Justice Scalia: Constitutional to execute innocent man

And there in lies the problem with the death penalty, eventually it's okay to execute innocent people.

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

Well, I think it's time they're removed from the bench for being fucking insane.

J.

Scalia's got a lifetime appointment.

Time for Scalia to have an aneurysm.

Yes, but being "fucking insane" is a perfectly valid ground for impeachment.

Apparently, this defendant's claim has been reviewed and found lacking numerous times.

And Scalia isn't saying it's okay to execute an innocent man; he's saying that a later court's finding shouldn't trump an earlier court's if the person had a full and fair trial. Notice the word actually is in quotes; he's being sarcastic. The legal system does not find people "innocent." It either proves their guilt or not. In this case, the defendant's guilt has been adequately proven.

The people who recanted their testimony have some explaining to do. They SWORE to tell the truth in the matter the first time and are now saying they didn't. Should a later court put more trust in them now?

Scalia also said:

Much seems to be taken out of context in the kneejerk replies. Did anyone actually read the opinion? It’s not a 40-pager like the ones they give you in law school, won't take more than 10-15 minutes. Imo, Scalia wrote a very persuasive Dissent. I didn’t read the majority opinion, but, in context, it’s important to understand that “actual innocence” is a legal term of art in these cases.

Also, the States have Constitutionally protected “police powers," and a state criminal conviction has no business in federal court unless a federal issue is presented. In the past, death-row demands for writs of habeas corpus have been a notorious example of the tools used by convicts (the large majority of which are “actually” guilty) on death row to gain appeal after appeal at the federal level after they've exhausted their state remedies. What has happened over time is that convicted felons have found the means to game the system just as capably as the Muslim terrorists, as they read from a similar playbook.

Results-based jurisprudence (effectively, legislating from the bench) often sounds peachy when you hear the result, but it also usurps the role of the lawmakers. “Checks and balances” isn’t just an expression from elementary-school civics. Respect for the law can be a bitch. Thankfully the incidents of wrongfully executed prisoners have become fewer over time.

Respect for the Constitution and the applicable laws seems to demand Scalia’s decision, and it sounds to me like the appropriate means to fix the problem (if the state appears ready to execute a truly innocent person) is a Presidential pardon. Let the press sing the song and the Pres. will pick up on it if it’s a just cause. The Supreme Court doesn’t have the pardon power, the President does, and I can’t think of a more appropriate example of when it should be exercised. Certainly it’s better than pardons for guys like Marc Rich.

And imo it’s better when the Supreme Court, you know, follows the law.

Why is it that it's always one of these cases? Where the supposed "innocent" man was part of the criminal activity at the scene? "Oh, it wasn't innocent, little ol' me, your honor. It was my partner who actually did the killin'!"

Yeah, I knee jerk reacted on that one. Still, the idea of an innocent person, any innocent person, being executed always brings that out in me.


J.

I just saw a 2002 Sandra Bullock movie Murder by Numbers (about a 7/10 as a character piece, 4/10 as a thriller) where she was a cop and two clever murderer punks tried to play that blame game. Life imitates art, or vice versa? - kinda chicken/egg with this old standby. "It's my friend's pot, I was just holding it." Hah.

No it's not.

It's not your fault given the cherry-picked excerpt from the opinion and prejudicial choice of words setting the context.

It's kinda like trying to justify "clubbing baby seals with little children is okay." But omitting the earlier words "I do not think that . . ."

I blame the source, the guy who wrote the original article is an idiot and a liar. You're just the guy wot got lied to.

A colleague and I had a few minutes (hours) to blow in court a few days ago. We got bored and somehow began reading a section of the Penal Code and we came across this:

§ 128. Procuring execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury

Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and 190.4.

Thinkprogress appears to be just as credible a website as WouldNetDaily.

Major Fail.

Sure it is. First of all, anything Congress says is a valid ground for impeachment is. Second of all, a judge who is fucking insane is incapable of doing his job, so it's actually a classical example of what's broadly considered an impeachable offense. A bad faith decision is also a perfectly valid reason for impeachment, and if Scalia and Thomas aren't fucking insane, they're certainly engaging in manifest bad faith.

In any event, with this decision they're no morally different than murderers, and you can bet that a murderer would be off the court in a second because Congress thought he was too fucking insane to do his job well or credibly.

Not having the votes to impeach Scalia and Thomas is different than not having a damn good reason to do so.

