I'm not being partisan but I lost a lot of respect for Scalia when he dissented in a death penalty case and stated (badly paraphrased) that it's essentially ok for the government to make mistakes and execute innocent people because the death penalty served as a valuable deterrent to crime.
I mean really - placing the interests of the state ahead of basic human rights? What could be a more fundamental violation of your rights than to be put to death for a crime you didn't commit?
In a theoretical world where no death penalty existed and was replaced with a life sentence it would at least be possible for someone that was wrongly convicted to be released from prison if exculpatory evidence comes to light.
I think he's often right. But unlike tptacek, I just can't muster any admiration for this dissent. It seemed so petulant, and more grounded in sophistry than law.
Maybe desegregation should have been handled at the state level. It's easy to say "of course the federal government should overrule the states" in cases where the states are obviously wrong, but what about the cases where it's the federal government that's in the wrong? Would standing up for the principle, even in repellent cases like segregation, do more good overall?
