tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750154945043557348.post6173391871066323912..comments2023-08-28T02:45:45.700-07:00Comments on The Guerilla Post: Executing the InnocentPete Muldoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03401840945694159288noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750154945043557348.post-70782154253231595322009-09-10T10:24:27.526-07:002009-09-10T10:24:27.526-07:00Saclia's dissent does not have that presumptio...Saclia's dissent does not have that presumption. You read that into his opinion.<br /><br />The finding is of legal guilt, not factual guilt.<br /><br />I think you presume, a lot like Grann does.<br /><br />For example, you write: "if it is not perfect, we must stop killing people!"<br /><br />But, there is this consideration:<br /><br />"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents" <br /><br />http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx<br /><br />Is there any other government managed program, which puts innocents at risk, that you say must be perfect or it should be done away with?<br /><br />Try this:<br /><br />Re read Grann's article. Where he presumes one way, why don't you try and presume another and see where it takes you.<br /><br />Grann makes presumptions that his own article contradicts.<br /><br />Also, based upon Grann's fact checking, there seems a strong anti death penalty/defense side bias.<br /><br />For example, He just parrots the 135 "exonerated" from death row, the 13 "exonerated" from Illinois and the 17 saved because of DNA.<br /><br />In other words, you may speculate that he either didn't fact check, which is bad enough, or he fact checked and still used them, which would be down right horrible.<br /><br />Who knows?dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750154945043557348.post-41273730163982744522009-09-10T08:52:44.900-07:002009-09-10T08:52:44.900-07:00Please tell me what is wrong with Grann's repo...Please tell me what is wrong with Grann's reporting, if you're going to dismiss it so easily.<br /><br />I have read Scalia's dissent in Davis. I would agree that his opinion makes sense, if you begin with the assumption that people convicted at capital trials are always factually guilty. <br /><br />But point of this post is to demolish the claim that people who are convicted in capital trials are always and necessarily factually guilty, and that the process is foolproof. It is not. And Scalia's naive belief in the sanctity of that process does not change that fact. <br /><br />As you must know, once the trial is over, the appeals process will never consider the facts of the case again. It will focus on procedural issues, and pretend that truth is whatever the jury decides. In fact, your comment does the same thing, as it never addresses the question of whether Willingham was guilty.<br /><br />O'Connor's states that the court assumes that a factually innocent person would be able to get federal habeas relief. But this requires the assumption that the process works. <br /><br />In theory, of course, there are multiple systems in place to ensure that innocent people are not executed.But in practice, these systems do not work. They all rely on the infallibility of the jury verdict. We may have to live with the fact that juries will send innocent people to prison. There are ways to improve the process, but it will never be perfect.<br /><br />But if it is not perfect, we must stop killing people!Pete Muldoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03401840945694159288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750154945043557348.post-89555234014795062512009-09-10T04:14:17.483-07:002009-09-10T04:14:17.483-07:00Making an assesment of a death penalty case, based...Making an assesment of a death penalty case, based upon Grann's reporting, is not a good idea.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750154945043557348.post-32597964202230294052009-09-10T04:11:22.151-07:002009-09-10T04:11:22.151-07:00I would advise folks read the last paragraph of Ju...I would advise folks read the last paragraph of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence in Herrera on this issue, below.<br /><br />As well as her entire concurrence at <br /><br />http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC.html<br /><br />“Ultimately, two things about this case are clear. First is what the Court does not hold. <br /><br />Nowhere does the Court state that that the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent person. Instead, the Court assumes for the sake of argument that a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would render any such execution unconstitutional and that federal habeas relief would be warranted if no state avenue were open to process the claim. <br /><br />Second is what petitioner has not demonstrated. Petitioner has failed to make a persuasive showing of actual innocence. Not one judge–no state court judge, not the District Court Judge, none of the three Judges of the Court of Appeals, and none of the Justices of this Court–has expressed doubt about petitioner’s guilt. <br />Accordingly, the Court has no reason to pass on, and appropriately reserves, the question whether federal courts may entertain convincing claims of actual innocence. That difficult question remains open. <br /><br />If the Constitution’s guarantees of fair procedure and the safeguards of clemency and pardon fulfill their historical mission, it may never require resolution at all.”<br /><br /> <br />Instead of, completely, misinterpreting Scalia, maybe folks should be responsible enough to read Scalia’s opinion. Here it is. It’s not too late.<br /><br />http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Scalia-opin-Davis.pdfdudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.com