Scalia, "OK to execute an innocent man."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Says Executing An Innocent Man Is Not Unconstitutional

September 20, 2011

By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Justice Antonin Scalia. Image from http://legalgeekery.com/2009/10/02/scalia-lawyers-do-nothing-productive-for-society/

Troy Davis has been granted a chance to challenge his conviction. Close to two decades have passed since Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. But now he has a shot to overturn his conviction thanks to the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court is giving Davis an opportunity to challenge his conviction on the grounds that seven of the witnesses against him have since recanted their testimony against him. But Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagree with the majority decision of their colleagues. Justice Scalia doesn’t seem to have a problem with executing innocent people because he believes that it is NOT unconstitutional.

“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.  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.”

I think it’s time for Scalia and Thomas to resign their positions on the bench because it is quite clear that they no longer have any business being there. Any person with even an ounce of knowledge of the law knows that a person must be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are many problems with the Davis conviction, especially since seven of the witnesses have come forward to admit that they wrongly accused Davis of the crime. And last time I checked, murder is a crime and killing an innocent man would be exactly that. What Scalia is basically saying is that it’s okay to execute innocent people.

Let’s say Scalia has his way. Wouldn’t that give conservative states the opportunity to put innocent people in prison and give them the go ahead to kill them at will? This is a serious situation. Putting an innocent man to death is no joke. But Scalia is treating it as if it’s really not a big deal. When a Supreme Court Justice has no problem with killing innocent men, it’s time for that person to step down. Step down, Justice Scalia. Let a judge that gives a damn about justice and law take over your spot on the bench. It’s the right thing to do.

////////////////////////

My Thoughts:

Justice Scalia has lost his mind. On one hand he is for the protecting of the fetus, but on the other is is OK to kill an innocent person. Is that pro-life? I think not.

The exceptionalism that the conservatives keep talking about is ideal of protecting the innocent from the force and will of the state. We have had a basic understanding that it was better to let a criminal be free than to execute an innocent man/woman. Obviously that is relative to the extent of the crime.


When the state, government which is us the people, executes a person it is done in all our names. I for one do not want to be associated with killing an innocent man of a crime that has now in question. We should never reject the right of a convicted person to have a hearing to show that the original trial was in error. We must understand that our system is not perfect and there are many problems with how we conduct our trials. Judges can error when withholding evidence, defense council could be lacking in skill and knowledge to properly defend the person, prosecutor misconduct by withholding exculpatory evidence that prove the person is innocent or rise question of guilt just to get a conviction for political or climbing the ladder in the prosecutors office. Studies show that witnesses have a very high error rate in identifying individuals and even the crime itself. There have been problems with police obtaining false statements by witnesses and the accused by use of intimidation and threats.


Because there are so many human failures in our system, we must provide for redressing these issues when they become known. If we as a policy reject a persons right to redress their conviction by introducing evidence that raises serious questions of their conviction, then we are violating our 14th Amendment protection of cruel and unusual punishment. Killing an innocent man in my book would be "cruel and unusual punishment."


Just think about yourself if you had been wrongly convicted of a murder and you sit on death row waiting to die. Would you not want the ability to prove that you were wrongly convicted and save your life?


To deviate from this ideal and our right under the constitution for the sake of expedience is so wrong on so many levels. We profess to be a moral people, but when you have a Supreme Court Justice state that it is OK to kill an innocent man, then we have lost our moral compass.  

The Meaning of Marriage; by law and religion

More religious right-wing-nuts that don't understand our constitution and that there is a separation of church and state regarding public law. "Marriage" is a legal entity created by the state by granting the licensing of two individuals to be treated legally as a single entity for the purpose legal contracts, property ownership, making decisions regarding the other individual, tax issues, inheritance, and so on. It has nothing to do with a religious definition of marriage.

Religious marriage is a ritual or act that conforms to whatever faith tenet they have, be it Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever... That is their right to perform such rituals in the most holy of manner. But these are only for their purpose of marriage. They are not forced to perform any marriage that does not conform to the requirements of their ritual and tenets. So there is no threat or demand upon them to violate whatever ban or restriction they may impose upon their own followers. However, they have no authority to dictate that others must conform to their rituals and tenets in order to have a legally recognized marriage licensed by the state. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that they are granted the sole authority to define marriage and that all citizens must conform to whatever they state as a legal marriage.

Jim Garlow, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and all the other wacko self-righteous preachers and politicians should understand that their religious beliefs have no standing in the legal and constitutional rights of others. We are a country that all citizens have equal access to and protection of the law. This includes the equal standing of marriage within the context of public law.

What these Christian activists are stating is that they are the arbiter of civil law and their hate and homophobia must be the law of the land. Why? Because they claim they have the authority and power granted by God, so say them. Of course no one has recorded a call from God or a certified document by God that gives such power and rights to them.

These people are ugly hateful people who do nothing but milk huge sums of money from followers for their own selfish pleasures.