Originally Posted by Imperator

It appears, hes simply reiterating the courts position as it has been formulated over the years.

Originally Posted by goober

So how many witnesses have to recant before the jury verdict is questioned?
How badly does a trial have to be flawed before you pause before killing the condemned?

Originally Posted by Commodore

Jury gets the final say.

When someone finds a better way, let us know.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I like the system where it's three Judges. Experienced and reliable professionals who have careers to uphold.

I have yet to figure why we go to professionals for almost every service we really hold important but then get twelve yocks off the street to determine questions of guilt or innocence before the law. "Doctor, I don't agree with your diagnosis. I asked twelve people picked at random what my symptoms mean and while most think they're being caused by aliens, three were convinced it's Obama's policies and one thought it was Republicans. I think I'll just pass on this appendicitis thing and move further away from Roswell."

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

One big problem with capital punishment is there are a higher percentage of innocent men on death row than there are in the ordinary prison population. This is because if someone is truly guilty, they tend to plead guilty and avoid a death sentence through plea-bargaining, etc.

On the other hand a truly innocent man accused of burning his 3 daughters alive, is going to continue to profess his innocence all the way to the death chamber. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of truly guilty men on death row, but it does mean there will surely be some completely innocent people there as well - and a higher percentage than you might expect.

And unlike serving a life sentence, where later evidence can prove men innocent and they get released to salvage part of their life, an executed man cannot later be released.

Oh, and as a general fact, Scalia is a fucktard.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

"Guilt" is a VERDICT that is decided by a jury. And, while the Constitution most assuredly supports that, we have reached an age and have technology , I think, that demand we adjust accordingly.

When the Constitution was written, all man had was whatever evidence would 'prove' guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' There have been and are problems with evidence. And for that reason, we have many rules that exclude certain types of eveidence. TN has 19 things that are excluded by statute and 1 by case law. I personally have issues with evidence. Circumstantial evidence is open to interpretation of experts, but still it is only interpretation. Witnesses can, and do, lie. Witnesses also can misperceive events as numerous scientific studies have shown us over the years. 4 people can see an event and you will get 4 different descriptions.

I don't think anyone in the day and age of the founding of our system could have ever anticipated the types of technology and the scientific advancements we have now. If anyone would have told them, they wouldn't have believed it.

DNA evidence is a gift. It is one that we should accept and use and not one that should be ignored just because its use came about after a conviction using the best types of evidence available at the time.

So the Constitution doesn't forbid execution of an innocent man. Well bully for the Constitution! We are sentient beings with conscience. There is no way to support this type of thing even if the Constitution DOES allow it. One case I recall, a TN case, spoke of our country's 'evolving standard of decency.' We need to continue to evolve and not execute someone on a technicality. That is far worse, under the philosophy of this system than letting someone off on a technicality.

We live in a system that would rather see 10 guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man. But if an innocent man has already been convicted there needs to be a mechanism to undo that conviction when something as convincing as DNA evidence shows his innocence. If we do not make that allowance under our laws we are no better than the despots from whom we were fleeing when we came to these shores.

Originally Posted by AJG

But the only way that could be done would be to abolish the death penalty itself. Otherwise, the court is delving into the absurd by claiming they've examined every possible scenario that might disprove a person's guilt, or the court is freely admitting that it would risk a potentially innocent person's life for whatever purpose the death penalty serves.

And while we're discussing the issue what purpose does the death penalty serve?

Originally Posted by John Drake

I like the system where it's three Judges. Experienced and reliable professionals who have careers to uphold.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It may be true that there's nothing in the Constitution actually forbidding it but would you really want to see an exonerated man executed?

Originally Posted by daddio

he wasn'texonerated. there were claims that it might happen if given the chance.

at some point you have to say enough is enough.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I was talking in general, not about this particular case.

Originally Posted by Commodore

The heart of the matter is the Constitution puts the power to convict or acquit in the hands of the jury. It puts a set of sentencing choices before the jury. You can not like the evidence, but if the jury says your guilty, your guilty in the eyes of the law. That power rest on the shoulders of mere mortals who should be considering not only the particulars of the case, but carrying out their duties in a way they would want their jury to if they were behind the defendants table. That is the great strength of our system, the jury has to live with it's decision, whether a criminal goes free, or a innocent man fries. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. A professional panel of judges would be too far isolated from the real world and the real repercussions of their decisions.

As for the particular case in question, 7 of 9 eyewitnesses claim they committed perjury at the trail. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not listening to a word they say, ever. That leaves two eyewitnesses. Now I think it's a good idea to require some sort of physical evidence in capital cases for this very contingency.

In general, I think the ruling of the original jury must be respected until such time that its decided that new evidence, or any other technicality, actually changes any facts on the ground, and the evidence of the original trial is intact. Then, and only then can a retrial can occur with all the old evidence and the new competing evidence. But these by definition have to be used sparsely, because evidence does not exist in a vacuum. So many capital cases are automatically appealed regardless of whether there any valid issues with the original trial.