Is anyone still so idealistic as to think that our justice system is about justice and not about upholding the authority of. . .well, authority? Well, maybe the latest ruling from the Old Bastard's Club we sometimes call the Supreme Court and the Republicans sometimes accuse of giving a damn, will change your mind. In a ruling today one might have expected from a Texas court or perhaps the Spanish Inquisition, it ruled that once you're convicted, you have no right to obtain evidence that might exonerate you at least in Alaska, one of the six states in which innocence is no defense once the infallible courts have ruled.
"Science alone cannot prove a prisoner innocent,"read the decision and of course not, but it can prove him not guilty and it often has done just that. But I guess this is a good way to keep from the inevitable embarrassment of killing a few innocent people now and then.
So isn't it nice that at least one branch of Government retains it's contempt for the value of human life once it's had the chance to be baptized?
Take this test on wrong convictions and see how you do.
ReplyDeleteI did poorly:
I have often researched the Innocence Project website for background data when writing blog posts ... and STILL did poorly on that quiz.
ReplyDeleteI didn't get a chance to see the entire SCOTUS ruling. I understand Roberts wrote the majority opinion and Breyer wrote for the minority; may I assume Kennedy was the swing vote? I hope he is the next justice to be replaced.
I agree, Captain. Truly a miscarriage of justice.
New rule: all nominees for the SCOTUS must have spent at least some time in the real world.
ReplyDelete"At least while the remnants of Republican barbarism still control the court, the law is the law is the law; right or wrong"
ReplyDeleteSigh, you're killing me here, do you realize that? While I don't agree with your contention of "Republican barbarism", I do think that this ruling is down right stupid. If it can prove someone guilty or innocent it shouldn't matter when the proof is found.
This is a change from the norm....usually it's the conservatives that are angry at the SCOTUS. :-)
Oh,I got 100% correct.....the second time around....LOL
ReplyDelete4 out of 9 the first time.
"If it can prove someone guilty or innocent it shouldn't matter when the proof is found."
ReplyDeleteNot so according to the "conservative" members of the court. The hoopla about "activist judges" often boils down to exactly this sort of thing. That the exact and literal interpretation of the law is more important than justice - and often even life itself is what conservative judicial philosophy is all about and if you're old enough, you'll remember that the screeching about "activism" got pretty loud during the civil rights movement.
I have actually had people tell me that the Supreme Court was wrong to have intervened in the Civil Rights movement.
ReplyDeleteThey believed it was the job of Congress and if Congress did not act, so be it.
But if that is the most excellent way, what do we do when Congress chooses to not act in a just way?
Who then protects the rights of the "others"?
But if that is the most excellent way, what do we do when Congress chooses to not act in a just way?
ReplyDeleteYeah, if wait around for Congress to do the right thing, we'll all be dead and global warming will have turned our earth into a deserted Atlantis.