Supreme Court Justice Doesn't Think Innocence Matters?
Being a former staff attorney and current board member for an innocence project, I generally do not blog on innocence-related matters (some would say I'm a little too close to the issue and they would be absolutely right). That being said, I'm going to break with my usual policy. I read something so appalling from one of our Supreme Court justices that it earned a post.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of entertaining an original writ of habeas corpus in the Troy Anthony Davis case, ordering a federal district court in Georgia to conduct a hearing and make findings to determine if Mr. Davis could establish his innocence of the crime for which he is sentenced to die. In a deeply disturbing dissent from the majority's decision, Justice Scalia writes:
"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 . . . If this Court thinks it possible that capital convictions obtained in full compliance with law can never be final, but are always subject to being set aside by federal courts for the reason of 'actual innocence,' it should set this case on our own docket so that we can (if necessary) resolve that question."
I'm going to go out on a limb here - if it violates the Constitution to execute mentally retarded people and juveniles, I'm going to guess that it would also offend constitutional principles of due process to execute an innocent person. Why does the Supreme Court continue to avoid holding what is obvious to any person of decency and morality - that the state-sponsored killing of an innocent person violates the law? It's an idea so simple a five-year-old could grasp it, but for some reason it eludes the highest court in our nation. The idea that the truth doesn't matter as long as we have complied with the law is offensive, and quite frankly, dumb. Too dumb a position for a justice on the nation's highest court to take.
While I love his interpretation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation right, Justice Scalia draws a big boo-hiss for making a comment that I would expect out of Presiding Judge Sharon Keller. Keller, currently on trial for closing the clerk's office at 5:00 p.m. despite knowledge of a last minute death penalty appeal, once stated in an interview to Frontline, "We can't give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent. We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important." Seriously, where do we find these people and why are they on any bench, let alone a high court? Further proof that the only thing worse than appointed judges is elected judges.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of entertaining an original writ of habeas corpus in the Troy Anthony Davis case, ordering a federal district court in Georgia to conduct a hearing and make findings to determine if Mr. Davis could establish his innocence of the crime for which he is sentenced to die. In a deeply disturbing dissent from the majority's decision, Justice Scalia writes:
"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 . . . If this Court thinks it possible that capital convictions obtained in full compliance with law can never be final, but are always subject to being set aside by federal courts for the reason of 'actual innocence,' it should set this case on our own docket so that we can (if necessary) resolve that question."
I'm going to go out on a limb here - if it violates the Constitution to execute mentally retarded people and juveniles, I'm going to guess that it would also offend constitutional principles of due process to execute an innocent person. Why does the Supreme Court continue to avoid holding what is obvious to any person of decency and morality - that the state-sponsored killing of an innocent person violates the law? It's an idea so simple a five-year-old could grasp it, but for some reason it eludes the highest court in our nation. The idea that the truth doesn't matter as long as we have complied with the law is offensive, and quite frankly, dumb. Too dumb a position for a justice on the nation's highest court to take.
While I love his interpretation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation right, Justice Scalia draws a big boo-hiss for making a comment that I would expect out of Presiding Judge Sharon Keller. Keller, currently on trial for closing the clerk's office at 5:00 p.m. despite knowledge of a last minute death penalty appeal, once stated in an interview to Frontline, "We can't give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent. We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important." Seriously, where do we find these people and why are they on any bench, let alone a high court? Further proof that the only thing worse than appointed judges is elected judges.
Labels: Law Etc.
posted by Marjorie Bachman at
4:20 PM
1 Comments
Links to this post
