Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent people is constitutional


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent people is constitutional Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent people ... - 8/17/2009 5:41:53 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
quote:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant 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 I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 5:45:42 PM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
According to the fifth amendment, with due process the State can execute a criminal, judged guilty by a jury of his peers, and so sentenced...It's right there in plain English.It says nothing about the appeal process.


< Message edited by subrob1967 -- 8/17/2009 5:47:27 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 7:18:56 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline
Yes, but let's not forget that both these opinions were based on the wrong assumption that Troy Anthony Davis was granted due process during his original trial in Georgia where he was found guilty of killing police officer MacPhail. Davis was unanimously convicted by a jury, sentenced to death for the killing, and was afforded due process.

However he was convicted on eye-witness testimonies and seven of the nine State witnesses have since recanted their statements. Apparently no court - either state or federal - has ever considered the reliability of these post-conviction affidavits which - if they are found to be reliable - would present an opportunity to meet the legal threshold for a new hearing in which innocence can be proven in a convincing manner.

In this case there is a significant risk that the state of Georgia could be executing an innocent man for the murder of MacPhail which explains why the Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favour of a new evidentiary hearing.

This can be found at the link below:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/court-order-Davis.pdf

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 8:53:43 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?



Which branch of our government is it that holds the power to pardon the convicted?  Makes the question moot, doesn't it?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 8:58:22 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
No it is not alright. However if we are going to go with the letter of the law, we either do or we don't. Texas did this many years ago, probably predating the Georgia case.

Equally appaling is the state government will actually fight all the way up to the supreme court to execute someone who is innocent.

What does that tell us ? Also, what does that tell the world about us ? In countries we consider civilized, most of them won't even execute the guilty. Trying to see all sides of things, people would see our postion to be indefensible.

I certainly do, and I live here, and support capital punshment. But only against the guilty. And another nail in the coffin, doctors who administer lethal injections at the beheast of the state. What happened to the Hypocratic oath ? It's a wonder that anyone wants to emmigrate to the US.

T

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 10:00:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?



Which branch of our government is it that holds the power to pardon the convicted?  Makes the question moot, doesn't it?

How precisely does the executive pardon render the right of habeus corpus moot?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 10:29:07 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Where the fuck are you coming up with that, Ken?  Are you suggesting Scalia and Thomas have opined that we can just execute folks off the street at will?  We are talking about people who have been found guilty by the jury, and denied on appeal.  They have had their days in court, and it went badly for them.* 

The founders put checks and balances on the judicial as well.  Congress controls their purse, and the executive can issue pardons.  When the appeals process cannot correct such an injustice, the jurisdiction of last resort is not the judges.

Do feel free to rip on Bush II for signing the death order anyway.

*edited for clarity


< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 8/17/2009 11:11:24 PM >


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/17/2009 11:20:17 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Where the fuck are you coming up with that, Ken?  Are you suggesting Scalia and Thomas have opined that we can just execute folks off the street at will?  We are talking about people who have been found guilty by the jury, and denied on appeal.  They have had their days in court, and it went badly for them.* 

The founders put checks and balances on the judicial as well.  Congress controls their purse, and the executive can issue pardons.  When the appeals process cannot correct such an injustice, the jurisdiction of last resort is not the judges.

Do feel free to rip on Bush II for signing the death order anyway.

*edited for clarity


You still haven't said precisely how the executive pardon renders Habeus Corpus moot.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 1:48:29 AM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Equally appaling is the state government will actually fight all the way up to the supreme court to execute someone who is innocent.



Term hit the nail on the head here. Troy Anthony Davis was originally convicted in 1991.

I'm not a lawyer, not a judge, my interests are human rights activism. I have known of this case for over two years. It's right there, all over the Internet. It's not my tax dollars being spent here, I'm in the UK. It's your tax dollars, assuming that you're in one of the thirty odd states - no, let's make this more biased - the six or so states which actively carry out the death penalty - Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida, etc.

And yet we have two Supreme Court judges dissenting and fully prepared to send Mr Davis - who is possibly or rather arguably innocent, to his death.

Let's not forget the victim, a Georgia policeman who was shot dead nor the families of Mr MacPhail or the family of Mr Davis.

This is not justice by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe it once was, but times have changed and society has moved on and now the death penalty only serves one purpose and that is - in the field of human rights - to keep the United States apart from its Western counterparts but among those nations such as China, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia where human rights are, at best, somewhat dubious.

But this is not strictly true for one of the better symbols of human rights in the United States is indeed the US Supreme Court which in over two dozens cases - from Furman versus Georgia, Louisiana vs. Glass, Lockett vs. Ohio, Enmund vs. Coker, Ford vs. Wainwright, Roper vs. Simmons and rulings such as that in this case with Troy Anthony Davis further removes the death penalty as a concept of justice except for the unfortunate few meaning fewer executions and more modern, humane solutions when dealing with its worst criminals.

Like the flabby, overweight, wheezing heavyweight boxer the death penalty today finds itself on the ropes, gone are the days of the gas chamber, the electric chair, the smell of burning flesh and smoke, and we are only awaiting the knockout punch in the form of a challenge to lethal injection via the Eighth Amendment that it causes unnecessary suffering and pain, likely to come from one of the botched executions which take place every so often as prison staff with less and less cooperation from doctors struggle with execution protocols and IV 101 procedures.

