Time to think

I saw a ThinkProgress article that made me do some thinking. In a written statement about the Troy Anthony Davis case, Justice Scalia, who sits on our Supreme Court said the following:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Am I translating this right? Did Justice Scalia say it was ok to punish someone for something they didn’t do, even if proof arises that proves them innocent?

Now, lets follow this through. Statements made by witnesses not only provide “reasonable doubt”, but implicate police coercion. So, if this allegation is true, then the police officers who allegedly coerced these witnesses used the legal system as the weapon to murder Troy Davis. That would be first degree murder. The witnesses could be tried for second degree murder, and the judge and jury (having unknowingly participated in killing someone who could prove reasonable doubt) would need to be tried for manslaughter.

This Justice seems to have forgotten the concept behind the law. Innocent until proven guilty is there for more than just a reason to have laws. It is there to protect the innocent from undue punishment. Since he has lost sight of the reason behind the law, it is time for him to step down.