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

[kpete]

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

Almost two decades ago, Troy Anthony 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/

[Catshrink]

1. Oh my God.

:wtf:

[fascisthunter]

2. this is as close to nazi one and come to... he's definitely a sociopath

[MineralMan]

3. Executing an innocent person seems to qualify as

both cruel and unusual. Only a TRVE Christina™ would be able to justify such a thing. Impeach the SOB!

[Fire1]

7. Sounds like murder, to me. n/t

[Recursion]

24. Well, the law is a weird thing

There's a difference in "innocent" (which is a moral condition) and "not guilty" (which is a legal condition). It's confused by the fact that the term "guilty" is used in both the legal and moral sense, and people don't adequately distinguish between them.

It will never, ever, happen that the US will execute someone who is "not guilty", but there are almost certainly people who are "guilty" in the legal sense while morally innocent -- it's why the death penalty is a bad idea.

That said, Scalia's argument has some legal merit as far as I can see it, though that doesn't make him less of an asshole.

[MineralMan]

27. See, the thing is that I oppose the death penalty absolutely.

Arguing the fine points of legal language is irrelevant to me. The state should not be involved in killing citizens. Our system of justice has enough documented cases of wrongful convictions in crimes of all varieties that there is no assurance that a person condemned to execution is actually guilty or innocent.

That's understandable, and acceptable, to a certain degree, given the fallibility of human institutions. However, execution is an irreversible action. It cannot be undone should new evidence demonstrate innocence. Imprisonments can be, and are, ended when mistakes are made, and some form of restitution is made. There is no restitution for killing someone. None.

So, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. That will never change. Scalia show contempt for the intent of the law. Therefore, he should be impeached and removed from office.

[deminks]

4. He's buckin' for one of them Sarapalin Death Panels, ya betcha.

Ignorant twit.

[Lil Missy]

5. Jesus Christ!

:wtf:

[troubledamerican]

36. Jesus Christ was an innocent man executed. Scalia chose Barabbas.

[baldguy]

6. So, can we execute him now?

Oh, right. He's not innocent.

[Catshrink]

9. How about impeaching him?

[mucifer]

13. Good one!

[scarletlib]

8. It sure makes a hash of the Declaration of Liberty

So much for the executed and innocent man's right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

[drm604]

10. This is the real "death panel". n/t

[noiretextatique]

11. evil, rotten bastard

and your even more vile black-faced lackey :grr:

[silverweb]

12. Really, Mr. Gung-ho Opus Dei hypocrite?

Then how about egregiously unjust and immoral? Does that figure into your calculations at all?

Or do your god's calls for justice and mercy have no part in your self-righteous deliberations?

[mucifer]

14. maybe since slavery was legal and we had a constitution he thinks it's ok. It's probably

his next step, bringing back slavery.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. There are certain opinions or statements that are unacceptable for a SCOTUS judge to utter or write.

And should lead to immediate proceedings in Congress to remove him from the bench.

It won't happen, but even so, it is deeply unacceptable.

[spanone]

16. i'm sure he has no moral objections either....

[notadmblnd]

17. it may not be constitionaly wrong, but it's certainly morally wrong

I sure hope that he has a maker that he will stand before him and be judged by, when he dies.

[PM Martin]

18. I cannot imagine a modern Canadian justice ever coming

near to anything this heinous. American is F-A-R from being the best in the world, I assure you!

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. Any bets he would have a different view if he were headed for

the death chamber and was innocent?

Scalia and Thomas are two of the most corrupt justices to ever serve on the bench.

[Recursion]

20. Eh. There's a lot of legal precedent for this

Look at it this way: one court was convinced he is not guilty, another court is convinced that he is. The one that was actually empowered to try him "wins". Scalia's argument is that this is a case for pardon or clemency, not for the Supreme Court.

I don't like that legal interpretation (it's the main reason I'm anti-death-penalty) but there's nothing remotely out-of-the-mainstream about it. And luckily he is writing a dissent, not a majority opinion.

[anigbrowl]

21. Wrong headline; Scalia is correct

His whole objection is about the jurisdiction of the court where the motion has been filed - that is, it is not the job of a district court responding to a writ of Habeas corpus to free someone. If you read his opinion...

"Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this Court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool’s errand. That court is directed to consider evidence of actual innocence which has been reviewed and rejected at least three times, and which, even if adequate to persuade the District Court,cannot (as far as anyone knows) form the basis for any relief. I truly do not see how the District Court can dis-cern what is expected of it. If this Court thinks it possible that capital convictions obtained in full compliance withlaw can never be final, but are always subject to being set aside by federal courts for the reason of “actual innocence,” it should set this case on our own docket so that we can (ifnecessary) resolve that question. Sending it to a districtcourt that “might” be authorized to provide relief, but then again “might” be reversed if it did so, is not a sensible way to proceed."

In other words, Scalia is asking, if Davis and his lawyers still argue he is innocent (even though the appeal court, circuit court and Georgia Supreme court found otherwise), why doesn't he just appeal his case directly to the federal supreme court instead of trying to have innocence established by a district court which probably doesn't have the legal authority to set him free?


Here is the link, by the way: http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf

It's clear Scalia is skeptical of Davis' innocence claims on the basis of the supplied evidence, but his opinion is explicitly about the jurisdiction of the district court to free someone whose conviction has already been affirmed by a higher court, not whether Davis should live or die. Personally, I can't see why Davis' lawyers are taking this approach. Bear in mind that no court has actually agreed he's innocent yet - it is not as if the District court already listened to the case.

[Recursion]

22. +1

I'm only an armchair lawyer but Scalia is as far as I can tell following the law as it stands.

Yet another reason I oppose the death penalty.

[Senator]

32. -1 Not at all. Nino is just the same political hack he's always been.

His self-contradictory whining is directed at his fellow (sane) justices, not at "Davis and his lawyers."

The collection of straw man accusation, non sequitur, and irrelevancies in that excerpt are just the mental gymnastics that make up the bulk of his "legal reasoning" over the years -- mere attempts to rationalize his belief-based notions about what he wants to pass for "justus."

He really does want the actually innocent to be executed (screw the 8th amendment). And he's impatient for the vicarious thrill kill.

---

[anigbrowl]

34. You don't address the actual argument

...which makes me wonder why I should take you seriously. Perhaps you'd like to point out where you think he's mistaken? I have difficulty seeing how the District court has any jurisdiction to overrule the GA supreme court.

[Senator]

35. There isn't one.

Scalia is engaged in complaint, not argument (let alone legal debate).

As for the district court, he first claims it can't do anything then admits it "'might' be authorized to provide relief." Then of course threatens reversal, should those judges dare to decide for themselves what their jurisdiction might be. He's talking in circles.

It's well beyond "mistaken" to be railing against what he imagines "this Court thinks" or about another court's ability to "discern what is expected of it."

It's really a display of some form of mental illness.

----

[tavalon]

23. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

One wonders why we even bother to have a Scalia.

[MidwestTransplant]

25. 4th Amendment?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

26. What was it I remember, "the Law must be informed by empathy" or something?

So, to my non-lawyer's mind, the Law may say that executing an innocent does not go against the Constitution...

BUT, to DISSENT against a decision to re-examine a death sentence based on new evidence indicating INNOCENCE is taking the Law far from JUSTICE.

[kayakjohnny]

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

And that would include his own ass, let us remember.






(sp)

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Maybe the Constitution would if you removed the "cruel and unusual punishment" bit.

[downeyr]

30. Scalia is an idiotic turd. n/t

[AntiFascist]

31. WTF....

then we should decide, Democratically, to execute....never mind.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!