Doesn't have anything to do with firearms or recent shootings but SCOTUS recently said that It doesn't matter if you're innocent, If the state convicted you and you got the death penalty they can still execute you.
Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough' To Overturn Black Man's Conviction Of Murder
"Know this: Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is perfectly Constitutional to imprison and execute people, *even those who have evidence of their innocence & inadequate counsel."; Scott Hechinger.
https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-ru ... 46605.html
So even if your state appointed counsel was incompetent, didn't introduce exculpatory evidence, did not call experts witnesses to refute the prosecutions testimony, and the jury convicted you, too bad. You can't introduce new evidence that shows you are innocent. Huh? WTF?
Who wrote this crap?: Who else; Thomas.
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
2We have a crappy legal system. Better than some, but definitely flawed.
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
3SCOTUS seems to be out to test if their lack legitimacy can be translated into actual impeachment or reformation by legislation. I think we are getting closer to finding out...
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
4https://theintercept.com/2017/10/23/bar ... chel-gray/In a state where eight people have been exonerated from death row, Arizona prosecutors have fought against reopening Jones’s case, even as the basis for his conviction has fallen apart. As his defense attorneys argue, “Jones was convicted based on a very specific timeline, which was grounded on a single factual premise: that Rachel was fatally injured and sexually assaulted while she was alone with Jones on portions of Sunday, May 1, 1994.” The total time frame was no longer than four hours, during which Jones was seen taking the child on short trips in his van. But several medical experts hired by defense attorneys have concluded that Rachel’s fatal injury could not possibly have occurred within the narrow window presented by the state.
More significant still, in a recent letter to Jones’s lawyers, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office conceded that the current Pima County medical examiner “did not dispute the conclusions of your experts.” And the forensic pathologist who took the stand against Jones in 1995 has acknowledged that his testimony was flawed. Jones’s attorneys are certain that if the case were tried again, “no juror acting reasonably would ever find Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The prime reason we need to get rid of the death penalty and change it to life in prison. Our adversarial system of justice is not justice, it is highly flawed.
Last edited by highdesert on Thu May 26, 2022 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
5Agree, abolish death penalty. Everyone dies. Prison is the closest thing to hell outside being compelled to watch a Ronald Reagan film, which The Constitution forbids.
This isn't going well, is it?
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
6Wow, Arizona.
The “Vengeance is Mine!” State.
The “Vengeance is Mine!” State.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
7Innocence is not enough. Money. Money makes things happen.
CDFingers
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
8That article is very poorly written.
I see at least one major discrepancy between what was in the decision and what is in the article.
Much ado about nothing, right down there with the other conspiracy theories.
I see at least one major discrepancy between what was in the decision and what is in the article.
Much ado about nothing, right down there with the other conspiracy theories.
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
9"Kill them all. The Lord will know His own!"
And most of the 6 are devout RCC members. Scalia was Opus Dei, about as reactionary and fanatical as Catholicism can get."Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." is a phrase reportedly spoken by the commander of the Albigensian Crusade, prior to the massacre at Béziers on 22 July 1209.... Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric was the military commander of the Crusade in its initial phase and leader of this first major military action of the Crusade, the assault on Béziers, and was reported by Caesarius of Heisterbach to have uttered the order.[1]
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
10The biggest problem I see in our Supreme Court is that too many are religious. It should not be the basis of selection, it should be the basis of deselection when one group is over represented.YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 1:41 pm "Kill them all. The Lord will know His own!"
And most of the 6 are devout RCC members. Scalia was Opus Dei, about as reactionary and fanatical as Catholicism can get."Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." is a phrase reportedly spoken by the commander of the Albigensian Crusade, prior to the massacre at Béziers on 22 July 1209.... Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric was the military commander of the Crusade in its initial phase and leader of this first major military action of the Crusade, the assault on Béziers, and was reported by Caesarius of Heisterbach to have uttered the order.[1]
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
11We should have an equal balance of religions that represent the percentage of that population of the US on the Supreme Court. Moslem, Hindi, Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew, etc. With no more than two members of the same religion.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
12That would a start if there was at least one agnostic in the bunch.TrueTexan wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 2:38 pm We should have an equal balance of religions that represent the percentage of that population of the US on the Supreme Court. Moslem, Hindi, Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew, etc. With no more than two members of the same religion.
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
13Shocking how quick the bench was filled with Catholics. Heck, back in the day it was hard for Catholics to get elected like for instance John F. Kennedy.
I think he had to swear on the bible that his Catholicism wouldn't influence his decisions.
I think he had to swear on the bible that his Catholicism wouldn't influence his decisions.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”
Re: Supreme Court Rules 'Innocence Isn't Enough
14Yup Kennedy was the first Catholic president and Biden is the second. There was a lot of opposition to Kennedy from conservative protestant churches. Kennedy's famous statement.
The conservative, some say reactionary Catholics on SCOTUS have impacted their decisions. Plus the obsession of presidents in selecting only Ivy League law school graduates, Biden first and could be only pick is the same. Barrett is the exception.
https://www.history.com/news/jfk-catholic-president“[C]ontrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy said on live TV in his now famous address. “I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”
The conservative, some say reactionary Catholics on SCOTUS have impacted their decisions. Plus the obsession of presidents in selecting only Ivy League law school graduates, Biden first and could be only pick is the same. Barrett is the exception.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan