I can't believe that Scalia said the following...

[JanMichael]

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

I see the quote used on several sites but is it really what he said?

The guy's insane, sure, nuttier than a peanut farm, but he said that???

[Jacobin]

1. Ha! That's my sig line!

He's got some real doozies out there alright.

[JanMichael]

3. That's why I posted this. I just can't believe it.

It's loopy:crazy:

[Jacobin]

5. Here ya go:

The highly regarded study by Michael Radelet, Hugo Bedau and Constance Putnam in their book In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases, says that in the period up to 1992, 435 innocent people were convicted of capital crimes in this country. Some were eventually exonerated and freed, some died in prison, some had sentences lowered; 26 were executed. Since the study was completed, more innocent have died. Leonel Herrera was executed in Texas on May 12, 1993, after the Supreme Court refused to hear new evidence of actual innocence. In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Justice Blackmun, in dissent, called the court's decision "perilously close to simple murder."

http://192.220.92.126/archive/01/01-05farrell-speech2.html


Here are some more links discussing that bit of "wisdom" from our Supreme Court:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=scalia+murder+mere+factual+innocence&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

[Redleg]

22. Jeebus! That's chilling.

Good lord, get rid of that sorry bastard.

[Jacobin]

6. "loopy"?

I would describe it as insane.

[Skittles]

2. yes, he said that

*sigh*

[Betty]

4. facts are irrelevant

to the fascist mind.

[oneighty]

7. Heck

I heard that argument in favor of the death penalty debated by drunks in many a bar room.

180

[unblock]

8. here's his 'reasoning'

the constitution says you're entitled to a fair trial. you're not entitled to a correct verdict. it is entirely possible for a fair trial to result in an incorrect verdict, if only because nobody's perfect.

so, if you get a fair trial and a guilty verdict and a death sentence, and everything's kosher other than the fact that you didn't commit the crime, well, tough luck for you.

the safeguard on this is supposed to be the governor's or president's right to pardon. the them not to pardon in such a case is unconscionable.


i can't see how a sane judge can sleep at night knowing an innocent person is being put to death, but that's the thinking, anyway. i've never seen clearer evidence that the right has no conscience.

[Jacobin]

13. All of which, of course, completely ignores the fact

That a governor, looking at a pardon request, has NO way of ordering a new trial, or gathering new evidence or otherwise finding out the truth.

It's Scalia's way of saying: "Innocent? Fuck him. He got convicted. Fry him. We don't care. We are too busy to worry about a few dozen people murdered by the government. It would screw up one of my carefully concocted theories on what courts shouldn't do, and that's more important than the state murdering people"

He is truly insane.

Oh, and he's Bush's "favorite" SC "justice"

[robbedvoter]

9. Scalia? You mean the guy who said:

Federal courts should tell the people to take a walk. The constitution is here to defend us from the will of the people
Speech in Houston, 2001

[HFishbine]

15. That opinion is worthy

Actually, the Constitution does play a role in defending against the will of the people. Its central function is to guarantee a minimum of rights for all people no matter what a majority may want. It keeps a majority from usurping the rights of others just because the majority may want it a certain way. The majority may want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, for example, but the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution make sure that rights are protected for all people, even if they are in the minority.

[Redleg]

23. Exactly- it protects us from tyranny of the majority.

And the Right wingers and fundies want to do away with that function.

[Toots]

10. IMHO that one sentence is grounds for impeachment

If being innocent of a crime is not adequate for dismissal then I don't know what possibly could be. I am like you, I am so dumbfounded by such a statement coming from a Supreme Court Justice that I can't believe it is a real quote.

[Christ was Socialist]

11. Most americans were pro slavery anti interracial marriage

etc etc
Don't believe the loud minority is it. The najority 98% of those polled in 1958 opposed intterracial marriage, and alabama didnt legalize it to 2k. The majority oppose gay marriage. Many don't even know the point of affirmative action as intended. The equal rights amendment didnt pass. Black/latino/gay canidates are rarely elected, even as in the case of mississippio attorney genral when an inexperianced caucasion, defeated an african american with more credentials. Colin powell/clarence thomas/condi rice, were all appointed not elected.

[seabeyond]

12. i dont have quote

yet he says white man is the one with power and every one else had better just accept it because that is what it is. really referring to female here.

[Jacobin]

14. See post # 5 above.

[rock]

16. Only he and God are infallible

And I'm not sure about God.

[charlie]

17. He kinda expanded on that

years later, when he explained that since most of us were Christians, death ain't no thang, since the delights of an afterlife await us:

So it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life, in exchange for the next? The Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolt’s play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: “Friend, be not afraid of your office. You send me to God.” And when Cranmer asks whether he is sure of that, More replies, “He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him.” For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!

[Brian_Expat]

18. The hilarious thing about that justification is. . .

. . . it's easily applied to abortion as well, yet Scary Tony doesn't think that abortion "isn't that big a deal since the fetus is in heaven." Figure that one out. . .

[charlie]

19. Ol' slippery Tony isn't so easily pinned

He can, and does, retreat into his usual restraint-of-powers argument for abortion:

Capital cases are much different from the other life–and–death issues that my Court sometimes faces: abortion, for example, or legalized suicide. There it is not the state (of which I am in a sense the last instrument) that is decreeing death, but rather private individuals whom the state has decided not to restrain. One may argue (as many do) that the society has a moral obligation to restrain. That moral obligation may weigh heavily upon the voter, and upon the legislator who enacts the laws; but a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact. Thus, my difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe (and, for two hundred years, no one believed) that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.

See, he'll axe Roe v Wade, not because he wants to, but because he must. (And take note of that last sentence -- I'd like to one day see if he means what he says about upholding a state-sponsored right to abortion)

[grasswire]

20. well..

...I followed a story about ten years ago of a Texas prisoner who had been found in court on appeal to have a "colorable showing of factual innocence." He was not released. His parole date came, and he was refused parole on the grounds that TX could only release prisoners who were rehabilitated but an innocent person could not be rehabilitated.

It's true. They kept him.

[Dark]

21. WHAT?!

And the repukes think this guy is a good guy?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! We're doomed.