The question I posed for Justice Scalia was what do we do when principles from the Constitution conflict? On the one hand, as he had pointed out earlier in the evening, the 8th amendment allows for capital punishment. On the other hand, there is clearly a strong concern about the possibility of punishing an innocent man -- hence the standard of evidence in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas for civil cases it's simply a "preponderance of the evidence."

This is a valid concern, but it's not a constitutional conflict, because the first principle is in the Constitution and the second one isn't.