(February 13, 2016 at 8:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Scalia said the worst thing I've ever heard a jurist say: 'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.' More concerned with the process than actual guilt or innocence.
Boru
To be fair, he never actually said that.
http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/bar...-to-agree/
The decision was about whether or not new evidence received should be a de facto reason to re-try a case for capital crimes. Scalia's opinion was that the definition of "new evidence" was broad enough that the courts would be choked with cases being retried.
Still, the idea he put forth was that the inevitable backlog was sufficient enough of a reason that if a person uncovered exonerating evidence, the court was not compelled to re-try the case. Not that they couldn't, just that they shouldn't be required to.
So, still shitty, but not as cut and dry as "if we find them guilty, fry 'em."
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
