U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[sadhatter]

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.

I do, its actually a pretty huge fear of mine. The thought of knowing i would be killed, for something it seems like i did, is just...overwhelming. And i am not an easily phased guy, i have walked calmly through a housefire, i have dealt with plenty of life threatening situations of varying levels of trouser browning, but i honestly get the jimmies when thinking about that possibility.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see no reason to toss skepticism out the window here. It would seem some of our forum members have a belief faith in the court process as opposed to confidence in the scientific process, IE evaluation of the evidence. If the legal process allows innocent people to be executed something is wrong with the legal process. And that is exactly what the Innocence Project has conclusively demonstrated with irrefutable evidence.

Three things top the list for flaws in the legal process in the US. One is reliance on eye witness testimony alone. That's what Troy Davis' conviction solely relies on. And that's why his conviction is flawed.

The second biggest flaw in the legal process in the US is bias against the poor and against minorities, especially blacks.

The third flaw is false confessions, not a topic in this thread.

Again, these are facts supported by very clear evidence. To ignore these flaws and argue that the courts are doing a great job or even an OK job is no different than arguing any other dogma.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

The problem being, they could, as we see in this case.

What is more important to you, following the law as written. Or innocent people having another venue to go to when facing death?

I know to you, maybe it is okay, because if they are innocent they will get to go up and have a party with the big fella upstairs, ( if they were of your religion, if they followed the rules, etc.) but to a lot of people death is a permanent thing. And one that should not be dealt out , unless circumstances absolutely require.

 

[Crossbow]

Which innocent people have we killed?

If I may interject ...

As far as I know, we have not killed any innocent people for the last several decades.

However, there have been quite a few people who have been wrongfully sentenced to the death penalty. Further, there have been far more people who have been wrongfully sentenced to long terms of imprisionment.

Therefore, it is a well established fact that the justice system does make mistakes and as such, one needs to be very careful about use of the death penalty since it is an irrevocable sentence.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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?

It's possible. I'll have to look into it. But I don't have time right now.

 

[sadhatter]

If I may interject ...

As far as I know, we have not killed any innocent people for the last several decades.

However, there have been quite a few people who have been wrongfully sentenced to the death penalty. Further, there have been far more people who have been wrongfully sentenced to long terms of imprisionment.

Therefore, it is a well established fact that the justice system does make mistakes and as such, one needs to be very careful about use of the death penalty since it is an irrevocable sentence.

If it happened once, in the history of the us and the death penalty, that is way too many times.

I have no problem with the death penalty, assuming we can make sure no one innocent will get killed. Seeing as we can't, at this point in time, and we have no way to "take it back", we should put it off until we remedy one of these two situations.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I see no reason to toss skepticism out the window here. It would seem some of our forum members have a belief faith in the court process as opposed to confidence in the scientific process, IE evaluation of the evidence. If the legal process allows innocent people to be executed something is wrong with the legal process. And that is exactly what the Innocence Project has conclusively demonstrated with irrefutable evidence.

Two things top the list for flaws in the legal process in the US. One is reliance on eye witness testimony alone. That's what Troy Davis' conviction solely relies on. And that's why his conviction is flawed.

The second biggest flaw in the legal process in the US is bias against the poor and against minorities, especially blacks.

Again, these are facts supported by very clear evidence. To ignore these flaws and argue that the courts are doing a great job is no different than arguing any other dogma.

I'm not sure who on this forum you're claiming is doing this; certainly I am not.

I oppose the death penalty because there are serious problems with the Court system, including the ones you mention.

However, one of those problems is not the unwillingness of SCOTUS to respect that it is a court of limited jurisdiction.

I'll say this again, and would recommend that anyone read up on it if it is new information for you: The Supreme Court of the United States does not have unlimited original or appelate jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing repugnant to the idea that in most cases, the state supreme court has final appelate jurisdiction rather than SCOTUS. Nor does this imply that these state courts shouldn't be held accountable for bad decisions. Instead, it simply acknowledges that we've set up a system where federal courts answer federal questions, and state courts answer state questions.

This is the system we have, and there's nothing wrong with that part of it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What is more important to you, following the law as written. Or innocent people having another venue to go to when facing death?

It's important to me that the Supreme Court follow the law. If they refuse to do that, and just make whatever law suits them, then what's the point of having the law at all? That is dangerous -- because maybe next time, the law that they choose to arbitrarily make up may be unjust to me and mine.
And specifically, I really do want SCOTUS keeping their hands off places they don't belong, and not overreaching their power. Somebody needs to remind SCOTUS from time to time that they ARE a limited court.

I know to you, maybe it is okay, because if they are innocent they will get to go up and have a party with the big fella upstairs, ( if they were of your religion, if they followed the rules, etc.) but to a lot of people death is a permanent thing. And one that should not be dealt out , unless circumstances absolutely require.

The ad hom is not appreciated. Stick to the discussion, please.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm not sure who on this forum you're claiming is doing this; certainly I am not.

I oppose the death penalty because there are serious problems with the Court system, including the ones you mention.

However, one of those problems is not the unwillingness of SCOTUS to respect that it is a court of limited jurisdiction.

I'll say this again, and would recommend that anyone read up on it if it is new information for you: The Supreme Court of the United States does not have unlimited original or appelate jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing repugnant to the idea that in most cases, the state supreme court has final appelate jurisdiction rather than SCOTUS. Nor does this imply that these state courts shouldn't be held accountable for bad decisions. Instead, it simply acknowledges that we've set up a system where federal courts answer federal questions, and state courts answer state questions.

This is the system we have, and there's nothing wrong with that part of it.

Your logic astounds me.

Yes , the SCOTUS shouldn't be wielding its power to circumvent every law , but this is an exceptional circumstance.

What it is like saying is that cutting off someones arm is wrong. Something we can probably both agree with. But assuming that said arm is doing something that is going to kill someone, it becomes an entirely different situation.

Would you really say, if you could stop a murder by cutting off someones arm ( the offender, of course.) , you still wouldn't do it because it is against the law? Of course not , your going to go beyond your jurisdiction, and hack off that limb.

The same stance the SCOTUS should be taking in regards to execution. If the person is guilty, and they find that, well, he is still able to be killed later. And if he is innocent, a life has been saved.

Letting red tape, and ink on paper decide who can and can not fight for someone's life, is just bureaucracy at its most disgusting.

 

[sadhatter]

It's important to me that the Supreme Court follow the law. If they refuse to do that, and just make whatever law suits them, then what's the point of having the law at all? That is dangerous -- because maybe next time, the law that they choose to arbitrarily make up may be unjust to me and mine.
And specifically, I really do want SCOTUS keeping their hands off places they don't belong, and not overreaching their power. Somebody needs to remind SCOTUS from time to time that they ARE a limited court.



The ad hom is not appreciated. Stick to the discussion, please.

The problem is, it is a kick in the nuts situation. It is not always appropriate to kick someone in the nuts in a fight, but in certain situations it is damn near required.

And the last bit wasn't an ad hom, simply trying to wrap my head around how you could let ink on paper not let a powerful organization save a life. But tell me, which part of what i said is untrue? Do you not believe that if the person is innocent they will be going to heaven anyway? ( assuming they followed all appropriate rules while alive. )

 

[RandFan]

I see no reason to toss skepticism out the window here. It would seem some of our forum members have a belief faith in the court process as opposed to confidence in the scientific process, IE evaluation of the evidence. If the legal process allows innocent people to be executed something is wrong with the legal process. And that is exactly what the Innocence Project has conclusively demonstrated with irrefutable evidence.

Three things top the list for flaws in the legal process in the US. One is reliance on eye witness testimony alone. That's what Troy Davis' conviction solely relies on. And that's why his conviction is flawed.

The second biggest flaw in the legal process in the US is bias against the poor and against minorities, especially blacks.

The third flaw is false confessions, not a topic in this thread.

Again, these are facts supported by very clear evidence. To ignore these flaws and argue that the courts are doing a great job or even an OK job is no different than arguing any other dogma.

Bears repeating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

From Wrongful Execution^WP :

Specific examples

Jesse Tafero in Florida.. [an accused accomplice was later acquitted which means had Tafero been alive he would have been acquitted by the same evidence]
Johnny Frank Garrett of Texas... The flawed case is explored in a 2008 Documentary "The Last Word".
Wayne Felker, ... Georgia ... [the murder occurred while he was under surveillance and the evidence was changed to fake the date of the death as well as the prosecutor covering up exculpatory DNA evidence]
Cameron Willingham was executed in Texas ... [based on bad science that claimed an accidental fire was an arson fire. Governor Perry fired the lead investigator when the investigation found the forensic science was bad and it wasn't an arson]
Thomas and Meeks Griffin were executed in 1915 for the murder of a man involved in an interracial affair two years before but were pardoned 94 years after execution. It is thought that they were arrested and charged because they were not wealthy enough to hire competent legal counsel and get an acquittal.[9]
Timothy Evans in the United Kingdom, was tried and executed in 1950 .... Evans was pardoned posthumously following this, in 1966. The case prompted the abolition of capital punishment in the UK in 1965.
Derek Bentley was a mentally challenged young man who was executed in 1953, also in the United Kingdom. He was convicted of the murder of a police officer during an attempted robbery despite the fact that it was his accomplice who fired the gun, and Bentley was under arrest at the time of the shooting. ...
Chipita Rodriguez was hanged in San Patricio County, Texas in 1863 for murdering a horse trader, and 122 years later, the Texas Legislature passed a resolution exonerating her.

