Innocent Until Executed~! - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #1 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

I must confess I have always kind of enjoyed the Supreme Court's bad boy who never really learned how to play nice. But this time he has gone to far, IMNSHO!

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

Quote:

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.

And another:

Why It's Constitutional to Execute an Innocent Man | Newsweek Dahlia Lithwick on Legal Issues | Newsweek.com

Quote:

Dahlia LithwickInnocent Until Executed
We have no right to exoneration.

For years, death-penalty opponents and supporters have been working their way toward a moment in which each side would rethink things. They were seeking a case in which a clearly innocent defendant was wrongly put to death. In a 2005 Supreme Court case that actually had nothing to do with the execution of innocents, Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia tangled over the possibility that such a creature even existed. Souter fretted that "the period starting in 1989 has seen repeated exonerations of convicts under death sentences, in numbers never imagined before the development of DNA tests." To which Scalia retorted: "The dissent makes much of the newfound capacity of DNA testing to establish innocence. But in every case of an executed defendant of which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt." Scalia went on to blast "sanctimonious" death-penalty opponents and a 1987 study on innocent exonerations whose "obsolescence began at the moment of publication," then concluded that there was not "a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit."

This suggested that if anyone found such a case, the Scalias of the world would rethink matters. As of today, the Innocence Project, a national organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing, claims there have been 241 postconviction DNA exonerations, of which 17 were former death-row inmates spared execution. The gap between their facts and Scalia's widens every year. And now we may have found that case of an innocent put to death: Cameron Todd Willingham, executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a 1991 house fire that killed his three young daughters.

David Grann, who wrote a remarkable piece about the case in last week's New Yorker, sifted through the evidence against Willingham to reveal that the entire prosecution was a train wreck. And at every step in his appeal, Willingham's claims of innocence were met with the response that he'd already had more than enough due process for a baby killer.

But you needn't take Grann's word for it. In 2004 Gerald Hurst, an acclaimed scientist and fire investigator, conducted an independent investigation of the evidence in the Willingham case and came away with little doubt that it was an accidental fire—likely caused by a space heater or bad wiring. Hurst found no evidence of arson, and wrote a report to try to stay the execution. According to documents obtained by the Innocence Project, it appears nobody at the state Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas governor's office even took note of Hurst's conclusions. Just before Willingham was executed, he told the Associated Press, "[T]he most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn't care they're making a mistake."

Since Willingham's death, two other independent inquiries found no evidence of arson. In 2007 the state of Texas commissioned another renowned arson expert, Craig Beyler, to examine the Willingham evidence. Beyler's report, issued two weeks ago, concluded that investigators had no scientific basis for claiming the fire was arson.

One might think that all this would give a boost to death-penalty opponents, who have long contended that conclusive proof of an innocent murdered by the state would fundamentally change the debate. But that was before the goalposts began to shift this summer. In June, by a 5–4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner did not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence in police files, even at his own expense. "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. And two months later, Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas went even further when the Supreme Court ordered a new hearing in Troy Davis's murder case, after seven of nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Justice Scalia, dissenting from that order, wrote for himself and Thomas, "[T]his 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."

As a constitutional matter, Scalia's assertion is not wrong. The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution. When the court flirted with the question in 1993, a majority ruled against the accused, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist left open the possibility that it may be unconstitutional to execute someone with a "truly persuasive demonstration" of innocence. Now, in Scalia's America, the Cameron Todd Willingham whose very existence was once in doubt is legally irrelevant. We may execute a man for an accidental house fire, while the Constitution itself stands silently by.

Lithwick also writes for slate.com.

Commodore · #2 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Jury gets the final say.

When someone finds a better way, let us know.

Steve · #3 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Jury gets the final say.

When someone finds a better way, let us know.

Mrs. M · #4 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Jury gets the final say.

When someone finds a better way, let us know.

I agree that the jury gets the final say and I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water just because a few people have been found innocent after execution. That said, Scalia's words do bother me greatly:

Quote:

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.

If a new piece of evidence comes to light exonerating the "convicted defendant", then of course we shouldn't execute him because the conviction is overturned meaning he is no longer a "convicted defendant". What the hell is Scalia thinking??????

Steve · #5 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

What the hell is Scalia thinking??????

What Scalia said, though, is absolutely true...

Mrs. M · #6 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

What Scalia said, though, is absolutely true...

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?

Sunshine · #7 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

"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.

Rude Boy · #8 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

What Scalia said, though, is absolutely true...

Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual?

By the way, you got to love this:

Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction [...]

Nah, of course not.

Sunshine · #9 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual?

By the way, you got to love this:

Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction [...]

Nah, of course not.

I think Scalia has gone daft!

Steve · #10 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

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?

I haven't said I would.

And neither did Scalia...

Imperator · #11 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I agree that the jury gets the final say and I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water just because a few people have been found innocent after execution. That said, Scalia's words do bother me greatly:

If a new piece of evidence comes to light exonerating the "convicted defendant", then of course we shouldn't execute him because the conviction is overturned meaning he is no longer a "convicted defendant". What the hell is Scalia thinking??????

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

Steve · #12 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Wouldn't it be cruel and unusual?

Sure it would.

But what Scalia said is true. If the Supreme 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", then what he said is true...

Quote:

By the way, you got to love this:

Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction [...]

Nah, of course not.

Where is that quote? I didn't see it in the piece in the OP. I may have missed it...

goober · #13 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Jury gets the final say.

When someone finds a better way, let us know.

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?

Mrs. M · #14 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

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

Yes, he is however, he also dissented and frankly, I think that if we're going to execute someone whose witnesses since have implicated another, we should reexamine the evidence before sending them to the chair.

Imperator · #15 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009

yes I see that and the appellate court has the power I believe to halt the process and allow the lawyers etc. to present their case and another lower court to make a decision as to the recantation and viability of such. I am all for it, once the guys dead its obviously its to late.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode