Scalia: Actual Innocence Does Not Prevent Execution

Quote :

Scalia is part of a school of legal thought - a
rather big one, sad to say - that follows an absolute rock-solid,
carved-into-stone literal interpretation of the Constitution.
Black-and-white literal meaning is all that will do for them. If it's
not explicitly in the Constitution, as far as he's concerned, it's not
part of the Constitution.

A little OT, but I've recently learned in my 'Legal History Class' that during classical Roman times, there were two court systems, one for the citizens and one for noncitizens. The first was very Scalia-style strict, based on literal readings of their 12 Table Laws and other laws ---law administration, not justice. The second was based in equity and trying to do justice, mixing and matching the laws of neighboring states. It tried to make justice, not apply a formula.

Good thing Scalia is a minority, because history has shown that the first approach didn't survive. After granting Roman citizenship to Europe, implementing a strict reading of classic Roman law was a clusterfuck. The empire was too fast, the cultures too different and things like the weather made all the difference in the world.

Substitute 'weather' for 'technology' and this might as well be present day.

Penguin wrote:

I've read elsewhere that the main problem Scalia is trying to address here is to stop a scenario like this from occurring:

An innocent man is given a fair trial and convicted, and evidence later surfaces proving his innocence. The case is negated and the innocent man freed.

Using this as a precedent, defense lawyers make any case (especially death penalty ones) a nightmare of legal proceedings and appeals, jamming the court system to a standstill.

Which really isn't all that different than what we have now in most states that use the death penalty (Texas being the biggest exception). Appeals can drag out for decades even in cases where the convicted's guilt is all but certain.

Scalia's opinions, from a technical standpoint, are fascinating reading. From a legal standpoint, they are often utter rubbish.