Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[Sunflower15]

As far as I know they are correct. Appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, do not look at facts, they look at issues of law like did the defendant receive a fair trial, was the evidence legally obtained, did he have adequate counsel, &c, &c. – not on facts like actual guilt or innocence.

That said, since all these convictions occur at the state level I think it is up to governors to at least stay an execution until whatever necessary evidence is gathered that might establish innocence. Ideally, state legislatures should pass laws providing a mechanism for how to handle post-conviction claims of innocence based on new evidence.

So redirect your anger away from Justices Thomas & Alito who are doing their job and toward the executives and legislatures of the “several states”.
Maybe you should also check how many governors and legislators got their start in politics as district attorneys

I feel no anger at them…I don’t know these men. I am assuming that the other 7 Justices [3 of them Catholics as well], were correct in their interpretation as opposed to these 2 -Scalia & Thomas. You chose the interpretation of these 2 over the other 7…to each his own. Are you angry at the other 7? Probably not. Neither am I angry at these 2 Justices without consciences [at least without Catholic ones].

I simply used this instance to illustrate a hypothetical question since it is a current event that can serve as a brainstorming tool.

In this case, it seems that the governor refused the stay, but that the Federal Court ordered the stay due to the way the testimony was obtained, the change in the testimony of the witnesses, and the request for DNA testing by the defendant’s counsel.

But, along the lines of your reasoning…
then IN YOUR OPINION, it would follow that everyone who is upset at the politicians that are ProChoice should not be ‘angry’ at them, since they are simply following the existing laws and it is not demanded of them by their Catholic consciences to do anything to change those unjust laws, right?

 

[ern42]

Yes!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, the church was behind their execution. And thousands and thousand are 4000 and then some. If you have any doubts about the church’s involvement. Take a trip to Peru, under the Catholic church you will find the Palace of the Inquision, where you can see first hand the torchure devices used on poor human beings. The that persecution last approx. from 538 A.D thru almost 1798. Just like the Palace of the Inquisition, you will be able to find other church based torchure chambers through out South America and the world. Unfortunately cowards after they do something always blam someone else for their specific and deliberate actions. Jesus Christ is comming SOON, and many are going to be very surprised!!! Many think they are doing his will, yet by their fruits you will now who they really are. Someone WILL ANSWER for those innocent men, women and children blood. GUARANTEED!!! Keep lying to yourself, saying that the Catholic Church didn’t have anything to do with that. Or trying to quantify a human life. Now the church is wooried about human rights, but back then the church was killing the innocent. And still the Catholic Church proclaims itself as “the church of GOD”. Please!!! Jesus NEVER killed or murdered because people didn’t follow him or did he?

You information on the Inquisition is one hundred percent incorrect. You seem to know nothing about history, whether secular or the history of Holy Mother Church.

There were separate courts back then. This is a fact.

People used to confess to witchcraft and heresey IN ORDER TO BE TRIED BY THE MORE LENIENT CATHOLIC COURTS.

The numbers of people ‘the Church executed,’ as you claim, are skewed, and rewritten by Godless revisionist historians.

Satan’s cheerleaders never rest.

 

[4elise]

To revisit the title of the thread…
**
Is executing ‘innocent’** Death Row inmates acceptable?

I know that there has been discussion about everything from precedent to the Inquisition…

This question however is not about capital punishment - it is if we are willing to live and support a state that can take the life of an innocent person.

I think Catholics standing on this must reflect our defense of the innocent.
Peace

 

[Sunflower15]

To revisit the title of the thread…
**
Is executing ‘innocent’** Death Row inmates acceptable?

I know that there has been discussion about everything from precedent to the Inquisition…

This question however is not about capital punishment - it is if we are willing to live and support a state that can take the life of an innocent person.

I think Catholics standing on this must reflect our defense of the innocent.
Peace

Thanks…it is difficult to understand why is anyone willing to execute innocent people…without considering it murder…in the 21st century…in a truly democratic country…isn’t it strange?

 

[Ender]

Thanks…it is difficult to understand why is anyone willing to execute innocent people…without considering it murder…in the 21st century…in a truly democratic country…isn’t it strange?

