• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

newyorkguy said:
As a criminal defense lawyer said on a PBS special about the criminal justice system: "Most Americans agree that at the end of the day the criminal justice system is supposed to ensure the guilty are punished and the innocent go free. Just about everyone would agree with that...except people who actually work in the criminal justice system."

How many bites at the apple? Since we know -- and this isn't based on ideology, this is based on reality -- reasonable people know the criminal justice system is flawed, is in places corrupt, in some places is a perversion of justice, so how many bites? As many bites as it takes to ensure someone who seems obviously not guilty gets the right result.

Cases where someone finally confesses to a crime, their DNA matches evidence collected at the scene (that the prosecutor could never explain), yet someone else is serving a sentence for the crime. Someone who possibly had no criminal background, had an alibi (which the jury rejected) etc etc. How many bites at the apple should that someone get?
Click to expand...

How many should allow is the wrong question for this thread. The question is how many does the Constitution require. If it should be 10, but the Constitution only requires 1, then the supreme Court should rule 1.
 
BobTheCoward said:
How many should allow is the wrong question for this thread. The question is how many does the Constitution require. If it should be 10, but the Constitution only requires 1, then the supreme Court should rule 1.
Click to expand...

That's a very narrow and formalist take on constitutional law. It never works that way in practice, and that is probably for the best.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
That's a very narrow and formalist take on constitutional law. It never works that way in practice, and that is probably for the best.
Click to expand...

Just as long as you don't claim to be complying with the Constitution, that is fine. But if you want to ensure you actually follow the instructions, you need to adhere to a narrow and formalist approach.

I agree we would be worse off if we did.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Just as long as you don't claim to be complying with the Constitution, that is fine. But if you want to ensure you actually follow the instructions, you need to adhere to a narrow and formalist approach.

I agree we would be worse off if we did.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your say-so does not trump thousands of years of judicial convention.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Doesn't say what? My bite of the apple example?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say what you said in the part I quoted.

"But if you want to ensure you actually follow the instructions, you need to adhere to a narrow and formalist approach. "

Unless that is actually "in the instructions" you don't know it's true.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, it doesn't say what you said in the part I quoted.

"But if you want to ensure you actually follow the instructions, you need to adhere to a narrow and formalist approach. "

Unless that is actually "in the instructions" you don't know it's true.
Click to expand...

Correct. That is the point. How to interpret it isn't in the instructions, so we have to derive a method of interpretation. I'm making the case for mine.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Correct. That is the point. How to interpret it isn't in the instructions, so we have to derive a method of interpretation. I'm making the case for mine.
Click to expand...
"But Constitution!" is not a case. It's barely a cogent argument, especially without providing the applicable text which, I guess, the courts have been ignoring for over 200 years.
 
sunmaster14 said:
There are always questions. If you're afraid of executing an innocent person, then you should be against the death penalty. Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have. End of story.
Click to expand...

Well said. It fascinates me that this simple logic is so hard for pro-death penalty folks to understand. I'll start to consider the death penalty when we have a system that produces no false convictions.
 
Babbylonian said:
"But Constitution!" is not a case. It's barely a cogent argument, especially without providing the applicable text which, I guess, the courts have been ignoring for over 200 years.
Click to expand...

I can't recall a single court decision that has disagreed with my position. Has there ever been a case where the judges have said the Constitutional position is x but we are ruling y because it is a better outcome? It seems debate centers around what x is.
 
"Black lesbian from Skokie"

What Obama was not looking for in a SCOTUS nominee.

(actual quote)
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Or when there are benefits to it beyond "It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside".
Click to expand...

Well, there is one benefit at least. The rate of recidivism is extremely low. One problem with life in prison being the maximum punishment is that there is no way to deter a "lifer" from trying to kill a prison guard. Of course, in practice, even somebody on death row lives for decades in prison, so it's probably a moot point in the US.
 
Looking for something else, found this and can't resist:

Headline Scalia Defends Torture.

During a BBC interview in 2008 Antonin Scalia defended the use of torture in certain situations:

BBC: Tell me about the issue of torture, we know that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under the 8th amendment. Does that mean if the issue comes up in front of the court, it’s a ‘no-brainer?’

SCALIA: Well, a lot of people think it is, but I find that extraordinary to begin with. To begin with, the constitution refers to cruel and unusual punishment, it is referring to punishment on indefinitely...Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? Link
Click to expand...

Scalia then gave an example of when torture might be permissible: someone has a bomb hidden that is about to "blow up Los Angeles." The BBC interviewer follows up:

BBC: I’m saying about it, is that it’s a bizarre scenario, because it’s very unlikely that you’re going to have the one person that can give you that information and so if you use that as an excuse to permit torture then perhaps that’s a dangerous thing.

SCALIA: Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can an infliction of pain be?
Click to expand...


Like a Monty Python skit come to life. Or as Antonin's mom might have put it: "Please, don't get him started!" :(
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
Looking for something else, found this and can't resist:

Headline Scalia Defends Torture.

During a BBC interview in 2008 Antonin Scalia defended the use of torture in certain situations:



Scalia then gave an example of when torture might be permissible: someone has a bomb hidden that is about to "blow up Los Angeles." The BBC interviewer follows up:




Like a Monty Python skit come to life. Or as Antonin's mom might have put it: "Please, don't get him started!" :(
Click to expand...

What's your point?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, there is one benefit at least. The rate of recidivism is extremely low. One problem with life in prison being the maximum punishment is that there is no way to deter a "lifer" from trying to kill a prison guard. Of course, in practice, even somebody on death row lives for decades in prison, so it's probably a moot point in the US.
Click to expand...
One problem with "ultimate sentences" (life in prison and execution alike) beyond making inmates arguably more dangerous is that there is always target creep. OK, let's institute a most severe sentence for the worst psychopaths out there... and then a while later it gets applied to some 14-year old gangbanger kid who accidentally shoots his friend during a drug deal.

This seems pretty universal. Generally giving the state a weapon to be used with voluntary restraint against the lower strata of society is a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom