Except he was, of course, not innocent. He was tried and convicted by the state of Texas. He exhausted his appeals. The process was followed, thus, he was legally considered guilty and correctly executed. Whether or not he actually did it is secondary to whether the rules were followed (and if they weren't, that's what appeals are for, so they must have been). Right?
It's like Nixon once said, "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
I'm sure that helps Scalia, and the good people of Texas, sleep easier.
Embedded Link
Report: Texas Executed Innocent Man
Carlos DeLuna maintained his innocence from the moment he was arrested in 1983 for the stabbing death of a young Texas woman right up until he was executed six years later. On Monday, a Columbia Unive…
Google+: View post on Google+
I'm torn on the death penalty. When I read things like this I feel that we are too imperfect of a society to have death as a punishment, too often we are wrong.
On the other hand, those soulless bastards that killed that guy's family in Cheshire, CT simply deserve to die.
Perfectly willing to keep the death penalty if the Cops, the DA, the Jury and the Governor involved in this case are now hauled off this week and executed.
+Travis Cobb, this is the crux of the problem. Even if we agreed that someone who murders innocents deserves to die, hopefully we can agree that it's not okay for the state to murder more innocent people in retaliation.
This is yet another reason there is no place for capital punishment in a civilized society. It's not, and never has been about justice. It's about revenge. If we want a system of revenge, then we should do away with the courts and go back trial by angry mob. Just because we go through a process of trials and appeals in large granite buildings doesn't change the fact that it is State sanctioned revenge. Courtrooms and juries merely makes it appear more dignified and fair.