U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Once one accepts that innocent people can be sentenced to death, the only way to remain in favor of capital punishment is to accept the execution of innocents as part of the price of doing business. The idea is abhorrent to many of us, but it's how the other side rolls.

Of course, from a legal perspective, an innocent person cannot possibly be sentenced to death.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Best to find the actual quote, AvalonXQ, rather than relying on your selective memory.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS No. 08–1443. Decided August 17, 2009
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. It's quite clear, Scalia thinks very little of "actual" innocence when it comes to execution.

No.

 

[Skepticemea]

Of course, from a legal perspective, an innocent person cannot possibly be sentenced to death.

And a legally guilty person may not have committed the crime for which they've been sentenced to death. Funny ol' world.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't care. That such a statement can be made in any context is abhorrent and monstrous. A citizen of the United States either has a right to life or they don't. If you are innocent then all the legalese and logic pretzel twisting in the world cannot justify the highest court in the land turning it's back on that citizen.

Those who commit felonies give up certain rights. Like the right to freely associate and move about. And, in some cases, the right to life.

 

[RandFan]

Those who commit felonies give up certain rights. Like the right to freely associate and move about. And, in some cases, the right to life.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about innocent people. You do understand that innocent people are from time to time wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, right?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If the sentencing is ruled unfair because of these remarks about black people more likely to commit future crimes will it be commuted or is it more likely there will be a retrial?

Well, technically the remarks were accurate. Black people are more likely to commit crimes, as a percentage of population.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, from a legal perspective, an innocent person cannot possibly be sentenced to death.

Oddly enough people who did not commit capital crime are found guilty and sentenced to death. So you support the pro forma killing of a human being who did not carryout the actions he or she was accused of? Do you believe a thing to be true by virtue of argument ad populum?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And a legally guilty person may not have committed the crime for which they've been sentenced to death. Funny ol' world.

And they may have committed the crime for which they've been sentenced to death. Funny ol' world.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about innocent people. You do understand that innocent people are from time to time wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, right?

There have been a few cases I have heard of.

 

[RandFan]

Well, technically the remarks were accurate. Black people are more likely to commit crimes, as a percentage of population.

They are also more likely to be convicted. If you take 100 white defendants accused of crime and compare them to 100 black defendants the blacks will be convicted more often. Now, many have argued that this is a function of wealth and poverty and perhaps that is true. The bottom line is the same.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oddly enough people who did not commit capital crime are found guilty and sentenced to death. So you support the pro forma killing of a human being who did not carryout the actions he or she was accused of? Do you believe a thing to be true by virtue of argument ad populum?

And there are people who commit capital crimes who are found not guilty (see: Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson). What is your point?

 

[RandFan]

There have been a few cases I have heard of.

Since 1973 138 people have been released from death row. These were often hard fought battles even though the evidence was clear and convincing.

We can do better.

 

[RandFan]

And there are people who commit capital crimes who are found not guilty (see: Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson). What is your point?

Killing innocent people because the guilty sometimes go free is asinine.

Well, we didn't get OJ, how about that guy over there? In what world does that math work?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We can do better.

That's pretty much true of everything.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Killing innocent people because the guilty sometimes go free is asinine.

Well, we didn't get OJ, how about that guy over there? In what world does that math work?

Which innocent people have we killed?

 

[RandFan]

That's pretty much true of everything.

Pretty much everything isn't the taking of innocent life.

 

[sadhatter]

Why does this principle uniquely apply to SCOTUS?

You have never personally stopped an execution, have you? Doesn't that render your priciples meaningless?

Or is acting outside its lawful authority something that only SCOTUS is supposed to do?

If i have an issue with my meal that the person serving me doesn't understand, or can't see, i go and tell it to the manager of the restaurant, not the manager of a zellers across the road.

The point of having power is wielding that power for the benefit of people, and being able to circumvent rules applicable to folks below you when the situation arises. This is why people want to talk to a supervisor if the rep doesn't get it, and the manager if the sup doesn't get it.

To let someone die due to the fact that there is a silly glitch that allows it to happen, is simply refusing to wield power in an appropriate fashion. It doesn't matter who overrules the execution, simply that it is overruled.

The word of the law is much less important than the spirit. And in a free country, one has the right not to be put to death if one is innocent. Placing blame on who should have done this , does nothing, there are people who wield the power to change this, and said folks should be changing it. But this matters not to the poor **** who is sitting on death row, knowing darn well he did not commit the crime that he is there for.

And this is the only reason i am against execution, it is one of very few things that we can do that is permanent. ( even cutting off a hand, while not something i support. Could be mitigated, or at least compensated if one finds out they were wrong.) I think there is nothing wrong with sentancing a murderer to death, with the addendum of , when we can find a way to reverse the process in case we are wrong.

Being in prison for a crime one did not commit is one of the scariest things i can think of. Being executed blows that completely out of the water.

 

[RandFan]

Which innocent people have we killed?

Do you doubt any are killed? 138 peole released from death row based on DNA evidence, that doesn't give you pause? We don't have DNA evidence for many if not most on death row.... no big deal?

 

[RandFan]

Being in prison for a crime one did not commit is one of the scariest things i can think of. Being executed blows that completely out of the water.

I liken it to the twilight zone. Imagine it's you. Not only are your claims ignored as they haul you off to end your life many people glibly see you as a number and shrug their shoulders. Some might admit that you could be innocent. Some admit you are. But they don't care. Retribution is too important. OJ got off and we need someone to satiate our desire for punishment.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If i have an issue with my meal that the person serving me doesn't understand, or can't see, i go and tell it to the manager of the restaurant, not the manager of a zellers across the road.

The "manager", in this case, is the state supreme court.

This is really more akin to calling the landlord for the property the restaurant is in. There are some things that the restaurant could do where the manager should get involved, but preparing the food wrong isn't one of them. Call the landlord (more likely the police, but this is an analogy) if the place is rat-infested or run-down. But in a properly-run restaurant where you don't like the food, the restaurant manager is the final authority in fixing the problem.

Similarly, in matters of state law rather than Constitutional law, it is the state supreme court that is the final authority. Unless you can raise Constitutional issues with the way the case was conducted, it's the state supreme court that needs to listen and reverse your decision.

If they refuse to do so when justice demands that they do, then that can potentially rise to the level of a Constitutional issue. But properly evaluating the evidence and still finding the convicted to be guilty does not leave grounds where SCOTUS is supposed to intervene.