Current Events > The United States government is only good at killing people

(+) Yeah! (+)

That's the only thing it is equipped to do, it's the only thing it wants to do.
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1528740991422939136
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1528849268135841792

Background on the case:
https://deathpenalty.org/innocence-isnt-enough-here-arizona-tells-scotus/

Both Ramirez and Jones were sentenced to death in Arizona. Jones has always maintained his innocence, and there is a great deal of evidence supporting his claim. Ramirez has an intellectual disability and was subjected to severe childhood trauma and abuse. In both cases, their state-appointed lawyers failed to present this evidence, or any meaningful evidence, to bolster their defense.

Because of this ineffective representation, Ramirez and Jones had the right to contest their sentences in federal court under Martinez v. Ryan. And, in fact, in 2018, a federal judge ordered Jones release, and in 2019, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Ramirezs case back to the district court.

But, AEDPA bars defendants convicted in state court from presenting new evidence in federal habeas proceedings if the evidence wasnt developed in state court first. So, instead of simply retrying the two men, Arizona is asking the Supreme Court to void Martinez in favor of AEDPA.

And, to the surprise of many in the legal community, the Court agreed to hear the case.

I would prefer to think that the Supreme Court granted cert because they thought that it was a matter of first impression before the Supreme Court and that the circuit courts needed guidance. Just from a political standpoint, if the Court were to agree that Martinez meant not just to allow raising a claim of IAC (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel), but to also allow an evidentiary hearing to develop that claim, taking up a case where they did not have to reverse the circuit court would be less controversial, says death penalty lawyer and DPF board member Robert M. Sanger.

The question of innocence was immaterial to the state Solicitor General, who said more than once during oral argument that innocence isnt enough here, but not surprising considering Arizonas enthusiasm for the death penalty. But it is troubling, mainly because the majority of the Supreme Court is also dismissive of the issue of innocence, even in death penalty cases.

Certainly, the Court has previously stated that actual innocence is not, in and of itself, grounds for the Supreme Court to intercede. But, my sense is that they will not close the door on Martinez claims, i.e., failure to raise and failure to develop a valid claim due to IAC, Sanger says.
..
But, More pessimistically, though realistically, if the Court decides against the Respondents, it would either overrule the Martinez right to raise IAC of post-conviction counsel entirely or render it virtually meaningless. The barring from federal review of reasons not to impose death (as in Ramirez) or claims of actual innocence (as in Jones) would simply make it more likely that the state will execute more people who were not qualified for death under the present law or who were actually innocent, Sanger added.

See also: https://theintercept.com/2021/07/31/death-penalty-supreme-court-arizona-barry-jones/

Tl;dr: the Supreme Court threw out the overturning of two death penalty convictions in Arizona after evidence showed one was innocent and one received ineffective counsel.

when you're right, you're right

No shit

They fuckin kill you over a fake $20 or loose cigarette

Marbury v. Madison was a mistake

It's far easier to destroy and find a justification why the destroyed deserve it than it is to lift a finger to make things better for anyone.

We have a history of electing uneducated people to powerful positions, so yes.

So you can prove your innocence and still get executed, sounds like one of those corrupt badguy countries from an 80's action movie.

Sayoria posted...

We have a history of electing uneducated people to powerful positions, so yes.

What does education have to do with it? These justices all went to Harvard or Yale

Ramirez killed a mother and child, he just couldn't prove his IQ was low enough to get off. Not worried about this one.

Jones is almost assuredly the guy who killed his girlfriends 4 year old daughter, given the insane amount of circumstantial evidence. If there is any evidence that would change this or simply point elsewhere (circumstantial or not), however, it needs to be presentable. Based on what Ive seen, Im pretty convinced it was him, but thats not enough for a death penalty conviction.

These are two WILDLY different cases from what I cam gather. I am not a lawyer or a juror on this case, so this is just opinion.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Jones is almost assuredly the guy who killed his girlfriends 4 year old daughter,

There is really really really strong non-circumstantial evidence he did not.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/09/arizona-death-row-barry-jones-evidentiary-hearing/

At the bare minimum, he absolutely did not rape her as her vaginal injury predates ever meeting him in the first place.

It is most likely that she died of an infection from an injury that she sustained 2-3 days prior to death. Well outside of the time frame in which Jones was alleged to have killed her.

Edit: and once you execute Jones, you don't get to do a takesies backsies when you realize you fucked up later.

Antifar posted...

What does education have to do with it? These justices all went to Harvard or Yale

Justices aren't elected. They are put into position by an elected stupid person. It might not seem like there is a difference, but there is.

Sayoria posted...

They are put into position by an elected stupid person.

They were appointed by presidents who went to Harvard, Yale (both, in W's case) and Penn, and approved by a senateful of lawyers. Now, degrees do not preclude one from being stupid, but it's important not to use uneducated and stupid as synonyms.

They are pretty good at propaganda too, or else they wouldn't be able to get away with killing as many people.

Were_Wyrm posted...

So you can prove your innocence and still get executed, sounds like one of those corrupt badguy countries from an 80's action movie.

No. That isnt really what this case was about.

The case involved weighing two competing legal issues. One, Supreme Court precedent that said people had a right to raise factual issues like defective councel for the first time in federal court and the second, a federal law that prevented it. The court reversed its prior precedent and found the law preventing the introduction of factual evidence in federal court was correct.

Procedurally, this isnt that odd if you think about how the judiciary is set up. Trial courts are generally the fact finders and you cant raise factual issues on appeal. Here the defendants raised factual issue about their ineffective counsel outside of trial court which was the basis for the question presented.

The focus on the quote about innocence is more about the effect of the decision and not an issue that was decided. This decision makes it much harder for people on death row to bring up trial court failures (such as new evidence supporting their innocence) years after the trial. I personally think it was a mistake and bad decision but wanted to provide more context.