Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[ChadS]

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

The Constitution, which the Supreme Court justices are oath bound to uphold, prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” That is why jaywalkers (if even ticketed) only get fines and why speeders get tickets instead of getting hauled in front of a firing squad. What could be more “cruel and unusual” than executing a demonstrably innocent man? Sure the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty in and of itself is not “cruel and unusual.” As Scalia noted the SC never held it is against the law to execute an innocent person, however the SC has never held that it is legal to execute an innocent person. What more legally correct ruling could one need than to simply follow the Constitution and prevent a “cruel and unusual” punishment for a crime that person did not commit.

ChadS

 

[Sunflower15]

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

Did Jesus not condemn the Pharisees for this? The Sabbath law and healing, for example…

 

[Ender]

What more legally correct ruling could one need than to simply follow the Constitution and prevent a “cruel and unusual” punishment for a crime that person did not commit.

Can you just take a position? This is an either/or question: in a case where the legally correct judgment yields the morally incorrect outcome, which position should the judge take? Follow the law or apply his personal moral convictions?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Did Jesus not condemn the Pharisees for this? The Sabbath law and healing, for example…

You seem convinced that one position is right and the other is wrong so why has it been so difficult for you to actually say what your position is? And no, this is not what Jesus condemned.

Ender

 

[ChadS]

Can you just take a position? This is an either/or question: in a case where the legally correct judgment yields the morally incorrect outcome, which position should the judge take? Follow the law or apply his personal moral convictions?

Ender

I have been consistent in my position. I do believe that a judge’s job requires him to follow the law even when it does not suit him and that may require him to make decisions that are immoral. I have also not seen anything, other than Scalia and Thomas’ opinion, that would indicate U.S. case law requires the execution of a provably innocent convict. There seems to be legal remedies available for the courts at all times. My point in my last post was that despite all the rulings and precedence set in courts no cruel and unusual punishment is still the law of the land and should be followed.

ChadS

 

[4elise]

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

I feel like I’ve walked through the looking glass on this issue - I honestly can not believe that there is even a discussion about this case.

*Well we have to put to death an innocent man because we have to honor the law? *
**
Really? **
Does the law serve us, or do we serve the law?

There comes a point where this is just completely absurd.
If this were our brother, father, son - I am sure we ALL would have no trouble finding which way this should go - but isn’t this man our brother?

 

[Ender]

I have been consistent in my position. I do believe that a judge’s job requires him to follow the law even when it does not suit him and that may require him to make decisions that are immoral.

OK, then leave it at that. Searching for a way to eliminate the dilemma makes it confusing. Your comments about cruel and unusual punishment are a way of finding justification for Scalia to do just that - eliminate the dilemma rather than face it squarely.

If you want to make a separate argument that, in fact, Scalia could have found a way around the problem by finding legal justification for … something, go ahead, just don’t entangle it with the question of the solution to the problem judges face when what the law requires conflicts with what they perceive is right.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I feel like I’ve walked through the looking glass on this issue - I honestly can not believe that there is even a discussion about this case.

Good - then you should have no difficulty stating how you believe a judge should rule when the legally correct ruling yields what the judge perceives to be the morally incorrect result.

Ender

 

[ChadS]

OK, then leave it at that. Searching for a way to eliminate the dilemma makes it confusing. Your comments about cruel and unusual punishment are a way of finding justification for Scalia to do just that - eliminate the dilemma rather than face it squarely.

If you want to make a separate argument that, in fact, Scalia could have found a way around the problem by finding legal justification for … something, go ahead, just don’t entangle it with the question of the solution to the problem judges face when what the law requires conflicts with what they perceive is right.

Ender

It seems to me that Scalia, in his opinion, wasn’t struggling with these same issues. He seemed to accept the outcome that an innocent person could be put to death. He claimed not ability for the SC to determine actual matters of guilt or innocence, which may well enough be true, but he also saw no ability for the SC to order another court to re-hear some of the issues raised in the case when the case had already been through that court without these new facts having been known at that time. Perhaps I completely mis-read his opinion but I don’t think I did.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that Scalia, in his opinion, wasn’t struggling with these same issues. He seemed to accept the outcome that an innocent person could be put to death.

Are you trying to guess his state of mind when he made his ruling? Are you unhappy that he didn’t sufficiently express discomfort with the ruling he had to make? He dealt with exactly the dilemma we have been discussing when he made the comment (which I can no longer find) to the effect that a judge is not responsible for the laws a nation does or does not pass.

Ender

 

[ChadS]

Are you trying to guess his state of mind when he made his ruling? Are you unhappy that he didn’t sufficiently express discomfort with the ruling he had to make? He dealt with exactly the dilemma we have been discussing when he made the comment (which I can no longer find) to the effect that a judge is not responsible for the laws a nation does or does not pass.

