Scalia's Right, It's All Perfectly Legal to Kill An Innocent Man
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Aug 18, 2009 1:00pmUnfortunately, Scalia's right. According to the rule of after-discovered evidence (I became familiar with it when I was a reporter and covering a similar case), an innocent man can still be put to death if the evidence that could have exonerated him should have been brought forth during the original trial. There are exceptions, but that's the gist:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of Troy Davis, who is on death row in state prison there for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer. The case has attracted international attention, and 27 former prosecutors and judges had filed a brief supporting Mr. Davis.
Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted, and several people have implicated the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the officer, Mark MacPhail.
The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned, only a paragraph long and in a number of respects highly unusual. It instructed the trial court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” about whether new evidence clearly established Mr. Davis’s innocence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court this month, did not participate.
The decision set off a sharp debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia about Supreme Court procedure, the reach of a federal law meant to limit death row appeals and the proper treatment of claims of innocence.
“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be “a fool’s errand,” because Mr. Davis’s factual claims were “a sure loser.”
He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence.
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Login or Register to post comments.
is considered a great conservative "thinker". No more need be said.
Alrighty then.
And in the interest of equal protection, take Thomas with you.
Scalia and Thomas do not qualify as innocent men and they know it.
Innocent men are too weak to commit crimes.
if
troy Davis is executed now that evidence is available to
prove he is innocent and someone else is guilty and scalia's
dissent causes this man to be put to death, than scalia
is a murderer and must pay for his crime.
this kind of stupidity will not be tolerated by
the American public. scalia is no more than
one of the self-entitled elite white bastards
wrongly appointed to the supreme court.
Do you think the state of Georgia should bare the responsibility rather than the Federal Court?
Scalia is a Sociopath and he probably gets his rocks off knowing that a man who might possibly be innocent will die. The State of Georgia and their appeal process seems to be the problem.....IMHO.
Of course it'll be tolerated. More than that - in some circles, it'll be cheered. Just like those kind and decent folks grinning widely for the camera in those old lynching photographs.
"scalia's dissent causes this man to be put to death, than scalia
is a murderer and must pay for his crime."
Who will arrest him?
Late,
QSE32
I disagree with Scalia's logic completely, but I have to point out that his dissent cannot actually cause the death penalty to be carried out.
If, at the end of the day, Troy Davis does not win in the courts, the Governor ALWAYS has the option to commute the sentence, or to refuse to sign the death warrant.
...now you know why repubs were so worked up against Sotomayor over the idea of "empathy"
and then concoct rationales to support their beliefs. And truly, Tony the Wart puts the 'moron' in 'oxymoron.'
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
So in other words, according to Scalia, the court and the constitution exist to serve themselves. As long as the proper process is followed, actual justice is irrelevant.
The logic, in this case, is totally illogical, and against everything most people believe in.
is worked, cruel and unusual punishment is OK. Scalia apparently does not believe that it is not cruel to kill innocent people.
How did this psuedo-intellectual moral monster ever win a seat on the court The entire universe is made more stupid every time this idiot opens his pie hole.
Talk about protecting government first and personal rights be damned.
That is just too bloody convenient. This must be a left over from the Bronze Age, like republicans.
These guys are into bludgeoning.
whatever happened to commonsense and logic?!
That is exactly what I was about to say in a comment. Is using common sense against the law?
Common sense and conservatism? I don't see the connection, although in Scale-boys mind I'm sure it makes as much sense as trickle-down, tax cuts for the rich, and corporate fascism.
1. But the same umbrella was used by bushco, gonzo and addington. 'It is not illegal'.
It is also why any 'accountability is out of the question. With this thug and robertsalitothomas it would effectively codify any war crime committed by the last administration.
2. That is why trillions of dollars in fraud will go unpunished.
goldman sacs, aig, the lot of the banksters.
'It wasn't specifically illegal'.
Pretty pathetic.
Bad? Yes. The least of our worries? YES. Corporate Personhood probably f*s over more people than this.
that he is the least of our worries.
I've said it before, but I'd love to see those bastard 'Justices' change their tune after they went through the absolute hell of being charged with a crime they didn't commit (and no, the circus Clarence Thomas went through doesn't count - he never spent time in jail or did the perp walk in an orange jumpsuit).
On a totally unrelated note, I'm shopping for a new country. Anybody got suggestions?
harassment.
Iceland. Hot springs, ponies, cool climate.
Spain. A country the size of Texas, with everything from alpine skiing to desert beaches, and the best food in europe.
A public health system that has its citizens living longer than any other industrialized country.
