Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Here you go, 99SE, since you're an analyst, do you think Scalia is here saying that even when NEW DNA evidence could prove after a conviction that a guy on death row is really innocent, he still has NO right to have his death sentance reconsidered? From Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993):
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
"We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person
who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later
alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent."
I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the
Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is
no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were
enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial
consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward
after conviction."
Do you think this is what Kremit's prof is thinking about?
Maybe, but that's not what Kremit wrote...at least that I can see... In fact, he made no mention of DNA or new evidence showing innocence...
He said:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
My professor, a lawyer, sorta wants it to be upheld by the court so he can then start filing suits for all prisoners in georgia on death row as they seemingly also would have a right to life. He would do it pro bono just to prove to congress how stupid their decision was.
Instead, he makes it seem like the prof is wanting to see this legislation upheld so that he can fight for death row inmates who have been accused and found guilty of committing heinous crimes, regardless of their innocence or guilt. Our system is, unfortunately, not perfect. If it were, not one guilty would be found innocent, and not one innocent would be found guilty.
Regarding this new legislation, which I have not read, I see, from what Kremit wrote, a professor who is simply interested in showing that if a disabled person has a right to life, then so does an inmate. Maybe Kremit should explain what the professor meant to a deeper degree.
|
