The new court's absurd inhumanity: To preserve procedure, an innocent man must die

[ck4829]

That is a decision released last month, Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, which is likely to result in the execution of an innocent man. For the wrongfully convicted, it sets a precedent that shatters the hope that they can get new evidence of innocence examined by a federal court.

And not because the court has weighed the evidence for and against guilt and come to the conclusion that the man is guilty. (The latest court to review the evidence in the case concluded he probably couldn’t be found guilty of anything.)

The court is pushing to execute him because it says the evidence showing he is innocent should not be considered at all.

The ruling is especially significant for Idaho because it reversed a ruling of the federal Ninth Circuit, the final stop for an Idaho appellant before the U.S. Supreme Court. As Kevin Fixler reported, there’s likely one Idaho case already affected by the ruling.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-absurd-inhumanity-preserve-procedure-100000629.html

[mucifer]

1. Sounds like authoritarianism to me

[ck4829]

2. Why yes, yes it does

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

33. And fascism, and sadism, and intellectual laziness, and belligerent ignorance,

and countless other of the worst humans can choose to support or embody.

[Hugin]

3. Now we have our very own Dreyfus Affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

Guilty only of looking so guilty.

[ck4829]

5. Yep

[spanone]

4. WTF?

[Volaris]

28. This a good podcast anyway, but they covered this:

https://listen.stitcher.com/yvap/?af_dp=stitcher://episode/203589871&af_web_dp=https://www.stitcher.com/episode/203589871

And yes, outrageous.

[nuxvomica]

6. The hypocrisy of the decision is right out in the open

They don't even care whether their decisions make any sense any more. They "chose" to overlook a procedural issue the went against the state's arguments yet strictly interpret a procedural issue that allows the state to murder an innocent man. This is seriously disturbing because they are deciding by fiat and feel no need to hide it.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Oh, so now they're advocates of procedure?

Selective processing.

[AZLD4Candidate]

16. Selective processing is part of that ilk's thinking. Look at the COVID vaccine v. abortion

Our body, our right. . .except where a uterus is concerned.

[msfiddlestix]

8. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

The court is pushing to execute him because it says the evidence showing he is innocent should not be considered at all.

Seems like there ought to be a way for the people to address the court other than in protest demos and elections.

[moonshinegnomie]

9. if a person is executed and later shown to be innocent

the prosecutor who "won" the sentence should face the same penalty. an dif the conviction was based on police misconduct the cops should also face the needle


(note: im actually anti death penalty)

[Gaugamela]

10. It's a primitive sacrificial scapegoat mentality. They don't care if he's

innocent. Procedure is ritual. To these high priests, guilt and innocence are simply symbolic representations. They don’t live in the real world, but in an atavistic supernatural world of fear, full of ghosts and demons.

[ck4829]

11. Oh yes, the parallels between sacrifice though history and execution are stunning to say the least

These things... the death penalty trial, the appeals process, the death row, the last meal, the walk, approaching it through medical routine with garb and sterile equipment for a person who is about to die, etc.

These are rituals. There is no going around that.

And the belief that it deters crime is the same as saying a dance will cause rain or that sacrificing a goat will bring a good harvest this year.

It's a modern-day human sacrifice.

And saying "We found something wrong in the trial" messes with that vibe.

[Gaugamela]

12. Yep. Same with the right's view of school shootings. It's child sacrifice.

The terrible but necessary propitiation of the gods. And each new massacre of the innocents makes them feel important and safe, for the time being anyway. At a deep level they glory in the violence and they always will. Some people never advanced beyond the dark ages. That’s why they stuff the Supreme Court with conservative Catholics. If the right takes over expect a massive bloodletting — the equivalent of burning witches and heretics.

[AZLD4Candidate]

14. If the Right takes over, this "experiment" is over.

[Gaugamela]

17. This guy said the quiet part out loud:

Authorities in Tennessee are reviewing all pending cases involving a Knox County Sheriff’s Office detective after he gave a sermon at his church that called for the government to execute members of the LGBTQ community.

“They are worthy of death,” Grayson Fritts said in a June 2 sermon at All Scripture Baptist Church, a small church in Knoxville that he leads.

“God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to the LGBT freaks and arrest them and have a trial for them, and if they are convicted, then they are to be put to death,” he said in the clip.

Fritts said it would be easy to find people to arrest at events such as gay pride parades.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/tennessee-preacher-cop-lgbtq/index.html

[Effete Snob]

21. Well, sure, but the reason why Bill Clinton signed this law...

...is the same reason why it passed the Senate 91-8.

The idea was to establish a hard cut-off for endless habeus corpus challenges to convictions.

It was hardly "the right's" doing:

The law which excludes consideration of that evidence, and which the court upheld, passed the Senate 91-8.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00242.htm

Only eight senators voted against this obscenity:

Feingold (D-WI)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

But if you want to know who is "pushing to execute him", here are their names:

Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

[Gaugamela]

26. True enough, but the OP refers to the recent SCOTUS decision

regarding the review of new evidence, which is what is affecting this case.