And all the women look like Penelope Cruz.
the fact that the defendant has evidence not only providing possible doubt, but outright innocence is what made the original trial inherently unfair
scalia basically saying that because the court found him guilty he is guilty
objectively we know that not to be the case which makes scalia look like not only an idiot, but an asshole to boot.
who thinks he is entitled to spout whatever he thinks is right, who sits on the Supreme Court. But, there are even ways around him. Do not despair, Mr. Davis.
Scalia and Thomas your day will come.
There is no other 'world' for it to happen.
If their day is truly to come, the best we can hope is that they perish in exquisite, horrifying agony, like Vlad Novakula...
Sometimes I like to pretend that Jesus really is coming again to judge us all. Just like in his parable about the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25.)
I can see Scalia and Thomas protesting when Jesus sends them to Hell to burn for eternity, "When did we see THEE innocent and in prison and being executed, Lord?"
What a lovely sight, watching the procession of Christians marching into the fire.
I don't believe in fairy tales, but I can dream.
Words failed me when I read this last night.
What a scary thought that these people don't give a damn about innocence. Kill. Kill. Kill. Seems to be all they know.
aren't judges, especially the top judges in the country, supposed to care about someone's innocence? Seriously... did I miss something?! or is it that illogical after all?
what a quaint old concept. Apparently, we should not consider new evidence if it doesn't fit into the procedural mode assumed by these lofty, robed figures. Why pass up the chance to execute a man just because he's innocent in the "real world," when in their technical procedural domain we still have an excuse to do it. Sickening.
Mocked just a few decades ago, this is the corruption you read about in the Roman senate.
Nice work USA. Feel those barbarians at the gate?
I just wish Vanfaculo Tony might feel the sting of the law just once before he rejoins the canneloni...
I know he's not done anything illegal, especially since he's one of the ones who determines what IS legal, but this is barbaric.
Putting an innocent man to death b/c the appropriate boxes have been checked is unethical.
Is there no remedy, other than waiting for him to die off the SCOTUS?
About 50% of Murkins approve capital punishment even when they are 100 % certain that innocents are executed...
Apparently on the theory that they wouldn't have been arrested if they hadn't done SOMETHING wrong, and so even if nominally "innocent" of one offense, they're probably guilty of something...
This logic applies mainly to darkies, messkins, and the random, white tweak-head who goes berserk...
!
You got to get it through the House first With a majority vote but then it goes to the senate for a 2/3 and it seems the senate can't get along right now. Plus, no justice has ever been impeached (at least where it stuck) in the history of this country.
One can dream though! ALso if the country would let an innocent man be killed I doubt they would do anything about the guy who let it happen.
Late,
QSE32
Screw history. Are you saying that if something has never happened, then it never can happen? Talk about specious bullshit.
I'm just suggesting that it seems like stuff like this is more suited in theory rather than practice.
But here's to hoping!
Please stop being so aggrssive I'm not your enemy! Were not going to get along on everything so need to be all angry!
Late,
QSE32
As, I assume, are you. I am not here to make friends.
doing well then.
way perpetuate the stereo-type that liberals are narrow minded idiots.
Late,
QSE32
don't understand logic. If you are so desperate to have contact with someone, that you would call me an idiot, then you best go to one of those services where you can buy a date. And stereotype is not hyphenated.
A Supreme Court justice could be impeached.
There's always a first time for everything.
Before Andrew Johnson, one could argue a president couldn't be impeached.
Before Bill Clinton one could argue you can't bring a personal suit against a sitting president.
There were calls to impeach both Earl Warren and Warren Burger in their day's equivalent to tea-baggers, but of course it never happened.
I think the problem is mechanics. The constitution is clear who hears the impeachment against Presidents, the Chief Justice; but it doesn't specify who can conduct the impeachment trial of a Supreme Court judge, since whether it's the president of the U.S. (who may or may not have a legal background), and everyone in Congress, it could be claimed they're breaching the tripartite system.
I wanted to look it up first but according to the III article of the US Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls...
Would the Supreme Court have to hear any impeachment against one of them as an other public minister?
But:
http://blog.taragana.com/n/senate-accepts-imp...
Which suggests that the presiding officer would be the senate president.
I think we need a lawyer to answer this once since I'm sure there's precedent for impeaching federal judges from inferior courts.
It may be easier to get the state bar that issued Scalia license to disbar him. That would set up an interesting precedent. They might not want to since they could one day have a case in front of him, but if such were the case, Scalia should recuse himself. But he already has a history of not recusing himself when he should.
To finish my thought, if a Supreme Court justice is disbarred, would hearing appeals, and issuing orders to judges on various cases be considered practicing law without a license, a crime?
