How Can Justices Even Think In These Terms

[BasicGreatGuy]

Unless I misunderstood the purpose of this thread, it is to oppose the death penalty across the states, because an innocent person might be executed. As I said, I don't believe that issue is one for the feds to get involved with, as to the issue itself. Obviously, the court(s) can and do hear cases involving the legality of a respective state's constitution in the matter, as well as the Constitution of the United States, when so contested. The latter is not what I was contesting. It was the former.

 

[goldcatt]

The two opinions quoted in the OP's link are both Due Process cases, BGG. And under the Fourteeenth, whether a State is affording sufficient DP is unquestionably a Federal concern.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

not really...because the states aren't permitted to provide fewer constitutional protections than the federal government.

I didn't say anything about any abridgment to due process. The matter and manner of execution is left for the states to decide, in my opinion. I do not believe the current manner(s) of execution in the respective states violate the VIII Amendment.

The manner of execution is not the same as the level of due process required when determining guilt or innocence in order to apply it.
Assume for the sake of the argument only that I am pro-death penalty. I still believe Due Process protection requires we make sure the condemned is really guilty by all means available before he takes the walk. If there are doubts, they need to be re-examined including through DNA testing.
Why? Because I also don't want the Government - at any level - to have the "right" to execute people it knows or has reason to suspect are innocent. The ultimate purpose of the criminal law is justice. Where is the justice in that?

Yes, sometimes innocent people have gotten executed, or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. That is bad. We are an imperfect people trying to adjudicate an imperfect government. No matter 3what, errors will be made of some kind.

There is due process each step of the way gold. You know that. Yes, different states have varying positions on this specific matter. That does not negate the fact that due process still occurs within the various jurisdictions.

You are making an emotional appeal to me. There is nothing in the Constitution itself, that grants the federal government the right to usurp power over all the states on this particular issue

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The two opinions quoted in the OP's link are both Due Process cases, BGG. And under the Fourteeenth, whether a State is affording sufficient DP is unquestionably a Federal concern.

Is everything to you a XIV Amendment case? We aren't going to agree on this is you are going to pull the XIV Amendment card again.

I read the article. I understand the issue here. I am supposed to take the word of a biased article as a means and call to outlaw executions across the states? I don't think so.

There are check and balances each step of the way. You know that.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the right and power to deny such practices on their face. That line of reasoning has been tried and tried again, since the founding of this Republic, and it has failed, and rightfully so.

 

[goldcatt]

I didn't say anything about any abridgment to due process. The matter and manner of execution is left for the states to decide, in my opinion. I do not believe the current manner(s) of execution in the respective states violate the VIII Amendment.

The manner of execution is not the same as the level of due process required when determining guilt or innocence in order to apply it.
Assume for the sake of the argument only that I am pro-death penalty. I still believe Due Process protection requires we make sure the condemned is really guilty by all means available before he takes the walk. If there are doubts, they need to be re-examined including through DNA testing.
Why? Because I also don't want the Government - at any level - to have the "right" to execute people it knows or has reason to suspect are innocent. The ultimate purpose of the criminal law is justice. Where is the justice in that?

Yes, sometimes innocent people have gotten executed, or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. That is bad. We are an imperfect people trying to adjudicate an imperfect government. No matter 3what, errors will be made of some kind.

There is due process each step of the way gold. You know that. Yes, different states have varying positions on this specific matter. That does not negate the fact that due process still occurs within the various jurisdictions.

You are making an emotional appeal to me. There is nothing in the Constitution itself, that grants the federal government the right to usurp power over all the states on this particular issue

On what issue? Due process?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd say that's pretty clear. If a State deprives any person of life without Due Process, as defined by the Federal constitution, then it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only question left is what constitutes Due Process, which is open to interpretation - and where the Federal judiciary and ultimately the Supremies can and do tell the States how to administer justice.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The manner of execution is not the same as the level of due process required when determining guilt or innocence in order to apply it.
Assume for the sake of the argument only that I am pro-death penalty. I still believe Due Process protection requires we make sure the condemned is really guilty by all means available before he takes the walk. If there are doubts, they need to be re-examined including through DNA testing.
Why? Because I also don't want the Government - at any level - to have the "right" to execute people it knows or has reason to suspect are innocent. The ultimate purpose of the criminal law is justice. Where is the justice in that?