Ender

I’m hardly trying to guess the state of his mind at the time of his ruling, however he has to account for the words in his ruling. After all, words do have meaning, and reasonably intelligent people can discern what is being argued in a case – if we couldn’t do that then any ruling for any case would be absolutely meaningless since we don’t have access to a person’s state of mind at the time of writing. I would be more inclined to go easier on Scalia if this was an article written for a law journal or part of a speech delivered to a meeting. However, it was a ruling in a legal proceeding. I do not know to what extent he deliberated this issue or others or what role Thomas’ thinking played in all of this, after all all we have is his ruling and those words stand as they are.

ChadS

 

[Sunflower15]

Does the law serve us, or do we serve the law?

Precisely!!! The law is for people, not the other way around. And that’s what I meant with my comment about how Jesus condemned the Pharisees for loving their law more than the people, and not allowing healing on the Sabbath, for example.

Maybe I’ve been reading the wrong version of the Bible, but to me, the entire New Testament is a ‘dissertation’ on exactly this point. That God’s creatures are higher than man’s laws…ALWAYS…and that because OUR point of view is always flawed to some extent, we CANNOT apply Justice perfectly, so leave that to God, and apply Mercy instead!

There comes a point where this is just completely absurd.

To the nth degree…however, our Supreme Court Justices deliberated about this! And two of them dissented! And, they are Catholic ProLifers! GO FIGURE!

 

[Sunflower15]

OK, then leave it at that. Searching for a way to eliminate the dilemma makes it confusing. Your comments about cruel and unusual punishment are a way of finding justification for Scalia to do just that - eliminate the dilemma rather than face it squarely.

If you want to make a separate argument that, in fact, Scalia could have found a way around the problem by finding legal justification for … something, go ahead, just don’t entangle it with the question of the solution to the problem judges face when what the law requires conflicts with what they perceive is right.

Ender

Then those two Justices seem to have a ‘perception problem’ that the other 6 did not have!

Even one of those who helped write the Act for the Death Penalty commented:

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’."

The ‘other’ Justices did not see the law as justification to kill an innocent man without making sure first…

In contrast, 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.”

Then,
Is the ‘defect’ or ‘problem’ in the LAW or in the JUSTICES?

 

[Sunflower15]

It seems to me that Scalia, in his opinion, wasn’t struggling with these same issues. He seemed to accept the outcome that an innocent person could be put to death. He claimed not ability for the SC to determine actual matters of guilt or innocence, which may well enough be true, but he also saw no ability for the SC to order another court to re-hear some of the issues raised in the case when the case had already been through that court without these new facts having been known at that time. Perhaps I completely mis-read his opinion but I don’t think I did.

ChadS

Thank you! This is what prompted me to start this thread…what I put in ‘bold’ above…
Scalia and Thomas took the time and effort to write an opinion of judgment as Justices of the Supreme Court, that in effect makes NO effort in finding out the facts, nor the method of obtaining evidence, nor whether innocence was there or not, but rather took a ‘leap’ into simply saying that basically it is ‘ok’ to go ahead with the execution **even **if he happened to be innocent AND that we know who the real killer is [who will go unpunished] because someone is ‘paying the broken dish’.

When you read their dissent, you realize by their language that they ‘think’ that Davis may be ‘actually innocent’…since they even coined this term to separate it conceptually from ‘legally proven innocence’…which is what the hearing might provide.

 

[Sunflower15]

I’m hardly trying to guess the state of his mind at the time of his ruling, however he has to account for the words in his ruling. After all, words do have meaning, and reasonably intelligent people can discern what is being argued in a case – if we couldn’t do that then any ruling for any case would be absolutely meaningless since we don’t have access to a person’s state of mind at the time of writing. I would be more inclined to go easier on Scalia if this was an article written for a law journal or part of a speech delivered to a meeting. However, it was a ruling in a legal proceeding. I do not know to what extent he deliberated this issue or others or what role Thomas’ thinking played in all of this, after all all we have is his ruling and those words stand as they are.

ChadS

I included Troy Davis’ case in my question precisely because I DO think that it DOES matter whether we are hypothetically discussing an issue or we happen to have a potentially ‘actually innocent’ person about to lose his life for NO reason pending on THIS decision.

Scalia & Thomas considered this. They alluded to it. They even let us know that the possibility of ‘actual innocence’ is strong…that is precisely the point they investigated and ruled on!

 

[Ender]

Scalia & Thomas considered this. They alluded to it. They even let us know that the possibility of ‘actual innocence’ is strong…that is precisely the point they investigated and ruled on!

Well, four more posts and you still won’t answer the question. Scalia chose a bad option for which you have relentlessly pounded him … without addressing the problem that his choices were between a bad option and a worse one. Unlike you, Scalia actually had to publicly choose and if you really believe so strongly that his choice was the wrong one then you should have the confidence to publicly support the alternative.

Ender

 

[didymus]

I feel like I’ve walked through the looking glass on this issue - I honestly can not believe that there is even a discussion about this case.

*Well we have to put to death an innocent man because we have to honor the law? *
**
Really? **
Does the law serve us, or do we serve the law?

