U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[Skeptic Ginger]

My understanding is that the "science" of arson investigation is coming more and more under scrutiny.

Only where the investigators use bad science. It's the same with other forensic evidence like autopsies. There is a real science but the practitioners, especially in smaller more rural jurisdictions are sometimes very bad at their jobs. Glance at those two reports I linked to above and you'll see what I mean.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I apologize, but I simply cannot reconcile your statements otherwise.

Understood.

 

[RandFan]

Understood.

Ouch. +1

 

[autumn1971]

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.

So sholdn't the first act of some intelligent being elected to the US Congress have been to introduce the simplest bill ever written?
To wit: "Federal law prohibits any state from putting to death any person that any of the many state or federal courts have found reason to believe is not guilty of a capital offense".

That would allow SCOTUS the ability to be the last intervention.

 

[autumn1971]

See, again, Constitutional jurisprudence doesn't agree with you.

In these cases, SCOTUS isn't merely acting from a sense of justice. It acts because these Constitutional issues raise a federal question, usually by means of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, in fact, the Constitution forbids the State from violating our rights, and state action to do so is properly overturned as unconstitutional.

This doesn't imply that any time there's any sort of rights violation or "tyrrany of the majority", that SCOTUS has a right or responsibility to act. Only when those rights can be found as Constitutional protections, and the state or federal violation of those rights raises a Constitutional question, should SCOTUS act to overturn a state decision.

Eventually, it was found that "execution of an innocent man" is a violation of the 8th Amendment. I'm inclined to agree to this ruling. But you asserted earlier that SCOTUS needs to come to the rescue whether or not they have a jurisdictional reason to do so. I respectfully disagree. SCOTUS is not all-powerful, nor is their role simply to preserve all justice in the U.S. That's our role as the people who wrote the Constitution and make the laws. Anything else is something different than a democracy.

Sorry, I posted before reading this.
So SCOTUS does have Constitutional authority to prevent the execution of those who may be innocent.
And with that Constitutional authority, I would assert that there exists a moral responsibility.

I am actually very shocked that the idea that one may be killed by a particular state without Federal oversight was not immediately seen as a violation of the Equal Protection clause. "Well, you have equal protection under the Constitution, but just not in Texas, Florida, or Illinois."

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, I posted before reading this.
So SCOTUS does have Constitutional authority to prevent the execution of those who may be innocent.
And with that Constitutional authority, I would assert that there exists a moral responsibility.

I am actually very shocked that the idea that one may be killed by a particular state without Federal oversight was not immediately seen as a violation of the Equal Protection clause. "Well, you have equal protection under the Constitution, but just not in Texas, Florida, or Illinois."

I would agree.

"Sorry, Constitutional jurisprudence prohibits us from ensuring your right to life. Innocence is not a basis to assert your right"

 

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry, I posted before reading this.
So SCOTUS does have Constitutional authority to prevent the execution of those who may be innocent.

Indeed it would appear so, and I'm relieved that this is the case.

And with that Constitutional authority, I would assert that there exists a moral responsibility.

Absolutely. Again, the problem was that RandFan was attempting to impose the moral responsibility even in the absence of Constitutional authority.
Scalia argued that the federal government doesn't have the authority; the Court disagreed. But RandFan submitted that even raising the issue is monstrous -- that SCOTUS needs to act whether their jurisdiction allows them to legally or not, and failing to do so would be immoral. I disagree.

I am actually very shocked that the idea that one may be killed by a particular state without Federal oversight was not immediately seen as a violation of the Equal Protection clause. "Well, you have equal protection under the Constitution, but just not in Texas, Florida, or Illinois."

Again, most state laws are the business of state courts, and the federal government stays out of it. This is not a system defect; this is by design.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely. Again, the problem was that RandFan was attempting to impose the moral responsibility even in the absence of Constitutional authority.

No, but if you keep repeating that it will somehow become true.

Again, most state laws are the business of state courts, and the federal government stays out of it. This is not a system defect; this is by design.

So long as those laws do not infringe on fundamental, rights like, oh I don't know, "life".