Yes, sometimes innocent people have gotten executed, or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. That is bad. We are an imperfect people trying to adjudicate an imperfect government. No matter 3what, errors will be made of some kind.

There is due process each step of the way gold. You know that. Yes, different states have varying positions on this specific matter. That does not negate the fact that due process still occurs within the various jurisdictions.

You are making an emotional appeal to me. There is nothing in the Constitution itself, that grants the federal government the right to usurp power over all the states on this particular issue

On what issue? Due process?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd say that's pretty clear. If a State deprives any person of life without Due Process, as defined by the Federal constitution, then it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only question left is what constitutes Due Process, which is open to interpretation - and where the Federal judiciary and ultimately the Supremies can and do tell the States how to administer justice.

Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this, because I don't agree with your interpretation of the XIV Amendment.

I have said numerous times now, that on the surface itself ( read: judicial review aside ), the federal government has no authority or right to render executions illegal across the respective states. That is the angle the article is trying to make as well as Grump.

I understand the chain of command as it were with inferior courts as well as the SCOTUS, when legal questions arise, in regards to what I have already spoken of. That is not the point I have been making, much less denying.

 

[goldcatt]

The two opinions quoted in the OP's link are both Due Process cases, BGG. And under the Fourteeenth, whether a State is affording sufficient DP is unquestionably a Federal concern.

Is everything to you a XIV Amendment case? We aren't going to agree on this is you are going to pull the XIV Amendment card again.

I read the article. I understand the issue here. I am supposed to take the word of a biased article as a means and call to outlaw executions across the states? I don't think so.

There are check and balances each step of the way. You know that.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the right and power to deny such practices on their face. That line of reasoning has been tried and tried again, since the founding of this Republic, and it has failed, and rightfully so.

The XIV Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution whether you like it or not, BGG. You don't have to agree with me on what it means, but you do need to acknowledge that fact if you want to have a serious debate on the topic.

If you don't like the tone or quote selection of the OP, go look up the cases in their entirety and read them yourself without the op-ed. I have. They're Due Process questions, plain and simple. Which is covered under the Fourteenth.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, sometimes innocent people have gotten executed, or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. That is bad. We are an imperfect people trying to adjudicate an imperfect government. No matter 3what, errors will be made of some kind.

There is due process each step of the way gold. You know that. Yes, different states have varying positions on this specific matter. That does not negate the fact that due process still occurs within the various jurisdictions.

You are making an emotional appeal to me. There is nothing in the Constitution itself, that grants the federal government the right to usurp power over all the states on this particular issue

On what issue? Due process?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd say that's pretty clear. If a State deprives any person of life without Due Process, as defined by the Federal constitution, then it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only question left is what constitutes Due Process, which is open to interpretation - and where the Federal judiciary and ultimately the Supremies can and do tell the States how to administer justice.

Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this, because I don't agree with your interpretation of the XIV Amendment.

I have said numerous times now, that on the surface itself ( read: judicial review aside ), the federal government has no authority or right to render executions illegal across the respective states. That is the angle the article is trying to make as well as Grump.

I understand the chain of command as it were with inferior courts as well as the SCOTUS, when legal questions arise, in regards to what I have already spoken of. That is not the point I have been making, much less denying.

Who said anything about rendering executions illegal? Only the op-ed commentary in the OP, not the posters in this thread and certainly not the cases quoted in the article.
But the Eighth is not implicated in either of the decisions. The Fourteenth is where the Federalis come in.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The two opinions quoted in the OP's link are both Due Process cases, BGG. And under the Fourteeenth, whether a State is affording sufficient DP is unquestionably a Federal concern.

