U.S. Supreme Court blocks Texas execution

[RandFan]

Temporary stay granted for Texas death row inmate

Texas death row inmate Duane Edward Buck was waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will decide his fate before his scheduled Thursday execution date comes to an end.

Buck had been set to die by injection Thursday, but the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of his sentence while it reviews his case.


Justice Antonin Scalia received the request and "referred (it) to the court." The stay was granted "pending the disposition for a writ of certiorari" -- a legal term related to a higher court reviewing a lower court's decision -- according to the court order.

 

[Babbylonian]

Black is referring to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who was the state's attorney general in 2000, when he spoke of seven death row inmates, including Buck. Cornyn said he believed the inmates had been unfairly sentenced to death based on testimony that was racially tainted by psychologist Walter Quijano, who repeatedly told juries that black or Hispanic defendants were more likely to commit future crimes.

Nice job, Texas. Anything to pad those execution stats, I guess.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Darn, I thought maybe Georgia inmate Troy Davis had gotten a reprieve.

But then Scalia has said publicly he thinks it's OK to execute an innocent person as long as they had a fair trial so I guess having Scalia review your case isn't exactly the most hopeful news anyway.

 

[RandFan]

But then Scalia has said publicly he thinks it's OK to execute an innocent person as long as they had a fair trial...

I know, That blew me away when I read it. He makes me sick.

 

[AvalonXQ]

.
But then Scalia has said publicly he thinks it's OK to execute an innocent person as long as they had a fair trial so I guess having Scalia review your case isn't exactly the most hopeful news anyway.

What Scalia said was that it's not appropriate for federal court to overturn a state court's finding that the facts do not show the defendant to be actually innocent, as long as the state court made no Constitutional mistakes. It's not the place of SCOTUS to re-evaluate the evidence and make new factual finding; it's the place of SCOTUS to evaluate the process for Constitutionality and fairness.

Scalia isn't saying we should execute innocent men. He's saying that actual innocence is something you have to prove to the state court, not the federal court. I am inclined to agree.

 

[RandFan]

Scalia isn't saying we should execute innocent men. He's saying that actual innocence is something you have to prove to the state court, not the federal court. I am inclined to agree.

If IIRC, it was noted that if a video demonstrating innocence came forward then by the logic of Scalia SCOTUS could not intervene (IIRC, he noted that the governor could).

I'm sorry but I find Scalia's opinion absurd but I do understand the thinking behind it. The courts could be clogged with claims of innocence and to retry cases. However every case is reviewed so SCOTUS could look to see if there was in fact compelling evidence of innocence.

In my opinion he is at best indifferent to innocent people being executed. It was this ruling that moved me from pro-death penalty to opposed. If you can have such a cynical (and IMO asinine opinion) then we should not have a death penalty.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If IIRC, it was noted that if a video demonstrating innocence came forward then by the logic of Scalia SCOTUS could not intervene (IIRC, he noted that the governor could).

Yes. Are federalism and limited jurisdiction such hard concepts to understand?

The federal government is not the only sovereign government in the United States. When the state government convicts you of a capital crime, it's the state government you have to convince not to kill you. If you want the federal government to intervene, you have to prove that the state government broke federal rules. This makes sense.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. Are federalism and limited jurisdiction such hard concepts to understand?

The federal government is not the only sovereign government in the United States. When the state government convicts you of a capital crime, it's the state government you have to convince not to kill you. If you want the federal government to intervene, you have to prove that the state government broke federal rules. This makes sense.

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.

 

[Babbylonian]

In my opinion he is at best indifferent to innocent people being executed. It was this ruling that moved me from pro-death penalty to opposed. If you can have such a cynical (and IMO asinine opinion) then we should not have a death penalty.

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.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Absolutely the law is an ass in this case -- but it's the state law being an ass here, and it's the state courts that need to turn the innocent man loose.

I will note that the JREF didn't order the state court to turn the man loose. Are you angry at them? If not, isn't it reasonable to ask whether it's any more appropriate for federal courts to order it outside the limits of their authority than for anyone else to?

Are you angry at Congress for not passing a statute pardoning the man? How about the governors of the other states? None of them ordered his release either.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Yeah. I agree, I wouldn't say it's impossible for me. Society does things that result in the death of innocent people. However, my requirements would be so extreme no state would bother.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Scalia personally does not accept this, based on other statements he's made. He seems to genuinely think that all these executed people are pretty clearly guilty.
I disagree.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely the law is an ass in this case -- but it's the state law being an ass here, and it's the state courts that need to turn the innocent man loose.

I will note that the JREF didn't order the state court to turn the man loose. Are you angry at them? If not, isn't it reasonable to ask whether it's any more appropriate for federal courts to order it outside the limits of their authority than for anyone else to?

Are you angry at Congress for not passing a statute pardoning the man? How about the governors of the other states? None of them ordered his release either.

I'm not angry. IMO, SCOTUS doesn't get to roll it's eyes and shake their finger at the state while an innocent person is executed. Otherwise our principles are meaningless.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If SCOTUS can turn it's back while an innocent man is executed then there is no such thing as a right to life.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

It's quite clear, Scalia thinks very little of "actual" innocence when it comes to execution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not angry. IMO, SCOTUS doesn't get to roll it's eyes and shake their finger at the state while an innocent person is executed. Otherwise our principles are meaningless.

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?

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Actually, instead of taking that selective quote, I read the whole opinion and dissent, tonight, before commenting.
Which is how I was able to explain Scalia's comment in context.
Care to explain what I got wrong? I believe my position adequately explained what Scalia was actually saying there.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Thank you. I read that and I thought I lived in a George Orwell novel. Whats more amazing is that there are actually people who will defend that.

 

[RandFan]

Why does this principle uniquely apply to SCOTUS?

It doesn't.

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

I never had the opportunity. There is no way I would ever allow an innocent person to die if I had the power to stop it.

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

If the law can't prevent the execution of an innocent man then the law is worthless and the death penalty needs desperately be abolished.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thank you. I read that and I thought I lived in a George Orwell novel. Whats more amazing is that there are actually people who will defend that.

Oh, I disagree with Scalia on this point. I just don't believe his position is being fairly represented by the quote mining evidenced here and in most news articles on the subject.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yeah. I agree, I wouldn't say it's impossible for me. Society does things that result in the death of innocent people.

It does, but such things do not usually specify that Mr. Joe Schmoe of 120 Main St in Anytown, RS (Random State) has to die; they're usually more on the order of "we're going to cut funding of <X> even if it means some semi-random people may die." There are acts of war, too, but different rules apply.

In the case from the OT, fortunately, guilt apparently isn't in question. What is in question is how far the prosecution went to put the guy on death row. As I quoted above, it appears that they were willing to use "expert" testimony asserting, basically, that because the defendant is black he's more likely to kill again. It's offensive and, while IANAL, it sounds to me like it shouldn't have been allowed. The fact that the former top lawdog of Texas thinks so too ought to make even the most staunch pro-execution people think twice.