Justice Scalia, 'actual' innocence and death sentence, Is J. Scalia right?

[OrangeEmpire]

J. Scalia, 'actual' innocence and death penalty

Appears, although I do not like the result, Justice Scalia may in fact be correct. The U.S. Constitution may only promise and require procedures and procedural protection in criminal prosecutions. There may not exist in the U.S. Constitution any provision commenting on or providing any guidance as to what, when, or how some result of these proceedings is unfair, unjust, and so forth. J. Scalia appears to be correct in his statement the U.S. Constitution does not afford or require any remedy to the defendant in this case.

Thoughts?

 

[volinbham]

wouldn't executing an innocent person truly be cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[hndog609]

I'm not familiar with the case at all but I don't know how any case where

"Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted, and several people have implicated the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the officer, Mark MacPhail."

doesn't become automatically reviewable. Scalia may very well be right about what SCOTUS can do about the matter but even at the ground level when the evidence (and I'm only going by what was in the link) that gets a man convicted of anything starts to fall apart, and recanting witnesses meets that criteria in my eyes, then the basis for the conviction itself loses credibility.

If what was once "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the evidence presented at the time starts eroding then wouldn't the validity of the conviction erode as well?