The death penalty may have finally crossed a shameful line that, if there is any sense of reason or justice in American society, should bring the practice to a swift and final end. The state of Texas, despite all of the safeguards that proponents of the death penalty claim would prevent this from happening, may have executed an innocent man.
A story in the Sept. 7 issue of The New Yorker details the case of Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed on Feb. 17, 2004, by lethal injection in the Texas death house at the state prison in Huntsville. Texas has made the most prolific use of the death penalty since its re–establishment in 1977.
Willingham was convicted of murdering his three young children after they died in a house fire on Dec. 23, 1991, in Corsicana, Texas. The unemployed auto mechanic had been at home watching the children while his wife was shopping for Christmas presents for their three daughters. He told investigators that his 2–year–old daughter woke him from a nap saying that the house was on fire, but his attempts to rescue the children failed.
Investigators determined that the fire was arson, although there was a history of the children tampering with a space heater used to warm part of the small house where the family lived in a rundown, failed oil town.
However, later reviews of the case by arson and forensics experts determined that investigators used a combination of junk science and folklore to reach their flawed conclusion of arson.
Willingham quickly became the prime suspect, and like most poor defendants, had weak legal representation. As his case worked its way through the process, he steadfastly professed his innocence, to the point of rejecting a plea bargain that would have spared him the death penalty. But based on essentially unchallenged “scientific” evidence, he went to his death.
All of the safeguards failed.
In an interview before his execution, Willingham told The Associated Press he was innocent. “The most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn’t care they’re making a mistake,” he said.
In a U.S. Supreme Court case decided this summer, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” Which raises a question: can a trial be fair if an innocent person is convicted?
That there are wrongly convicted inmates on death row is nothing new. Well over 100 people on the nation’s death rows have been shown to be completely innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted through scientific reviews of their cases. How many others, without access to the technology and resources that could prove their innocence have been walked to their death in a prison execution chamber? How many have died unjustly, all in the name of justice?
We are not so naive to believe that everyone on death row is innocent. Prisons across the country are filled with guilty people paying their debt to society. But we shouldn’t strip someone of their dignity when they enter prison, like it’s an old T–shirt. The dignity God gives every person follows them every step of their life. As Catholics, we pray the guilty will repent and be redeemed. And we must demand that the innocent receive justice.
As the church has long taught, the death penalty is not the proper response to crime and violence. Society has both the right and duty to protect its citizens, but modern society has the capacity to do so without resorting to the execution of criminals.
Perhaps the good that might come from the tragic death of three young girls in a house fire and the egregious actions of the state in the execution of their father might open the eyes of our nation to the failed system that has very likely executed an innocent man.
Source: Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sept. 23, 2009
A story in the Sept. 7 issue of The New Yorker details the case of Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed on Feb. 17, 2004, by lethal injection in the Texas death house at the state prison in Huntsville. Texas has made the most prolific use of the death penalty since its re–establishment in 1977.
Willingham was convicted of murdering his three young children after they died in a house fire on Dec. 23, 1991, in Corsicana, Texas. The unemployed auto mechanic had been at home watching the children while his wife was shopping for Christmas presents for their three daughters. He told investigators that his 2–year–old daughter woke him from a nap saying that the house was on fire, but his attempts to rescue the children failed.
Investigators determined that the fire was arson, although there was a history of the children tampering with a space heater used to warm part of the small house where the family lived in a rundown, failed oil town.
However, later reviews of the case by arson and forensics experts determined that investigators used a combination of junk science and folklore to reach their flawed conclusion of arson.
Willingham quickly became the prime suspect, and like most poor defendants, had weak legal representation. As his case worked its way through the process, he steadfastly professed his innocence, to the point of rejecting a plea bargain that would have spared him the death penalty. But based on essentially unchallenged “scientific” evidence, he went to his death.
All of the safeguards failed.
In an interview before his execution, Willingham told The Associated Press he was innocent. “The most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn’t care they’re making a mistake,” he said.
In a U.S. Supreme Court case decided this summer, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” Which raises a question: can a trial be fair if an innocent person is convicted?
That there are wrongly convicted inmates on death row is nothing new. Well over 100 people on the nation’s death rows have been shown to be completely innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted through scientific reviews of their cases. How many others, without access to the technology and resources that could prove their innocence have been walked to their death in a prison execution chamber? How many have died unjustly, all in the name of justice?
We are not so naive to believe that everyone on death row is innocent. Prisons across the country are filled with guilty people paying their debt to society. But we shouldn’t strip someone of their dignity when they enter prison, like it’s an old T–shirt. The dignity God gives every person follows them every step of their life. As Catholics, we pray the guilty will repent and be redeemed. And we must demand that the innocent receive justice.
As the church has long taught, the death penalty is not the proper response to crime and violence. Society has both the right and duty to protect its citizens, but modern society has the capacity to do so without resorting to the execution of criminals.
Perhaps the good that might come from the tragic death of three young girls in a house fire and the egregious actions of the state in the execution of their father might open the eyes of our nation to the failed system that has very likely executed an innocent man.
Source: Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sept. 23, 2009
Comments
Post a Comment
Offensive pro-DP comments will not be published.