The Innocent Have No Constitutional Rights

[JBeukema]

"A claim of actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim," the late Chief Justice Rehnquist declared in a notorious 1993 death penalty case, rejecting a habeas petition based on evidence of innocence uncovered after the defendant's conviction of capital murder. As Justice Scalia observed in concurrence: "There is no basis ... for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction." In this view, as long as the state observes all procedural niceties (or technicalities), it is empowered to execute people who, on second thought, seem innocent. The state is not required to entertain such inconvenient second thoughts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"A claim of actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim," the late Chief Justice Rehnquist declared in a notorious 1993 death penalty case, rejecting a habeas petition based on evidence of innocence uncovered after the defendant's conviction of capital murder. As Justice Scalia observed in concurrence: "There is no basis ... for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction." In this view, as long as the state observes all procedural niceties (or technicalities), it is empowered to execute people who, on second thought, seem innocent. The state is not required to entertain such inconvenient second thoughts.

I bet you think this is news.

 

[JW Frogen]

That blind folded woman known as law is not concerned with truth, she is concerned with process.

She is an ugly reality who looks good in legal make up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a better legal system that actually works anywhere in the world.

 

[editec]

Yes it is rather disconcerting when one realizes that the law is more interested in the letter of the law and the process of the law than it is in meting out JUSTICE, is it not?

For those of you in the Criminal Justice BID'NESS who can't quite understand why people hate lawyers and the law?

THIS is the reason.

 

[spectrumc01]

The Police have become worse than the mob, and the prosecuters have become like the Godfather. Justice is being wielded to benefit the political careers of the prosecuters, and the police use it to sponge off of the state. Going their whole careers making "fluff" stops and collecting their paycheck and pension. It was said once that all school bullies go into law enforcement, and I have found that to be true.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes it is rather disconcerting when one realizes that the law is more interested in the letter of the law and the process of the law than it is in meting out JUSTICE, is it not?

For those of you in the Criminal Justice BID'NESS who can't quite understand why people hate lawyers and the law?

THIS is the reason.

Last I heard, Governors can commute death sentences and they're not even part of the Judiciary.

Pretty f*cked up huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes it is rather disconcerting when one realizes that the law is more interested in the letter of the law and the process of the law than it is in meting out JUSTICE, is it not?

For those of you in the Criminal Justice BID'NESS who can't quite understand why people hate lawyers and the law?

THIS is the reason.

Not all legal professionals agree with the position of Rehnquist and Scalia.

Although their motive may be understandable, they’re going about it the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Their concern is that the appellate process might usurp the police/prosecutors, trial judges, and juries. And there’s some justification for that concern. But the solution is not to restrict appeals; rather, let’s find out what went wrong during investigations, hearings, and trials.

 

[TheBrain]

"A claim of actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim," the late Chief Justice Rehnquist declared in a notorious 1993 death penalty case, rejecting a habeas petition based on evidence of innocence uncovered after the defendant's conviction of capital murder. As Justice Scalia observed in concurrence: "There is no basis ... for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction." In this view, as long as the state observes all procedural niceties (or technicalities), it is empowered to execute people who, on second thought, seem innocent. The state is not required to entertain such inconvenient second thoughts.

First, your thread title is VERY dishonest.

Second, far as I can tell all that ruling ever did was rule that new evidence which suggests the person convicted of a crime might be innocent does not automatically entitle that person to a new trial. It certainly doesn't say that a new trial can't be given.