 

[RandFan]

Tyranny Of The Majority

If Mohammad will not go to the Mountain then I suppose I can carry bits and paces of it to Mohammad.

First: The founders believed that all people (at the time it was men) had an equal guarantee to life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...

The right to life and equal protection of life for all. Right?

But there was a problem. The founders believed in Democracy and Democracy has an inherent flaw:

Tyranny of the majority

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.

So, what was the solution to guarantee this most fundamental of rights?

Tyranny of the majority

Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary system, are common ways of reducing the perceived problem.[2] Separation of powers is also implemented to prevent such an event from happening internally in the government

• Representative government (Republic).
• Separation of powers with SCOTUS as a final arbiter.
• Bill of rights.

Smart guys those founders.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Separation of powers with SCOTUS as a final arbiter.

(Which was the result of the first SCOTUS rather than being in the founding documents, but I digress.)

This is the key point. The federal government is of limited powers, SCOTUS is a Court of limited jurisdiction, and that is what was intended by the founders, as well as still being a good idea today.

You say you don't intend to contravene that, and yet the very beginning of our exchange on this thread involved your insistence that the law should not constrain SCOTUS to act according to a moral imperative to save an innocent life. It is that proposition, that morals must trump legalities in such matters, that seems to be behind you calling Scalia "monstrous" and the whole discussion of Constitutionality inappropriate.

Now you seek to school me on tyranny of the majority (without, I will note, quoting Madison's rather definitive Federalist Papers on the subject) as though it upholds your point.
I fact, it does the opposite. SCOTUS must be constrained by the law, or our freedom is lost.
Knowingly executing an innocent man would be a mockery of our system, and should not be permitted. But ignoring the very safeguards that hold our government in check, rather than insisting on remedying the injustice through the proper channels, is a remedy as bad as the malaise.

 

[RandFan]

You say you don't intend to contravene that, and yet the very beginning of our exchange on this thread involved your insistence that the law should not constrain SCOTUS to act according to a moral imperative to save an innocent life.

No.

• The founding fathers declared that life was an inalienable right.
• The founding fathers then enumerated that right in the constitution.
• It is the job of SCOTUS to enure that this inalienable right not be sacrificed on the basis that some state carried out a pro forma action ostensibly designed to protect the rights of citizens.

I pointed out that SCOTUS exists to protect against tyranny of the majority. The majority could elect leaders who would craft laws that would satisfy perfunctory requirements but still fail to protect the innocent from execution. Should state supreme courts fail then only SCOTUS, separate from the other branches of govt can do that.

Now you seek to school me on tyranny of the majority...

I'm trying.

...tyranny of the majority (without, I will note, quoting Madison's rather definitive Federalist Papers on the subject) as though it upholds your point.
I fact, it does the opposite. SCOTUS must be constrained by the law, or our freedom is lost.

No (I note you don't offer a quote or explain how it contradicts me but instead simply assert that it does), all branches are constrained by law which is why I have stated the separation of power to you repeatedly. I never claimed that SCOTUS could act outside the law for the purpose of justice. I've noted time and again that the right to life was paramount and SCOTUS has a duty to protect that right.

Prop. 8: Tyranny of the Majority

The concept of tyranny of the majority has its roots in Plato's Republic; it is used in reference to democracies and majority rule. The actual term originated with Alexis de Tocqueville; it is a criticism of any scenario in which decisions made by a majority would place its interests above a minority's interest to the point that majority will becomes "tyrannical."

This raises the question: Who gets to decide what's tyrannical? In our form of government that role has been given to the courts. They alone have the authority to call balls and strikes on the ideals that the people have committed themselves.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You keep saying "no", which tells me I may be misunderstanding your position.

Sometimes the law is an ass. When you fall back on tradition or convention or legal strucutre to justify killing innocent people then whatever the reason it is an ass.

That easy. Real easy. If we can't use reason to save innocent people then there is something very ****** up.

I read that as "SCOTUS must ignore the law if necessary to protect the innocent in cases like this."
Is that NOT what you intended to imply?

 

[RandFan]

You keep saying "no", which tells me I may be misunderstanding your position.