You’re right, no one wants to execute innocent people. If that was all you really wanted to ask this thread would never have gotten off the ground, but, while that may be what you think you asked that is not what you inferred. You also tried to claim that a legal ruling by two Supreme Court justices amounted to them saying they are willing to execute innocent people and those are two very different issues and it is simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

No one wants to execute the innocent. There, we’re done with that issue. Now, if that’s not the only point you want to make then go ahead and make another one but don’t pretend it has anything to do with wanting to execute the innocent because we’ve disposed of that question.

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

You’re right, no one wants to execute innocent people. If that was all you really wanted to ask this thread would never have gotten off the ground, but, while that may be what you think you asked that is not what you inferred. You also tried to claim that a legal ruling by two Supreme Court justices amounted to them saying they are willing to execute innocent people and those are two very different issues and it is simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

No one wants to execute the innocent. There, we’re done with that issue. Now, if that’s not the only point you want to make then go ahead and make another one but don’t pretend it has anything to do with wanting to execute the innocent because we’ve disposed of that question.

Ender

I sincerely don’t get why you get so angry… However, I wanted to point out that you have gone from one extreme of the pendulum to the other, managing to never stop midway somehow…

I also think it obvious that no one WANTS to execute the innocent wrongfully convicted, the issue at hand is whether it is ‘acceptable’ in ANY case…any whatsoever…

And, there may be reasons for that…such as those 2 Justices pointed out, maybe there were trials that convicted them beyond reasonable doubt…

The reason I do not like THIS PARTICULAR instance of these 2 Justices’ opinions [regardless of how much merit they may have at other times] is that in THIS case that I quoted them, there seems to be reasonable doubt…quite a bit actually, that deserves a hearing at the very least.

Maybe someone can come up with hypothetical cases in which it would be acceptable to do so, even knowing that the executed may be innocent of that crime…

BTW, someone posted ‘Yes!’ above…maybe they can explain why…

At any rate, there is no ‘secret agenda’, I’m just curious to see if there is any reason I have not thought of, to find this acceptable…

 

[ern42]

You information on the Inquisition is one hundred percent incorrect. You seem to know nothing about history, whether secular or the history of Holy Mother Church.

There were separate courts back then. This is a fact.

People used to confess to witchcraft and heresey IN ORDER TO BE TRIED BY THE MORE LENIENT CATHOLIC COURTS.

The numbers of people ‘the Church executed,’ as you claim, are skewed, and rewritten by Godless revisionist historians.

Satan’s cheerleaders never rest.

Kick, scream and deny as much as you want! The fact is the catholic church sentenced thousands of human beings to their death. Their was NO due process, No fair trail, and NO love!!! Jesus preached love, not tourure!!! To deny these terrible acts is to live with your head in the sand. You say people used to confess to witchcraft? Did Martin Luther ever confess to witch craft? yet he was considered one of the biggest herectic ever in your church, and why? not because he practiced witchcraft, but because he questioned the church in matters of what the Bible talks about! The only thing you said that was correct is that satan’s cheerleaders never rest! They never stop going against God’s words and his eternal Law (10-commandments). So you ask your self? Who is satan’s cheerleaders? people who tourured in the"name" of Jesus (Love) or people that speak up against such diabolic acts?
Maybe I’m wrong again, right.

PS> If the church killed ONE human being, it CANNOT be from God! CANNOT because God is LOVE!!!

 

[didymus]

I feel no anger at them…I don’t know these men. I am assuming that the other 7 Justices [3 of them Catholics as well], were correct in their interpretation as opposed to these 2 -Scalia & Thomas. You chose the interpretation of these 2 over the other 7…to each his own. Are you angry at the other 7? Probably not. Neither am I angry at these 2 Justices without consciences [at least without Catholic ones].

Sorry, I should not have used the term “anger”.
How about “redirect your efforts” to changing the law" thru the legislature.

I simply used this instance to illustrate a hypothetical question since it is a current event that can serve as a brainstorming tool.

 

[Ender]

I sincerely don’t get why you get so angry… However, I wanted to point out that you have gone from one extreme of the pendulum to the other, managing to never stop midway somehow…

The “extremes” you see are merely the answers to the two different questions you rolled into one and I prefer to think of myself as blunt, not angry.

