Amorality

Last Thursday,the US Supreme Court heard the case of Paul House, an inmate in Tennessee who is appealing his death sentence based upon new DNA evidence that suggests he is innocent. One of our cro-magnon justices, Antonin Scalia, seemingly has blithely stated that the court would take a strictly legalistic approach to the case. Does he mean there will be no consideration of what is right, what is wrong, what serves justice? Is he implying that they will review the case only for procedural conformance?

While agreeing the case now looks "much closer" than it must have appeared to the jury in 1986. Scalia states that is not the issue, "Once the case has been tried, we have a much different task," Scalia said, namely to determine "whether any reasonable jury could have found guilt." Only if the answer was no, could a federal court proceed to hear a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and consider whether constitutional errors that had not previously been identified had occurred at the trial. It is, Justice Scalia said, "a very heavy burden" for the defense to meet.

House's lawyer, Stephen Kissinger, replied, "It is a high burden, and we don't shrink from it." Kissinger, an assistant federal defender from Knoxville, Tenn., stated, "It comes down to the 'could' and 'would' distinction," he said. "We don't deny that there is evidence that 'could' support conviction, but that's not the test. What 'would' a reasonable juror conclude? Proof of innocence does not have to be absolute."

Apparently the new DNA evidence does not clearly exonerate Mr. House but it does make a primary piece of the prosecution's case void. Chemical tests reported at the original trial indicated that House's semen was found on the victims clothing, while DNA testing later showed it to be from the victim's husband. House's lawyers contend the victim's husband is the murderer, and they have also provided witnesses who testified overhearing the husband make a drunken confession.

There is evidence from DNA testing, evidence from science, from facts, that suggest he is innocent. He deserves to be set free if the evidence is verified. Let's not cheat this man of his only chance to live. Our legal system is not perfect – and we know it. Does anyone think their rights will be more capably protected with the near certain addition of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme bench?

Upon meeting our maker, how can humankind justify the goodness of our lives if we sit by and enable the travesty of capital punishment to continue?

DNA testing frees innocent man
Freed by DNA testing after 24 years in Prison
False confessor seeks new trial
Surviving justice – 13 exonerees discuss their experience
Posted on The Human Stain