Great Moments In Constitutional Interpretation
Today the Supreme Court announced a decision ordering a new trial for Troy Davis, who is on death row awaiting execution for the killing of a police officer. The conviction was based solely on witness testimony and the witnesses have now recanted. The decision was 6-2, with Scalia and Thomas dissenting from the majority.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued, “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.” Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in the court minority.
Justice John Paul Stevens responded, “Imagine a petitioner in Davis’s situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man,” Stevens wrote. “The dissent’s reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning.”
Scalia doesn’t think it’s wrong to execute an innocent person. Since he’s supposedly a strict constructionist – is this what the founding fathers intended?
What’s that old quote:
Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Of course, that came from an Englishman, William Blackstone.
Scalia doesn’t worry about the peasants.
Seriously, this is a scary thought(less) process.
Ha! And conservatives want more of these two on the bench!?!?
Scalia and Thomas seem to trust the big bad government waaaaay too much. That should make our conservative whack-jobs angry, but that would me that they were being ideologically consistent.
I wish that this had been a guessing game. Guess which Justices dissented saying the following…
Seriously, those two are douche nozzles.
Good point, Jason. Perhaps Scalia and Thomas can be appointed to the death panel.
I am just curious how you can have a full and fair trial at which an innocent person is convicted? If the person is innocent doesn’t that mean something was wrong with the trial? Maybe the combined IQ of the jury was 5 or maybe the witnesses were lying or shockingly there was no real evidence but someone has to pay. There is a reason for the Supreme Court to exist and that is so that full and fair trials actually can be obtained through appeals on valid grounds, such as oh maybe innocence. But since neither Scalia nor Thomas ever want to see someone not die they had to try and make some sort of incoherent argument.
Good point, Phantom. By definition, a conviction of an innocent person can not be a fair trial.
You can go to trial if you are innocent any day. What matters is if the state (or prosecuting office) claims you are the guilty party. The state now has to prove its case that Troy Davis is guilty. The onus is on the state, not Mr Davis. From what I’ve seen, the first trial was based on these witnesses who have since recanted. If that’s all the prosecution has, then they shouldn’t even retry him. FWIW, this isn’t unprecedented, relative to Mr Davis and I think he has a good chance to walk away.
As to Scalia and Thomas (by way of his signing-on) :
I can’t even begin to fathom that.
It reminds me of a great set of lines between Leslie Neilson and George Kennedy in the first Naked Gun movie:
[Frank Drebin is emptying out his files after being kicked off the force]
Frank: Hey! The missing evidence in the Kelner case! My God, he really was innocent!
Ed: He went to the chair two years ago, Frank.
Frank: Well, uh…
[Frank Drebin quickly shoves the evidence back into the file cabinet]
Oh, the above movie quotes courtesy of imdb.com
I do not have the burden of a legal education but I do not support the death penalty for many reasons. I might however support it for one crime.
It is much better to have life without parole. The daily suffering of a total loss of freedom and liberty is a sentence I would gladly impose. This track would also save money as the endless appeals costs an average of $1 million. Also, the quality of legal representation for some defendants is a crime in and of itself. Lastly, while I know some conervatives might think I would think differently if a member of my familiy was murdered. Well, yes I would like to use the head of the murderer as a soccer ball after I skin him alive but being that is not an option life behind bars is better.
The crime for which I could be persuaded to have the death penalty is selling drugs, certainly to minors. I support drug rehab for users but the parasites who sell and distribute are mass muderers in my view.
Mike Protack
Troy Davis Case: Justice delayed
http://www.savannahmorningnews.com ^ | 8/19/09 | Staff Editorial
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision continues to put off a resolution to the Troy Davis case.
IN THE matter of convicted cop killer Troy Anthony Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court has not ensured justice, they’ve ensured delay.
On Monday, the high court effectively punted the issue to a lower court – the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia – which cannot itself grant a final resolution in this case.
If the district court is not persuaded by Davis’ “new evidence,” then the convicted man’s lawyers will undoubtedly appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
From there, the case could be sent right back to Chatham County Superior Court, the first court to try the case after Davis shot and killed off-duty Savannah Police Officer Mark MacPhail in 1989.
Remember, it was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that denied Davis’ request to file an additional appeal back in mid-April, an action the death-row inmate’s attorneys took to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the justices at first put the case off until their next session in October, then issued an unexpected 3-2 opinion allowing the defendant to put new evidence before a judge.
Mind you, this new evidence amounts to so-called recantations of witnesses who have undergone nearly 20 years of pressure from people ranging from the killer’s family and the venerable Bishop Desmond Tutu to the voluble Rev. Al Sharpton.
According to Davis’ attorneys, these witnesses now claim they were pressured by police to finger their client, instead of the person they now say was the real killer, Sylvester “Red” Coles.
But upon what basis would the officers unlawfully push for a Davis conviction? Accusations of racism ring a bit hollow when one considers that both Coles and Davis are African American.
It stands to reason that jurors in the original case were convinced by the fresh memories of the eye witnesses, who testified that Officer MacPhail ran past Coles to stop Davis from beating a homeless man before Troy “Rough as Hell” Davis shot him down. Witnesses went so far as to describe the smirk on the gunman’s face as he shot the policeman, once in the chest, once in the face.
It stands to reason that those who originally heard the evidence placed a good store of weight in the fact that (a) Davis shot a man at a party that same evening and (b) the shell casings from the MacPhail murder matched those of Davis’ .38.
If the U.S. Supreme Court is so concerned about a possible miscarriage of justice in a death penalty case, they could have granted finality to the issue by hearing Davis’ argument. Instead, they denied in October of last year his appeal for a review of his case.
Now, with Monday’s decision, they’ve put this case back on a judicial merry-go-round. That’s a ride that should have ended a long time ago.
Given DL’s stance on gun rights I’m surprised to see mention of Blackstone. Perhaps you folks read him selectively?
Scalia is really something. But fortunately, in spite of his rigid nonsense, better heads prevailed. The only scary part is the whole thing goes back to Georgia. But, with so much going for Troy Davis, perhaps even those good ole boys’ll do the right thing.