Week 7, Entry 2: On Death Row by mistake?

Imagine being charged for a crime which you didn’t commit, then being convicted and sentenced to die for that crime. You spend years on death row, agonizing, hoping that the truth will be discovered before you’re put to death. Finally, a break comes, your innocence is discovered, you’re exonerated and set free. Does this scenario sound far-fetched? Well, it has happened to 138 people in 26 states since 1973. They’re the fortunate ones, some have not been so lucky and have actually been executed.

Sister Helen Prejean, in her book “The Death of Innocents,” documented the case of Roger O’Dell, who in 1986 was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence centered around the testimony of a jailhouse informant. Despite seeking DNA testing of forensic evidence for nearly 12 years, he was executed in 1997 without the evidence being tested. The evidence was later destroyed, so we’ll never know for sure, but there is a high probability that he was innocent. The reasons the courts denied DNA testing of the evidence had to do with procedural grounds. Apparently, our court system is more concerned with procedure than with justice.

Another potentially innocent person put to death is Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for setting the fire that killed his children. Though the case centered around the testimony of so called “experts,” their methods were highly questionable and the prosecution overzealous. Since he was executed, the State of Texas has been uncooperative and unwilling to investigate legitimate concerns and problems with this case. The question with both Mr. Willingham’s case and that of Mr. O’Dell is that if the state is so certain that they didn’t wrongfully convict and execute these men, then why all the effort to defeat any attempts to examine these cases? Why destroy evidence? Why fire a government official who was investigating the handling of a case, as Governor Rick Perry did in Texas? The most likely explanation is that politicians fear wrongful executions would undermine the public’s support of the death penalty. So, politics once again trumps justice.

An ongoing case of a potentially wrongfully convicted person who may very well be executed is that of Troy Davis in Georgia. Convicted of killing a police officer in 1991 based on the testimony of nine witnesses, time is quickly running out for him. Since his conviction, seven of these witnesses have recanted their testimony and there is evidence that another man may have killed the police officer. As with other cases, procedural problems seem to interfere at just about every turn. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered another hearing for Mr. Davis in a Federal Trial Court, and hopefully he will at least be granted a retrial. Of course, the obvious question is, given the potential problems with this case, why hasn’t his sentence at least been commuted to life in prison while the appeals of his conviction continue?



The answer as to why Troy Davis is still facing death despite doubts about his guilt lies behind a statement made by Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent to the decision to give Mr. Davis a new trial. Justice Scalia said that "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." So, basically, as long as the accused is given due process and procedure has been followed, the government should allow the execution of an innocent person or one where there is serious doubt as to guilt. By using the phrase ‘actually’ innocent, it is apparent that Justice Scalia doesn’t believe that innocent people are actually put to death. Justice Scalia’s bias is evident in his dissent in this case and unfortunately, many others in our government share his views, because the death penalty is politically popular.

Our constitutional rights include the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Additionally, the standard of proof in criminal cases is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When claims arise which call into question the guilt of the accused in a capital crime-why can’t we ensure that these claims are thoroughly examined and heard? When one’s very life is at stake, shouldn’t we be as certain as possible that the person being executed is guilty? Death is irreversible and we should always err on the side of caution when there are legitimate doubts. We must not allow politicians and judges to ignore the truth simply for political expediency. Allowing the innocent to be put to death puts us in the same league as countries like Iran and North Korea. We have no business preaching human rights to other countries when we allow such injustices against our own citizens. As I’ve said many times before, we can do better. We ARE better.