The solution is there and has been since the 1970's at places like Angola, San Quentin and Varner Supermax where prisoners receive life, without parole, and do not reemerge back into society. All it needs is for state prosecutors to serve more the American people rather than their own self-interests of politics and profits from legal fees earned from up to nine appeals taking those deemed unfit for society from the courthouse to the execution chamber.

Other societies in the West manage quite well without the death penalty. So too can American society.

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:18:03 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Where the fuck are you coming up with that, Ken?  Are you suggesting Scalia and Thomas have opined that we can just execute folks off the street at will?  We are talking about people who have been found guilty by the jury, and denied on appeal.  They have had their days in court, and it went badly for them.* 

The founders put checks and balances on the judicial as well.  Congress controls their purse, and the executive can issue pardons.  When the appeals process cannot correct such an injustice, the jurisdiction of last resort is not the judges.

Do feel free to rip on Bush II for signing the death order anyway.

*edited for clarity


You still haven't said precisely how the executive pardon renders Habeus Corpus moot.



And you haven't said which opening you are pulling that interpretation out of.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:30:48 AM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I certainly do, and I live here, and support capital punshment. But only against the guilty. And another nail in the coffin, doctors who administer lethal injections at the beheast of the state. What happened to the Hypocratic oath ? It's a wonder that anyone wants to emmigrate to the US.

I've always wondered that about the technicians involved and their Hippocratic oath but the answer always given is that they don't actually administer the deadly poison they just facilitate it.

That always seems a bit of a nonsense to me also the thing is it doesn't take the training of a doctor to insert a needle and for the most part only doctors take the Hippocratic oath so supposedly no one is doing anything that goes against their oath.


_____________________________

ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:30:52 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You still haven't said precisely how the executive pardon renders Habeus Corpus moot.



And you haven't said which opening you are pulling that interpretation out of.

You claimed this:
quote:

Which branch of our government is it that holds the power to pardon the convicted? Makes the question moot, doesn't it?

Since the question at hand is the right of Habeus Corpus being used to protect innocents from execution, you claimed Habeus Corpus is rendered moot by the executive pardon. I still await your answer.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:46:13 AM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
Obviously you still have the other seven judges in any case, yeah I'd expect a couple of extremists within any grouping of people especially those that have found a way of getting themselves into such a position of power.

_____________________________

ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:51:43 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?



Which branch of our government is it that holds the power to pardon the convicted?  Makes the question moot, doesn't it?


No.

Where does that logic follow from?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 6:21:14 PM   
Blaakmaan


Posts: 374
Joined: 5/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf
quote:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant 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 I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?


Hell no, it's not all right with me.

I think it's utterly astounding!

But, very little that Scalia and his far-right-as-I-can get comerade-in-arms Clarence [Thomas] vote for is surprising anymore...

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 7:34:13 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You still haven't said precisely how the executive pardon renders Habeus Corpus moot.



And you haven't said which opening you are pulling that interpretation out of.

You claimed this:
quote:

Which branch of our government is it that holds the power to pardon the convicted? Makes the question moot, doesn't it?

Since the question at hand is the right of Habeus Corpus being used to protect innocents from execution, you claimed Habeus Corpus is rendered moot by the executive pardon. I still await your answer.



Ah.  I see where the confusion is coming from (or the facade of confusion).  You don't like the answer I gave to your badly posed question, so you have set out to redefine it, and demand that I force fit my round answer into your square hole.  Now you are certainly welcome to force anything you like into your holes, Ken, but don't expect me to play along. 

Your thread title:  Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent people is constitutional

Followed by a snip stating that the court has not ruled on an issue not specifically spelled out by the Constitution, and your question:
So I ask is it all right with you that 2 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court hold this view?

Now I'm completely ok with diverse thought on the bench, but since the issue is one of dealing with factually innocent people who have been convicted and lost on appeal, it doesn't matter much.  That seems to me like an issue that would go to the checks and balances on the courts, which makes how I feel about some cold-hearted bastards on the bench irrelevant.  Moot.



_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 8:57:14 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
Do you or do you not acknowledge that the Writ of Habeus Corpus is intended to protect the innocent from being held in prison unjustly? Scalia and Thomas's dissent pretty clearly states that Habeus Corpus can not be used to free an innocent man unless he can prove there was some unconstitutional facet to his case.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 9:10:06 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the Writ of Habeus Corpus is intended to protect the innocent from being held in prison unjustly?


If that is the question you meant to ask, you probably should have phrased it better in your OP.




_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 9:21:03 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the Writ of Habeus Corpus is intended to protect the innocent from being held in prison unjustly? Scalia and Thomas's dissent pretty clearly states that Habeus Corpus can not be used to free an innocent man unless he can prove there was some unconstitutional facet to his case.
I may be wrong, but since their opinion is a minority dissent, isn't it pretty much irrelevant?  However, as Stella pointed out, if you guys would just get with the program and do away with the death penalty altogether, none of this would matter. The finality and irreversability of the death penalty is just one of the problems with it.


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent peo... - 8/18/2009 10:33:08 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the Writ of Habeus Corpus is intended to protect the innocent from being held in prison unjustly?


If that is the question you meant to ask, you probably should have phrased it better in your OP.




And you still haven't answered the question, why do you believe the executive pardon renders Habeus Corpus moot?

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Scalia and Thomas opine that executing innocent people is constitutional Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096