Howard Taft became Supreme Court Justice after being President of the United States, but he was a graduate of Cincinnati Law School (1878-1880), and was admitted to the bar in 1880.
He was also a founding member of the Republican party in Cincinnati.
There are also Lawyers Boards of Professional Ethics and Grievances, as well as stated opinions of the American Bar Association, but to what extent they can damage a judges ability to hear cases, we'd again have to ask a lawyer.
Or at least, there's no requirement that you must be a lawyer to serve on SCOTUS. There may be individual states that require someone to be a member of the bar to be a judge, but in general, being a judge isn't actually considered to be practicing law. Practicing law means advising and providing counsel to a client, not interpreting law.
Backassards as hell, I know. Of course, back when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as going to school for a law degree or passing the bar, either.
are the only judges who do not have to have a law degree, right? If that is true, then the problem would be "just" whether they are breaching the tripartite system.
And another question after reading all of your posts: If the president presiding over the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice is a breach of the tripartite system, then wouldn't the reverse also be true. It has to go to the legislature, don't you think?
I was only discussing entangling issues that could be raised since no Supreme Court judge has ever been impeached.
And the answer to your last question is no, since the Constitution makes the provision for the Chief Justice to preside over the impeachment of the president by makes no proviso for the opposite.
The odd thing is the Constitution goes into specific as to age, residency and even citizenship for the chief executive and legislature, but there are no such descriptions given for the Supreme Court.
Presumably they would have to be legally able to practice law, whether they choose to actually practice or not.
The intent of the framers was to put the men possessing the most wisdom on the Court. They apparently did not care where it came from. At that time, few went to college, right. Fewer got advanced degrees. But it does make you wonder why there are any lawyers on it. Kidding.
They were of the Enlightenment, which believed men of good faith could come together from opposing view points, and reason together to a solution, in an exercise of dialectics.
And for those still around, they were surprised too in 1803 when Marbury v Madison established judicial review over Congress, making the court more important than even they envisioned.
But Marbury had a point hard to argue against. If judges interpret the law, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land, than it would be the supreme court judges that would interpret the supreme law of the land.
.
Queen "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi?
If substantial evidence now exists that might exonerate Davis, then his original trial was not "full and fair" by definition.
Sonny Perdue. Looks like Frank. Here you go: http://gov.georgia.gov/00/gov/contact_us/0,26...
He could pardon him completely, or at least convert his sentence, just so you know.
Scalia is a power intoxicated fiend and Thomas is a convenient.... I do not want to use the phrase but he is so steeped in letting his masters know he is with them that even the little objectivity he may have had is lost in his search for a place to again show his serville obeisance.
The conservatives want him to be incompetent. That's why he's there.
We also would have accepted "he needed killin'" and "just to watch him die." Honorable mention for "just for snorin' too loud."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9wrMz3fXE
.
I am still laughing about that hours later.
Will be a day that justice is actually served.
To wish that on a piece of linguini, no?
Troy Davis is spared the horror of becoming old and facing a "death panel."
Sounds to me like he just faced a death panel headed by Scalia.
Yeah, but its a Republican Death Panel... so it's patriotic or something.
One more very good reason to abolish the death penalty. If the man had gotten life in prison, perhaps the court would take a closer look at his case. As long as he's alive he could keep fighting.
Civilized countries abolished the death penalty long ago.
Any reason would work for me if it happened. The death penalty is one of our most awful legalities.
Like those in the top 20 on the quality healthcare providers list? We're a long way from there.
against the sitting travesties Scalia and Thomas as justices that they have zero regard for justice, worse that they can attempt to rationalize their failings with flimsy and half-assed intellectual constructs, even worse that they are perfectly comfortable with letting an innocent die so that they can cling to their shameful ideologies. These moral cripples wonder why they call it the Extreme Court. I have no respect for them as men or as justices. They are foul and contemptful creatures.
you said it Paul.
There are those who argue that the government is competent enough to execute its own citizens but cannot be trusted enough to run healthcare.
Apples vs. Oranges
Do you mean that we can now kill apples and oranges legally?
Do you mean that we can now kill apples and oranges legally?
No but in the famous case of apples vs. oranges it was found that they are different fruits and cannot oppose each other on equal grounds.
Do you mean that we can now kill apples and oranges legally?
Mmmm. Fruit salad.
...I'm thinking I must have been GROSSLY misinformed as to the meaning of the word 'justice'.
You weren't misinformed but apparently Scalia was.
Scumbagalia seems to convienently forget that part of the Constitution which guards against cruel and unusual punishment.
