The Supreme Court of the United States of America on the Herrera case and the European Parliament's resolution on the death penalty

ABSTRACT: The text recalls the terrible "sentence" of the Supreme Court of the United States, according to which "a claim of actual innocence is not itself a constitutional right". "The constitutional court affirms that the only truth the justice system takes account is the one that emerges from the trial..."

(1994 - IL QUOTIDIANO RADICALE, 26 October 1993)

"A claim of actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim", was the conclusion drawn by the United States Supreme Court on the case of Leonel Torres Herrera, sentenced to death in Texas last January. With this sentence, it counters one of the objections most frequently raised by the anti-death penalty organizations, i.e. "what if the person you are killing were innocent"? The Supreme Court believes the only truth that justice can take into account is the truth that emerges from the trial, and that innocence proven after the conclusion of a trial is not in itself constitutionally relevant. That is to say that a citizen cannot be tried twice for the same offence, neither when he/she proves guilty but has been judged innocent, nor when he/she proves innocent after being judge guilty. This principle, which is based on the respect of the rules and accepts the fact that trial truth is biased, paradoxically becomes juridical fundamentalism when it resorts to a "final" solution such as the death penalty. On

the other hand, the American Constitution allows every citizen to carry a personal weapon, and faced to the fact that 80% of crimes remain unpunished, the public opinion expresses a simplistic request: anyone who kills should be killed.