"Putting to death innocent (or not-innocent) people," is the title of Susan Campbell's Fear, Itself blog at Connecticut's Hartford Courant:
If you haven't already, read the recent (long-but-worth-it) New Yorker piece on Cameron Todd Willingham.
I started life as a supporter of the death penalty. I mean, I didn't carry signs or spit on inmates or anything, but I tucked myself into bed every night safe in the notion that some crimes can only be met with the final punishment -- an eye for an eye and all that.
But then -- 10 years ago this month, actually -- a friend of mine, Paul Laffin, was stabbed and killed out behind the homeless shelter where he worked, and his family immediately asked to pray with the family of the killer. They talked about grace and forgiveness. They set this impossibly high bar for restitution and forgiveness, and how could the rest of us do anything less?
I spent the next few years reading everything I could on the death penalty, including Scott Turow's wonderful "Ultimate Punishment." It was there, I believe, when I first read the phrase "death penalty agnostic," which pretty much described me. And then I read "The Last Face You'll Ever See," which struck me all the way to the bone.
From everything I read and saw, I pretty much had to abandon my (wan though evident) support of capital punishment. And no, it's not a comfortable position to hold when someone does something awful -- but I'm made less comfortable with the possibility of the state putting to death someone innocent. And -- upon reflection -- I'm uncomfortable with the state putting any one to death.
She includes Lee Camp's You Tube clip, Texas Issues Apology For Executing Innocent Man.
Flordia's Sarasota Herald-Tribune carries the editorial, Hanging by a hair., a reprint of the Los Angeles Times editorial, noted here.
Earlier coverage begins here.With the busiest death chamber in the nation, it was only a matter of time before Texas positioned itself to become the first state to admit that it executed a person who was wrongfully convicted. And now that day is at hand.
According to a nationally respected fire engineer, the so-called scientific evidence used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham of setting a blaze that killed his three daughters in 1995 was not scientific at all. In his scathing report to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, Craig Beyler found that the arson investigators on the case had a poor understanding of fire dynamics and based their conclusions on erroneous assumptions, sloppy research and a dash of mysticism. For example, one investigator determined that, because the house fire burned "hot and fast," an accelerant such as gasoline had been used to set it. But that theory -- still given credence in some investigatory circles -- is not factual. Gasoline fires are not significantly hotter than those started with wood, Beyler said.
Willingham's case is heartbreaking: He lost his children to fire and his wife to divorce, spent 12 years in prison and died protesting his innocence. But his is not an isolated case. There are thousands of Willinghams across the country. If not on death row, they are nonetheless serving decades-long or even life sentences after having been convicted on the basis of erroneous scientific conclusions made by poorly trained "experts."
Comments