I assume the bill you are referring to is the Clinton Crime Bill of 1994. There are many reasons why lawmakers sign on to big, multipart bills like this. Aside from the necessities of political wrangling, the bill also included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the Violence Against Women Act, which is likely why you see Barbara Boxer on the list of supporters. Also, the political landscape of 28 years ago was significantly different than it is today. Few, if any, of the names listed above would have supported same-sex marriage at that time.

I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that an obsession with death and violence is a distinctive feature of the right. My main point here is that, in my opinion, these people are operating from unexamined and unconscious motives that cause them to want to dominate and control, and that these deep seated anxieties about death, sex, and masculinity are same motivators behind many of the worst atrocities in history.

[Effete Snob]

29. No, I am not referring to the 1994 crime bill

I am referring to this SCOTUS decision, which upheld the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

It was not part of some omnibus package. It was a stand alone bill with THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING AVENUES TO APPEAL DEATH SENTENCES.

That was the name of the bill:

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

It was on the label of the package. The name itself said it was to make it easier to kill people. It succeeded in its intended purpose.

Your comment indicates that you are not familiar with the SCOTUS decision referenced in the OP nor with the law that the court applied.

I understand the impulse to reflexively defend our side, but there is no defense here. This bill was much more specifically targeted toward reducing the right of habeus corpus, and smokescreen about an unrelated bill is just not relevant.

[Gaugamela]

31. Like you, I've been a DU member since 2004, and the reason I have such a low post

count is that my political views tend well to the left of the DU consensus. I don’t reflexively defend the Democratic Party or the standard views around here. (Try starting a discussion on NATO expansion being one cause of the war in Ukraine and see what it gets you. )

I don’t research every detail of a political issue, and I’m not a lawyer. Nonetheless, I think my comments on the right’s propensity for violence are valid.

Just for the record, I have been against the death penalty my entire life.

[Effete Snob]

32. The problem is indeed the death penalty

Quibbling about how it is administered is indeed beside the point.

The sad fact was that this was an “effective death penalty” bill which made it easier for the government to wield the power of life and death over us. The Court recognized that was indeed the intent of Congress in passing this bill.

[AZLD4Candidate]

13. 'Better to let ten guilty free than let one innocent suffer' - paraphrasing Blackstone

Now, we are on the same level as places where guilt is automatically assumed and it's up to the defendant to prove they are innocent.

We are officially a police state.

[DFW]

15. If it were in a civilized state

I would start up a mass movement to have indicted any judge that voted for an (even possibly) innocent man to be executed. That is premeditated murder, and still punishable by death in the very states where it is most likely to happen.

Although I am against the death penalty in principle, judges that are willing to let their states perform ritual executions on people who could be innocent are no better than cold-blooded hired assassins. There is no better fate to befall them than the one that they, themselves, mete out with such high-handedness, and such indifference to their victims.

[Effete Snob]

19. Here's a list of those who voted for it

The law in question, which excludes consideration of that evidence, and which the court upheld, passed the Senate 91-8.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00242.htm

Only eight senators voted against this obscenity:

Feingold (D-WI)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

But if you want to know who is "pushing to execute him", here are their names:

Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

It was to stop "all those criminals getting off or having their punishment delayed by 'technicalities'" and "endless appeals".

[Haggard Celine]

24. I agree.

This is just plain evil. Anybody who would let an innocent man die to satisfy their legal sensibilities is a vile person, and they have no.business in a high position like Justice of the Supreme Court. They aren't fit to judge a hot dog eating contest. If this isn't a reason to impeach someone, I don't know what it would take to remove them. They obviously think they're high above the rest of us and don't pay consequences for their actions. It's time to bring them back down to Earth.

[iluvtennis]

18. This is UNACCEPTABLE. I am outraged that an INNOCENT MAN may die.

[TeamProg]

20. WTF ?!?!?!

[Javaman]

22. this isn't a problem, for the repukes, this is a solution.

we are nothing but nameless faceless plebes to them. those of color and those in prison are less than plebes

fascism will fix this. we will all be treated as less than plebes.

[Effete Snob]

23. Bill Clinton was not a Republican

Bill Clinton signed this law, which passed the Senate 91-8. It was part of his "tough on crime" package.


In particular, this law was specifically intended to provide a hard cutoff on conviction challenges based on actual innocence.

All the court did was to affirm that this law - enacted into law by Democrats - was valid.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00242.htm

Only eight senators voted against this obscenity:

Feingold (D-WI)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

But if you want to know who is "pushing to execute him", here are their names:

Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

But since we are supposed to have the memories of fruit flies, it is now convenient to blame Republicans for the fact that the court applied this law as written and as signed into law by President Clinton.

[dumbcat]

27. Not many seem to want to

address your point.

[Effete Snob]

30. Truth is sometimes inconvenient

Fingerpointing at others is simpler.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

25. K&R

[Solly Mack]

34. K&R

[DemocraticPatriot]

35. This court is illegitimate, plain and simple.

[ck4829]

36. Indeed

[edhopper]

37. How fucked up is this country?

It is a political liability for a Governor to pardon a man from Death Row that everyone knows is innocent.
It is a political liability for a prosecutor to admit their offic sent a wrong man to their death. Even if the trial was decades before.