During Senator Russell Feingold's "25 minutes with flexibility" today, he revealed the inherent amoralism of Alito and his ilk: constitutional constructionists
How did he do it? He asked this question: does an innocent person have a constitutional right not to be executed? Alito's roundabout answer: not really.
Background:
Amendment VI United States Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
According to Alito's evasive and pandering testimony, this seems to be the primary obligation of the State and no more.
Transcript below from WAPO
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
FEINGOLD: I want to follow up on one question that Senator Leahy asked this morning about the constitutionality of executing an innocent person.
You said that the Constitution, of course, is designed to prevent that. We all agree on that.
But let's say that the trial was procedurally perfect and there were no legal or constitutional errors, but later evidence proves that the person convicted was unquestionably innocent. Does that person have a constitutional right not to be executed?
ALITO: The person would first have to avail himself or herself of the procedures that Congress has specified for challenging convictions after they've become final.
If this individual has been convicted and has gone through the whole process of direct appeal, either in the state system or in the federal system, then there are procedures. States have procedures for collateral attacks and there are procedures under federal statutes for collateral attacks on federal conventions and on state convictions. And the person would have to go through the procedures that are set out in the statute.
And the system is designed to prevent a person from being executed if the person is innocent. And actual innocence figures very importantly even in these sometimes complex procedures that have to be followed in these collateral attacks.
For example, usually, there's this doctrine of procedural default, which is not something that ordinary people are familiar with, but it means that if a state prisoner is challenging a state conviction, the state prisoner has to take advantage of the procedures that are available under state law.
ALITO: And if the state prisoner doesn't do that...
FEINGOLD: My question assumes that all that's been done and the process went through and there's no legal or constitutional or procedural problems, but evidence suddenly proves that the person convicted was unquestionably innocent.
The question is: Does that person in that posture have a constitutional right not to be executed?
ALITO: Well, then the person would have to, as I said, file a petition. And if it was an initial petition, it would fall into one category. If it was a second or a successive petition, it would fall into another category and the person would have to satisfy the requirements the Congress has set out for filing a second or successive petition.
FEINGOLD: You can't say that the person has a constitutional right not to be executed?
ALITO: Well, I have to know the specific facts of the case and the way it works its way through the legal system. The rules here are complicated. A person has a right. It is one of the most fundamental rights that anybody has. It is a fundamental right and a fundamental objective of our judicial system that nobody is to be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if there's evidence that the person is not guilty of the offense, then that gets to the very heart of what our whole system of criminal justice is designed to address.
FEINGOLD: I'll stop on that topic.
But, you know, I think there's a real question here simply because somebody is adjudicated guilty but they are, in fact, innocent -- I would take the view that they still have a constitutional right not to be executed.
But I'm glad we could talk about that a bit.
End Transcript
As a strict constructionist, Alito believes that the State has upheld its obligation to provide a fair and speedy trial. Once it leaves the jury's hands, the State has no further constitutional or moral obligation to the convicted.
Essentially, Alito is saying that the State has no obligation to expend additional energies to overturn a wrongful conviction. It is the individual's responsibility to avail themselves of the procedures set forth by Congress and prove their innocence.
So my question to all is, does this constitute moral indifference, amoralism or is it something else entirely?