There comes a point where this is just completely absurd.
If this were our brother, father, son - I am sure we ALL would have no trouble finding which way this should go - but isn’t this man our brother?

Okay, enough.
I have no idea why you keep pounding Thomas and Scalia and Thomas since they were on the losing side anyway.
Their (and the other Justices’) duty is to the Constitution as they understand it. Not to the appellants who come before them. Not to “justice” (which would let them overrule the Constitution according to their whims).

Let’s say one or more of the six knew that Thomas and Scalia were constitutionally correct but to prevent a miscarriage of justice. I’d say they have no integrity and are unfit to be justices.

As for the law, it allows for the governor or president to pardon Mr Davis if his claims of innocence are compelling or commute his sentence. The courts are not his sole remedy so let’s not put everything on them.

To take another issue. Let’s say another case like Roe v. Wade came before the Court (unlikely). No Justice, no matter how pro-life, could rule that abortion is* unconstitutional* (as far as I can see). Would you expect them to violate their oaths in that case as well?

 

[Sunflower15]

Okay, enough.
I have no idea why you keep pounding Thomas and Scalia and Thomas since they were on the losing side anyway.
Their (and the other Justices’) duty is to the Constitution as they understand it. Not to the appellants who come before them. Not to “justice” (which would let them overrule the Constitution according to their whims).

Let’s say one or more of the six knew that Thomas and Scalia were constitutionally correct but to prevent a miscarriage of justice. I’d say they have no integrity and are unfit to be justices.

As for the law, it allows for the governor or president to pardon Mr Davis if his claims of innocence are compelling or commute his sentence. The courts are not his sole remedy so let’s not put everything on them.

To take another issue. Let’s say another case like Roe v. Wade came before the Court (unlikely). No Justice, no matter how pro-life, could rule that abortion is* unconstitutional* (as far as I can see). Would you expect them to violate their oaths in that case as well?

Did you read this?
One of those who helped write the Act for the Death Penalty being analyzed by the Justices, commented:

Bob 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’.”

Now, compare that with the explicit law allowing abortions…

There is NO law allowing executions of innocent wrongfully convicted prisoners, so the Justices would NOT be going against any laws. This was a matter of interpretation, which is precisely the job of judges in writing opinions. Otherwise, what is it that they do when they write opinions such as this one?

And, in the case of interpreting Roe vs. Wade, which is an explicit law allowing abortions, then at least the Justices could express regret in their opinion. Nothing prevents them from doing so. These two Justices expressed NO regret. I find that truly scary! Don’t you?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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!!!

Who’s kicking and screaming, I wonder?

Sorry that you have fallen prey to false teachings. But then, these days, ALL education seems to be a joke.

Read.

Read the Ignatius Study Bible. Read original books on the Inquisition (books not written by enemies of Holy Mother Church).

You will be doing yourself a great favor.

 

[ern42]

You know what’s a joke that you defend an organization that murdered kids, women and innocent men, that’s the joke! False teaching? I’ll tell you what false teaching are! Teaching people that they can confess their sins to everyday, sinful men. Teaching that part of the 10 commandments are done with (4th). Teaching that the pope is God’s vicar on earth. Saying that the church never killed anyone in the inquisition.
Not all education is a joke, just the one being taught in the catholic church!!!

Why don’t you do yourself a favor and pick up the Bible (word of God) not some book written by the catholic church. In the word of God (Bible) not the church, is all the education I need!

Read!!!

Ask yourself, can we identify the harlot (church) that is called “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots” in Revelation chapter 17?

Answer: Yes, it is widely known that there is only one church which claims to be the mother church–the great Roman Catholic Church. A prominent Catholic priest, John A. O’Brien, said: “That observance [Sundaykeeping] remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away.”

The points used in Revelation 17 to describe mother Babylon and the beast she rides clearly fit the papacy:

A. She persecuted the saints (verse 6).
B. She was dressed in purple and scarlet (verse 4). The popes often wear the royal color of purple at important functions, and red is the color of the robes of Catholic cardinals.
C. The seven heads of the beast (verse 3) upon which the woman is seated are seven mountains (verse 9). It is well known that Rome, the world headquarters of the papacy, is built upon seven hills or mountains.
D. The beast is guilty of blasphemy (verse 3), a point which also clearly fits the papacy.
E. She ruled “over the kings of the earth.” Verse 18. Alexander Flick says that by the 13th century, the pope was “at least in theory and claim … the ruler of the whole world in temporal and spiritual affairs.”
This point could fit no other earthly kingdom or government. The papacy is described in Revelation 17 too clearly for doubt.

Many leaders of the Reformation (Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Cranmer, Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley, and others) taught that the papacy is the power here involved. Many of them were “mysteriously” killed, and I wonder why?

Not bad for an “un-educated” Christian? Oh, and by the way, while I sat and wrote this I wasn’t killing and/or screaming, I was sitting calmy, and relaxed, now you don’t have to wonder anymore.