Spare you the effort though:

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable"

I like how so many have abused that remark, which is a simply statement of fact. Scalia pointed out that there was no Supreme Court precedent on this issue, in his opinion. You can play with that comment if you want to, but I choose to it at face value. It doesn't, to me, look like he is saying executing the innocent is perfectly fine.

Incidentally, I don't really see the connection to my own comments there, so Scalia might not be the only one you're misinterpreting. I am saying that I don't go in for rhetorical arguments when every conceivable example I can think of would either be nonsense or justification for retrials, not random release. If you're specifically homing in on my comment that I don't consider execution inhumane, then fine, I believe it is possible to kill someone in a humane fashion, and I only support those kinds of executions. Last I checked this was both the law and the majority public opinion.