• Home
  • About

walshslaw

perspectives on law, from Richmond VA

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Questioning the “technicality”-induced removal of Wayne L. Emery’s name from the ballot in the race for Richmond County Commonwealth Attorney
New Fourth Circuit Judge: Senate confirms Judge Henry Floyd (SC) with 96-0 vote »

Baude on actual innocence

September 25, 2011 by Kevin C. Walsh

This thoughtful essay by William Baude in The Wilson Quarterly is eminently worth reading.

Advertisements

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Print
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Law | Tagged actual innocence, Baude, habeas corpus, Wilson Quarterly | 4 Comments

4 Responses

  1. on September 26, 2011 at 11:02 am Matthew W. Daloisio

    I will not dispute that Baude’s piece was worth reading, but thoughtful only if one is to agree that tortured logic raises to some level of thoughtfulness. It’s hard to separate the analysis from the application, particularly in cases that result in state sanctioned homicide. Application of Baude’s analysis to other than death penalty cases may be a regrettable necessity given the realities of limited resources and time he cites. But it can not be the case, as Scalia suggests, that it ever ‘no longer matters whether there is new evidence of innocence,’ when we are dealing with possible execution. If anything, constraints (of resources, time, and human fallibility) must logically dictate that a penalty of death can never be acceptable. There are other places in the Constitution to turn to to support this, as well as other extra-legal resources (have you considered signing this? http://catholicmoraltheology.com/a-catholic-call-to-abolish-the-death-penalty/). Baude’s conclusion that the legislature and lobbying are the answer to the “actual innocence” problem deserves it’s own lengthy treatment, but in short, in practice it is so incredibly ignorant to the realities of Washington that it can and should be dismissed on its face without even addressing the absurdity of citizens lobbying the legislature to give judges the ability to consider actual innocence.


    • on September 26, 2011 at 9:04 pm kevincwalsh

      You and I disagree about the merits of Will Baude’s piece. I don’t find the logic to be tortured, and I agree that judges should not set the limits of their own power.

      The legal acceptability of the death penalty and its moral acceptability are two different things. I oppose the death penalty, as a moral matter, under almost all circumstances. But I do not think it is unconstitutional, and I do not think courts should stray beyond the limited authority that they have to ensure that death sentences are ordered only pursuant to law. With respect to the Troy Davis execution, I do not think the Supreme Court had any warrant for issuing a stay case last week–a view apparently shared by Justice Stevens, according to this news report.

      Thank you for bringing the theologians’ petition to my attention. It is not something I would sign, because I do not agree that lawmakers should immediately repeal AEDPA, which is what the petition calls for. I wonder if all of the signatories to the petition understand AEDPA; I doubt it very much.

      As for lobbying and legislatures, I think most of this is to be done on the state level rather than the federal level. Further, the stances that people take may surprise you. For example, here in Virginia, Thomas Haynesworth has the support not only of two Commonwealth’s Attorneys, but also Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.


  2. on September 26, 2011 at 10:52 pm kevincwalsh

    Will Baude’s twitter feed @crescat has links to other incisive discussions of the Troy Davis case, including this one by David Dow.


  3. on September 26, 2011 at 11:16 pm Matthew W. Daloisio

    The death penalty may be constitutional, but it is surely cruel…and I pray that it soon becomes unusual enough that courts will have to reconsider its status in a civilized society. As civilized as we may be in the meantime, I would argue that logic (legal or otherwise) that performs the intellectual gymnastics required to justify state sanctioned murder in the face of potential innocence can be nothing other than tortured.

    In the case of Troy Davis, the fact that Justice Stevens thinks that “the court had no option but to uphold the decision,” should not be understood to mean that he thought it the right decision.

    The AEDP is a perfect example of what can happen when fear and politics make law. The legislature through statute and statutes of limitations, and the courts through interpretation have essentially rendered habeas rights near meaningless (as the merits are difficult to reach), while politicians are able to campaign on the backs of the victims (who had little voice in the system before being accused, and even less of one now) and judges sit back and are able to claim “we had no option…” While it is surprising, in the case of Haynesworth, that the Commonwealth’s Attorneys and the Attorney General supported his petition, it is shocking that in the absence of such unlikely support a demonstrably innocent man in this case, could and likely would have remained in prison. The system “worked” in this case because of an exception and in spite of the rules. (sidenote…1996 was a particularly bad year for prisoners rights, with both the AEDP and the PLRA)

    I understand the difference between legality and morality and fear I will have to achieve a greater acceptance of the difference to survive in this field. I just wish there did not seem to be a developing chasm between legality and justice, with all the requisite thoughtfulness to allow for a distance and complacency at the top that is seen and experienced as cruelty (however it is justified) at the bottom.



Comments are closed.

  • Twitter Feed

    • @potus @realDonaldTrump can get his name in the history books by championing the Melania Trump Amendment (AKA the "… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 12 hours ago
    Follow @kevincwalsh
  • Archives

    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • April 2014
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
  • Categories

    • Catholic
    • Fourth Circuit
    • Law
    • News
  • Pages

    • About
  • Popular Tags

    5000A abortion ACA ACCA Affordable Care Act Agee amicus curiae Anti-Injunction Act Baltimore Catholic class action conspiracy contraception contraceptives mandate Cuccinelli Davis Diaz DOMA Duncan en banc Establishment Clause evidence facial challenge First Amendment Floyd FOIA Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit Free Exercise Gregory habeas corpus Hamilton HCR healthcare health care healthcare reform health care reform HHS HHS mandate immigration individual mandate interlocutory appeal John Marshall jurisdiction Keenan Keith Kennedy King Lawrence v. Texas Motz Niemeyer partial unconstitutionality piracy preemption religious liberty RFRA Richmond Same-sex marriage Scalia Second Amendment Section 5000A sentencing severability Shedd Sixth Circuit standing suppression Supreme Court Third Circuit Traxler USCCB Virginia Virginia v. Sebelius Wilkinson Wynn
  • Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: