Saturday, May 18, 2024

Justice must not be vengeance

James Harrison

If a government executes an innocent person, is it murder? It’s a question that has been troubling me for a few weeks, ever since I read about the tragic story of Cameron Todd Willingham.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, Willingham was tried and convicted for a house fire that took the lives of his three children in 1991. Fire investigators determined at the time that the fire was arson and Willingham was targeted as the prime suspect as he was the only person in the house besides the deceased children.

In due course, Willingham was convicted after refusing a plea deal that would have taken the death penalty off the table. He shortly was sentenced to die. Through the entire process he continued to reiterate his innocence.

Willingham was executed by lethal injection at 6:20 p.m, Feb. 17, 2004.

Now, let it not be said that Willingham was a saint. In reality, he was more of a jerk, small-time crook and a self-admitted spousal abuser, although his wife claims he never abused their children. Looking at his record and history, it’s not hard to understand how the Texas authorities came to the conclusion they did.

The only problem is that it looks like they came to the wrong conclusion, and it cost a man his life.

Through the efforts of a woman named Elizabeth Gilbert, the case that convicted Willingham slowly was taken apart. Her efforts culminated in a report crafted by Dr. Gerald Hurst, a famed arson investigator who took on the Willingham case pro bono.

Hurst determined that the investigators relied more on guesswork and old wives’ tales than any scientific evidence. He demonstrated that it was entirely possible — and in fact, likely — that the fire had been accidental.

This report was prepared and submitted to Texas prior to Willingham’s execution. The appeals board rejected the report with no comment and there are signs that they had not even looked at it. Gov. Rick Perry refused to grant clemency even after being given a copy.

Both Perry and the prosecutor’s office responsible for the case still maintain that Willingham was guilty.

By December 2004, only 10 months after Willingham’s death, the media began reporting on the inconsistencies in the case. These reports helped lead to a 2005 investigation by Texas into allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. One of the first cases being looked into is that of Willingham.

The case troubles me because for a long time, I’ve been a supporter of capital punishment. I’ve worked in a prosecutor’s office, and I’ve seen the depth of evil that can be found in people. I truly believed that there were some people who were better off permanently removed from society.

I’m sure somewhere in the back of my head, I thought about what would happen if a person was innocent, but I think I felt that the justice system had enough checks to prevent such an event from happening.

Clearly, this isn’t the case, and I must face the fact that the system is flawed enough to allow what former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called “a constitutionally intolerable event.”

The Declaration of Independence asserts that every person is entitled to life. It’s clear to me now that no matter how evil a person might be, the state has no business depriving someone of that right.

If it is, as William Blackstone once said, “Better to let 10 guilty men go free than let one innocent suffer,” it’s doubly true when it comes to making that one, final irrevocable choice of taking a person’s life.

In many ways, this story of a troubled man has become my angel on the road to Damascus, and like Saul before, I am reborn with a new outlook on life. I haven’t gained religion — simply a new outlook at just how flawed government can be and the terrible consequences of those flaws.

What makes me sad is it seems Perry hasn’t learned the same lesson. Since the end of September, he’s replaced all four of his appointed members on the commission investigating the case, leading to delays just as they were getting ready to have a hearing on Hurst’s damning report. It’s unclear now exactly when the report will be able to issue their findings.

Although it’s possible that Perry had perfectly valid reasons for replacing his appointees against their wishes, one can’t help but see it as a naked attempt to avoid being labeled as the governor who allowed an innocent man to die.

But Perry has to face up to the fact that’s probably exactly who he is.

Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.

The government is supposed to be about justice, not vengeance. It’s a fact that I forgot for a while. Hopefully Perry remembers that in time before another terrible mistake is made.

James Harrison is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at harri310@msu.edu.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Justice must not be vengeance” on social media.