no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Nothing Unlawful About Executing the Innocent

August 26th, 2009

Except for regular updates at Radley’s place, I’ve heard little about the plight of Troy Davis.

In case you don’t know: Troy Davis has been fighting for his life (on death row) for decades. He was tried and convicted by a “jury of his peers”, and previous attempts to overturn the ruling have failed. Last week, SCOTUS recently asked a Georgia federal court to consider the new evidence and determine whether it establishes Davis’ innocence. [wiki]

What makes Davis’ story particularly compelling (aside from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, witness tampering, police obstruction, etc.*) is that the dissenting Supreme Court Justices (Scalia and Thomas) argued, “Even if the district court were to find Davis to be innocent, there would still be nothing unlawful about executing him.”

You’d think that if there were a shred of human decency left in this world, people would be all over this story.

On this note, Mark Cuban inquires, “Is there a right of the innocent not to be executed?” The answer to that question is so painfully obvious that even a child could grasp it…

Cuban says “maybe it’s time for a constitutional amendment.”

I come back to a single issue. Its not illegal to execute an innocent person. Maybe its time for a constitutional amendment? (sic)

I’m sorry, Mark. No amendment, constitutional or otherwise, no piece of paper is going to protect you as long as rat-bastards like these are on the bench. And as long as there is a monopoly to exploit, rat-bastards like these will be the ones doing all the exploiting.

Let me condense this for you, and the rest of the reading public.

First, Scalia and Thomas dissent, essentially arguing that “We don’t give a god damn whether Troy Davis is innocent. We don’t give a god damn whether Troy Davis can present evidence that would (under any other circumstances) exonerate him.” In other words, as long as “procedure” is followed to the letter**, Scalia and Thomas are content to give zero consideration to the morality of the criminal acts they would sanction.

I’m sorry, but “I was just following orders/procedures/rules” is not a fucking excuse. Especially when you’re the one who validates, approves, or otherwise seals those orders under color of law.

And then, in a vulgar display of obstinance which would make my 3-year old nephew’s head-banging temper-tantrums look tame in comparison, “Even if he does present evidence which would in all other circumstances prove his innocence, we don’t give a god damn if he is hanged by the neck until dead. In legalese, there would be nothing unlawful about executing him.”

Ask yourself, “What sort of man would willfully disregard all relevant facts, and condone the pre-meditated murder of an innocent man.”

A fucking sociopath, that’s who. Or, more precisely, two fucking sociopaths. The callous disregard for either justice or human life, exercised by both Justices Thomas and Scalia, is indicative of their moral bankruptcy, and it is a stain on the fabric of all humanity.

This system does not need to be reformed, it needs to be eradicated.


* All of which are, sadly, par for the course in the American criminal justice system.
** It should be noted: if the evidence is in-fact exculpatory, and corroborates the claims of tampering, etc., that procedure was thrown out the window in favor of a kangaroo court.
A burden one is not ordinarily obligated to carry.

Comments

4 Comments

RSS
  • Joe Black says on: August 27, 2009 at 8:08 pm

     

    I'm speechless. I feel your fucking anger though. Lately, I just can't stand to talk to anyone about libertarianism or anarchy. The other day all I could do was just shake my head when the people I was talking to said it was alright to use violence and force to solve social problems. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. What is wrong with people!!!

    Is it wrong that I just find some people to be so devoid of morality and completely fucking stupid?

    Sigh.

  • Black Flag says on: August 28, 2009 at 8:50 pm

     

    Or perhaps the Judge needs to actually read the Constitution once a decade….

    Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Punishing the innocent – by definition – is cruel.

    • nothirdsolution says on: August 28, 2009 at 9:31 pm

       

      I've been trying to steer clear of "constitutional" arguments lately, but your point is well-received.

      Amendments 5 and 14 also clearly state that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Perhaps the dissenting opinions consider this "due process of law," and are content to execute an innocent man for the sake of following "procedure."

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics