A Gold Star for David Grann:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in 2006, voted with a majority to uphold the death penalty in a Kansas case. In his opinion, Scalia declared that, in the modern judicial system, there has not been "a single case--not one--in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

Justice Scalia in 2009:

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Did I mention the Gold Star for David Grann's article?

In 2003 Decius recommended an interesting web site:

Here you can see the last statements of people executed in Texas.

Sure enough, this site is still in operation, and today, Cameron Todd Willingham's Information Sheet and Last Statement are there, although the Statement is incomplete because the government omitted part of it "due to profanity."

Decius, in 2003:

We have a real problem in America with oversimplified responses to complex problems.

The ABA wants a moratorium on the death penalty.

Decius, in 2005:

IMHO If the state is going to kill you it ought to consider all of the evidence. The idea that it need not seems ignorant of the finality of death.

Finethen, in 2006:

If we must use it, we must make sure it is absolutely humane and does not get misapplied. Unfortunately, both inhumane uses and misapplication are still frequent.

Decius, in 2007:

Americans define themselves with their toughness. Having sympathy for criminals is weak. No one wants to be perceived as weak. The meme here is that caring about what happens to people is the opposite of thinking. The conservative movement paraphrases this as "liberals feel and conservatives think."

Gold Star

David Grann:

Did Texas execute an innocent man?

Justice Scalia:

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Also worth a "look" -- The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, which has been misinterpreting bad punctuation since 2005.

Justice Stevens:

Imagine a petitioner in Davis's situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man. The dissent's reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The Court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning.

Decius:

Conor Clarke suggests that Scalia and Thomas are not crazy in holding the view that federal courts are powerless to help a convicted but demonstrably innocent death row inmate.

I think this is one of those moments when there is a clear division between right and wrong