Is everything to you a XIV Amendment case? We aren't going to agree on this is you are going to pull the XIV Amendment card again.

I read the article. I understand the issue here. I am supposed to take the word of a biased article as a means and call to outlaw executions across the states? I don't think so.

There are check and balances each step of the way. You know that.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the right and power to deny such practices on their face. That line of reasoning has been tried and tried again, since the founding of this Republic, and it has failed, and rightfully so.

The XIV Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution whether you like it or not, BGG. You don't have to agree with me on what it means, but you do need to acknowledge that fact if you want to have a serious debate on the topic.

If you don't like the tone or quote selection of the OP, go look up the cases in their entirety and read them yourself without the op-ed. I have. They're Due Process questions, plain and simple. Which is covered under the Fourteenth.

Have I said fed courts don't have the right or power to review constitutional questions? No, I have not. You are making that argument to me and that is not my point.

I say again...Barring judicial review, the feds have no right or authority to usurp their power over the respective states making any and all executions illegal in and of themselves, just because they want to.

The aforementioned is what the biased author of the article is wanting. It appears that is also the position of Grump.

I am not denying the XIV Amendment itself much less the proper use of such. I disagree with your interpretation and use of it. We have been over and over that issue. I am not going to change my mind on that anymore than you are.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

On what issue? Due process?



I'd say that's pretty clear. If a State deprives any person of life without Due Process, as defined by the Federal constitution, then it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The only question left is what constitutes Due Process, which is open to interpretation - and where the Federal judiciary and ultimately the Supremies can and do tell the States how to administer justice.

Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this, because I don't agree with your interpretation of the XIV Amendment.

I have said numerous times now, that on the surface itself ( read: judicial review aside ), the federal government has no authority or right to render executions illegal across the respective states. That is the angle the article is trying to make as well as Grump.

I understand the chain of command as it were with inferior courts as well as the SCOTUS, when legal questions arise, in regards to what I have already spoken of. That is not the point I have been making, much less denying.

Who said anything about rendering executions illegal? Only the op-ed commentary in the OP, not the posters in this thread and certainly not the cases quoted in the article.
But the Eighth is not implicated in either of the decisions. The Fourteenth is where the Federalis come in.

The article is making the case. It is a very biased and slanted article. I haven't said anyone in the thread other than Grump appears to want it illegal across the board via federal strong-arm. That is how I read and interpret his post as well as the biased article.

If you don't think that article is heavily slanted and poorly written, that is another area we disagree. Another emotional plea.

 

[goldcatt]

Is everything to you a XIV Amendment case? We aren't going to agree on this is you are going to pull the XIV Amendment card again.

I read the article. I understand the issue here. I am supposed to take the word of a biased article as a means and call to outlaw executions across the states? I don't think so.

There are check and balances each step of the way. You know that.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the right and power to deny such practices on their face. That line of reasoning has been tried and tried again, since the founding of this Republic, and it has failed, and rightfully so.

The XIV Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution whether you like it or not, BGG. You don't have to agree with me on what it means, but you do need to acknowledge that fact if you want to have a serious debate on the topic.

If you don't like the tone or quote selection of the OP, go look up the cases in their entirety and read them yourself without the op-ed. I have. They're Due Process questions, plain and simple. Which is covered under the Fourteenth.

Have I said fed courts don't have the right or power to review constitutional questions? No, I have not. You are making that argument to me and that is not my point.

I say again...Barring judicial review, the feds have no right or authority to usurp their power over the respective states making any and all executions illegal in and of themselves, just because they want to.

The aforementioned is what the biased author of the article is wanting. It appears that is also the position of Grump.

I am not denying the XIV Amendment itself much less the proper use of such. I disagree with your interpretation and use of it. We have been over and over that issue. I am not going to change my mind on that anymore than you are.

