Supreme court Justice Scalia: Executing innocent people is perfectly constitutio

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.[/quote]

[A18]

What a thoroughly ridiculous blog entry.

"Innocent" as determined by whom? The defendant had a trial and was convicted. The question is whether the Constitution would nonetheless forbid his execution, if he could persuade a habeas court that he is not really guilty.

[Purple State]

I agree with Philip. This is a failure of logic.

It is impossible for the law to determine the innocence or guilt of a person beyond the means provided in a free and fair trial. In that sense, whether the person is actually guilty, according to Truth, is not within the knowledge of the Law, nor is the Law capable of judging based on Truth, but rather according to known facts. In that sense, even if a person is innocent in Truth, it is wholly possible that he will be deemed guilty by the facts of the case and executed. It is unfortunate, but the Law is not omniscient.

[Peter]

The great crime here is not the interpretations of Antonin Scalia (and Philip etc), but the negligent behaviour of Congress and the State legislatures which allows this manifest absurdity to continue.

I do not like the result that Scalia's reasoning reaches, and I certainly don't agree with it, nonetheless I respect it (although quite how he, and Clarence Thomas, two avowed originalists who often quote Sir William Blackstone in opinions can get around Blackstone's notion that "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" escapes me).

The negligent behaviour I refer to is the fact that State legislatures (I apologise to those legislatures that have done as I suggest) and Congress have never crafted any mechanism through which a convict may challenge their conviction on grounds of innocence. I am not suggesting a general right of convicts to immediately appeal the facts of their conviction, that would be unworkable, but there does need to a possibility that a Court will allow an appeal to a conviciton on grounds of actual innocence if the convicted party can show that new evidence (or significant new doubt about original evidence) casts doubt on the conviction.

Perhaps the most absurd example I can concoct is not actually that implausible. A murder is committed and the facts of the case make it manifestly clear that only one person participated in the murder. A man is put on trial and convicted of the murder, possibly sentenced to death, but it is immaterial.

A few years later, new evidence comes to light which implicates another man, who is put on trial and convicted. We now have a situation where a murder that could only have been committed by one person, was in fact, legally committed by two men. These two rulings should not be allowed to stand together, but Scalia's interpretation, apparently they can. Its akin to a circuit split - something the Supreme Court very rarely allows to be left unresolved for too long. And its why Justice Stevens is right.

[minionofmidas]

The great crime here is not the interpretations of Antonin Scalia (and Philip etc), but the negligent behaviour of Congress and the State legislatures which allows this manifest absurdity to continue.

The negligent behaviour I refer to is the fact that State legislatures (I apologise to those legislatures that have done as I suggest) and Congress have never crafted any mechanism through which a convict may challenge their conviction on grounds of innocence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(linked to from deado's link) Does that mean they have as far as federal convictions are concerned?

[Peter]

My answer is: pass.

I just came across one of my favourite "stupid" Supreme Court decisions: Dretke v. Haley - a particularly stupid decision where even the prosecutors agreed the convict wasn't guilty, but still insisted he do the extra time anyway, and whats more, the Court agreed.

[Person Man]

The Congress should see that Scalia is impeached over this. I wouldn't remove him from office, but we should embarrass the hell out of him. This is what you get when you want to end death penalty appeals.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My answer is: pass.

I just came across one of my favourite "stupid" Supreme Court decisions: Dretke v. Haley - a particularly stupid decision where even the prosecutors agreed the convict wasn't guilty, but still insisted he do the extra time anyway, and whats more, the Court agreed.

Not quite.  The Court refused to create new precedent because it felt existing precedent (i.e., seeking relief due to incompetent counsel, which he clearly had) would grant the plaintiff's desired outcome.  A perfectly reasonable example of judicial restraint.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If the court wasn't equally divided with a conservative bent, I don't think put much infersis on what Scalia says. I think that he wants a race neutral society, and that he feels that way, and no one will change that. He is from the old school. He is an older version of Roberts.

But hopefully, by 2016 that will change and the court will shift.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Is it Constitutional to execute an innocent man?

Yes.

The Constitution guarantees process, not outcome.

Legally speaking, no innocent man is executed, as all people executed by the State have been the recipient of Constitutional Due Process, and found guilty of the crime they were charged with.

So, while a person who may have not committed the crime that they stand accused of COULD be found guilty of it in a Court of Law, and executed, is an unfortunate turn of events, the fact that they received the full benefit of their Constitutional right of Due Process makes their execution Constitutional.

[SPC]

It is ridiculous how people are defending this. If it is known that the defendent is innocent, he should not be punished, regardless of what the court said.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is ridiculous how people are defending this. If it is known that the defendent is innocent, he should not be punished, regardless of what the court said.

Wow, I never knew common sense was something SPC dealt in.

[Brandon H]

Something is broken if an innocent person is convicted of a crime. But I don't think anyone will deny this has happened before. Some prosecutors are more determined to win a case than to find the truth.

[Scam of God]

Scalia is a typical pennyante authoritarian, and always has been. Funny, considering that most of his ardent supporters pretend to dislike the gub'mint.

[A18]

It is ridiculous how people are defending this. If it is known that the defendent is innocent, he should not be punished, regardless of what the court said.

Once again, "innocent" as determined by whom and in what way?

(We're talking, by the way, about constitutionality; not what "should" be done.)

[Scam of God]

Scalia is a typical pennyante authoritarian, and always has been. Funny, considering that most of his ardent supporters pretend to dislike the gub'mint.

Once again, "innocent" as determined by whom and in what way?

Case in point.

[A18]

BRTD likes lattes.

[CatoMinor]

Quote from: Scalia

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FAIL.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's certainly constitutional. Many things are constitutional. That does not make it right.

[Franzl]

It's certainly constitutional. Many things are constitutional. That does not make it right.