I also think it obvious that no one WANTS to execute the innocent wrongfully convicted, the issue at hand is whether it is 'acceptable

’ in ANY case…any whatsoever…I really have no idea how you interpret the word acceptable, especially as it isn’t applicable to the question of the ruling given by Scalia so I don’t know how to apply it to the situation.

And, there may be reasons for that…such as those 2 Justices pointed out, maybe there were trials that convicted them beyond reasonable doubt…

This is not hypothetical; the prisoner in this case was judged guilty by a jury using the “beyond reasonable doubt” criterion.

The reason I do not like THIS PARTICULAR instance of these 2 Justices’ opinions [regardless of how much merit they may have at other times] is that in THIS case that I quoted them, there seems to be reasonable doubt…quite a bit actually, that deserves a hearing at the very least.

“Not liking” the decision and demonstrating it to be in error are not at all the same thing. I’ve asked this several times before and you have yet to answer but I’ll try again:

If the law prohibits additional appeals but the convict discovers evidence that might clear him, how should the judge rule? If he follows the law he must deny the appeal. He can approve the appeal only by violating his oath as a judge and ignoring the law. So tell us - how would you rule?

Ender

 

[ChadS]

If the law prohibits additional appeals but the convict discovers evidence that might clear him, how should the judge rule? If he follows the law he must deny the appeal. He can approve the appeal only by violating his oath as a judge and ignoring the law. So tell us - how would you rule?

Ender

Obviously you want to maintain the rule of law. Certainly I don’t want judges violating their oaths or laws for that matter. But, this question we have here isn’t just a law school hypothetical, but one with real world consquences if a lawfully convicted and faily tried but provably innocent man is executed.

Something needs to be done to avoid this from happening. How can the rule of law be preserved with judges maintaining their proper role and prevent a miscarriage of justice from occurring? This, of course, has to be balanced with concerns about prisoners carry on for longer than already is done and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system from abuse.

ChadS

 

[Sunflower15]

:extrahappy::extrahappy: Wonderful!!! Yeah! Now we are talking! :extrahappy::extrahappy:

The last 4-5 posts got to exactly the point I was trying to get at from the beginning!

We are all brainstorming and analyzing what can and cannot be done within the law as it stands, and how it can be improved [hopefully this happens from time to time], in order to become a better, more civilized, safer, happier, more moral nation.

That is all I wanted! THANKS!

Now, I don’t know whether what the other 7 Justices decided is wrong or not allowed within the law. I suspect they may also know Law and their profession as Supreme Court Justices. I may be assuming too much… If we go by numbers, then the 2 are in the minority, but that is not necessarily the case.

It might very well be that in this particular case of Troy Davis, the Supreme Court appointed a Federal Judge to scrutinize the testimonies and how they were obtained or how they were presented? I don’t know. I just know that this is giving Troy Davis a stay from his execution [for the 3rd time] and that a hearing was finally granted, when before it had not been. If it turns out that he is indeed guilty, then…that is a debate for another thread [on capital punishment per se], but at least we have considered additional evidence not previously considered.

Maybe critics of the system are right in that some reform may be useful and more efficient in handling cases in which additional evidence becomes available, mainly due to advances in technology. We have had 241 exonerations of Death Row immates…people who served sentences wrongfully…and on their way to being executed…

One in particular, Timothy Cole, touches my heart because he died in prison, and was exonerated after his death. He died of a heart attack. He was an ARMY veteran and a college student wrongfully identified by his alleged rape victim, but proven by DNA testing to not have committed the crime. His victim is terribly sorry for her mistake. His family is terribly saddened that he never made it out of Death Row. My point is that we could only prove his innocence with technology not available when he was convicted. Otherwise, we would have never known.

Can anyone think of a situation in which it may be ‘acceptable’ [morally] to execute an innocent person for a crime that he didn’t commit? I am trying, but cannot…unless we I get into one of those ‘incredibly complicated’ stories that would need an unjust law, a reason for letting the true guilty go *; and the crime was ridiculous, but against the silly law; and the innocent is willing to die because he has a fatal disease that will cause great distress anyhow. I guess it would be more like a martyrdom…

See, I have to go to great absurdity to be able to find it morally ‘acceptable’…how about you guys?
*

 

[Ender]

The last 4-5 posts got to exactly the point I was trying to get at from the beginning! We are all brainstorming and analyzing what can and cannot be done within the law as it stands, and how it can be improved [hopefully this happens from time to time], in order to become a better, more civilized, safer, happier, more moral nation.

