SC says Arizona can execute innocent prisoners on mere procedure?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   Even under circumstances where the accused has amassed a preponderance of evidence indicating innocence.
   
   Would some of you keen legal minds have a look at this an dissuade me from the belief that this is just another edict from a Right wing Tribunal.....
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-ju … 06252.html

   replyreport
   1. 84

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      There are keen legal minds here? Not me, for sure.
      
      Knowing no more than what's in your linked article, the decision doesn't make sense to me. Want me to hold a sign or something?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         GA, thanks for your attention here is another article more succinctly written.
         
         https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/s … ctiveness/
         
         
         After gathering all of this in, I am reminded of why I dislike and distrust conservatives and their reasoning in general terms.
         
         I would like to believe that the 6th Amendment speaking of a defendants right to counsel, meant that the counsel was also to be competent and effective.
         
         We all know that public defenders are not often the sharpest knives in the drawer. No one expects a Perry Mason but on the other end of the scale, being incompetent and doing nothing won't do. This has to be looked at all the more carefully as these are CAPITAL cases.
         
         Conservatives say that it was a win for states rights, really? How is the defendent denied the right to show after countless times that the court appointed attorney was found incompetent and ineffective? The defendent is not permitted to present evidence that would support his innocence or make his case providing evidence of incompetent legal counsel according to Clearance Thomas writing for the majority opinion.
         
         States Rights are not absolute, adherence to the Bill of Rights must supersede.
         
         Thomas alludes to the expense and inconveni nc imposed on Arizona to have to address post conviction rights violation made by defendants. At stake is a man's life, and throwing a needed monkey wrench into A bureaucratic assembly line is of less importance. The fact that the conservative majority seems disinterested in whether the defendent is innocent or guilty or even if he has received a fair trial putting this upon the state of Arizona, who seems more interested in getting this man to the gallows on time and not have light shed on the errors associated with the public defenders that Arizona itself had appointed.
         
         I think that a solution in Capital cases like these is to have an independent federal commission who not being influenced by the state look at each case from a standpoint of the defense attorneys doing an adequate job, even if not perfect. This way frivolous claims by defendants can be dismissed but glaring instances of incompetence, by an attorneys lack of due diligence can be identified and the defendants giving an opportunity for re-trial or mistrial.
         
         As I said conservative opinions are hardly exemplary of original intent or strict constructionism or whatever, they are just wrong headed, placing the "cart before the horse".

         replyreport
         1. 84

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            We don't need another Federal commission, we need to eliminate the death penalty. It is not a deterrent and its application is not foolproof.
            
            I can accept there are many incidents where a criminal should get the "death sentence' immediately—a bullet between the eyes on the spot, (let them see it coming), but, our system of justice isn't perfect and death is irreversible, so we should not make that call in court.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Wow, I wasn't expecting THAT from a "conservative". I can't argue with your point.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You should check around, I think you will find more "Conservatives" that do not support the death penalty for the same reason: mistakes can't be corrected.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     That's news for me, I will check around. But isn't your attitude regarding this issue shared by a virtually non existent faction of conservatives?
                     
                     I think that this case is a key example of what we can expect from a conservative dominated wing of the Supreme Court and it is anything but just and fair.

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Your point about just and fair might be where our agreement changes. "Just and fair' have nothing to do with my objection to the death penalty. I think there are a lot of criminal acts that should get it almost on the spot. And it's not that I think any life is sacrosanct. It's because your example is my reason; it looks like a mistake to me, yet the system is proceeding.
                        
                        You can't reverse an execution because you discover you were wrong 'after the fact'.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport