Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ck4829

(35,910 posts)
Thu Jun 9, 2022, 08:05 AM Jun 2022

The new court's absurd inhumanity: To preserve procedure, an innocent man must die

That is a decision released last month, Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, which is likely to result in the execution of an innocent man. For the wrongfully convicted, it sets a precedent that shatters the hope that they can get new evidence of innocence examined by a federal court.

And not because the court has weighed the evidence for and against guilt and come to the conclusion that the man is guilty. (The latest court to review the evidence in the case concluded he probably couldn’t be found guilty of anything.)

The court is pushing to execute him because it says the evidence showing he is innocent should not be considered at all.

The ruling is especially significant for Idaho because it reversed a ruling of the federal Ninth Circuit, the final stop for an Idaho appellant before the U.S. Supreme Court. As Kevin Fixler reported, there’s likely one Idaho case already affected by the ruling.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-absurd-inhumanity-preserve-procedure-100000629.html

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The new court's absurd inhumanity: To preserve procedure, an innocent man must die (Original Post) ck4829 Jun 2022 OP
91-8 in the Senate Effete Snob Jun 2022 #1
Thank you enough Jun 2022 #2
 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
1. 91-8 in the Senate
Thu Jun 9, 2022, 08:22 AM
Jun 2022

This is an interesting take:

"The court is pushing to execute him because it says the evidence showing he is innocent should not be considered at all."

It's the law which excludes consideration of that evidence. The court was asked to stop that and declined. To say the court is "pushing to execute him" narrowly assigns blame for this provision, which 91 US Senators approved and Bill Clinton signed:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00242.htm

Only eight senators voted against this obscenity:

Feingold (D-WI)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

But if you want to know who is "pushing to execute him", here are their names:

Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

It was to stop "all those criminals getting off or having their punishment delayed by 'technicalities'".

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Civil Liberties»The new court's absurd in...