In some states, including my own, it DOES NOT MATTER if you did not pull the trigger.

If you are a willing participant in the underlying crime that leads to a homicide, (such as helping rob a house, where your partner murders the homeowner) then you are considered just as guilty as the trigger man of the murder.

Next, recanted testimony is always given far less weight than testimony given at the time of the original trial.

Finally, I've never seen one of these claims that "an innocent man is being executed" where the supposed "innocent man" played no part in the crime whatsoever.

What Scalia is arguing is that granting this hearing on the basis of actual innocence is outside the letter of the law spelling out when habeas hearings may be granted. I assume he's right that there has never been a ruling that claims of actual innocence -- even when seven witness recant -- are within "extraordinary circumstances." But it seems pretty darn extraordinary on its face.

It depends.

What is their explanation for why they told what they are now saying are lies back then? What is their explanation for now coming forward with something they now say is the truth only now?

A court can use the same tools that a jury would to determine if these seven were probably lying then, lying now, something in between or what.

I don't know what other evidence they had than the eyewitnesses. But it seems to me that seven of them recanting -- and pointing the finger at another eyewitness -- is enough grounds for a reasonable doubt.

I would not want people to be imprisoned, let alone executed, where a reasonable doubt exists.

Call me crazy but I still believe it better that 10 guilty men go free than a potentially innocent man be punished.

It works both ways. There's clearly an ambiguity over whether actual innocence claims where seven witnesses recant are sufficient enough to trigger a federal question. The legislators could if they wanted amend the law in question to say it does not.

On what basis do you make that statement?

And I'd contend even a single wrongfully executed prisoner is too many and the system has about the right level of safeguards.

Not necessarily. The issue about actual innocence hadn't been decided. It doesn't do violence to that law to decide a case such as this fits under it.

That doesn't get someone very far, since most places have a felony-murder rule in place. If you are a participant in a felony and someone gets killed, you are still liable for murder in the first degree.

I'm under the impression in this case that the defendant didn't beat the homeless guy and that he was just on the scene. At least, I would expect that if he had been involved in beating the homeless guy, Scalia's opinion would have specifically said so.

You can be absolutely sure of that.

Also, note that the seven witnesses who recanted point their collective fingers at an eighth who didn't, a person who by all accounts should have been a suspect from the beginning but who was never investigated because police had their guy and were going to see him die.

Remember scalia thinks its ok for a state to have gas chambers for gays and jews.

In this case quite literally none. The guy who did it preemptively came forward with a story about someone else doing it, then the gullible and unethical police pressured "witnesses" to finger the guy accused by the man now known to be the murderer. That "eyewitness" testimony was the only evidence offered in the case.

Exactly. With the latter logic, Charles Manson is innocent since he didn't actually pull the trigger or wield the knife.In your former example, even if the accomplice didn't know that his partner would kill anybody, he/she still stood by and did nothing while innocent people were murdered.

This article is exactly what I thought it was; just another knee jerk reaction based on Michael Moore style truth so that a few pacifists can throw doubt on the death penatly.

Please point to the insanity here:

Sounds to me like while Scalia's (and Thomas') is the more Constitutionally-sound position, the rest of the court wanted to neuter the EDPA. Had they not granted the request, they might have been barred from hearing the case on appeal. That's how I read it, anyway.

This doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional question, but rather interpretation of the EDPA.

Does a claim of actual innocence where seven of the witnesses recant and point to the eighth rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances" as stated in the EDPA? The rest of the SCOTUS apparently and summarily thinks it does.

Scalia and Thomas think it does not, or at least that if it does, the question should not be handled so summarily. In order to justify this position, Scalia phrases the question as whether all actual innocence claims should be so treated. That's IMO intellectually dishonest.

Pity that we can't at least use that logic to throw wackjobs like you off the internet.

Hmm... On reading the rebuttal to Scalia, I tend to think I got it backwards.

Still, I don't see why, if the district court doesn't find for Davis, how the Supreme Court would be allowed to take the case under AEDPA.

Here's a little more clarification of what exactly Scalia meant. After reading this opinion from Herrea v Collins in 1993, I don't think he was being sarcastic at all.

​

Scalia sounds really bitter about something.

Could it be just that Scalia is a cunt of the first order?


Can't say I know a whole lot about the guy, but ever since he refused to Recuse himself from the Cheney case, I've not been a fan.