It's not unconstitutional to execute the innocent

[FluffyMcDeath]

According to Scalia.

I'd like to make a cogent pithy comment at this juncture but I'm staggered. It is so clearly morally wrong to even be discussing under what conditions innocent people can be executed ... it should be obvious to any human being. When David Ike and his followers talk about us being ruled by lizards in human suites he is only a metaphor away from Dr. Robert Hare.

 

[Robert]

Disgusting but not remotely shocking or surprising.

 

[Argo]

There is nothing wrong with his quote. He did not say that the constitution allows for the execution of innocent people.
Guilty people have walked free and innocent people have been convicted in our courts. The purpose of our courts is to prove if someone is actually innocent or guilty. Only the defendant will ever know that. In our courts we can only prove that someone very likely did or did not commit a crime. If you commit a crime and can provide reasonable doubt that you actually it commit the crime, you walk free. It also works in reverse. Which is what the defendant is wanting to prove. Which he hopes will lead to him being found innocent, but we will never truely know if he is actually innocent. That is the crux of what Scalia was saying. He failed to convince the court the first time that he was innocent and even if he manges to convince the court he is innocent the second time, we still do not know that he is actually innocent. Just that on the second opportunity he manage to successfully argue his innocence. Which means we could be letting a guilty man go free instead of freeing an innocent man.
Remember this judgment is not specific to this one case but to all cases and all their myriad
I've not followed this case so I don't know the specifics or what the majority opinion says. I see what Scalia is saying is that the court has left this open in the past, which would allow each case to be evaluated on its own merits. If the Supreme Court rule that pretty much lock things in place and the court has a history of not doing so in instance where they system should be left flexible.
I'm glad to see this man get a second chance given that the eye witness testimony that convicted him is now severely in question.

 

[metalman]

“The court proceeds down this path even though every judicial and executive body that has examined petitioner’s stale claim of innocence has been unpersuaded, and (to make matters worse) even though it would be impossible for the District Court to grant relief. ... Today, without explanation and without any meaningful guidance, this court sends the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on a fool’s errand.”

Justice Scalia’s dissent

Supreme Court orders new hearing for Troy Davis

The Georgia Supreme Court had already ruled on Davis claim of "actual innocence" and wrongful conviction and concluded that the new evidence would not change the verdict.

 

[cecilia]

According to Scalia.

I'd like to make a cogent pithy comment at this juncture but I'm staggered. It is so clearly morally wrong to even be discussing under what conditions innocent people can be executed ... it should be obvious to any human being. When David Ike and his followers talk about us being ruled by lizards in human suites he is only a metaphor away from Dr. Robert Hare.

maybe he needs to be shot in the face by cheney

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

He did not say that the constitution allows for the execution of innocent people.

Actually he did. That which is not forbidden is allowed.

I'm glad to see this man get a second chance given that the eye witness testimony that convicted him is now severely in question.

Despite Scalia's effort to prevent it.