I read that as "SCOTUS must ignore the law if necessary to protect the innocent in cases like this."
Is that NOT what you intended to imply?

Law is not often so black and white. I tried to explain this when I referenced Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Scalia isn't an idiot and neither were the justices who decided Plessy. These opinions were not cut from whole cloth but had a basis in the law. Not only did Plessy have a legal foundation but it was precedent. It was law. The law was an ass.

In the case of Scalia he wasn't pulling something out of his ass. He's no slouch. An ideologue but not a drooling idiot. The Supreme Court could have swung his way and set aside the right I'm clamoring for just as Plessy decided against equal rights. It is the basis, the case law that Scalia argued on that I called an ass. Had SCOTUS swung with Scalia their law, like Plessy would have been an ass.

My point is quite simple, when it comes to an inalienable right we don't need to wring our hands over contradictory case law and precedent. If the law that speaks against an inalienable right is an ass then we ought not follow it. Now, you can fault me for not pointing out that there was contravening law the majority used and I will accept that criticism. I was in fact more interested in eviscerating Scalia's position rhetorically and perhaps that made more of this than was needed. I'll cop to that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
I read that as "SCOTUS must ignore the law if necessary to protect the innocent in cases like this."...

While I understand your position, I don't see things the same way. My reaction is, there is no way the Constitution supports Scalia's position. When fallible men believe, as Scalia and Thomas did, that the Constitution would not prohibit the State taking an innocent life, there is something wrong with their interpretation. There is not something missing in the Constitution to prevent such a thing. The former makes sense to me, the latter, if there were something missing, does not.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am imagining myself as a supreme court justice in a world with RandFan's argument that I have the authority to overturn a case if the person is innocent.

And I get the case...

...And I have no fricking clue where to start. I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which I know the person is innocent, jury found him guilty, found guilty on appeal, and no evidence of a legal or civil rights violation.

What if it is clear footage of someone else committing the crime? As described above, this would have reached that jury untainted (if it didn't, then that is grounds for a stay without the issue of innocence). Then, at that point, I am substituting my interpretation for someone else.

Now I am totally screwed. Why should my opinion matter more than theirs? Because I am a supreme court justice? I am an expert in legal knowledge. Looking at that film and reaching a conclusion if he was involved is not something my knowledge makes me more suited for. My ability to interpret that film is no better than the jury's. Is there someone more capable? Should their opinion be final?

Now, I am back to wishing we have juries and judges can't overturn their rule simply because they don't like it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am imagining myself as a supreme court justice in a world with RandFan's argument that I have the authority to overturn a case if the person is innocent.

And I get the case...

...And I have no fricking clue where to start. I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which I know the person is innocent, jury found him guilty, found guilty on appeal, and no evidence of a legal or civil rights violation.

What if it is clear footage of someone else committing the crime? As described above, this would have reached that jury untainted (if it didn't, then that is grounds for a stay without the issue of innocence). Then, at that point, I am substituting my interpretation for someone else.

Now I am totally screwed. Why should my opinion matter more than theirs? Because I am a supreme court justice? I am an expert in legal knowledge. Looking at that film and reaching a conclusion if he was involved is not something my knowledge makes me more suited for. My ability to interpret that film is no better than the jury's. Is there someone more capable? Should their opinion be final?

Now, I am back to wishing we have juries and judges can't overturn their rule simply because they don't like it.

Why are juries so much better at judging than a well informed critically thinking judge?

I'm not saying all judges are critical thinkers. I wish they were. But our current jury system is seriously flawed. Lawyers, both prosecutors and defense attorneys, seek out juries that are poor critical thinkers and instead will predictably vote a certain way. Right there the deck is stacked against a critically thinking jury.

I would hope that someone who has attained the position of SCOTUS judge is better informed than the average juror.

 

[RandFan]

I am imagining myself as a supreme court justice in a world with RandFan's argument that I have the authority to overturn a case if the person is innocent.

And I get the case...

...And I have no fricking clue where to start. I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which I know the person is innocent, jury found him guilty, found guilty on appeal, and no evidence of a legal or civil rights violation.

