Newsweek: Justice Scalia Believes a Condemned Convict Does Not Have the Constitutional Right to Live, Even If Later Found Not Guilty

The Innocence Project is dedicated to the exoneration and release of convicts who have been wrongfully convicted. This has resulted in the release of 245 innocent prisoners using DNA technology. DNA tests achieved the release of 17 convicts from death row. These statistics are from this "Fact Sheet" from the Innocence Project. In all probability most of these 17 individuals released from death row would have been executed when their legal appeals were exhausted.

One reason it has never been proven that an innocent person has been executed is the fact that the guilt or innocence of an executed person is not normally investigated. Most people assume they had a fair trial and were guilty. Some may entertain the idea that theoretically an innocent person could be executed but they say that may be the price we pay for law and order. I know a person who said, "Oh well, it wouldn't happen very often," as if they consider even one time would be acceptable. That would be murder by the state.

The obvious answer is to abolish capital punishment and apply life sentences without parole for capital crimes.

The "Fact Sheet" also states that in 194 of these cases of exoneration, the DNA tests proved who actually committed the crime. Thus, justice was further served.

They also state wrongful convictions are caused by:

Faulty memory of eyewitnesses.

Improper conduct of forensic tests or using tests
that have not been scientifically validated.

False testimony of informants.

Since so many convicts have been exonerated by DNA tests, I suggest you read the New York Times article, "Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests," by Adam Liptak.

The article reports a June 2009 U.S Supreme Court decision which denies an inmate the right to have a DNA test, even at his own expense, to prove innocence. They also report some states have laws allowing the testing but many set conditions which severely limit the circumstances in which convicts can actually have the tests, so in some cases it amounts to not much more than window dressing.

According to the Newsweek article, "Innocent Until Executed," by Dahlia Lithwick, there was a case two months later, where the court agreed that the Troy Davis murder case deserved a new hearing. Of nine prosecution eyewitnesses, seven had admitted their identification of Davis as the murderer was faulty. Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. Scalia wrote in their joint opinion, "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

First, if a convict was later found innocent, obviously the result of the trial was not fair, even though the procedure was technically correct.

Please consider Scalia's statement very carefully because of the monumental importance. Two U.S Supreme Court Justices are saying that since our Constitution, which was written so painstakingly by our forefathers, to protect us from tyranny by our government, does not say specifically that an innocent person could not be executed, they do not have this constitutional protection.

It seems that the framers of our Constitution considered the idea that a citizen did have the right of not being wrongly executed was so self-evident that they saw no need to spell it out. The framers took such pains to protect our rights on much lesser issues, that it is inconceivable that they would not have included protection of such a self-evident right as protection from wrongful execution in the constitution, if they felt it necessary. Nothing could violate the spirit of the Constitution more.

It is popular among today's conservatives to say they want judges who are strict constructionists.
Here is the Wikipedia article,"Strict Constructionism." I am quoting from the article this definition.

"Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself."

Also quoting from the article: "The term has been criticized as being a misleading or meaningless term. [5] Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, has said that he is 'not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be,' "

Scalia is denying that he is a strict constructionist but he certainly appears to be one since he absolutely
refuses to "draw an inference" from the Constitution that a person has a civil right to be protected from wrongful execution. He believes this so strongly that he, along with Justice Clarence Thomas refused to give convicted murderer Troy Davis a new hearing, even when the other justices believed it was justified. Seven of nine prosecution eyewitnesses have admitted since the trial, their identification of Davis was erroneous.

When the people call for appointment of only strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, ask yourself if this is really the world in which you want to live? A world that doesn't care if innocent people are executed!

Sources:

"Strict Constructionism"/wikipedia.org

Adam Liptak/ "Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests"/nytimes.com

Innocenceproject/ "Fact Sheet" / innocenceproject.org

Dahlia Lithwick/"Innocent Until Executed"/Newsweek.com