If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case.
If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who denies these people justice for no particular reason except that you can. You are a terrible person.
The phrase is appropriate, and that it is often used flippantly in other less fitting contexts doesn't matter.
You do a terrific job moderating HN, and I respect your decisions. Godspeed!
> If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about.
The quote is from a concurrence on a certiorari Herrera v. Collins[1], and Justice Scalia was indeed "just writing" about it. The certiorari was granted, so he didn't "deny justice".
Dang is right, I got it wrong, and my conclusions are hogwash—for which I apologize.
As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed.
Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.
The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.
Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed.
But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable, and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he came to.
Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious.
I don't mean that we've all written something like that, but that we've all (or practically all) done something as bad as that. No doubt the impact is many times worse when one is a Supreme Court justice, but that doesn't change the kind of person one is, it just amplifies it.
Indeed, if the threshold is that low, then we're all a terrible person.