I won't go into all the details, and you can read the piece here, but essentially he was convicted of murdering his two young children by arson, on evidence which has arguably been disproven by breakthroughs in arson detection science, evidence provided by what appear to be woefully underqualified arson "experts" in northeast Texas.
I thought the story would be an uninteresting low-life tale; in fact it's a page-turner. But a new story is emerging, one of potential cover-up by Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), who is looking at a difficult primary battle against popular Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who's going after his job.
Perry has removed officials on the science panel investigating the Willingham case, just 48-hours prior to a key hearing with the scientist disproving the Willingham arson evidence, and replaced them with his own people. Sure looks like he's covering for a failed death penalty system -- and Perry's own failure to commute Willingham's sentence to give time for the evidence to be fully examined.
Hutch
Perry's going the demonization route, calling Willingham a "monster." Hutchison's campaign are using the apparent conflict of interest against Perry with a press release including:
The issue is Rick Perry’s heavy-handed politicization of a process and Commission established by the legislature to provide critical oversight. First, Rick Perry delayed the formation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, then he tried to ensure it didn’t have funding and when all else failed, he fired everyone he could. The only thing Rick Perry’s actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty.
Nothing like watching GOPers fight it out, but the bigger issue here is the finality of the death penalty. Look, when I hear about a villain who kidnaps, rapes and murders a fourteen year-old girl, I say fry 'em. But justice is imperfect, especially in certain parts of the country, and arson is perhaps the hardest crime to pin down as murder. Even decades in prison capped by exoneration is better than exoneration post-lethal injection.
So what wonder is, with exonerations based on DNA evidence happening routinely these days, is there still a perfect argument for the state putting convicted individuals to death, rather than life imprisonment?
3 comments:
This is a tough subject.
I believe in the death penalty, but I don't think it's something that should be tossed out so easily. It's a penalty that should be reserved for psychopaths.
This is what the appeals process is supposed to safeguard against the finality. The entire blame for this can't be put on the governor, he's just the goalie that basically the buck stops here. Even if he is covering something up, and is a bad person, it's not entirely his fault.
Maybe the appeals process needs to be changed?
As most other civilized countries have realized, the death penalty is, from every angle, a terrible idea. Let's forget about the moral issues and just look at the practical issues:
1) It doesn't deter crime.
2) It's applied almost randomly.
3) If you can afford decent representation, your chances of frying are infinitesimal (cough, cough, "O.J.").
4) Courtroom justice is a process, not an absolute; sometimes trial results are just incorrect, even if all parties are operating in good faith.
5) In many cases, all parties aren't operating in good faith. The country is full of shitbag DA's eager to build a political career by frying some no account loser. Take a look at the House/Senate & Governorships and you'll see a wildly disproportionate number of former prosecutors. In the grand scheme of things, since the annual number of executions is so small, the DP is more useful as a political tool than as a law-enforcement tool.
6) It's expensive as hell.
Of course, on the positive side, the death penalty gives solace to the large proportion of Americans who are scared, angry, vicious, and bloodthirsty. Why people think frying somebody is a stiffer punishment than making him spend his life in a cage is beyond me.
As for myself, I'm against the death penalty, except in red states and for white collar criminals.
In other countries where the death penalty is implemented, (i.e., China, Iran) I believe it is often carried out quickly after sentencing - no time for lengthy appeals, pressure via public sentiment, etc. A bullet in the head and it's time for lunch. Brutally efficient, but hardly just.
Here, we have a system which is supposed to insure that justice is done. But as the Willingham case proves, the system isn't perfect. Despite all the other valid reasons for objecting to capital punishment (i.e., moral issues aside, how about innocent people killed by the very system that is supposed to protect them?)that imperfection is reason enough to pull the plug on the death penalty.
What's more important here? Is it better to kill off a few innocent men and women via faulty trials, so that guilty ones can be fried? Or is it better to not kill off somebody's innocent mother or father but allow the guilty to ones to rot in jail for eternity. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Post a Comment