Given the number of exonerated death row inmates that the Innocence Project found, the odds are very high that this is a seriously incomplete list.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And the last bit wasn't an ad hom, simply trying to wrap my head around how you could let ink on paper not let a powerful organization save a life.

I'd rather not have a supreme king or dictator in this country. That means every government organization needs to respect its limits.

Again, I agree with doing everything within the scope of the law to save an innocent life. The question was whether this was in the scope of the law. Scalia believed it was not; that's not "monstrous" or even unreasonable (although it may be incorrect).

 

[AvalonXQ]

Would you really say, if you could stop a murder by cutting off someones arm ( the offender, of course.) , you still wouldn't do it because it is against the law? Of course not , your going to go beyond your jurisdiction, and hack off that limb.

Pretty sure that's legal under "self defense or defense of another".

What can I say? I promise that if I am elected to a public office, I will not abuse my power, even if I feel strongly that abusing my power might do someone good. You might do the opposite, and that's fine. It's a difference in belief that has more to do with democracy and government than with religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I may interject ...

As far as I know, we have not killed any innocent people for the last several decades.....

Perhaps you've missed the cases I cited above. Hard to miss the Cameron Willingham case. It's been in the news a lot recently.

 

[sadhatter]

Pretty sure that's legal under "self defense or defense of another".

What can I say? I promise that if I am elected to a public office, I will not abuse my power, even if I feel strongly that abusing my power might do someone good. You might do the opposite, and that's fine. It's a difference in belief that has more to do with democracy and government than with religion.

But this isn't reversing a traffic fine for a friend, this is someones ******* life. A human life, man. The life, of one of the beings that we refer to as humans.

The law is nothing more than our best way of protecting people from harm, when it is not doing that, following it is against the spirit of the law. What use is the law if it is killing innocent people.

By this logic no one should have hidden jews in WW2 , it was against the law after all, and apparently not following the law when the law is wrong is a bad thing...somehow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd rather not have a supreme king or dictator in this country. That means every government organization needs to respect its limits.

Again, I agree with doing everything within the scope of the law to save an innocent life. The question was whether this was in the scope of the law. Scalia believed it was not; that's not "monstrous" or even unreasonable (although it may be incorrect).

Scalia's morals as demonstrated here are monstrous by my moral standards. You are in essence saying that your moral choice is that following the law is more important than preventing the execution of an innocent person.

I think had Scalia (and Thomas) not had such disregard for protecting an innocent life or a disregard for "actual" justice, the court would have reached a unanimous decision. You do know, I hope, that Scalia and Thomas had the minority opinion in the case in question. That pokes holes in your rationalization that you want SCOTUS to follow the law and not be dictators in chief. Clearly the opinions of the judges were not 100% based on the law. SCOTUS opinons are always based on the Constitution and the individual's beliefs/morals.

 

[caniswalensis]

Temporary stay granted for Texas death row inmate

Even though it seems pretty cut and dried that he is guilty, this is good news as far as I am concerned. I hope it allows for a closer look at this man's conviction, and if the death penalty is really warranted in his case. Racism is too prevelent in our ustice system to ignore stuff like this.

Generally speaking, I have been opposed to the death penalty for several years now, on acount of the fallibility of the system. It just does not make sense to me to have an irreversible punishment like death on the books when we know we make mistakes. It’s bad enough that innocent people lose years of their lives rotting away in prison.

I would definitely like to see the death penalty abolished.

 

[Crossbow]

Perhaps you've missed the cases I cited above. Hard to miss the Cameron Willingham case. It's been in the news a lot recently.

Thanks!

I am somewhat familiar with that case, however as far as I know it has not been definitely ruled as a wrongful execution just yet.

In my case, I was thinking of Ethel Rosenberg who was executed in 1953 for being a spy for the USSR. And while she was involved with spying, she was a rather minor actor in it and as such, that was a wrongful execution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Scalia's morals as demonstrated here are monstrous by my moral standards. You are in essence saying that your moral choice is that following the law is more important than preventing the execution of an innocent person.

In execution of my duties as an officer of the court, my moral choice is to use my authority within the bounds of the law. I expect other officers of the court to behave the same way.

And, yes, if I as a judge do not have the power to legally save an innocent man, I should not use my authority illegally to do so.

My actions as a private citizen are another matter, but I sincerely believe that overreaching one's political power and failing to respect the limits of government is far more "monstrous" than usurping power for whatever noble end.