Since he's too much of a chowderhead to figure it out for himself, I direct him to the Eighth Ammendment, and encourage him to become familiar with the text.
Since he will most likely stumble when he thinks that it only applies to federal cases, I direct him once again back to our Constitution, where perhaps he could glance over the Fourteenth Ammendment, which makes clear that the Eighth applies to the States as well.
Finally, I would posit that there is no more cruel or unusual punishment than executing an innocent man, who has already had his liberty and happiness destroyed by the State, and is now about to lose his life as well.
Why am I reminded of "The Witch" scene from The Holy Grail?
BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn! CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
More like Life of Brian's, "Death or cake?"
Give 'em a
fairtrial and hang 'em! That's "clearly" in keeping with the philosophies of the founding fathers.Him and thomas have no business on the court, after deciding bush-gore while having relatives work for bush . What vile, disgusting dog shit these two are made of. May they watch their skin rot off them in hell for eternity. Thanks to the bush bullshit humans for being GOD DAMN EVIL incarnate.
Scalia is basically saying, He got his day in court so fu*k it, do him dead.
I think they should make Scalia administer the lethal injection. Let's see how he feels about it then.
He'd jump at the chance and do it with a grin.
That heartless bastard would probably enjoy it.
n/t
He's the guy that smacks around somebody with enough bodyguards to prevent retribution.
He saying he has no problem killing innocent people or elections. What a vile disgusting piece of human waste.
...he'd probably soil himself from the pleasure it would give him.
This SUCKS!...Where's the outrage from the "pro lifers" out there???? Oh, yeah, that's right. Your life only matters if you're rich, or unborn! If Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas both rot in HELL, they'll be getting off easy!
from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. After that, you're on your own.
Or "white..."
don't forget "white..."
...and true, for sure, if you're talking exclusively about the legal system, but if you factor in, say, the health care "industry," there are plenty of people of ALL races who are being thrown under the bus! Who, other than the rich, truly believe that we have the "best" healthcare in the world?...But, since this post IS about the LEGAL system, your point is totally on the mark!
I don't get the twisted logic, how could it have been a "full and fair trial" if crucial evidence was suppressed or missing?
Scalia is a hater.
...means the paperwork was filled out correctly and had the right signatures in all the right spots. LOL, don't you know anything about how justice works?
obviously "legal" and what's right are not related when it come to court.
Late,
QSE32
.
legal, lobbying would be illegal. Just to name one thing. Quit the soap opera recriminations and whining and send Georgia Governor Sunny Perdue an e-mail asking him to pardon Mr. Davis or at least convert his sentence. http://gov.georgia.gov/00/gov/contact_us/0,26...
Do something about it.
That's not exactly a news flash.
They teach in college classes like the Philosophy of Law that there are four divisions to every legal decision: legal, moral, ethical and just. They rarely all four line up, but courts try for as much as can be included.
From scotusblog -
"The Court did not disclose how each of the Justices had voted, other than the dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Presumably, however, an order of this kind would have required the approval of at least five votes. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens presumably voted for the order; their opinion said the case was the type was was exceptional enough to qualify for the action. It is unclear how Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., or Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., voted, if they did, but it appears that at least two of them would have had to agree to the step taken."
Should the Supreme Court get away with not providing the exact votes on a case before them regardless of whether they sign anything?
He never met a right wing conservation ruling or principle that he didn't agree with. Except maybe once, when he got bad press about his proclivities. He didn't mean it that time, though.
Roberts and Alito. Neither of them have a kind regard for personal rights.
Mumia ABu Jamal is up for electrocution again? I'm sure the court would let that happen too! even though there's planets worth of evidence to suggest he's innocent!
Late,
QSE32
It is not, however, perfectly legal to execute Mr. Davis without further ado, because the the Supreme Court OVERRULED Scalia's primitive take on the matter.
The Court did this even without the help of Senorita Sotomayor!
Isn't this, in fact, good news, Ms. Madrak?
Aren't you taking lemonade and turning it into a lemon?
Amazing to read how many readers of your post seem to think that Mr. Davis will fry tomorrow thanks to a DISSENTING opinion by the odious
Scalia.
is how dangerous the court can become depending on who winds up there.
Susie is right to expose this murdering buffoon.
Thanks for your CONCERN.
Scalia is a megalomaniac on a scale rarely seen outside Pyongyang.
Except, perhaps, you.
I think I read that some where.
He's a sadistic idiot, and an egomaniac. For him to suggest that it's okay to put someone to death because of a supposed fair trail, when all the evidence points to the contrary, is ludicrous. Thomas is a lackey anyway, he's got no original opinions on anything, so his complicity doesn't surprise me.
