22nd September 2009, 10:31 PM
I read this story a few weeks ago but I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/...fact_grann
I’m not sure if the issue of the death penalty is even worth debating here anymore as I do believe that the argument has been beaten to death before, but this is still a pretty significant story. Long story short: Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man in 2004. Cameron Willingham was found guilty of three counts of murder for trapping his three children (aged 2 years and 1 year-old twins) in his home and setting fire to it, but virtually all pieces of evidence that led to his conviction have been refuted: arson investigators concluding the fire was arson based on completely dated and inaccurate methods, conflicting witness reports, no credible motive (the prosecution cited Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden posters hanging in Willingham’s home as evidence of him being evil and thus completely capable of committing such a heinous act), a phone call from a mentally unstable prison mate of Willingham’s who claimed he did it, among many other things.
Admittedly, my views of the death penalty have mostly been lukewarm opposition. While I’ve always thought of myself as anti-death penalty, I think the only reason I ever really felt that way was because it agrees with my generally liberal dispositions. Timothy McVeigh was executed and that never bothered me. Ted Bundy was executed and he certainly had it coming. China executed over 5000 people in 2008 and in Indonesia people get executed for marijuana possession – this never really bothered me and I’ve also never really been bothered by U.S. states that carry out capital punishment. These are the laws of these specific jurisdictions which I have absolutely no involvement in and affect me in no way whatsoever, so who am I to question how they choose to prosecute their criminals? But the fact a completely innocent man was executed definitely strengthens my opinion that the death penalty should be abolished based on the pure risk of the state killing an innocent person. This is the first time I've ever really put a human face to the issue, and it's so tragic and unjust that it affects me deeply. In the article the author quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to vote to uphold the death penalty in a Kansas case. He said that there is not "a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops." Is it about time for Willingham’s name to be shouted from the rooftops?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/...fact_grann
I’m not sure if the issue of the death penalty is even worth debating here anymore as I do believe that the argument has been beaten to death before, but this is still a pretty significant story. Long story short: Texas almost certainly executed an innocent man in 2004. Cameron Willingham was found guilty of three counts of murder for trapping his three children (aged 2 years and 1 year-old twins) in his home and setting fire to it, but virtually all pieces of evidence that led to his conviction have been refuted: arson investigators concluding the fire was arson based on completely dated and inaccurate methods, conflicting witness reports, no credible motive (the prosecution cited Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden posters hanging in Willingham’s home as evidence of him being evil and thus completely capable of committing such a heinous act), a phone call from a mentally unstable prison mate of Willingham’s who claimed he did it, among many other things.
Admittedly, my views of the death penalty have mostly been lukewarm opposition. While I’ve always thought of myself as anti-death penalty, I think the only reason I ever really felt that way was because it agrees with my generally liberal dispositions. Timothy McVeigh was executed and that never bothered me. Ted Bundy was executed and he certainly had it coming. China executed over 5000 people in 2008 and in Indonesia people get executed for marijuana possession – this never really bothered me and I’ve also never really been bothered by U.S. states that carry out capital punishment. These are the laws of these specific jurisdictions which I have absolutely no involvement in and affect me in no way whatsoever, so who am I to question how they choose to prosecute their criminals? But the fact a completely innocent man was executed definitely strengthens my opinion that the death penalty should be abolished based on the pure risk of the state killing an innocent person. This is the first time I've ever really put a human face to the issue, and it's so tragic and unjust that it affects me deeply. In the article the author quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to vote to uphold the death penalty in a Kansas case. He said that there is not "a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops." Is it about time for Willingham’s name to be shouted from the rooftops?