No Constitutional Right for Innocent Not to be Executed

Alan Dershowitz versus Tony Scalia and Clarence Thomas on a truly unthinkable (but thankfully minority) opinion….

Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”

3 comments to No Constitutional Right for Innocent Not to be Executed

  • Buck

    What are the chances that Alan has a brain tumor? When you call it a minority opinion I am hoping that Alan is the only person in the world that has it.

  • Scalia & Thomas both wrote that dissent. Alan D. is criticizing them. I doubt Scalia & Thomas both have brain tumors. But something’s not right with them.

  • Buck

    It pays to read the links even when you are in a hurry :-)

    It just never would have occurred to me that two supreme court judges would hold such a strange opinion. Maybe they need to take some time and talk to a few wise Latina women.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>