Sorry, but I'm still confused as to what you're actually arguing. Nobody on the thread has argued that executions should be illegal, the commentary was on the decisions quoted in the OP. Those decisions are 14th Amendment Due Process cases, not Eighth Amendment ones. Yet you still seem, to me at least, to be arguing the Court as no jurisdiction over the issue because it is somehow linked to the Eighth. But nobody else brought up the Eighth. What am I not getting here?

 

[goldcatt]

Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this, because I don't agree with your interpretation of the XIV Amendment.

I have said numerous times now, that on the surface itself ( read: judicial review aside ), the federal government has no authority or right to render executions illegal across the respective states. That is the angle the article is trying to make as well as Grump.

I understand the chain of command as it were with inferior courts as well as the SCOTUS, when legal questions arise, in regards to what I have already spoken of. That is not the point I have been making, much less denying.

Who said anything about rendering executions illegal? Only the op-ed commentary in the OP, not the posters in this thread and certainly not the cases quoted in the article.
But the Eighth is not implicated in either of the decisions. The Fourteenth is where the Federalis come in.

The article is making the case. It is a very biased and slanted article. I haven't said anyone in the thread other than Grump appears to want it illegal across the board via federal strong-arm. That is how I read and interpret his post as well as the biased article.

If you don't think that article is heavily slanted and poorly written, that is another area we disagree. Another emotional plea.

Of course the article is slanted. It's op-ed.
Like I said, go read the cases. Then we'll talk.

 

[Diuretic]

The appeals court is not the finder of fact. The petty jury is the finder of fact. Once they announce their verdict, the facts are established.
This is why there is executive clemency, exactly for cases like that.

The jury decides on the evidence placed in front of it. What if some of that evidence should have been ruled inadmissible? If an appellate court finds that way can the conviction be overturned and a new trial ordered?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing wrong with that statement. If you oppose the death penalty, I understand that argument. However, it is a matter for the respective states to decide not the federal government, in my opinion.

not really...because the states aren't permitted to provide fewer constitutional protections than the federal government.

I didn't say anything about any abridgment to due process. The matter and manner of execution is left for the states to decide, in my opinion. I do not believe the current manner(s) of execution in the respective states violate the VIII Amendment.

Red herring -- we are talking about executions of the innocent, not manner or place of execution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't say anything about any abridgment to due process. The matter and manner of execution is left for the states to decide, in my opinion. I do not believe the current manner(s) of execution in the respective states violate the VIII Amendment.

The manner of execution is not the same as the level of due process required when determining guilt or innocence in order to apply it.
Assume for the sake of the argument only that I am pro-death penalty. I still believe Due Process protection requires we make sure the condemned is really guilty by all means available before he takes the walk. If there are doubts, they need to be re-examined including through DNA testing.
Why? Because I also don't want the Government - at any level - to have the "right" to execute people it knows or has reason to suspect are innocent. The ultimate purpose of the criminal law is justice. Where is the justice in that?

Yes, sometimes innocent people have gotten executed, or sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit. That is bad. We are an imperfect people trying to adjudicate an imperfect government. No matter 3what, errors will be made of some kind.

There is due process each step of the way gold. You know that. Yes, different states have varying positions on this specific matter. That does not negate the fact that due process still occurs within the various jurisdictions.

You are making an emotional appeal to me. There is nothing in the Constitution itself, that grants the federal government the right to usurp power over all the states on this particular issue

Of course there is. Let's move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is everything to you a XIV Amendment case? We aren't going to agree on this is you are going to pull the XIV Amendment card again.

I read the article. I understand the issue here. I am supposed to take the word of a biased article as a means and call to outlaw executions across the states? I don't think so.

There are check and balances each step of the way. You know that.

As I said, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds the right and power to deny such practices on their face. That line of reasoning has been tried and tried again, since the founding of this Republic, and it has failed, and rightfully so.

The XIV Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution whether you like it or not, BGG. You don't have to agree with me on what it means, but you do need to acknowledge that fact if you want to have a serious debate on the topic.

