...such as Hammerabi (or is it hammurabi?).

[mcwoodduck]

TM7,
Scallia is correct.
While your head line makes it seem like we know that innocent people are being put to death.  that is not was the Justice is saying.
As others have pointed out, he went to trial, was convicted, and sentenanced ut a advasarial system with a judge and jury.
He was not railroaded or picked up off the street cause he looked like someone who could have committed the crime.
What Scallia is saying is once he is sentanced he can be exicuted.
By saying that if we are not sure if he is innocent or guilty will put the whole death penality in question.  If you can not carry out the sentance because someday we may find that he could have been innocent then we will never carry out the death penality.
Personally I think we should give people on death row 5 years or three appeals.  Make your three appeals count.  Day after the last appeal is denied you move to the chamber.  most of these thugs never gave their victoms any appeals.

[Hooker]

Weeeee Doogie y'all shur rite some purdy words

I didn't study law ,but I know that Constitutional law in no way gives the right to turn a blind eye to what is just.
To follow Scalia's logic one would have to say that perjury is a right under the 1st amendment.
To knowingly put an innocent man to death is murder. They say that Justice is blind , I say if it is true Justice it has excellent vision.
Something our courts are severely lacking.

How is it that we put limits on ourselves and our leadership, but we put no limits on those that define our limits?

Pat

[mcwoodduck]

Weeeee Doogie y'all shur rite some purdy words

I didn't study law ,but I know that Constitutional law in no way gives the right to turn a blind eye to what is just.
To follow Scalia's logic one would have to say that perjury is a right under the 1st amendment.
To knowingly put an innocent man to death is murder. They say that Justice is blind , I say if it is true Justice it has excellent vision.
Something our courts are severely lacking.

How is it that we put limits on ourselves and our leadership, but we put no limits on those that define our limits?

Pat

I understand what you are saying and my no means shoud my agreement with what scallia said mean i would want an innocent man sitting in jail let alone have the ultimate punishment.
But what he said was there to protect the death penality as law.  If you say that the innocent can not be put to death then what are the possibilities of everyone on death row being innocent?  100% and in that case no one could be put to death.
We have an appeals process for a reason.  We have groups that look at cases where people change their testamony, DNA evidence exhonerates them and they are set free.  usually with a large check from the state, city and in some cases the federal government.  I am glad thate are groups out there that test the rulings and are after the truth.  What gets me is the thousands of appeals each inmate makes that post pone their date.  Each of these appeals choke the courts with what could be a real case of miscarrage of justice.  Where people recant stories and it is not just one but more that were threatened or worked to frame the person then YES they need to e set free.  But what the Judge wrote was so that all the others and some of them need to be put down, too bad the wood chipper is not available.  The child molesters, the rapests the terrorists (they get a bacon vest) are fed in feet first.
Exicutions were public in the old days to show others what can happen to you.  maintain law and order with a show of what the condemned goes through.  I sometime wonder if the courts have used the 8th amendment to gentrify the exicution into a medical process instead of a horrific event that you do not want to go through.  a needle jab is nothing to fear.  Not having your neck snapped and straneling from the hanging or having someone miss your heart in a firing squad and bleeding out for a few minutes are things to think about waiting for the coup de grace from the firing squad commander.  The electric chair sending voltage through you that can set parts of you on fire if not set up correct, and the searing of your lungs as you try to hold your breath in the gas chamber seeing how long you can hold out before you inhale the poison.  These are things to fear, these are awaful ways to go.  but most are no less horrific than what these people did to their victoms.
Botched beheading where the axe man missed or the blade was dull.  These are thoughts that keep people in line and not wanting to do the things that would get them the axe, rope, the gas chamber, or strapped into old sparky.

[teamnelson]

mcwoodduck, but if I am reading this article correctly, 7 of the 9 justices agreed to allow the convicted the opportunity to have his case revisited, on the basis of evidence suggesting that the original trial was unjust, based on false testimony. What Scalia is dissenting to in this scenario is whether or not it was right for SCOTUS to offer that opportunity, because having already been found guilty, they onus is on the convicted to prove innocence. Scalia's problem is not whether he was guilty or innocent to begin with, or even whether the prevailing evidence suggests that he was never guilty in the first place. Its just simply that the constitutionally proscribed process has been completed, a guilty verdict has been given, and sentencing has been rendered, so what is the constitutional justification to appeal that process to SCOTUS? None.

I have to agree with Scalia in part, this isn't SCOTUS' problem to solve, so to tie them up with review is a misapplication of the system. Is it a travesty of justice? I expect so, and I expect it happens often. But who has the authority to grant pardon to a convicted felon? Mr. President, I believe.

[tennhillbilly]

State Governers have the authority to commute a sentence or pardon.
Given the information in the 1st post, it seems that Davis played a role in a murder. He may not have "pulled the trigger" but was involved none the less. State laws differ from state to state in what constitutes recieving the death penalty. Whether Davis was the shooter or not, whether he deserves the death penalty or not may an issue. But not as far as  Justice Scalia is concerned. I'm not sold on the fact the accused is an "inocent man". Does he deserve the death penalty??  Probably depends on where you stand.
His "partner" testified against him (imagin that)....and 20 years later witnesses aren't sure ........What changed??
The Justices are to ensure that Davis recieved  due process...a fair trial. They are not there to determine guilt or innocense......
Just my opinion.......