I don’t think this is the point at all. We all recognize the difficulty inherent in the situation described but the debate was not over what should be done to prevent it in the future but how the justices should have ruled on this particular case.

ChadS:

Obviously you want to maintain the rule of law. Certainly I don’t want judges violating their oaths or laws for that matter. But, this question we have here isn’t just a law school hypothetical, but one with real world consequences if a lawfully convicted and fairly tried but provably innocent man is executed.

You have asked the question, now let’s see if you can get anyone to answer it. It is not enough to lament the situation and say the laws need to be changed to prevent this from happening in the future: the question concerns a particular situation and as I have repeatedly pointed out there are only two possible answers. It’s not that hard to take a position; I suspect that the reticence is caused by an understanding of the difficulty to be faced in supporting the “compassionate” position people want to take but can’t figure out how to justify.

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

I don’t think this is the point at all. We all recognize the difficulty inherent in the situation described but the debate was not over what should be done to prevent it in the future but how the justices should have ruled on this particular case.

I think the other 7 Justices were correct and Scalia & Thomas weren’t. How about you?

You have asked the question, now let’s see if you can get anyone to answer it. It is not enough to lament the situation and say the laws need to be changed to prevent this from happening in the future: the question concerns a particular situation and as I have repeatedly pointed out there are only two possible answers. It’s not that hard to take a position; I suspect that the reticence is caused by an understanding of the difficulty to be faced in supporting the “compassionate” position people want to take but can’t figure out how to justify.

Ender

It is not a matter of compassion, but of righteousness…and of our souls if we do nothing about it…especially about the souls of those who CAN do something about it…such as the Supreme Court Justices and the governor [in whose shoes I would rather not find myself at the moment of his death]…

 

[Ender]

It is not a matter of compassion, but of righteousness…and of our souls if we do nothing about it…especially about the souls of those who CAN do something about it…such as the Supreme Court Justices and the governor [in whose shoes I would rather not find myself at the moment of his death]…

And still you won’t answer the question. You have no difficulty judging the judges, why can’t you just tell us what you would have done.

I think the other 7 Justices were correct and Scalia & Thomas weren’t. How about you?

This sidesteps the question. There is no problem if the law allows an additional appeal, the problem appears when the law doesn’t allow it.

If Scalia believed that the law did not allow another appeal, how should he have voted? Righteousness is a moral concept but the question of whether Scalia was correct is a legal question. If you were only interested in the legal correctness of the question we would never have had this particular debate. If you want to conclude that Scalia was wrong on a point of law, fine, but then don’t imply that his ruling had some moral content … at least not until you respond as to what you would have done if you were in his position.

Ender

 

[ChadS]

I just finished reading the majority opinion for the six justices (Sotomayor did not participate in this hearing). I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but their opinion in the Troy Davis case, which this post revolves around, seems to be pretty solid. One part of their opinion states that a habeas court should hear the case because no other court has heard testimony or determined the validity of the testimony of the people who are now claiming police coercion. Also, they argue that a prisoner who brings proof of “actual innocence” should be treated differently by the courts than prisoners who try to gain freedom based on minor points of law or procedural errors that do not affect the outcome.

So ender, to answer your question I would side with the majority on this issue and it appears they do not have to violate any laws or their oaths.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

So ender, to answer your question I would side with the majority on this issue and it appears they do not have to violate any laws or their oaths.

I think all you have done is to change the parameters so as to eliminate the dilemma. I have already said that if the law allows an additional appeal then the appeal should obviously be granted, but the problem faced by Scalia was that (in his opinion) the law did not allow it. It may well be that his reading of the law was wrong but that is irrelevant to the question: how should he rule given his understanding of the law?

The issue is to specify a judge’s obligation when the law compels a wrong outcome: should the judge follow the law or rule based on the “right” outcome?

Ender

 

[ChadS]

I think all you have done is to change the parameters so as to eliminate the dilemma. I have already said that if the law allows an additional appeal then the appeal should obviously be granted, but the problem faced by Scalia was that (in his opinion) the law did not allow it. It may well be that his reading of the law was wrong but that is irrelevant to the question: how should he rule given his understanding of the law?

