Scalia: Executing innocent person is fine

by: mooncat

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 00:12:03 AM CDT

Heard this on NPR this afternoon -- my jaw absolutely hit the floor. From the Progressive Electorate:

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a rare innocence claim hearing in the Troy Anthony Davis case.
...
ustice Antonin Scalia along with Justice Clarence Thomas issued dissents. Here's part of what Scalia said
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
In Scalia's world it does not matter when a person is found to be innocent. The constitution is once again thrown out the window and stomped upon by one who is suppose to be a "wise conservative". Scalia argues past procedure weight over the result of an innocent man being put to death.

I'm starting to empathize with those tea-baggers who want their country back. Only we may not want the same country*. I want the one where it's "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

*And that's the whole problem.

mooncat :: Scalia: Executing innocent person is fine

Tags: Antonin Scalia, Constitution, Death Penalty, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Share |

Scalia: Executing innocent person is fine | 5 comments

thanks for front paging this (4.00 / 1)

it should be mind boggling but it's not when you consider who it's coming from - The Great Scalia

by: gradyw @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 05:34:01 AM UTC

Stevens to the Rescue (4.00 / 2)

Jstice Stevens, if I'm reading this right, (and that's in question) has essentially mapped out a strategy for the attorneys/lower courts:

Stevens said that the District judge may have authority to act, perhaps finding that AEDPA's limits do not apply to "original" habeas writs of the kind the Justices acted on on Monday, or do not apply to a habeas claim of "actual innocence." In addition, Stevens said, there may be an argument that AEDPA's habeas limits are unconstitutional if they barred court review of such a claim. Finally, Stevens said, it can be argued that it would be a federal constitutional violation to execute an innocent person.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. -Churchill

by: julie @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:22:47 PM UTC

Mooncat, I went over to TalkLeft to see what the attorneys there had to say on this (4.00 / 2)

and you're linked there. Way to go!

Sometimes I wonder if Scalia is actually human or if he's an animatronic figure with bad programming.

by: Kathy @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:41:10 PM UTC

Unbelievable.... (0.00 / 0)

Scalia saying it's ok to execute innocent people, a woman yelling "Heil Hitler!" to a Jewish man at a health reform rally, women telling a woman she should be accountable for her cancer at a rally right here in not-so Sweet Home Alabama, people carrying signs at rallies that say "Your Health, Your Problem", people calling Obama a Nazi.....what's next???

I really, really want to move.

by: hgalloway @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 17:24:20 PM UTC

Some things are close legal calls; somethings are procedural (0.00 / 0)

decisions. This opinion is simply obscene, immoral and inhuman, Only Scalia is cold blooded enough to write this decision, and only Clarence "Pubic hair" Thomas is dumb enough to vote with him on it.

Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten. Cree Nation Tribal Prophecy

by: piggieheart @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 21:07:26 PM UTC