4 ms·
> someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted that includes everyone convicted of a crime, al
by abigail95 2y ago
> someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted
that includes everyone convicted of a crime, all of the time.
unless you think due process requires endless appeals, you probably agree with Scalia
Shinn v. Ramirez overturns Martinez v. Ryan, use the state court instead. where in the constitution does it say there is federal jurisdiction for that kind of claim?
- int_19h 2y ago"Endless appeals" is such a blatant strawman here. If there is new evidence available (or old evidence that was wrongly excluded), then of course an appeal is justified, no matter how many appeals happened before. Anything else would be mockery of justice.
- abigail95 2y agothe system for evaluating whether new evidence is "new evidence" already exists and is not what is being claimed here. read more into the facts and proceedures of the legal system please.
- int_19h 2y agoThe Constitution is supposed to guarantee us due process of law. As a citizen, I firmly believe that a legal system that would condemn a man who is likely innocent to die is not "due process of law" in any meaningful sense. Even if you're correct and the precedent is that this is how it is, well then, too bad for the precedent.