Hacker News Reader

Comment by macintux | Hacker News Reader

“Innocence is no defense.” Such a broken system.

"[The Unites States Supreme] 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." -- Antonin Scalia, dissenting on 08-1443 In Re Troy Anthony Davis

Thanks, that was the quote that I was too frustrated to search for.

But some people argue that the trial was not fair. Evidence was withheld and his attorneys were intimidated to resign.

That's also how it works if the County Golf Commissioner finds that he is 'actually' innocent.

Because that's not their job.

You have this wrong. A "habeas court" is a court considering whether a person is being detained illegally. This is a mechanism for obtaining a collateral review of evidence in a criminal case (commonly used in death cases), since a person can't be legally detained or executed if they didn't commit a crime.

In the Scalia quotation, he was using his lawful-evil dissent persona to cast aspersions on a very common review mechanism. This was his much regarded "style," but it doesn't really help people understand the state of play in this situation.

You fall into the trap. Unlike the golf commissioner (if they even regulate golf in OK counties), the habeas court is actually sitting in the center of its constitutive authority when making decisions on actual innocence in capital habeas.

The system seems to be working just fine. The justice system interprets law as enacted by the legislature. This is the balance of power. The governor can still issue a pardon to stop the execution because it is the executive's job to enforce the law. The legislature can change the law to avoid this situation in the future. The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power.

Dear God, in what world is the current system "fine". 2-10% of the incarcerated population is innocent. My own minor experiences with the courts has uncovered extreme incompetence on even minor issues, and a system that grants judges damn near the absolute power you mention. There's practically no oversight and the system is designed to hide mistakes and misconduct (judicial review boards).

"The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power."

It's seems all parties are on board - defense, prosecution, etc, so it would not be absolute power.

There is already a remedy here. The executive can simply decide not to go through with the execution. There's no benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law. The price of that precedent is too high. If you think the justice system already makes poor decisions (I agree) then the solution is certainly not to give judges even more power.

"There's not benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the law."

I agree, but they already do.

When the entirety of the system has failed and it's down to the executive, that's a problem. We want a system that's fail-safe, not fail-fatal.

The entirety of the system hasn't failed though. The legislature can still change the law and the executive can still refuse to enforce the death penalty. And to top it off the judicial has refused to overstep their bounds.

Yeah... in only one of the many cases. How about the ones that aren't national news?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com