What if it is clear footage of someone else committing the crime? As described above, this would have reached that jury untainted (if it didn't, then that is grounds for a stay without the issue of innocence). Then, at that point, I am substituting my interpretation for someone else.

Now I am totally screwed. Why should my opinion matter more than theirs? Because I am a supreme court justice? I am an expert in legal knowledge. Looking at that film and reaching a conclusion if he was involved is not something my knowledge makes me more suited for. My ability to interpret that film is no better than the jury's. Is there someone more capable? Should their opinion be final?

Now, I am back to wishing we have juries and judges can't overturn their rule simply because they don't like it.

Actually there are cases where evidence like video tapes and photos or confessions and forensic evidence were found after the trial and they didn't all result in stays without appeals to governors. Politics could very well result in the execution of an innocent person but hey, we gave the person a fair trial and it wasn't good for the governor to intervene. So that was all a waste of time. But thanks.

BTW: Please see The Innocence Project. To date they have exonerated 273 people. 273 innocent people who would be dead if we decided that no one should ever second guess the jury or if a governor decided that it wasn't expedient to spare a person's life and deferred instead to your logic.

 

[Beerina]

BTW: Please see The Innocence Project. To date they have exonerated 273 people. 273 innocent people who would be dead if we decided that no one should ever second guess the jury or if a governor decided that it wasn't expedient to spare a person's life and deferred instead to your logic.

The vast majority of those are rapes and assaults, and thus would not have the death penalty applied. However, I do see about 80 cases of exoneration for murder charges. Of the first 20, 3 were death penalty cases, the rest were not. And one of those was overturned after 2 years and re-tried for life.

So there are a handful of death penalty cases, but not nearly the 273 you quoted. It would still be an issue.

 

[sadhatter]

(Which was the result of the first SCOTUS rather than being in the founding documents, but I digress.)

This is the key point. The federal government is of limited powers, SCOTUS is a Court of limited jurisdiction, and that is what was intended by the founders, as well as still being a good idea today.

You say you don't intend to contravene that, and yet the very beginning of our exchange on this thread involved your insistence that the law should not constrain SCOTUS to act according to a moral imperative to save an innocent life. It is that proposition, that morals must trump legalities in such matters, that seems to be behind you calling Scalia "monstrous" and the whole discussion of Constitutionality inappropriate.

Now you seek to school me on tyranny of the majority (without, I will note, quoting Madison's rather definitive Federalist Papers on the subject) as though it upholds your point.
I fact, it does the opposite. SCOTUS must be constrained by the law, or our freedom is lost.
Knowingly executing an innocent man would be a mockery of our system, and should not be permitted. But ignoring the very safeguards that hold our government in check, rather than insisting on remedying the injustice through the proper channels, is a remedy as bad as the malaise.

I could care less if the members of the SCOTUS decided to walk down to his jail cell and encircle it. The fact is through the political powers they wield, written and esoteric, they could stop this from happening. Not just them, of course, again i could care less if Obama himself chose to circumvent every law in the land to get there and stop an innocent man from being killed.

The state should not be some cyborg programmed by ink on paper, it should take into account that everything is flawed, and when the flaw could lead to the loss of a human ******* life, screw ink on paper, morality and logic should be the words of the day when the stakes are this high.

An innocent human life is worth more than adherence to ink on paper, there is just no other opinion that is not simply evil. We are not machines , we can realize that the rules can be wrong sometimes, and circumvent them if need be.

I mean, how far would Moses have gotten if he adhered to the rules put down by the politicians of his time? " Oh, slaves are legal here? My bad, have a nice day."

 

[RandFan]

The vast majority of those are rapes and assaults, and thus would not have the death penalty applied. However, I do see about 80 cases of exoneration for murder charges. Of the first 20, 3 were death penalty cases, the rest were not. And one of those was overturned after 2 years and re-tried for life.

So there are a handful of death penalty cases, but not nearly the 273 you quoted. It would still be an issue.

I stand corrected. I posted figures from the innocence project when I had earlier had posted figures from the Death Penalty Information Center. I had confused the two. Thank you. I should have said Since 1973 138 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

I apologize.