If you don't like the tone or quote selection of the OP, go look up the cases in their entirety and read them yourself without the op-ed. I have. They're Due Process questions, plain and simple. Which is covered under the Fourteenth.

Have I said fed courts don't have the right or power to review constitutional questions? No, I have not. You are making that argument to me and that is not my point.

I say again...Barring judicial review, the feds have no right or authority to usurp their power over the respective states making any and all executions illegal in and of themselves, just because they want to.

The aforementioned is what the biased author of the article is wanting. It appears that is also the position of Grump.

I am not denying the XIV Amendment itself much less the proper use of such. I disagree with your interpretation and use of it. We have been over and over that issue. I am not going to change my mind on that anymore than you are.

Your opinion is dead wrong. Under Artice III, the SC has the ultimate authority of original jurisdiction and/or appellate on all matters consitutional. The issues that we are discussing is one of due process and cruel and unusual punishment, both of which belong to the Supreme Court.

 

[goldcatt]

The XIV Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution whether you like it or not, BGG. You don't have to agree with me on what it means, but you do need to acknowledge that fact if you want to have a serious debate on the topic.

If you don't like the tone or quote selection of the OP, go look up the cases in their entirety and read them yourself without the op-ed. I have. They're Due Process questions, plain and simple. Which is covered under the Fourteenth.

Have I said fed courts don't have the right or power to review constitutional questions? No, I have not. You are making that argument to me and that is not my point.

I say again...Barring judicial review, the feds have no right or authority to usurp their power over the respective states making any and all executions illegal in and of themselves, just because they want to.

The aforementioned is what the biased author of the article is wanting. It appears that is also the position of Grump.

I am not denying the XIV Amendment itself much less the proper use of such. I disagree with your interpretation and use of it. We have been over and over that issue. I am not going to change my mind on that anymore than you are.

Your opinion is dead wrong. Under Artice III, the SC has the ultimate authority of original jurisdiction and/or appellate on all matters consitutional. The issues that we are discussing is one of due process and cruel and unusual punishment, both of which belong to the Supreme Court.

The central question in both cases is the process.
When a State is given notice that a person tried, convicted, and sentenced to death may in fact be innocent, what steps (if any) is it required to take to ensure guilt before carrying out punishment?
You can argue death for the innocent is a cruel and unusual punishment, but that's the effect and not the cause. The cause is the process that allowed it to happen in the first place, and that's what those particular cases address.

 

[goldcatt]

If it is found that the State did everything it was required to do as far as process, it follows naturally that the punishment is neither cruel nor uinusual as long as it is carried out in the prescribed manner. See what I mean about cause and effect? One flows from the other.
Which leaves us with the question of process as the key to these cases. How much process is due?

 

[editec]

A dissenting opinion, but one held by justices nonetheless

"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."

A case of innocence executed

And yet, most officers of the courts cannot fully understand why most laymen don't have much respect for the criminal justice system.

 

[Diuretic]

A dissenting opinion, but one held by justices nonetheless

"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."

A case of innocence executed

And yet, most officers of the courts cannot fully understand why most laymen don't have much respect for the criminal justice system.

Blame the Common Law system. The above quote is a classic. The damn thing is rule-driven. It is a creaking wreck, a wagon being dragged along by bullocks on an interstate freeway. It is not concerned with "truth" it is only concerned with "procedural truth" and it is entirely focused on procedure. It's a naive idea that has outlived its usefulness. If the rules are followed then the outcome must be correct, the truth will be found. Not necessarily. In several hundred years we have still not been able to get away from the ancient superstitions that helped create the Common Law legal system. We're not that far removed from the Norman concepts of trial by ordeal - for crying out loud we still use the term "trial".

Common law is just about useless in the 21st Century, we need to dump it and go to a form much more suited to our times. The model is the Civil Law system of Europe but it will need some work.

Rant over.