Due giudici della Corte Suprema americana pensano che sa giusto eseguire la condanna a morte di un innocente, se il processo è stato “equo”. Il New York Times spiega perché no e un professore di Etica insegna loro che la giustizia deve essere ritenuta sempre imperfetta.

In their extraordinarily cold dissent, Justices Scalia and Thomas argued that the Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution prohibits executing an inmate who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is actually innocent. To the contrary, they argued that a federal law — the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 — prevents the courts from intervening on behalf of a death row inmate who claims to have proof of his own innocence.
This reading of the law is incorrect, as Justice John Paul Stevens ably explained in a separate opinion. It is also unconscionable. For the state to put a person to death is, in our opinion, always wrong. To do so in the face of clear evidence of innocence is barbaric.