The issue is to specify a judge’s obligation when the law compels a wrong outcome: should the judge follow the law or rule based on the “right” outcome?

Ender

I think the assumption we’ve been starting with is that Scalia and Thomas’ opinion has been the correct reading of the law and case precedence. Reading the opinion of the majority it does not appear that they are overstepping any bounds or making up rules as they go. Perhaps the majority can see gray where Scalia and Thomas only see black and white.

As I have stated before I do not want judges making up things as they go along or ruling things based on a feeling to obtain the “right” results. From what I’ve learned about the case at hand it appears that even this one doesn’t meet the criteria for a technically valid and un-flawed prosecution, namely that several witnesses claim to have been coerced by the police for their testimony. This raises a whole host of questions about what the police may have known, how and why they coerced the witnesses, to extent their testimony was influenced and it would at the very least necessitate a mistrial and the prisoners release and exoneration or hold for another trial without the tainted evidence. So even this technically flawed case has holes in it that are serious enough to warrant investigation.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

As I have stated before I do not want judges making up things as they go along or ruling things based on a feeling to obtain the “right” results.

I agree. In the difficult case where the legally correct ruling yields the morally incorrect result the judge is obliged to give the legally correct ruling.

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

In contrast to Scalia and Thomas, Justices Stevens, Bader Ginsburg and Breyer sated:
“THE SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF PUTTING AN INNOCENT MAN TO DEATH CLEARLY PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.”

Maybe ‘where there is a will there is a way’…

Bob Barr, former Republican congressman and Federal prosecutor, who helped write the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 claims that this act should not have prevented someone to have a chance at proving his innocence -and innocence CAN be proven, and HAS BEEN, due to DNA testing which proves that a person could not have committed this specific crime. That is how we have had 241 exonerations so far.]

Barr: ***“nothing in the statute should have left the courts with the impression that they were barred from hearing claims of actual innocence like Troy Davis’.”

---

In addition, besides all 27 of the members of the European Union, and many members of the British Parliament, even the U.S. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers wrote a letter in defense of Troy Davis, who has become the ‘poster boy’ against capital punishment simply because his case exemplifies the injustices of a the system that has too many flaws.

I am trying to keep to myself in terms of this case, but I wrote a story online about it, in case anyone is interested in learning more about this particular case of Troy Davis:

examiner.com/x-9052-Orlando-Roman-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m8d17-Troy-Davis-gets-a-chance-to-present-new-evidence

On this thread, I was trying to find what on Earth could possibly go through the heads of these two Justices. Maybe I wasn’t noticing something; maybe I missed a point. It just sounds way too ‘cold’ for me. Of course, many have posted attacks to their character online, saying they shouldn’t even hold these posts.

IMHO, this case is not that easy, and it has already questioned the most ‘hard and fast’ rules we were operating under. The Justices are simply trying to fix what doesn’t work, not sure that they have the power to do it, while attempting to prevent a real human tragedy that will call international attention to something WE do and no one else does, [among developed nations].

I believe that this case, unless handled with outmost care, can undo the system of capital punishment in the US. If there is proof that we executed an innocent man, the public will be all over it…and already this case has such a high international profile, that it will not be a quiet matter. He will become a martyr.

Those who advocate the death penalty should be interested in that Davis gets his hearing and that everything is handled smoothly from now on, especially since there are 3 sworn statements pointing at one of his accusing ‘eyewitnesses’ as the real murderer!

To recap:
*The man about to be executed seems to have been wrongfully convicted and able to prove innocence if given the chance

*The lower courts denied the chance; the governor denied clemency

*Police coercion; recanted witness testimony; no evidence tying him to murder at all [just recanted testimony & testimony by someone w/3 sworn testimonies against him] -

*National & International ‘pressure’; religious,political, legal, charitable - all kinds of pressure

*The Supreme Court seems to believe his ‘actual innocence’ [to use Scalia’s term] and even he and Thomas don’t deny this at all in their statements! but speak instead that this is not ’unconstitutional’ after all.

*What to do?

This case will be the benchmark for a long time on how to handle ‘innocence’ -already the term ‘actual innocence’ was penned [by Scalia & Thomas, actually] for this particular case