And with their economy so completely in the tank, you could probably buy half the island.
[EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to a comment above, not to the origial post]
If we all put our money together we could probably buy the whole country.
was appointed by Reagan. I guess that's all we need to know! Ronnie Ray-gun, the gift that keeps on giving!
continues to roast in hell.
Here is your homework assignment Antonin and Clarence. Write a 1,000 word essay on the subjest: "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE." It shouldn't take them too long, as the pages are sure to be blank.....
Sounds pardonable, perhaps by President Obama.
No unmanageable precedent here. Even the courts admit to being locked out of revisiting this mans case.
When the efficiency of Due Process is purposely placed ahead of Habeas rights he should have his day in court at the least.
Supreme Court Scalia is a disgusting, vile, heartless, immoral person, if you can call it that. Only a very perverted disgraceful thing could do such a thing and still sleep at night. This guy is going to burn in hell, where I believe that such garbage shouldn't even be welcomed.
Anyone who holds the opinion that "This court has never held, that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent." is nothing short of evil.
that murder for hire suspects don't fair very well but when it's a full time job, it's like the war, it almost looks normal after a while.
Almost.
It's called justice dillweed, look it up.
There are any number of things the federal government can do from writ of mandamus, to remanding to the original court, the using of the 5th and 14th amendments, to ordering a trial de novo.
No Shyte? Bush killed how many innocent Men, women , and children and he is still walking around a free man. He not only killed them he tortured some. He broke how many laws, foriegn and domestic. Yet, this guy can't even get a new trial. This country is one big F'in cesspool.
we can't let people go just because they're innocent of any crime!
There's a dangerous potential here to make a D.A. look bad.
And a lot of 'em are Republicans!
C'mon, what's another dead n****r?
Sickeningly snark/
http://www.startribune.com/nation/53586762.ht...
Another abuse of our collective humanity, courtesy of "compassionate conservatism."
It's amazing how these people sleep at night.
His father was head of the fascist party in Chicago and young Antonio went to a fascist school pledging to Mussolini.
AND he is a member of the Family and some say, is connected to Black Masses.......I smell sulphur....
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The death penalty for an innocent man is cruel punishment which means it IS unconstitutional. In fact, so many EXCESSIVE FINES are being imposed any more that this amendment seems to have been thrown out of our Constitution. Funny though, I don't remember it's removal being ratified by the states. Hmmmmmmm.
“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Scum like Scalia and Roberts and a couple others couldn't care less about right and wrong. All of their decisions from the start have been for the money interests and not for the victims.
It is clear this man is innocent and if the highest court in the land will let him be executed for a crime he did not commit and which THEY KNOW he did not commit then Obama needs to step up and save his life with a PARDON, and Congress needs to write some new laws to make sure this can't ever happen to another person, EVER AGAIN!
As far as the Constitution, I would interpret the "right to be secure in one's PERSON" to mean that it was unconstitutional to execute a KNOWN innocent man. Especially just to satisfy the BLOOD LUST of a right wing torture defender who isn't FIT to judge anything.
convicting anybody with enough finger-pointing rather than convicting the actual criminal?
afterall, if mr. davis is innocent, then there is a killer out there thanks to a "full and fair trial"--some justice system mr. scalia.
See what can happen when you get biased, racist, Reslugs on the Supreme court.
Wonder what scalia would say if Mr. Davis were caucasian? Forget the fact that clarence thomas supports scalia in this action - thomas is scalia's lap dog, as he has proven time and time again.
Does anyone see the connection betwenn Killing the Public Option and Killing a Innocent man. DUH! it about the money STUPID, its all about the MONEY, oops and the RACE CARD (can be proven by this MORONS position on CIVIL Rights).
Scalia is not about America or what it stands for, He is about the Bottom line and what kuddos he gets from his HATE BASE SUPPORT.
There is a good piece by Alan Dershowitz on the Daily Beast taking Scalia to task for statements made in his off the wall dissent. I don't have the url but you can google it. Worth reading. The upshoot of it all is that Scalia should be impeached. He clearly allows his Catholicism to guide him in his decision-making (although you'd never know it from this dissent, which, as Dershowitz points out, is contra-Catholic in its "go-ahead-and-execute-the-innocent" attitude). But Scalia has said that if he were required to vote on something that seriously conflicted with his religion, he would resign. This indicates that he should not have been approved for our highest court in the first place. How many decisions has he been involved in already that were decided along religious rather legal principles?
WOW.
Login or Register to post comments.