How Can Justices Even Think In These Terms

[Dr Grump]

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

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, does the Constitution forbid it? I havent seen a clause that does.

 

[Dr Grump]

But should it.....

 

[jillian]

Should the constitution forbid execution of an innocent person?

Is this really a rough question?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Supreme Court has all original and appellate authority over matters constitutional (Article III). A matter of flawed due process or cruel and unusual punishment (which is certainly what execution of an innocent person would be) is certainly within the purview of the Supreme Court.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Lets if I understand this correctly:
1. Man is convicted of murder.
2. Man is given death penalty and executed in 2004.
3. Evidence later proves his innocence.

I'm not excusing it but I'll bet it wasn't the first time.

Supreme Court says what it said when? Before he was executed? After?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supreme Court has all original and appellate authority over matters constitutional (Article III). A matter of flawed due process or cruel and unusual punishment (which is certainly what execution of an innocent person would be) is certainly within the purview of the Supreme Court.

Another toilet-clogger from Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement. Hail, Jake!!

 

[jillian]

Actually, he's prety close on this one. Why denigrate it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Lets if I understand this correctly:
1. Man is convicted of murder.
2. Man is given death penalty and executed in 2004.
3. Evidence later proves his innocence.

I'm not excusing it but I'll bet it wasn't the first time.

Supreme Court says what it said when? Before he was executed? After?

Well, the sentence could have been taken out of context (after all, they might have been stating a fact, not stating that there was nothing wrong with it NOT being in the constitution).

This is the exact reason why the DP is bad. I think overwhelming first-hand witnesses or undisputed physical evidence should be the only way to convict. If there is ambiguity then no way. Of course the argument then is, "well, if the conviction is that unsafe that you shouldn't give the DP - just to be sure you're not killing an innocent person - then how safe is it really?"

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually, he's prety close on this one. Why denigrate it?

I have the ijit on ignore. Is he trying to derail the thread?

 

[jillian]

eh...he's just flaming jake ... for no reason. jake's answer was pretty good, imo.

 

[Avatar4321]

But should it.....

It should? So you admit it doesnt. So what's the issue? They are right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, he's prety close on this one. Why denigrate it?

Because he's an ill-informed moron who spouts garbage he doesn't know about, although could easily find out.
Here is a someone a little more authoritative:

the Justices of our court have come to the conclusion that we should limit our docket to cases where there is a split between courts of appeals or state supreme courts on a question of federal law, where a federal or state statute is declared unconstitutional, or where the case involves a matter of obvious national importance.

Remarks of William H. Rehnquist -- Octobert 21, 2002

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, he's prety close on this one. Why denigrate it?

Because he's an ill-informed moron who spouts garbage he doesn't know about, although could easily find out.
Here is a someone a little more authoritative:

the Justices of our court have come to the conclusion that we should limit our docket to cases where there is a split between courts of appeals or state supreme courts on a question of federal law, where a federal or state statute is declared unconstitutional, or where the case involves a matter of obvious national importance.

Remarks of William H. Rehnquist -- Octobert 21, 2002

Rab's poorly selected Rehnquist quote does not eliminate the court hearing bad DP cases at all whatsoever. That is Rab's problem: he is driven by ideology, not the narrative and the actual facts. A philosopher will be lost almost all the time to a pragmatist.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, he's prety close on this one. Why denigrate it?

Because he's an ill-informed moron who spouts garbage he doesn't know about, although could easily find out.
Here is a someone a little more authoritative:

the Justices of our court have come to the conclusion that we should limit our docket to cases where there is a split between courts of appeals or state supreme courts on a question of federal law, where a federal or state statute is declared unconstitutional, or where the case involves a matter of obvious national importance.

Remarks of William H. Rehnquist -- Octobert 21, 2002

Rab's poorly selected Rehnquist quote does not eliminate the court hearing bad DP cases at all whatsoever. That is Rab's problem: he is driven by ideology, not the narrative and the actual facts. A philosopher will be lost almost all the time to a pragmatist.

More pontifications from the keyboard of Jake King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.
The COurt won't hear such cases. So its a dead issue, so to speak.

And with that I think Jake is joining the holocaust deniers on iggy.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

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?