Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I've Got Cat Class And I've Got Cat Style

So I'm sitting here as the fastest thunderstorm in history blows over, plotting out my spot on the Super Bowl parade route and missing The Hillock trying to steal my string cheese, and I come across a titter post from Marty Beckerman. It links to this story by Prof. Alan Dershowitz where SCJ Scalia makes the case that innocence is no reason not to execute somebody.
“This 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. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
Dershowitz has good point:
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.”
Dershowitz also wonders how this affects Scalia's Catholicism. I'm waiting for Bill Donahue to call for Scalia being denied communion, although I'm not putting any money on it.

I'm more worried that a Supreme Court Justice thinks it's perfectly OK to execute innocent people under our Constition. Maybe, just maybe, that might be unreasonable seizure.

Of course, if that guy's wife was not alive, but had in fact come back as a zombie, then all bets are off. Of course, that study just tells us the obvious. That zombies must be wiped out immediately. I wish they'd paid me a bunch of cash to say that.

Your Cat Missing leader.

7 comments:

Spot said...

You will think you see the Hillock out of the corner of your eye for a long time. Maybe you actually will.

Swiftee said...

To: Stool
From: TS

re: Metro Strike Force Gang.

Not every Metro Strike Force gangster robbed people, but every gangster knew one that did.

DiscordianStooge said...

That may be true. Go write a nice post about it at your own site.

Swiftee said...

So I'm listening to the legislative panel collecting info on the Metro Strike Force Gang, and I hear the investigator say that the FBI was also investigating a "misuse" of the federal crime database....I'm thinking "RICO?" and before I finish that thought, Rep. Limmer (I think) says: "Is this a RICO case?"

You may be part of history, stool. A member of the first LE agency prosecuted under a statute created for gangsters.

The irony is, with RICO, you don't necessarily have to have actually actively participated in a crime to be implicated....so not every SF gangster robbed people, but every SF gangster knew people were being robbed...you follow?

If the California model involving the Mongols M/C is followed, you might not be able to wear your "colors" (uniform) in public!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa!

*That* is some funny shit right there, you gotta admit!

DiscordianStooge said...

I wasn't on the Gang Task Force, so I'm not too worried.

I'd like to point out, again, swiftee, that you have your own blog where you could write a whole post about this. You're acting like Penigma, just posting random stuff in my comments.

If you have any thoughts on the constitutionality of executing innocent people or zombies, that's what this comment section is for.

Swiftee said...

I was alluding to the probability that (according to a little bird) most of the gangsters under investigation are MPD.

It was weak, and I admit it.

But still, the thought of some federal court judge issuing an order and decree denying a PD from showing their uniforms on the street is pretty amusing.

Executing people may be constitutional, but it's morally indefensible....except if the condemned is a zombie.

Zombies don't have any more constitutional protections than an unborn child, so we're good to go legally.

Morally, offing zombies is always the right thing to do.

Offing zombies is teh kewl 2.

Swiftee said...

Comparing me with Peevee is never teh kewl, though.